Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • Jun 24 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
  • Jun 24 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace


Modelling suggests that the introduction of a Capacity Market should have a limited impact on bills, and could reduce them slightly compared with what they would otherwise have been. However, the costs of the Capacity Market will ultimately depend on the extent of the security of supply problem, and on detailed mechanism design.

The possible reduction in bills is because a Capacity Market is likely to result in there being far fewer periods where there is very little spare electricity capacity. At these times, prices in the current wholesale market could rise very high and all generators selling electricity would benefit from scarcity rents – or windfall payments. This can have a significant impact on consumer bills.

Why am I not convinced!

May 22, 2012 at 4:22 PM | Registered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

May 22, 2012 at 11:54 AM | RKS: "...lunatic drive to wreck our economy..."

Where does this strange idea come from? Why would any government want to wreck its own economy?

May 22, 2012 at 4:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

What is the asking price?

May 22, 2012 at 4:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Reed

Draft Energy Bill

New link above

May 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM | Registered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Camp David Declaration

14. Recognizing the impact of short-lived climate pollutants on near-term climate change, agricultural productivity, and human health, we support, as a means of promoting increased ambition and complementary to other CO2 and GHG emission reduction efforts, comprehensive actions to reduce these pollutants, which, according to UNEP and others, account for over thirty percent of near-term global warming as well as 2 million premature deaths a year. Therefore, we agree to join the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-lived Climate Pollutants.

Over 30% of near term global warming caused by short-lived climate pollutants, so if I could hazard a guess of near term being around 30 to 50 years or better still the satellite era and possibly a third of all warming caused by black carbon soot, methane, ground-level ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons.
Add that to the effect of an energetic sun now turned quiet and it doesn't leave a lot of influence from our old friend CO2 over the same period.

Is it now time to re-evaluate the GCM's or are we going to find out that this is already accounted for in the models!
Does this also indicate that almost 0.2C of warming, from these short term pollutants, is also currently being overridden by something since the turn of the century?

May 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM | Registered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

No problem here latest post at WUWT

May 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM | Registered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Anyone else having trouble accessing WUWT? Can't get in from the Bishop's sidebar, or from Google.

May 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM | Messenger

Same here.

RKS, why not post a link to the discussion in unthreaded, the footfall is much bigger.

May 22, 2012 at 12:39 PM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

Can we take this discussion off to discussion and leave unthreaded to be unthreaded ;) .

May 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM | Breath of Fresh Air>>>>

Sorry about that.

I tried the thread approach and no bugger was interested.

Argue with someone about the same subject on unthreaded and it just seems to take on a life of it's own.

Funny old world isn't it!

May 22, 2012 at 12:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

Anyone else having trouble accessing WUWT? Can't get in from the Bishop's sidebar, or from Google.

May 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

It keeps coming back, in the form of barbed comments about "AGW Lite" etc.

May 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM | TheBigYinJames>>>>

Nothing "barbed" about it at all.

You believe a 100% increase in CO2, mainly caused by human activity, causes a rise in climate temperature of 1 deg C.

If that ain't AGW [on the lighter than alarmist side], I don't know what is.

That's what you believe, why complain when it's described exactly as it is?

Anyway, no offence meant just lively discussion.

let's give it a rest and give Breath of Fresh Air a chance to get himself unthreaded.

May 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>