March 15th, 2011

Nuclear eruption. Green energy

Japan's nuclear facility sees its 3rd and most dangerous reactor face meltdown. The anti-nuclear energy lobby and movement have not hesitated to capitalise on Japan's disaster. Not as sickening as alarmist beneficiaries and politicos trying to blame CO2 emissions for the quake and subsequent tsunami but they could have the decency to wait until the corpse is cold so to speak. Dr Peiser's newsletter advises articles of a less crass nature. My advocacy on nuclear for the UK stands as replacement of existing facilities but no further additions. Replacement with the latest tech would give at least double the current energy yield.
Bearing in mind that the non productive gov't payroll exceeds the number in private employment, those that would bear the brunt of the cost of nuclear should be consulted separately to the electorate. Waiting a few years would give time for the new, safer methods already under development to mature and enter the list for consideration. It would also allow the UK to show whether its fraudulent fiat currency is sufficiently under control to actual be able to afford nuclear.

CCNet  - 14 March 2011 The Climate Policy Network

After Tsunami Disaster, Expect Nuclear Delays & Global Run On Cheap Fossil Fuels


Forget wind. Forget solar. Forget green energy. Japan’s nuclear disaster will only intensify the global race for cheap fossil fuels while most future energy R&D will go into nuclear safety. –Benny Peiser, 14 March 2011

Nuclear power should have a part to play in cutting carbon emissions. But safety fears could kill its revival – at least in the west. Although support for new nuclear construction has been creeping up in the US and Europe, it remains brittle. Even one serious accident could shatter it. –Financial Times, 14 March 2011

Germany’s federal government intends to check the operating time of each of the 17 German nuclear power plants. The question of coal energy is newly emerging. –Die Welt, 14 March 2011
 
1) Japan Syndrome: Between Climate Hysteria And Nuclear Decarbonisation - Reuters, 14 March 2011
Any potential switch away from nuclear power is likely to favour gas-fired generation, the most practical low carbon-emission alternative. -- David Musiker

2) After Tsunami, Expect Nuclear Delays & Global Run On Cheap Fossil Fuels - The Washington Post, 13 March 2011
Cost remains the biggest obstacle for any revival of nuclear energy. Momentum for a nuclear comeback also has been slowed because other energy sources remain less expensive. Natural gas is cheap, especially with the expansion of supplies from shale rock, and there's been no legislative action to tax carbon emissions. -- Jia Lynn Yang

3) Japan's crisis may have already derailed 'nuclear renaissance' - Los Angeles Times, 14 March 2011

4) Japan Earthquake Holds Lessons and Warnings - Science Insider, 11 March 2011

5) Bill Clinton: Drilling Delays 'Ridiculous' - Politico, 11 March 2011
Former President Bill Clinton said Friday that delays in offshore oil and gas drilling permits are “ridiculous” at a time when the economy is still rebuilding, according to attendees at the IHS CERAWeek conference. -- Darren Goode

6) Drill more to ease energy crisis, U.S. voters say - The Hill, 13 March 2011

Thanks Dr Peiser GWPF

Lawrence Solomon, featured blogger in Canada's Financial Post shares my contempt for so-called green energy that in the UK at least has in every case proved to be a counterproductive boondoggle of benefit only to the wealthy and banks and hugely costly to society in general and individuals and business in particular. Biofuels kill people and forests, wind kills birds and solar at its kindergarten stage is a counterproductive waste of farmland. Lawrence's recent offerings relevant to energy include:

Ontario’s unemployment rate could reach 10% The Ontario government has one of the world’s most aggressive green job-creating program, with plans underway to create 50,000 new green jobs in the province.  Based on the latest evidence from another aggressive green-job creating jurisdiction – the United Kingdom, where every green job created leads to the loss of 3.7 jobs elsewhere in the economy — if Ontario meets its green job target, a potential 185,000 jobs could be lost. Green jobs thus threaten to be a potential major driver of provincial unemployment.

Smart is dumb Power companies around the world are planning to spend trillions of dollars building smart grids — next-generation marvels likened to the transcontinental railroad and the Internet because they are seen as revolutionizing society. It won’t happen. The smart grid is nothing more than a politically driven fantasy that has no economic rationale other than to support politically favoured technologies that themselves have no economic rationale other than to save the world from global warming. And on global warming the public in most developed countries, public opinion polls show, has already spoken: Global warming is a non-problem.

Don’t count on constant electricity under renewable energy, says UK electricity CEO Electricity consumers in the UK will need to get used to flicking the switch and finding the power unavailable, according to Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the country’s grid operator. Because of a six-fold increase in wind generation, which won’t be available when the wind doesn’t blow, “The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030,” he told BBC’s Radio 4. “We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It’s going to be much smarter than that."
“We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”
Holliday has for several years been predicting that blackouts could become a feature of power systems that replace reliable coal plants with wind turbines in order to meet greenhouse gas targets. Wind-based power systems are necessary to meet the government’s targets, he has explained, but they will require lifestyle changes.

McGuinty’s reality .We’ve got to contend with reality,” Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty told the provincial legislature last fall, in explaining that Ontarians need smart electricity meters to adapt to a changed “world where we are building a new reliable, clean, modern electricity system.” With smart meters, his Energy Minister chimed in, the government was providing “the opportunity for Ontarians to be able to shift their usage from peak usage.”
Here’s the reality. Ontario doesn’t need Mr. McGuinty’s new electricity system, which will be immensely less reliable and immensely more costly than the current system. The only one who needs the system is Mr. McGuinty himself, to make good his boast of being the world’s first leader to get his jurisdiction entirely off coal.

Master Resource has extensive coverage of spy meters found here.

Also from the same source, questions that should be put to Cameron and Huhne before letting them damage the country further:

Five Questions for DOE Secretary Chu (so what has DOE R&D done for you lately?) by Glenn Schleede
If the guiding agency is less knowledgeable than the system it is trying to guide—and even worse, if its actions necessarily result in further undesired consequences in the working of that system—then what is going on is not planning at all but, rather, blind interference by some agents with the plans of others.” - Don Lavoie, National Economic Planning: What is Left? (Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1985), p. 95
Upon reading the latest letter from the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Stephen Chu, five questions came to mind. Perhaps he, a staffer, or anyone else can provide answers to see just how justified this part of DOE’s mission is during a time of fiscal challenge.

#1: Can Secretary Chu spell C-E-N-T-R-A-L  P-L-A-N-N-I-N-G ?
#2: If there is “…deep energy expertise within the Department and our national laboratories…” how does one explain the minimal results from the approximately $150 billion (2009$) that has been poured into “energy R&D” (not counting money spent in basic sciences) by DOE and its predecessors?
#3: Has an energy technology promoted by DOE ever made it into unsubsidized commercial application?  (Please list)
#4: Are the two key assumptions underlying DOE’s energy RD&D efforts — i.e., (i) more spending WILL overcome technology hurdles, and (ii) economies of scale WILL inherently bring down the price so that the technology will be competitive in commercial markets — really justified, recognizing the failure of these assumptions for every “winning” energy technology selected by the federal government during the past 45 years?
#5: Starting with 1973, how many different energy technologies have been picked as “winners” by federal officials (Administrations and/or Congress), only to have the technology fall by the wayside because of it proved to be (a) higher in cost, (b) lower in value, (c) technically impractical and/or (d) more environmentally unacceptable than its advocates claimed?  (Please list.)

Green Agenda

20 - 20 vision of AGW

WUWT posted Global warming down under: 10 little facts:
[...] The ten statements below comprise the main arguments that are made in public in justification for the government’s intended new tax on carbon dioxide. Individually and severally these arguments are without merit. That they are intellectually pathetic too is apparent from my brief commentary on each.
1. We must address carbon (sic) pollution (sic) by introducing a carbon (sic) tax.
2. We need to link much more closely with the climate emergency.
3. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will punish the big polluters (sic).
4. Putting a price on carbon (sic) is the right thing to do; it’s in our nation’s interest.
5. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will result in lower carbon dioxide emissions.
6. We must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions.
7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.
8. We must act, and the earlier we act on climate change the less painful it will be.
9. The cost of action on carbon (sic) pollution (sic) is less than the cost of inaction.
10. There is no do-nothing option in tackling climate change.
The brief commentaries and discussion can be read at WUWT

Meantime, with a more northerly flavour Joe D'Aleo has come up with Ten Major Failures of So-called Consensus Science
The ten issues:
1. Warming is said to be unprecedented and accelerating.
2. Warming is said to be global.
3. Winters would grow increasingly warm
4. The entire Northern Hemisphere would experience less snow and snow cover
5. The arctic oscillation (AO) would become increasingly positive, aiding in the warming
6. Global warming would lead to a permanent or semi-permanent El Nino
7. Atmosphere will warm faster than surface (because that is where the heat trapping gases are).
8. Record highs and heat waves are increasing
9. Sea levels are rising at an increasing, alarming rate
10. Droughts and floods will worsen

See the analysis part 1 and part 2.

The full article introducing Joe's notes can be read at Climate Realists

A MyT blogger recently expressed concern that Greenland was melting faster than the IPCC had estimated in 2007. Another post at WUWT deals exactly with that issue: Why I’m not worried about Greenland’s icecap right now
Excerpt: The melting of the ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica is about twice as slow as previously thought. The study, conducted by TU Delft, SRON and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The scientists published their findings in the September issue of Nature Geoscience.
We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted.’ The average rise in sea levels as a result of the melting ice caps is also lower.

Petition to Repeal the Climate Change Act

Target: Prime Minister David Cameron 10 Downing Street, London SW1A 2AA

Region: United Kingdom

Web site: http://www.repealtheact.co.uk

Tweet this petition: TWEET LINK

Background (Preamble):

The Climate Change Act [2008] is a catastrophic policy blunder, because it commits Britain, uniquely in the world, to a legally binding long-term framework to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. This amounts to £734 billion, the most costly law ever put through Parliament. These targets are totally unrealistic and unobtainable without shutting down the British economy.

Criticisms of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC intensified when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit showed that leading scientists manipulated data to “hide the decline” in temperatures and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals.

The Climategate scandal has led to 33 percent of the British public to distrust climate science and to question the need for the Climate Change Act.

MPs stated that £200billion to £1trillion will be needed over the next couple of decades to move the UK to a low carbon dioxide economy.

The liabilities of the proposed Green Investment Bank would have to go on the national balance sheet, Treasury officials fear the UK would lose its triple AAA rating.

Green jobs growth is not sustainable, because for every 1 new green job created 3.7 jobs will be lost in the real economy and carbon dioxide taxes will cause “carbon leakage” - the export of British jobs to countries without carbon dioxide taxes.

Wind power, subsidies have cost £2 billion. Wind farm research concludes they are not a fit and proper solution to: the perceived need to cut carbon emissions, the growing demand for energy security, and will have significant human, environmental and economic impacts.

Carbon dioxide taxes and green subsidies will increase the average energy bill from £1,215 to £2,500 per year. This regressive tax will increase the price of food, clothes and travel, which especially impacts on our rural communities.

The Times stated that 5.5 million household or 21 per cent of the 26 million British households suffer fuel poverty - spending more than 10 per cent of their monthly income on energy bills.

Last February, overnight temperatures fell to minus 10, and this winter temperatures fell in some parts of the UK to minus 23. Being cold in the home increases the risk of strokes and heart attacks.

There are now 20 per cent more cold related deaths in winter. Resulting in an average of 30,000 excess winter deaths across the UK. That is around 250 excess deaths per day.

Britain’s Coalition Government, in it's 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 this law.

The European Emissions Trading Scheme is riven with fraud. Interpol has concluded that carbon dioxide trading scams cost governments €5bn in lost tax revenue and this lose is added to our energy bills.

Repeal the Act! Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act is a non-partisan campaign. Visit us at www.repealtheact.co.uk

Petition:

I [we] the undersigned commend the UK Parliament to repeal the Climate Change Act [2008].

We protest against the ruinously expensive, unsustainable energy subsidies, carbon dioxide taxes, and the unrealistic carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets.

A global agreement on emissions reduction collapsed at the Copenhagen and Cancun conferences. The world’s largest emitters (USA and China) made it clear that they will not introduce a carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading.

A price on carbon dioxide will impose a deliberate financial penalty on all energy users, but especially energy-intensive industries. These are part of the bedrock of the British economy. Any cost imposed on them will be passed straight down to consumers.

Carbon dioxide is a natural and vital trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere, an environmental benefit without which our planetary ecosystems could not survive. Increasing carbon dioxide makes many plants grow faster and better, and helps to green the planet.

The Climate Change Act is based on scientific and economic data that are substantially flawed.

It contains rigid long-term policies with inadequate provision for future revisions based on evolving scientific knowledge and interpretation.

Policy decisions can be taken on the climate without this Act, because the climate is always changing in accordance with natural cycles and recent changes are not unusual.

It is not possible to reliably predict how climate will change in the future, beyond the certainty that multi-decadal warming and cooling trends, and abrupt changes, will always continue, underscoring a need for effective adaptation.

PLEASE ACT NOW. CLICK to Sign the petition

(Via Climate Realists)