Condensing boilers

North has an interesting piece (H/T Autonomous Mind) about the widespread failure of condensing boilers in the UK this winter and last. The problems have been caused by the condensate pipes freezing up in cold weather. Unfortunately condensing boilers seem to have been pushed hard by the government in one of their fits of eco-madness.

A few years back I discussed condensing boilers with a local plumber - an Englishman - who couldn't understand the Scottish fixation on combi boilers. Now I wonder if perhaps the Scots didn't just know something he didn't.

Monbiot on wicked energy companies

George Monbiot is bemoaning the wicked energy companies who are keeping energy prices high:

In 2002 the regulator, Ofgem, decided it would stop regulating consumer prices. The energy companies immediately increased their profit margins: tenfold in one case. When world energy prices rise, the companies raise their tariffs, often far more steeply than the wholesale price justifies. When they fall, domestic prices often stay where they are.

As several commenters note, this is an odd argument for someone who has been campaigning to increase energy prices in the name of saving the planet.

It's interesting to note from the Household Energy Price Index, however, that energy prices in the UK appear rather low compared to prices elsewhere.

Natural gas household customers in Stockholm pay by far the highest prices within the capital cities of the EU15. Prices in Stockholm are almost 70% higher than in the second most expensive city Copenhagen, and over 4 times more than Londoners who enjoy the cheapest prices.

I think the conclusion that we have to draw from this is that the wicked capitalists in the UK are stinging poor consumers far less than their counterparts elsewhere - (state monopolies?).

Anthony Giddens, economics and logic

A few weeks back, I reported some snippets from the House of Lords debate on energy. The second reading of the bill took place just before Christmas and had many interesting points, several of which came from Lord Giddens, the sociologist and Labour party guru.

Last time round, I majored on the long-since refuted claims that "green" jobs were a benefit of government policy. I therefore read with some hope these words of Lord Giddens:

...job creation is often mentioned as an important outcome of investment in home insulation, renewable energy and wider energy innovation. However, there is an awful lot of loose talk around this, some of which appears in government documents,I am afraid.

Correct. However, the noble lord quickly demonstrates that his own take is remarkably deviod of substance...

Where it is said, for example, that wind power will create so many thousand jobs, what is important is not the jobs that are created by specific technologies or innovations but, because jobs will be lost in the older energy industries, the net new jobs that are created. Have the Government done a calculation of net job outcomes from the innovations in the Bill and the wider innovations that are proposed? Without that, you cannot say that these innovations will create net new employment. Most new technologies tend to reduce the need for labour rather than expand it. This is an important aspect of investment in new energy technologies and I feel that a lot more work must be done on it than I have seen. As I said, many statements on this topic are simply superficial.

They are indeed. As has been said ad nauseam, we want to generate the energy we need with as few people as possible. So Giddens would appear to be one of those people making superficial statements about green jobs.

Earlier in the debate, Lord Lawson had referred to the government's proposals as "dirigiste", a characterisation that seems quite apt. However, he was taken up on this by Giddens, who replied with a spectacular piece of circular logic:

The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, called them “dirigiste” proposals, essentially as a way of dumping on them. I would say the opposite. I think that it is right and proper in energy and climate change, where you are planning for a 20-year or 30-year cycle, to have a plan.

David Henderson on Deutsche Bank

I'd forgotten to post this up a week or so back - David Henderson's article in the Financial Post about Deutsche Bank getting into the political activism game and the questions this should raise for their investors.

For any organization of standing, not least a leading multinational company such as Deutsche Bank, an obvious aspect of responsible conduct is a demonstrated concern for accuracy and the truth. The bank’s management board could now manifest such a concern, first, by commissioning an independent and informed review of this report, and second, by withdrawing and repudiating the report if the review supports McKitrick’s analysis.

There is also Terence Corcoran's take on the same affair.

As Mr. Henderson puts it, the Deutsche report on climate skeptics has been rendered worthless as a guide to the science and for investors. It also betrays a larger issue, which is a corporate role on the part of Deutsche Bank that makes Exxon look like a Boy Scout.

Standpoint on green energy

A timely piece about Britain's mad, mad energy policies.

In private, the best-informed analysts now agree that Britain's environmental policies have put the country on track to have the world's most expensive electricity. This is mainly because our competitors are almost certain to choose cheaper routes to emissions reductions, such as natural gas, or to shun emissions reductions altogether. The Coalition's own Annual Energy Statement for 2010 concedes that by the year 2020, nearly one third of the average domestic electricity bill will consist of green energy charges imposed by law (£160 out of £512, or 31 per cent). Business will be hit even harder, with environmental charges for the average medium-sized non-domestic user accounting for £404,000 out of £1.224 million, or 33 per cent.

 Read the whole thing.

Green bank to be scaled back

The Guardian is reporting that the proposed green bank for the UK is to be scaled back, starting life as a mere "fund". This means that it will be unable to raise capital on the markets.

In an interview with the Guardian, Huhne said the government remained committed to setting up a bank and an initial fund was only one option. But the prospect of a delay on implementing this key green policy will dismay environmentalists.

Who knows, maybe reality is slowly dawning.

(H/T Munroad)

Josh 60

SCOTUS to hear climate case

Via the blog of the Supreme Court of the United States comes the news that the court will hear the appeal by five businesses that have been sued under the law of common nuisance for emitting carbon.

five entities that were claimed to be the largest sources of greenhouse gases — four electric power companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority — were sued by eight states, New York City, and three land conservation groups.  Their lawsuits were filed under the federal common law of nuisance, a judge-made theory.  The Second Circuit agreed that the lawsuit could proceed on that theory.  The case, however, has not yet gone to trial.

When the electric generating companies appealed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department, speaking for TVA, urged the Supreme Court to send the case back to the Circuit Court for another look instead of ruling on it now.  The Department argued that the EPA was now moving on several fronts to regulate greenhouses gases under the Clean Air Act, so this activity might displace any claims made under common-law theories.  The Court, however, chose on Monday to take on the case itself at this point, presumably with the aim of deciding whether such a nuisance lawsuit may now go forward as a way of attacking global warming.

Nature's take on the story here.

Wind capacity again

Another interesting assertion by Prof Anderson on the earlier thread was what he had to say about capacity factors for wind turbines:

...the capacity factor for turbines - which ranges from low 20 to 50 depending on size and location (well sited on land probably 25-35%, with well sited offshore and bigger (3-5MW) 35 to 50%) - I recall a few years back some 3MW turbines near the Shetlands reached 52% over the year - though the Shetland is a particularly good site.

When we discussed this the other day, we were looking at figures that were much lower than this - more like 10%. Can anyone explain the discrepancy?

Josh 55

Bottom falls out of solar

This is a guest  post by Roddy Campbell.

Banks are turning negative on German solar, predicting demand will fall as subsidies are cut, in an environment of rapidly expanding supply of solar panels.

Bloomberg, in this story, talk about ‘Supply-glut armageddon’. Meanwhile, Merrill Lynch, in a note to investors dated November 30^th, report on a FT Deutschland story:

‘CDU (ruling party) energy policy advisor Thomas Bareiss has written to the Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen, advising that there should be additional solar subsidy cuts next year.’

Merrill say:

‘We calculate the average German household is paying roughly €200 per year for solar subsidies at present. The feed in tariff for new installations is set to fall 13% in January but if demand remains strong in H1 2011, which we think it will, then there could be an additional cut in July, just like what  happened this year. Germany accounts for roughly 60% of the global solar market and is therefore crucially important for driving utilisation, pricing and  profitability of the manufacturers.’

Germany produces some 600 billion kwh per year of electricity.  Solar produced 1% of that in 2009.  That’s about the most expensive way of reducing CO2 emissions one can think of.

To date Germany has installed circa 18 GW of solar capacity, and have a target of 52 GW by 2020.  A trebling of installed solar might imply, one would think, at least a doubling of the cost per household, from €200 to €400 per year.

Good luck with that, Angela.  (And don’t forget the wind tariffs too.)

Germany dominates global solar - people talk about China, but Germany took 46% of world installation in 2007, 35% in 2008, 56% in 2009, and an estimated 55% in 2010 – over 50% in total.  The truth is, no-one else cares, Germany has created the global pv industry almost single-handed, in one of the least likely geographies, because of its peculiar green political history.  It’s an aberration, not a sensible economic or environmental policy in any way.  As Merrill go on to say:

‘Germany has under-estimated... that few other countries care about solar, meaning Germany remains a large market of last resort. This will be the case more than ever in 2011…’

In related news, Citibank's thinking is turning the same way:

Cost conscious governments and consumers are increasing the risk of cuts in subsidies for solar photovoltaics through their increasingly negative sentiment towards the sector. In Germany the cost of electricity is expected to increase by 15% next year as solar installers reap the benefits of generous IRR’s this year

[Updated to fix millions/billions]

German solar – Banks turn negative, predicting demand will fall as subsidies are cut, in an environment of rapidly expanding supply of solar panels.

Bloomberg, in this story, talk about ‘Supply-Glut Armageddon’.

Merrill Lynch, in a note dated November 30^th, report on a FT Deutschland story that ‘CDU (ruling party) energy policy advisor Thomas Bareiss has written to the Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen, advising that there should be additional solar subsidy cuts next year.’

Merrill say ‘We calculate the average German household is paying roughly €200 per year for solar subsidies at present. The feed in tariff for new installations is set to fall 13% in January but if demand remains strong in H1 2011, which we think it will, then there could be an additional cut in July, just like what  happened this year. Germany accounts for roughly 60% of the global solar market and is therefore crucially important for driving utilisation, pricing and  profitability of the manufacturers.’

Germany produces some 600 million kwh per year of electricity.  Solar produced 1% of that in 2009.  That’s about the most expensive way of reducing CO2 emissions one can think of.

To date Germany has installed circa 18GW of solar capacity, and have a target of 52GW by 2020.  A trebling of installed solar might imply, one would think, at least a doubling of the cost per household, from €200 to €400 per year.

Good luck with that, Angela.  (And don’t forget the wind tariffs too.)

Germany dominates global solar - people talk about China, but Germany took 46% of world installation in 2007, 35% in 2008, 56% in 2009, and an estimated 55% in 2010 – over 50% in total.  The truth is, no-one else cares, Germany has created the global pv industry almost single-handed, in one of the least likely geographies, because of its peculiar green political history.  It’s an aberration, not a sensible economic or environmental policy in any way.  As Merrill go on to say: ‘Germany has under-estimated ……… that few other countries care about solar meaning German remains a large market of last resort. This will be the case more than ever in 2011…..’

Matt Ridley on Huhne

Matt Ridley has a smashing op-ed in the Times on the coming dash for shale gas, and the delusions of Christopher Huhne (although Matt is far too polite to put it in those terms). It can be seen here.

For a glimpse of a truly scary future dependent on volatile suppliers look no farther than Mr Huhne’s favoured approach, the dash for wind. Every wind turbine has a magnet made of a metal called neodymium. There are 2.5 tonnes of it in each of the behemoths that have just gone up to spoil my view in Northumberland. The mining and refining of neodymium is so dirty (involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product), that only one country does it: China. This year it flexed its trade muscles and briefly stopped exporting neodymium from its inner Mongolian mines. How’s that for dangerous reliance on a volatile foreign supply?

Still howlin'

Chris Huhne:

Everyone believes their pet project will make an essential contribution to the recovery.

But in energy security and climate change, we have the numbers on our side.

The value of the global low-carbon goods and environmental services market is expected to reach £4 trillion by the end of this Parliament. It is growing at 4% per year, faster than world GDP.

Our share of that market is £112 billion. In the UK, nearly a million people will be employed in the low-carbon sector by the end of the decade.

How many jobs will Huhne have destroyed before even half of those illusory million "low-carbon" replacements have appeared? How many old folk will have died from the winter cold? 

Talk about kicking the country when it's down.

A letter to DECC's chief scientist

Do take a look at Matt Ridley's letter to David Mackay, chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The Hockey Stick Illusion is mentioned.

Update on Nov 9, 2010 by Bishop Hill

Matt has now posted up David MacKay's original letter.

Quotes from the Lords debate

Here are a few choice moments from the Lords debate. Some of them are rather startling. Please note that these are taken from the uncorrected transcript.

Lord Grantchester (Lab) has come up with some jaw-dropping figures on the threat of sea-level rise:

Eighty per cent of the best grade 1 agricultural land lies at or below current sea levels.

Click to read more ...