Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
EU Green Suicide As Heavy Industry Moves Investment Abroad
“We shift investment money from Europe into the USA as a consequence of the less competitive environment in Europe,” Harald Schwager, a senior member of BASF’s executive board, said in an interview. “Many European companies which are energy-intensive are finding out that the benefits of shifting investment from Europe to the USA are significant.”
BASF executives say that German and European Union policies toward industry, particularly when it comes to energy, are forcing big companies to look elsewhere as they seek to expand. Especially in Germany, energy prices have jumped as a result of the government’s big push for renewable energy sources — a policy that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel has labeled the Energiewende, or energy transition. And nearly a quarter of all companies in heavy industry are considering reducing production in Germany, according to a survey by the German Chambers of Commerce.
Stanley Reed and Melissa Eddy, The New York Times, 25 October 2014
European Phoenix Struggles To Shake Off Ashes Of Failure
Last week’s European summit on climate change failed to address the hard reality that current policies are not working. The EU’s energy policy was grounded on the broad acceptance of four cornerstone propositions, which over time have turned to dust. The inconvenient truth is that none of these beliefs have proved to be true. Small wonder, then, that the political consensus that enabled the 2008 policy to go ahead has broken. Beyond accepting failure, it is important now to start again and to put in place a set of policies that have a better chance of working.
Nick Butler, Financial Times, 27 October 2014
“We shift investment money from Europe into the USA as a consequence of the less competitive environment in Europe,” Harald Schwager, a senior member of BASF’s executive board, said in an interview. “Many European companies which are energy-intensive are finding out that the benefits of shifting investment from Europe to the USA are significant.”
BASF executives say that German and European Union policies toward industry, particularly when it comes to energy, are forcing big companies to look elsewhere as they seek to expand. Especially in Germany, energy prices have jumped as a result of the government’s big push for renewable energy sources — a policy that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel has labeled the Energiewende, or energy transition. And nearly a quarter of all companies in heavy industry are considering reducing production in Germany, according to a survey by the German Chambers of Commerce.
Stanley Reed and Melissa Eddy, The New York Times, 25 October 2014
European Phoenix Struggles To Shake Off Ashes Of Failure
Last week’s European summit on climate change failed to address the hard reality that current policies are not working. The EU’s energy policy was grounded on the broad acceptance of four cornerstone propositions, which over time have turned to dust. The inconvenient truth is that none of these beliefs have proved to be true. Small wonder, then, that the political consensus that enabled the 2008 policy to go ahead has broken. Beyond accepting failure, it is important now to start again and to put in place a set of policies that have a better chance of working.
Nick Butler, Financial Times, 27 October 2014
turbobloke said:
steveatesh said:
Interesting article on the Adam Smith Institute site completely reinforcing the fact that windmills are insufficient for a viable energy policy:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/energy-environment/t...
This extract neatly summarises the current madness afflicting many politicians.http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/energy-environment/t...
Adam Smith Institute said:
Dr Capell Aris has analysed the data on wind speed and direction collected from a total of 43 sites across the UK (22), Ireland and northern Europe over a period of nine years. He then used this data to calculate the output of a fleet of wind farms. The results will be no surprise to anyone who has looked at this topic in any detail: output is highly variable, and the entire fleet would only produce 80% or more of its rated output for about one week a year. The problem is that, however much we hear about wind being a free resource and the cost of equipment coming down, the effect of adding more and more wind turbines to the electricity grid is to push prices up with only a modest impact on carbon dioxide emissions (the whole reason for current policy) and no improvement in energy security.
Wind energy CO2 reduction effectiveness of Irish Grid = (CO2 intensity, metric ton/MWh, with wind)/(CO2 intensity with no wind).
Ireland = (0.279, 17% wind)/(0.53, no wind) = 0.526, based on SEMO data.
If 17% wind energy, promoters typically claim a 17% reduction in CO2, i.e., 83% is still left over.
If 17% wind energy, actual performance data of the Irish grid shows, 0.526 x 17% is reduced = 8.94%, id est, 91.06% is still left over.
Didn't realise it was that bad!
Here's a beaut...
Prof John Brignell said:
A fable continued
The King, once again sore troubled, sent for his Grand Wizard.
“We have lived happily ever after these eighteen years; yet our spies tell us that there is again trouble throughout the land. You gave me the means of raising taxes, for which I was duly grateful, but the royal coffers are again empty and the royal debts fail to diminish. There is stirring among the peasantry, some of whom seem to be unconvinced about the fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
“I regret, my liege, that there is some truth in this. The business of constructing the giant mechanical idols, which I am proud to say now cover much of the land, has proved unexpectedly expensive. We have also had to get rid of inflexible groups of practitioners of previous versions of our mystical craft and replace them with followers of the cause, who being highly trained in the craft are costly to employ. It is also true that small pockets of Deniers still exist and we have to persuade the Guild of Town Criers to shout them down, which is not without cost.”
“But some of the common folk are now openly proclaiming that the fairies do not exist and are loudly opposing our taxes. How can we deal with them, other than filling our prisons?”
“Indeed, it is a problem that fairies have not been directly observed for these eighteen years. Our highly paid observers have been assiduous in their work, but there has arisen a new and scurrilous group of denialists who have made it their business to observe the observers. It appears that the fairies are discomfited by all this observational activity and have withdrawn into obscurity to exercise their mischief. Our greatest minds have dwelt continuously on the problem and they have come up with no fewer that fifty possible explanations, but the one that we favour, and are now propagating, is that they are hiding at the bottom of the bottomless lake beyond the palace garden wall.”
“But won’t people just say that they were never there in the first place?”
“Majesty! I urge you not to utter such remarks, even in jest. It would be a disaster if your gracious personage were branded with the name Denier.”
“Nevertheless, our Most Secret Sources tell us that our most skilled artisans, such as blacksmiths and wheelwrights, even fuel gatherers, are leaving for other kingdoms, who are less absolute in imposing the fairy taxes.”
“Again, I regret that there is some truth in this. Some rulers are less gifted in wisdom than your glorious self, and they fall into the easy path of seeking popularity by pandering to the selfishness of the unwashed masses. It is for this reason that we have devoted great effort and funds to promoting international gatherings of the enlightened ones. This incidentally is one of the causes of the unplanned costs; for these distinguished international scholars expect to be entertained according to their reverend status and not as mere peasants. The outcome of these conferences, however, has been most gratifying, and our surveys tell us that 97% of wizards, sorcerers and soothsayers believe in FATBOG.”
“FATBOG?”
“Aye, Sire. It is an ancient logical device of using the initials of a phenomenon to give it apparent familiarity and authority. It is known as an acronym and has great mystical power.”
“That is all very well, but what about our common people? Fewer and fewer of them seem to be willing to follow our lead.”
“We have no choice but to follow the path we have chosen. We must set an example by demonstrating the power of our faith. If we seem to hesitate now, the masses will begin to feel that their sacrifices have been in vain. Kingdoms have fallen in such circumstances.”
“We only hope that you are right. So let it be! Issue a royal decree that we still believe in foot bag.”
“FATBOG, Sire."
The King, once again sore troubled, sent for his Grand Wizard.
“We have lived happily ever after these eighteen years; yet our spies tell us that there is again trouble throughout the land. You gave me the means of raising taxes, for which I was duly grateful, but the royal coffers are again empty and the royal debts fail to diminish. There is stirring among the peasantry, some of whom seem to be unconvinced about the fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
“I regret, my liege, that there is some truth in this. The business of constructing the giant mechanical idols, which I am proud to say now cover much of the land, has proved unexpectedly expensive. We have also had to get rid of inflexible groups of practitioners of previous versions of our mystical craft and replace them with followers of the cause, who being highly trained in the craft are costly to employ. It is also true that small pockets of Deniers still exist and we have to persuade the Guild of Town Criers to shout them down, which is not without cost.”
“But some of the common folk are now openly proclaiming that the fairies do not exist and are loudly opposing our taxes. How can we deal with them, other than filling our prisons?”
“Indeed, it is a problem that fairies have not been directly observed for these eighteen years. Our highly paid observers have been assiduous in their work, but there has arisen a new and scurrilous group of denialists who have made it their business to observe the observers. It appears that the fairies are discomfited by all this observational activity and have withdrawn into obscurity to exercise their mischief. Our greatest minds have dwelt continuously on the problem and they have come up with no fewer that fifty possible explanations, but the one that we favour, and are now propagating, is that they are hiding at the bottom of the bottomless lake beyond the palace garden wall.”
“But won’t people just say that they were never there in the first place?”
“Majesty! I urge you not to utter such remarks, even in jest. It would be a disaster if your gracious personage were branded with the name Denier.”
“Nevertheless, our Most Secret Sources tell us that our most skilled artisans, such as blacksmiths and wheelwrights, even fuel gatherers, are leaving for other kingdoms, who are less absolute in imposing the fairy taxes.”
“Again, I regret that there is some truth in this. Some rulers are less gifted in wisdom than your glorious self, and they fall into the easy path of seeking popularity by pandering to the selfishness of the unwashed masses. It is for this reason that we have devoted great effort and funds to promoting international gatherings of the enlightened ones. This incidentally is one of the causes of the unplanned costs; for these distinguished international scholars expect to be entertained according to their reverend status and not as mere peasants. The outcome of these conferences, however, has been most gratifying, and our surveys tell us that 97% of wizards, sorcerers and soothsayers believe in FATBOG.”
“FATBOG?”
“Aye, Sire. It is an ancient logical device of using the initials of a phenomenon to give it apparent familiarity and authority. It is known as an acronym and has great mystical power.”
“That is all very well, but what about our common people? Fewer and fewer of them seem to be willing to follow our lead.”
“We have no choice but to follow the path we have chosen. We must set an example by demonstrating the power of our faith. If we seem to hesitate now, the masses will begin to feel that their sacrifices have been in vain. Kingdoms have fallen in such circumstances.”
“We only hope that you are right. So let it be! Issue a royal decree that we still believe in foot bag.”
“FATBOG, Sire."
steveatesh said:
Interesting article on the Adam Smith Institute site completely reinforcing the fact that windmills are insufficient for a viable energy policy:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/energy-environment/t...
The author of the report also had a quick article on Conservative Home too this morning:
http://www.conservativehome.com/thinktankcentral/2...
It's open for comments.
LOL, that study is next to useless. If you read it, he's based the output on anemometers located 10m above ground level at airfields around the UK. Now call me daft, but if I was building an airfield, I'd probably pick a location where the wind bit less gusty than in another place. That and he's using a model (formula) to calculate the windspeed at hub height and not actually measuring it.http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/energy-environment/t...
The author of the report also had a quick article on Conservative Home too this morning:
http://www.conservativehome.com/thinktankcentral/2...
It's open for comments.
The commments in the conservative artcile don't add up, but are full of spin...
Quote: The results are disappointing. The output power surpasses 80 per cent of its rated capacity for just 163 hours of the 8,766 in a year—19 per cent of the time. It passes 90 per cent for only 17 hours a year.
Worse still, the power delivered is below 20 per cent of the available for 3,448 hours (20 weeks) per annum, and below 10 per cent for 1,519 hours (9 weeks) per annum.
It’s often claimed that the production from a wind turbine can be expected to be between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of stated capacity, and the model I’ve produced supports that claim. But that does not mean that the wind turbines are usually producing 25 per cent power; the most common level of production is 8.5 per cent. So if that Lancashire turbine is a three MW model, most of the time you see it, it will be producing about 255 (kilowatts) kW; roughly the same as three small cars, or two large estate cars!
End Quote
But his summary states:
The model reveals that power output has the following pattern over a year:
i Power exceeds 90% of available power for only 17 hours [less than 1 day]
ii Power exceeds 80% of available power for 163 hours [about 1 week]
iii Power is below 20% of available power for 3,448 hours (20 weeks)
iv Power is below 10% of available power for 1,519 hours (9 weeks)
The mosts common level of output is not 8.5%.
There's 1 week at 80-90%, 20 weeks at 10-20%, and only 9 week below 10%. That leaves us with 22 weeks it's 21-79%. Which is how you end up with the rule of thumb that they produce about 1/3 of their rated capacity if it were continous output.
In other words someone in politics is getting their mean, mode and medians mixed up.
The author seems to have gone out of his way to try and prove that locating wind turbines in non windy sites doesn't provide much power, and in fact has done the opposite. And found that a useful amount of electricity can be generated, albeit intermittently.
All that said, I think they are bests located off shore, not on airfields. ;-)
[edit to add - has anyone does this study on coal fire powerstations. You'll find that they only produce about 60% of their rated capacity as they shut down when we are asleep and don't run flat out all day, and also have outages when they are being maintained).
Edited by TransverseTight on Tuesday 28th October 03:27
TransverseTight said:
All that said, I think they are bests located off shore, not on airfields. ;-)
[edit to add - has anyone does this study on coal fire powerstations. You'll find that they only produce about 60% of their rated capacity as they shut down when we are asleep and don't run flat out all day, and also have outages when they are being maintained).
My local airport has 2 disturbines. Sometimes one sees both of them working. [edit to add - has anyone does this study on coal fire powerstations. You'll find that they only produce about 60% of their rated capacity as they shut down when we are asleep and don't run flat out all day, and also have outages when they are being maintained).
Edited by TransverseTight on Tuesday 28th October 03:27
Airports rather like winds especially if they normally blow in directions to which runways can be aligned at the site. The wind speed helps planes take off using less power/fuel and so on.
They have records that extend over longer periods that will exist for any of the Disturbine sites when tested thus offer at least some consistency and longevity. It would possibly be of some use to analyse the on-site measurement used to justify a Disturbine site location too but how releiable the numbers are may be suspect with no means of verifying them. One also wonders if they are made freely available.
As for you Coal powered observations - yes they are manage and maintained just like any other plant with a number of criteria used to decide when to run them and at what output. Some of the criteria involve economics, others politics.
The difference though, absent supply problems for the fuel source, is that in general you can do some reasonably good output planning based on forecast demand. Or at least you could until the "renewables" hit the mix in ever larger numbers increasing the total unpredictability of supply on a minute by minute basis. Which is mainly why the Interconnector seem to be working full time these days and the gas powered stations and "Other" seem to be more active. Presumably both have some ability to be ramped up or down to cope with the vagaries of wind - went it blows or when it doesn't. Lots of diesel generator farms seem to be in place to help with that as well - but I expect you know that.
And that illustrates the entire point of the article. Wind sourced energy is highly volatile and unpredictable and all too often absent when you need and present when you don't thus screwing the entire capacity planning and economic design of the national generation system. If they persist with the plans to add ever more "Free" energy things are going to get very expensive indeed.
Unless, of course, a miracle happens. And we all know the political miracles happen all of the time, right?
Mr GrimNasty said:
mybrainhurts said:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/10/26/...
Oh dear, we have a new Environment Secretary....Elizabeth Truss. Watch her perform here.
I'm a bit lost now. How does Ed Davey fit into this structure and to whom does he answer?
I love the way she kept saying 'Andreeeeeeeeew', in a deprecating way every time he challenged her!Oh dear, we have a new Environment Secretary....Elizabeth Truss. Watch her perform here.
I'm a bit lost now. How does Ed Davey fit into this structure and to whom does he answer?
I'd have just said "Do people have to cook on gas? I'm sure between now and sometime in 2050 people will buy a new hob. Ikea do a 4 ring induction hob for £200 now. Instead of filling their kitchen with water vapour and the by products of burning gas, isn't it better we do that in a combined cycle turbine connected to a CCS system so we can bury all the nasties in the holes in the north sea?
Likewise heating homes with gas. You can either burn the gas in your boiler and get 90% efficinecy. Or burn it in a CCGT and get 65%, (80%+ if you can offload heat in a CHP district heating system ) make some electric, ship it to your house ( lost 10% of that so 59.5% ) and get 250% efficiency from a heat pump. Meaning from 1 kWh of gas burned you now have 148% efficinecy overall.
So yes, eventually we'll stop using gas in homes and we'll all be much safer as a result.
While we're at it, by 2050 most people will be driving 691hp AWD EVs, but with 200kWh, 100kg batteries so we won't need much oil either. Add in a few more nukes, a few deep offshore wind farms connected to stationary grid storage systems where it comes ashore. Disallow it from entering the market until they can contract for a set amount of energy at a given time - to be buffered and used for peak time release, and you don't need silly PV farms and turbines in peoples back yards. That new nuke fusion thingy they announced last week might even be running by 2050.
Doesn't this come under energy minister though... not environment. Environment is working out how to make money ripping out natural resources without anyone noticing.
Does it matter the temperature has stopped increasing for 18 years. No. If you don't cheery pick the start date and use 19 years or more it hasn't stopped increasing. Who cares about temperature anyway. We are trying to keep up with the chinese, who know there aren't enough natural resources in the world to feed their economy, So they are builing loads of renewables and now they can out comptete not just on labour cost, but also energy cost.
Hence why so much PV is made there rather than Europe. So temperature is again irrelevant.Maybe answering questions with a straight answer would mean I'm not suited to politics. Or does that come from having a clue what I'm talking about?
LongQ said:
And that illustrates the entire point of the article. Wind sourced energy is highly volatile and unpredictable and all too often absent when you need and present when you don't thus screwing the entire capacity planning and economic design of the national generation system. If they persist with the plans to add ever more "Free" energy things are going to get very expensive indeed.
Unless, of course, a miracle happens. And we all know the political miracles happen all of the time, right?
Yep - I see the miracle coming - it's called vehicle to grid energy storage. There's only about 17,000 EVs in the UK right now. But as that gets bigger, you can use them to buffer the output from wind, and release it in the evening peak. Buy it at 8p/kWh and sell at 80p/kWh. Maybe not quite such a spread for us consumers, but via aggregator contracts you could put those EV batteries to good use, and pay for a replacement battery sooner than you would have. Sounds bad wearing out your battery, but it means you get to upgrade to a next gen, 10 minute charging, 50% more kWh... but have still made a profit. Rather than just leaving it sitting out in the cold, losing charge doing nothing.Unless, of course, a miracle happens. And we all know the political miracles happen all of the time, right?
Most people do much less than 40 miles per day, and yet current EVs can do about 75+. So charge them up at night on E7. Keep enough in reserve for the trip home, fully discharge when you plug it in by pumping into the grid. Sometime after midnight it starts charging. If you can get a workplace charge... linked to turbine output (not directly but through comms) you can top up a bit more ready for the peak.
Most of the EVSE kit (wall chargers) has this stuff built in already to send power back to the gird from the car... just they haven't sorted the signalling and contracts/payment stuff yet.
We'd be a lot better off in 2050 if instead of fannying about with windmills we invest whatever is now left of the 1.3 trillion in MSR research; we'd then be in a position to a)sell surplus energy to the French who will all be huddling around a single candle because they're broke and the Germans because their lights go out every time the sun goes down and the wind doesn't blow b) licence the designs to any enlightened nation around the world who wants to build them.
TransverseTight said:
LongQ said:
And that illustrates the entire point of the article. Wind sourced energy is highly volatile and unpredictable and all too often absent when you need and present when you don't thus screwing the entire capacity planning and economic design of the national generation system. If they persist with the plans to add ever more "Free" energy things are going to get very expensive indeed.
Unless, of course, a miracle happens. And we all know the political miracles happen all of the time, right?
Yep - I see the miracle coming - it's called vehicle to grid energy storage. There's only about 17,000 EVs in the UK right now. But as that gets bigger, you can use them to buffer the output from wind, and release it in the evening peak. Buy it at 8p/kWh and sell at 80p/kWh. Maybe not quite such a spread for us consumers, but via aggregator contracts you could put those EV batteries to good use, and pay for a replacement battery sooner than you would have. Sounds bad wearing out your battery, but it means you get to upgrade to a next gen, 10 minute charging, 50% more kWh... but have still made a profit. Rather than just leaving it sitting out in the cold, losing charge doing nothing.Unless, of course, a miracle happens. And we all know the political miracles happen all of the time, right?
Most people do much less than 40 miles per day, and yet current EVs can do about 75+. So charge them up at night on E7. Keep enough in reserve for the trip home, fully discharge when you plug it in by pumping into the grid. Sometime after midnight it starts charging. If you can get a workplace charge... linked to turbine output (not directly but through comms) you can top up a bit more ready for the peak.
Most of the EVSE kit (wall chargers) has this stuff built in already to send power back to the gird from the car... just they haven't sorted the signalling and contracts/payment stuff yet.
Guam said:
These are the people who would lead us to the sunlit uplands. 
That surely was an incredibly stupid comment.
Government action via Green policies has barely impacted on our share of carbon dioxide production which is 2% of global emissions and global emissions are still rising so the temperature should be going up not 'pausing'. For her next trick she ought to head to the south coast, fill a cup with sea water and claim that sea levels have fallen as a result.
Global emissions during the 19 year 'pause'.
Presumably the crunch and crash really had a most excellent result but we just don't get it. Economic collapse of developed nations is after all what the ecoloonies want.
Government action via Green policies has barely impacted on our share of carbon dioxide production which is 2% of global emissions and global emissions are still rising so the temperature should be going up not 'pausing'. For her next trick she ought to head to the south coast, fill a cup with sea water and claim that sea levels have fallen as a result.
Global emissions during the 19 year 'pause'.
Presumably the crunch and crash really had a most excellent result but we just don't get it. Economic collapse of developed nations is after all what the ecoloonies want.
So CO2 continues to rise yet there is some cooling? I see. Well, that is proof positive then that CO2 drives any variations in climate. Not least when her quote is "there has been a change in weather"... which someone then means "climate change". Which is it, weather, or climate?!
What is tragic is if they actually believe this s**t!
What is tragic is if they actually believe this s**t!
The Met Office is getting another, even more powerful & expensive Cray supercomputer. This one is £100 million and is due to go live next year
This in only 5 years after their last £33 million IBM supercomputer was turned on in Exeter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/11146583...
Presumable it's powered my unicorn farts and rainbows instead of electricity, as there's no mention of megawatts amidst all the other stats on their website.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/in-depth/supercom...
This in only 5 years after their last £33 million IBM supercomputer was turned on in Exeter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/11146583...
Presumable it's powered my unicorn farts and rainbows instead of electricity, as there's no mention of megawatts amidst all the other stats on their website.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/in-depth/supercom...
TransverseTight said:
[edit to add - has anyone does this study on coal fire powerstations. You'll find that they only produce about 60% of their rated capacity as they shut down when we are asleep and don't run flat out all day, and also have outages when they are being maintained).
Good job too - That means they have some headroom capacity to TransverseTight said:
Maybe answering questions with a straight answer would mean I'm not suited to politics. Or does that come from having a clue what I'm talking about?
I have a question awaiting a straight answer -on the 9th of September Silver Smudger said:
TransverseTight said:
Surely the only way to know the real risks of climate change is to look for evidence gathered by the insurance industry?
Will insurers be interested in the cause of any change in the climate, or just any predicted damage? Adaptation to any climate variations is what we should be concentrating on, but so far it is hard to tell exactly what is actually going to happen, based on predictions issued in the last 20-30 years. See historical comments ranging from 'No More Snow' to 'Damart and Candles'
Have you got any examples of predictions from this period that allowed you (or your insurers- or anyone else) to make any useful advance preparations?
TransverseTight said:
Yep - I see the miracle coming - it's called vehicle to grid energy storage...
...Most of the EVSE kit (wall chargers) has this stuff built in already to send power back to the grid from the car... just they haven't sorted the signalling and contracts/payment stuff yet.
Doesn't the house wiring and national grid require a fair amount of upgrading to cope with this two-way power flow or is that all dealt with by the EVSE install? ...Most of the EVSE kit (wall chargers) has this stuff built in already to send power back to the grid from the car... just they haven't sorted the signalling and contracts/payment stuff yet.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff