Part Two


but that variability is a known factor. I have a lawn more because I know I will need to mow my lawn because it won't be white all year. I have a snow blower because I also know that there will be months where I will need it and not my lawn mower like I will do a bit later today. Last year when I took off my winter tiers I made an appointment to put them back on the car on Nov 4.


not at all. If I wanted to live in a place that is snow and ice 365 days a year I would move to the Yukon. If I want a place that is hot and dry all year round I would move to the Sahara. As a person it is extremely easy for me to control where I live. and there are always other options like this guy I know that spends Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr in Jamaica and the rest of the year here. Or when it is -35 outside staying inside where it is 20

A bigger issue is the natural world, polar bears need a frozen arctic , ma[ple trees need the weather in the end of winter/beginning of fall to be warm enough for the ground to thaw, cold enough to be bellow zero during the nights and the days too short to start their spring buds.


what are you one of those marketing execs that name the three sizes Medium large and extra large. So that people think they are getting more? if there is an ultra cold then by definition and no BS there is an ultra-warm which is the opposite end of the spectrum.


I see it differently. Look at the last ice age, you had mammoths, giant sloths, giant buffalos.. and cave man running around hunting them the warming period after that meant mass extinction. You keep on bringing up the medieval warm period to counter global warming but you fail to realize it also coincides with one of the worst periods in European history.


Cold is always easier to deal with then massive heat. Water trapped in snow helps create land bridges, frozen water is easier to cross without technology.
MY uncle has 4 fig trees in his yard and my grand father had a pomegranate. Neither of those plants are native to Canada and neither can naturally survive here, but once fall hit they used to bundle them up to protect them from the harsh cold and the plants survived and thrived.


so you don't consider people's homes being flood a bad thing?


first what you say makes no scientific sense
second studies of Venus show that many millions of years ago Venus and earth would have been very similar and during that time Venus would have had water and possibly life on it.

[Link: sciencealert.com]


not necessarily. IF there is a post in the ground and I decide to push it
a) if I push it hard enough it will fall in the direction I am pushing it in, right?
b) if I don't push hard enough nothing will happen and the post will continue being vertical.
c) If I stop pushing on it would that mean there is a chance that the post will fall towards me?
a and b are realistic, c just sounds dumb.

same here. If artificial CO₂ is a big enough issue then it can cause a problem , if it can't affect anything then it won't be a problem, but stopping its production can't have a negative impact either. the only way stopping it can be an issue is if the earth is naturally getting into a glacial period and our artificial CO₂ is enough to counter it and enough to cause bigger issues, then stopping would be an issue but severely slowing down would reach a balance.
 

never meant to imply that, from my very first post I said I think people can have different issues with all of this and it is too easy to just dismiss them.
 

depends what you mean by little has changed. Don't get me wrong if someone lives in the Sahar desert and it was hot and dry and it is hot and dry that might be true. But glaciers have been melting, sea levels have been rising, places have been getting flooded... You said your summers have not changed much but your winters have become noticeably more mild..... aren't all those big changes? even if one sees them as positive or out of natural causes. For me like I said before, here it means more flooding, colder winters with more snow sticking around and hotter dryer summers.



I don't agree with you on that.

First I think doing nothing has a"motional, social, and financial hardship" right my guess my friend paid between 600k and 700k for his house, the gouvernment (aka my tax dollars) in 2017 helped pay for him to take his basement apart and fix it and again and again this year now the gouvernment said enough is enough and they will pay 200k to buy the house and demolish it. Hydro Quebec used to have more fossil fuel based electrical capacity, in the sixties it built two nuclear power stations started a third one and had a plan for a total of thirty. Until someone decided to go hydro in huge way. Now the electrical grid is for the most part hydro with a bit of solar and wind that is bought from local third parties and a small emergency oil plant that is barely ever used. Yes it took a lot of money to build those plants and the network to move the electricity those distances but not having to pay for consumables means that our electricity is dirt cheap(6.08 cents per kwh) three years ago I changed my furnace and went from oil/electric heating to just electric.

I don't have to pay for annual maintenance any more , I don't have to pay for an oil contract any more, I am paying less on electricity then I was paying for oil + electricity before doing that "green" move had emotional and social gains because I gained the space taken by the tank, and financial, yes I had to spend a bit of cash for a new furnace but I would have needed that anyways, but there were annual financial gains.


I don't think it is heartless and I agree, but the issue is when those homes where built it was not a flood plain, Quebec redrew the maps this year to deal with the new reality, the new reality that I think we both agree is happening because of global warming.



yeah but the issue is
1) the UK is not the whole world it is natural that some places will be more affected then others and in different ways
2) that is what has happened so far, things will continue to evolve.
3) it is a bit of everything. I don't know where you live in the UK , but global warming means glaciers are melting and that means more water and that means more flooding in areas near large bodies of water (like maybe
London)


neither being smart with money :)

 

agree on he facts but you are making some fundamental mistakes in your reasoning

1) great distances and smaller population should make things harder and more expensive. not easier and cheaper as you imply

2) our climate is harsher and we are more reliant on electricity for heat compared to most places (including UK) I am sure per capita we must be higher

2) Quebec exports massive amounts of electricity it has been exporting to New York and Ontario since the 1970's and New England since the 1980's and because it is green and cheap there is more and more demand for it.

[Link: montrealgazette.com]

[Link: montrealgazette.com]

--- I think Quebec does produce less electricity but I don't think it is several orders of magnitude like you said.



And in the 40's that was one of the reasons they looked at wood/coal here and in the 60's atomic. Yes sometimes consumable sources are the only option but the issue with consumables like you pointed out and I bolded is they get consumed and so the price of producing that electricity becomes more expensive.

But I agree, things can't change over night and you need to look at what makes sense in your neighbourhood. My point was green energy is expensive to build but over time it becomes cheaper compared to energy based on consumables.


that is where you and I differ. I look at scientists and say "they studied this more than I have and if they say it is an issue in 10 (20, 30...) years I should listen to what they have to say. But when politicians say in 10 (20, 30...) years what they are saying is "I don't want to appear like I am doing nothing so I am making it the next guys problem."
Take it this way, it is election time and the vast majority drive gas guzzlers.
party A) "next year only EVs will be allowed on the road"
party B) " we won't do that"

do you think A has a chance of winning?

I'm not sure how your expression applies to your original comment, but if I were to use it I see IPCC science as the broken clock and sceptic science telling me what the time really is.



The IPCC is political organisation which assesses climate change science and issues reports upon it on behalf of the UN. Being political it seeks evidence to support a narrative and ignores that which does not. The concern of sceptic scientists is that political science (their willingness to overlook outrageous behaviour and bad science at the expense of alternative, less frightening scenarios) is overriding the scientific method. In short, that genuine understanding is being sacrificed for a political agenda. ¹

There are two issues at play here:

1). If we cannot trust the IPCC/UN on the science, how can we trust them on the politics?
2). The solutions they wish to employ will not only not help the existing poor, but exacerbate the hardship already being suffered by the poor of those 'richer' nations expected to make the sacrifices. ^{2 – 4}

As we have already seen in France, the imposition of a simple climate change levy on fuel has brought both violent protest and suppression. In this regard, the climate catastrophe will become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Not through climate change itself, but through the policies being employed to supposedly combat it.


If one is unable to recognise the principle of it being wrong to shout fire when there isn't one, it would be pointless to expanding the discussion into the motivation of those shouting fire.

Some of the provided links offer clues. You just have to read them.


Where?


And your point is?


Well I think that rather depends upon one's interpretation of worse. Again I don't mean to be crass, but I don't see your friend's flooding issues being justification for spending trillions and impoverishing entire countries on 'combating' what could be a non-issue. Indeed, an enhanced level of atmospheric CO₂ could just as easily be seen a positive boon. ^{5 & 6}

Adaption to change would be a more pragmatic solution.


The following is the whole exchange. Please advise me on what I'm supposed to have agreed with.



I fully appreciate you didn't say 'any of that absurd stuff', but one needs to reread your comment:

"like I said before if it is all man made then we can more easily deal with it, the more it is natural the more we need to fight nature (which should be harder)."

Reshaping the world to better serve our needs is not challenging natural climate change. The question thus remains, what would you do?

[1] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[2] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[3] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[4] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[5] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[6] [Link: thegwpf.org]

almost there. (continue after next quote)


You see you keep on trying to explain why the IPCC is a broken clock. IMHO it does not matter if it is or is not. If the clock is broken and the time is correct then the time is correct. If the clock is broken and the time is wrong then we are better off determining what the time is.

I am not being dismissive but saying "sceptic science telling me what the time really is." does not say much, it just like politics, saying Xs methodology might be flawed and so his conclusion could be wrong, is useless.



so what is the solution?


let me not go too far you said "has the two imperatives of tackling world poverty and hunger" right? you said in this post "The solutions they wish to employ will not only not help the existing poor, but exacerbate the hardship already being suffered by the poor"

If they are there to help the poor then it does not make sense that they would mess up the data to push global warming and hurt the poor.


The issue it is not just my friends home, he was one of the tens of thousands that were affected. and if warming means more ice melting it means sooner or later there will be even more houses affected. And it is not just flooding but look at what is happening on Mont blanc.


agree, but aren't you the one against adapting to change?

Moving away from a flooded place is adapting, paying to help people move is adapting, but isn't changing stuff so that the disasters don't happen also adapting? You are the one that is not willing to adapt to the reality that electricity from consumables is more expensive and an issue and so eliminating them (if possible) makes both economic and environmental sense.



well first let's reduce the negative impact we are having, then we can see how much is left. Maybe none will be left, if there is a bit more some small projects might be enough (such as planting more trees, they don't care if it is coming from a coal plant or a volcano). Maybe we need to have a better plan for an other green house gas...

can we agree it is warmer now then a few years ago?
can we agree it appears it will continue getting warmer?
can we agree this is not because the sun has gotten brighter, the earths orbit has drastically changed, the earths spin/axis has not changed?

Disappointingly, you once again appear to be creating bogus arguments from quotes taken out of context. For example, your first two comments are in response to quotes taken from this simple statement:

"I'm afraid you've not grasped my point. My example of seasonal variation was to highlight the enormity of natural variability. It's completely beyond our control, hence the focus on CO₂ and the other greenhouse gases."

Is it not clear that the reason for my mentioning seasonal variation was for its being a fairly obvious example of the strength of the forces governing natural variability? As I said above, their immense power is such they are entirely beyond our ability to control them.

By using bad science, alarmism and humankind’s predilection for pessimism, the IPCC has carefully crafted a narrative which claims CO₂ (a minor atmospheric trace gas) to be the ultimate bogeymen. The primary driver of climate change, no less. That it is singularly responsible for just about every natural (and unnatural) ill one could ever possibly imagine. Can this be true? That after millions of years of evolution and numerous climatic conditions, some immeasurably more severe than what we're experiencing today, one of the essential building blocks of life will be the source of our doom? This is what Andy May thinks:

"99.9 percent of the Earth’s surface heat capacity is in the oceans and less than 0.1 percent is in the atmosphere. Further, CO₂ is only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. It beggars belief that a trace gas (CO₂), in an atmosphere that itself contains only a trace amount of the total thermal energy on the surface of the Earth, can control the climate of the Earth. This is not the tail wagging the dog, this is a flea on the tail of the dog wagging the dog."

In comparison to the other obviously immense forces involved, I see it as being arrant nonsense claiming CO₂ is the driver. Indeed, to say that it 'controls' climate is akin to saying a drop or two (more or less) of water, can 'control' the boiling of a kettle. However, its association with the greenhouse effect makes it a convenient pretext for action and the reason why, above all else, the IPCC focuses on it.

With this in mind, your first comment is, effectively, meaningless.

"I'm afraid you've not grasped my point. My example of seasonal variation was to highlight the enormity of natural variability."

"But that variability is a known factor. I have a lawn more because I know I will need to mow my lawn because it won't be white all year. I have a snow blower because I also know that there will be months where I will need it and not my lawn mower like I will do a bit later today. Last year when I took off my winter tiers I made an appointment to put them back on the car on Nov 4."

I think we're all well aware of seasons.

And your second comment completely ignores the issue implicit in the original comment: that natural variability is precisely that and is thus wholly beyond our control.

"It's completely beyond our control."

"Not at all. If I wanted to live in a place that is snow and ice 365 days a year I would move to the Yukon. If I want a place that is hot and dry all year round I would move to the Sahara. As a person it is extremely easy for me to control where I live. and there are always other options like this guy I know that spends Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr in Jamaica and the rest of the year here. Or when it is -35 outside staying inside where it is 20

A bigger issue is the natural world, polar bears need a frozen arctic , maple trees need the weather in the end of winter/beginning of fall to be warm enough for the ground to thaw, cold enough to be bellow zero during the nights and the days too short to start their spring buds.”

What you, perhaps, don't appreciate though, is that your actual answer is one advocating adaption to, rather than combating, climate change, which is the course of action I favour. Note as well that Polar Bears do not require a frozen Arctic.^{1 - 3}

*

"There may be warm periods, there may be cold, but there's no such thing as ultra-warm periods. There are, however, ultracold periods: glacials."

"What are you one of those marketing execs that name the three sizes Medium large and extra large. So that people think they are getting more? if there is an ultra cold then by definition and no BS there is an ultra-warm which is the opposite end of the spectrum."

The natural inclination of the planet is to be cold. There is no comparison between the extreme cold of a glacial and the warmth of an interglacial. This is beyond question and can be seen in any climate reconstruction; e.g. the Vostok ice cores.⁴

*

"A cold period during an interglacial may cause severe hardship to millions, but glacials are civilisation killers."

"I see it differently. Look at the last ice age, you had mammoths, giant sloths, giant buffalos.. and cave man running around hunting them the warming period after that meant mass extinction. You keep on bringing up the medieval warm period to counter global warming but you fail to realize it also coincides with one of the worst periods in European history.

Cold is always easier to deal with then massive heat. Water trapped in snow helps create land bridges, frozen water is easier to cross without technology. MY uncle has 4 fig trees in his yard and my grand father had a pomegranate. Neither of those plants are native to Canada and neither can naturally survive here, but once fall hit they used to bundle them up to protect them from the harsh cold and the plants survived and thrived."

Either you are trolling me, or you're demonstrating incredible naïveté over the extremity of a glacial period.⁵ I'm sure the residents of Montreal will be more than happy to discuss your comments about mammoths, giant sloths and cavemen when they're next under a mile of ice.

References to the MWP are to illustrate that the level of warming we are experiencing now is not unusual. I'm sure there are many reasons for life being unpleasant then (lack of internet access being just one of them), but life did flourish nonetheless.⁶

Cold weather increases mortality rates,⁷ reduces the growing season and as a consequence food production.

*

"As for not wanting to rush back to warmer climes, what profoundly negative effect has the slightly warmer world had?"

"So you don't consider people's homes being flood a bad thing?"

I said profoundly negative. The flooding of people's homes is indeed unfortunate, but if building on or adjacent to a floodplain (or potential floodplain), one has to accept or adapt to the possibility of it occurring — caveat emptor.

*

"I'm afraid you’re comparing apples to oranges. In Earth's atmosphere, the relationship of CO₂ to temperature is firstly logarithmic (for every degree of temperature rise requires a doubling of CO₂) and secondly, when it reaches saturation point temperature rise stops. The Earth's atmosphere can never replicate that of Venus."

"First what you say makes no scientific sense
second studies of Venus show that many millions of years ago Venus and earth would have been very similar, and during that time Venus would have had water and possibly life on it."

Whether you believe what I say makes no scientific sense is irrelevant. It's accepted science.^{8 & 9} It is also the reason why methane is regularly ignored in calculations: its active IR wavelengths already being saturated by water vapour.



The study you link to shows no such thing. It's a model based hypothesis concerning itself with what might have happened – and, of course, they're doing such an excellent job modelling Earth’s climate.



*

"If, as the IPCC would have us believe, CO₂ is the primary driver of climate change, then does it not follow that dabbling could have profound, unknown counter effects?"

"Not necessarily. IF there is a post in the ground and I decide to push it
a) if I push it hard enough it will fall in the direction I am pushing it in, right?
b) if I don't push hard enough nothing will happen and the post will continue being vertical.
c) If I stop pushing on it would that mean there is a chance that the post will fall towards me?
a and b are realistic, c just sounds dumb.

same here. If artificial CO₂ is a big enough issue then it can cause a problem , if it can't affect anything then it won't be a problem, but stopping its production can't have a negative impact either. the only way stopping it can be an issue is if the earth is naturally getting into a glacial period and our artificial CO₂ is enough to counter it and enough to cause bigger issues, then stopping would be an issue but severely slowing down would reach a balance."

As previously mentioned:

"Svante Arrhenius is credited with developing a theory of the greenhouse effect and the role of CO₂ within it. However, his original calculations were severely compromised by the many assumptions he made and his attempts to link it to glaciations; i.e. he grossly overestimated its effect. Early in the 20th-century Knut Angstrom carried out experiments which clearly showed that Arrhenius was wrong in that he had attributed all the greenhouse effect to CO₂, whereas we now know it's barely a small cog in a vast machine and that the primary greenhouse gas, by some considerable margin, is water vapour. This has been confirmed by further research, but in much the same way as Michael Mann's zombie hockey stick graph remains in the minds of those who ignore the bogus way in which it was created, so too does Arrhenius's theory of the effects of increased atmospheric CO₂."

Calculations continue to indicate CO₂'s influence on climate to be limited,¹⁰ and no amount of CO₂ pumped into the atmosphere will ever prevent a glacial. CO₂ is a component of the climate system, as much as oil is component of a transmission system, but it is not the primary driver.

I think one needs a better understanding of the complexities of the climate system.^{11 & 12}

*

"As previously commented, we've now had 30 years of 10 years to save the planet, but the 'reality' is that little has changed."

"Depends what you mean by little has changed. Don't get me wrong if someone lives in the Sahar desert and it was hot and dry and it is hot and dry that might be true. But glaciers have been melting, sea levels have been rising, places have been getting flooded... You said your summers have not changed much but your winters have become noticeably more mild..... aren't all those big changes? even if one sees them as positive or out of natural causes. For me like I said before, here it means more flooding, colder winters with more snow sticking around and hotter dryer summers."

Yes, I believe our winters have become noticeably milder, but it's not a profound change and nothing like the changes being advocated by alarmist doom and gloom merchants. There is talk of a colder winter this year. If so, it will be interesting to see how resilient the National Grid truly is.

As previously mentioned, sea level rise has continued at the same rate for the past 160 years, which is not unusual for a planet emerging from a cooling phase. And arctic temperatures are cyclic and have a better correlation with the AMO than CO₂, as discussed by Tony Heller here.¹³

*

Your next comment is another response to a quote taken out of context.

"As previously commented, we've now had 30 years of 10 years to save the planet, but the 'reality' is that little has changed. Thus in fear of a further 10 years of nothing happening completely undermining the alarmist rhetoric, agencies have now stooped to brazenly rewriting the US historical temperature database, made claims about sea-level rise, severe weather events and wildfires which bear absolutely no scrutiny, and engaged the services of a cosseted and emotionally unstable teenager to rally the gullible young (who, ironically, have experienced virtually no climate change) into supporting a political agenda that will make their life far worse than doing nothing. In this regard, I believe you're saying the following..."

"And yes maybe it will be futile, and we can't make a difference. But you know what IMHO only losers give-up before even trying so, yeah if we can try and keep it stable by helping mother nature or working against it then I say let's go for it."

"...is indeed a knee jerk reaction for it takes no account of the emotional, social, and financial hardship wrought upon those being expected to pay for this agenda. Impoverishing a country merely to claim the moral high ground is plain madness and will solve nothing."

"I don't agree with you on that.

First I think doing nothing has a"motional, social, and financial hardship" right my guess my friend paid between 600k and 700k for his house, the gouvernment (aka my tax dollars) in 2017 helped pay for him to take his basement apart and fix it and again and again this year now the gouvernment said enough is enough and they will pay 200k to buy the house and demolish it. Hydro Quebec used to have more fossil fuel based electrical capacity, in the sixties it built two nuclear power stations started a third one and had a plan for a total of thirty. Until someone decided to go hydro in huge way. Now the electrical grid is for the most part hydro with a bit of solar and wind that is bought from local third parties and a small emergency oil plant that is barely ever used. Yes it took a lot of money to build those plants and the network to move the electricity those distances but not having to pay for consumables means that our electricity is dirt cheap (6.08 cents per kwh) three years ago I changed my furnace and went from oil/electric heating to just electric.

I don't have to pay for annual maintenance any more , I don't have to pay for an oil contract any more, I am paying less on electricity then I was paying for oil + electricity before doing that "green" move had emotional and social gains because I gained the space taken by the tank, and financial, yes I had to spend a bit of cash for a new furnace but I would have needed that anyways, but there were annual financial gains."

Well, thank you for thinking it perfectly reasonable I should lower my living standards because of your friend's flooding issues and your tax dollars being spent in aiding repairs. Perhaps you'd care to contribute to the UK's EU divorce bill?

*

"This may sound heartless, but in building within a floodplain, as with building alongside a river, one has to accept the risk of flooding."

"I don't think it is heartless and I agree, but the issue is when those homes where built it was not a flood plain, Quebec redrew the maps this year to deal with the new reality, the new reality that I think we both agree is happening because of global warming."

According to this article,¹⁴ climate change may indeed have played a role, but to what extent do you think CO₂ was involved?

"Spring thaw and moderate rainfall has brought significant flooding to parts of Canada, with various reports of nearly 3,000 properties flooded and more than 600 isolated by floodwaters, at the time of writing. Officials warn of continued rises in water level and further melting of snowpacks."

Graph shows the average daily temperature from gauges at Quebec City and Ottawa International Airports. Temperatures have been seen to slowly increase over April, leading to increased thawing of snowpacks. This, coupled with moderate rainfall, has led to significant flooding in the Quebec region. Data source: Government of Canada.
It appears to me that even removing two or three degrees of warming (which is considerably more than that being attributed to CO₂) would have had little effect.

*

Now an out of context quotes in response to an out of context quote.

"I think my quote has been taken a little out of context insofar as the fear the Met Office is trying to invoke is to bolster demands for political action. I don't believe UK summers are particularly different, as my comparison between this year’s summer and that of 1976 demonstrates. Winter's, however, have become noticeably milder, which I'm none too concerned about given the parlous state of the National Grid.

Yes, in some areas weather systems, and thus climate, may have changed, but which course of action do you think the more logical? Adapting by building a larger pond, or spending trillions, impoverishing millions, in the unproven hope your friend doesn't have to?"

"Yeah but the issue is
1) the UK is not the whole world it is natural that some places will be more affected then others and in different ways
2) that is what has happened so far, things will continue to evolve.
3) it is a bit of everything. I don't know where you live in the UK , but global warming means glaciers are melting and that means more water and that means more flooding in areas near large bodies of water (like maybe London)"

I think my follow up paragraph answers your comments well enough.

Flooding happens.¹⁵ Most vulnerable cities and towns have invested in flood prevention measures, but of course, there are no guarantees.

"I think my quote has been taken a little out of context insofar as the fear the Met Office is trying to invoke is to bolster demands for political action. I don't believe UK summers are particularly different, as my comparison between this year’s summer and that of 1976 demonstrates. Winter's, however, have become noticeably milder, which I'm none too concerned about given the parlous state of the National Grid.

Yes, in some areas weather systems, and thus climate, may have changed, but which course of action do you think the more logical? Adapting by building a larger pond, or spending trillions, impoverishing millions, in the unproven hope your friend doesn't have to?"

"Neither being smart with money :)"

?

*

And now the most egregious example of missing the thrust of my previous comment.

"Once again, I fear one has not fully engaged with the enormity of the CCC's proposals and the cost to the consumer.

Quebec has a population of circa 8.5m and covers an area of almost 600,000 square miles. The UK has a population of 67.5m and covers an area of 93,500 square miles. The scale of energy demand and supply are by several orders of magnitude greater. Indeed, such is the population density of Quebec, little old backwaters Hereford would rank 10th in a list of Quebec's Largest Metropolitan Areas. (Little known factoid. With so many French ex-pats living there, London would rank 6th or 7th in a list of the largest French cities.)

I think it only logical governments would prioritise the use of local resources for generating power. In this regard, the UK has barely any hydro and no geothermal. What it does have is North Sea natural gas, though that's now significantly diminished, and coal. (See the GridWatch website for the complete breakdown of generation fuel types.) For continued use, both would require the installation of CCS.

As for CCS, the SaskPower project you linked to cost $1.5b Canadian (£925m), for a risible output of 115MW, and it's operating history is nothing like as good as suggested:

"In 2015, internal documents from SaskPower revealed that there were 'serious design issues' in the carbon capture system, resulting in regular breakdowns and maintenance problems that led the unit to only be operational 40% of the time. SNC-Lavalin had been contracted to engineer, procure, and build the facility, and the documents asserted that it 'has neither the will or the ability to fix some of these fundamental flaws.'"

And units 4 and 5 are not going to be converted as gas is cheaper:

In July 2018, SaskPower announced that it would not retrofit Units 4 and 5 with CCS, with minister responsible Dustin Duncan saying that the units were approaching their mandated shut down in 2024 and that natural gas is a cheaper option.

CCS on the scale imagined by the CCC is still a pipe-dream and renewables are no replacement for present dispatchable generation."

We can discuss the relative merits (or lack thereof) of the UK and Quebec electricity grids if you like, but my focus was on the way in which the CCC is demanding change without offering any set plan for how the changes are to be paid for, undertaken, implemented and, above all, considering their ramifications for our society as a whole – which includes those gullible youngsters.

Brexit has already exposed the contempt for democracy held by some of our MP’s: that they do not care about the will of the people in voting to leave the EU. So it is for climate policy, where each party is falling over itself to be greener than green. Watch then the reaction to Sajid Javid’s comments on climate policy at the latest Conservative Party Conference – (at 25 minutes).¹⁶

It's time to stop the virtue signalling and cant and ask the electorate if this is what they really want, as the plans presently being put forward are beyond madness, far too expensive and completely unworkable; as any engineer worth his salt will testify:

"SIR – As a chartered engineer who worked in the electricity supply industry for 39 years, I despair to hear politicians like Rebecca Long-Bailey claiming that renewables will provide for most of our energy needs by 2030.

Renewable generation – solar, wind and tidal – is, by definition, non-synchronous and it is technically impossible to operate our electricity transmission system solely on non-synchronous generation. There is a real danger of system instability and consequential widespread blackouts once non-synchronous generation exceeds around 30 per cent of total generation at any one time.

The National Grid report on the recent major outage makes numerous references to the lack of inertia in the system. This resulted from insufficient large synchronous generators (nuclear, coal, gas) being connected.

Given the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the only option is to increase significantly nuclear build rapidly. Both Labour and Conservative governments have been unwilling to commit themselves to this, which has led us into the problems we now face.

It is unfortunate that politicians and environmental campaigners are ignorant of the technicalities of energy supply, or wish to ignore them. MPs may have the power to change the laws of the land, but not to change the laws of physics."¹⁷

*

"I think it only logical governments would prioritise the use of local resources for generating power. In this regard, the UK has barely any hydro and no geothermal. What it does have is North Sea natural gas, though that's now significantly diminished, and coal."

"And in the 40's that was one of the reasons they looked at wood/coal here and in the 60's atomic. Yes sometimes consumable sources are the only option but the issue with consumables like you pointed out and I bolded is they get consumed and so the price of producing that electricity becomes more expensive.

But I agree, things can't change over night and you need to look at what makes sense in your neighbourhood. My point was green energy is expensive to build but over time it becomes cheaper compared to energy based on consumables."

Does one not recollect seeing the following image?



Regardless of North Sea Gas being diminished, it is still almost four times cheaper than the electricity for heating. Indeed, all fossil fuels are considerably more affordable. The CCC’s plans though are to remove all domestic FF’s for electricity generated by renewable systems utterly unfit for purpose. Green energy (wind and solar) doesn’t become cheaper when it’s the only energy supply available.

*

And finally, yet another out of context comment.

"By proportion, the number of EVs in the UK, even with government incentives, is tiny. When reality finally dawns, I believe the forcing of change to electric will, by itself, be the cause of significant social unrest – between those who can/cannot afford to buy one and those who can/cannot afford to charge the thing. Perhaps we should follow the latest Dutch example."

that is where you and I differ. I look at scientists and say "they studied this more than I have and if they say it is an issue in 10 (20, 30...) years I should listen to what they have to say. But when politicians say in 10 (20, 30...) years what they are saying is "I don't want to appear like I am doing nothing so I am making it the next guys problem."
Take it this way, it is election time and the vast majority drive gas guzzlers.
party A) "next year only EVs will be allowed on the road"
party B) " we won't do that"

do you think A has a chance of winning?

There is a defender of the 'faith' stalking the comments section of my local rag who continues to claim that in 30 years sceptics have failed to produce any evidence countering the consensus view. This opinion, however, rather conveniently ignores the fact the consensus have, themselves, not actually proven their case. (Would we be here discussing it if they had?) Indeed, so weak are their claims they resort to theatricality, political manoeuvring, statistical artifice, threats, intimidation, and malfeasance to enhance their narrative.

The 'plight' of the polar bears is, for example, a complete fabrication, but the story spun in the right way (with an added veneer of scientific expertise) plays on the instincts and willingness of the public to meekly accept what they're being told as gospel – because, well, they're the 'experts'. But the public is only being allowed to see one side of the story. What they don't hear of is the expert opinion of the likes of Dr Susan Crockford,¹⁸ who has been at the forefront of the efforts to quash this specious nonsense. And the response from 'the team'? A libellous 'hit piece', in the guise of a scientific paper; authored, amongst others, by those luminary polar bear experts, Michael E. 'tree ring circus' Mann and Stephan 'moon landings' Lewandowsky, a professor of psychobabble and mentor of John Cook of 97% infamy.¹⁹

Contrary to those ridiculous 97% claims,²⁰ there is no real consensus. There is a wealth of peer-reviewed literature, some from quite esteemed researchers and scientists, whose conclusions are opposed to those of the IPCC. (Pierre L. Gosselin has collated a number of these papers at his website No Tricks Zone.²¹). You’ll likely not have heard of them, though, because they run counter to the preferred narrative of the left-wing dominated MSM. Even now on the BBC is running this story ²² about the displaced of the Mekong Delta. The reporter, by his mentioning it every few seconds, is clearly unequivocal in blaming climate change. Look a little deeper though, and a different picture emerges.^{23 - 26}

Quoting the 'news wise' article:

"In the late 1980s, Vietnam transitioned towards a market economy, which resulted in increased agricultural production, population figures, and urbanisation, all of which heightened the demand for ground water. But as Minderhoud wrote in his dissertation, pumping out ground water exacerbates the problem of soil subsidence. 'The area also has a soft, shallow soil layer. The growth in infrastructure that has accompanied the past few decades of economic development has placed an extra burden on the soil. This is another reason the soil is subsiding, which makes the sea level rise more quickly in relation to the land. It's as if the delta is sinking into the sea. Plus, salt water is pushing ever farther land-inwards, so the delta also faces the problem of salinization.'"

And now the South China Morning Post:

"How the sinking sands along the Mekong River are leaving Vietnamese residents homeless. Damming and extensive sand mining of the riverbed are causing currents to strengthen and the land in Vietnam’s delta region to sink. With the Mekong running through six different countries, there is very little cooperation between governments to resolve the worsening crisis."

So for the past 25 years, the delta has been affected by an increase in agricultural production and water abstraction resulting in the delta sinking, on average, 18cm. Adding to this is sand dredging further upstream increasing flow rates. In contrast, sea-level rise has remained constant at circa 2mm/year, which equates to just 5cm over the same 25 years. So, by studiously ignoring both former problems, is reporter Ashley John-Baptiste's report a dispassion view of the complex issues facing the people of the delta, or just another case of climate change propaganda? This is but one example of the BBC daily drip-feeding the public (particularly the younger generations) an overtly partisan view of climate issues.

The BBC's bias was exposed some years ago in what came to be known as 28gate, where senior executives were lectured on climate change by 28 of 'the best scientific experts' leading them to declare they would no longer sanction the sceptic view. Well who were the experts a pensioner asked? We're not telling you said the BBC. And so it went on all the way to the High Court, where the BBC was happy to lavish expenses on several barristers to defend the right (?) of a publicly funded company refusing to answer a simple question from a member of the public who helps fund it. The case was lost, but the names emerged anyway. Were they 'the best scientific experts'? No! Only three were current scientists (all alarmist), the rest were either activists or journalists.

The game is clearly rigged.

• Right from the outset, Hanson’s testimony was presented in a room where the air conditioning had been rendered ineffective - the sweating being seen to enhance the message.


• Santer overruling the consensus of his IPCC working group to get his 'discernible human influence' message into record - followed by his clearly bogus paper written in support of it.


• Jonathan Overpeck writing to scientists bemoaning the existence of the MWP - and along comes 'tree ring' Mann with a graph which does precisely that.


• Mann's graph is shown to be little more than statistical prestidigitation, but who cares (the IPCC certainly don't) for once again, imagery trumps everything.


• Attempts to publish a rebuttal are hampered by threats to journals and journal editors. In contrast, papers in support are fast-tracked through. Pal review becomes endemic.


• The Climategate emails reveal collusion on a grand scale.


• Investigations are launched, but become infamous for their lack of rigour. Primary witnesses are not called or interviewed, the senior investigator in one inquiry failing to attend interviews, the department under investigation being allowed to select the evidence to be assessed by the investigator.


• Consensus science is being picked apart by respected climatologists, so a place-man distorts Wikipedia and a series of bogus consensus studies are published.


• Imagery manipulation sees the polar bear, becoming the poster child of alarmism. The claims of them dying out is based on bad science and the expert revealing this becomes the subject of a smear campaign.


• Rumours of fossil-fuelled denialism appear, though no cheques have ever been found.


• An Exxon knew campaign starts, though documents reveal it's clear they 'knew' no more than anyone else.


• Opportunism sees left-leaning politicians jump on board the 'climate emergency' bandwagon.


• Reputable scientists find themselves becoming the subject of investigation because the committees they're presenting evidence to don't like the evidence being presented as it undermines their arguments.


• Alarmists turn to conflating weather with climate and claim an increase in severe weather events and wildfires; claims which are utterly unsupported by empirical data.


• In a similar fashion, claims of accelerating sea-level rise are seen to be merely an artefact of cherry-picked data.²⁷


• The latest climate models once again claim it's worse than we thought, but surely everyone knows that the quality of results is dependent on the quality of the data used. How can they be worse when the present models already show a significant divergence from reality?


• But it must be true since it's now reflected in empirical datasets - until one discovers that said datasets have been rendered completely worthless by calculated and deliberate adjustments to make them 'correlate' better with model predictions. If the evidence doesn’t fit the facts, then change the facts.²⁸

To me, it beggars belief that anyone can take the IPCC and the alarmist cause seriously, but it's become so ingrained in society that anyone challenging 'the cause' must surely be a denier. But that definition encompasses a whole slew of respected scientists and climatologists. These are men and women of principle who have refused the filthy lucre of alarmism for the pursuit of real understanding. Few young scientists today though, with a career and a family to feed, have the luxury of principles. Such is the toxic working atmosphere; if you don't believe, you don't have a job.

Dr Bill Gray, the father of hurricane forecasting, was one such man of principle. For decades he received funding from NOAA to further his research and teaching programs. In 1993 he was invited to attend a conference being organised by Al Gore, the then newly minted US Vice President. He responded by saying he would be happy to attend, but wasn't an adherent of Gore's views on climate. He never received another cent of funding from the government. ²⁹

Dr Peter Ridd is another. Sacked from his role at James Cook University for speaking out over the lack of quality assurance in Great Barrier Reef science, he took his former employer to court on the grounds of unfair dismissal. Not only did he win, he won on all counts. The University, however, has now decided to appeal knowing that the costs involved may prevent Dr Ridd from pursuing the case. (This is a similar tactic to that being employed by Mann in his actions against Tim Ball and Mark Steyn.) Dr Ridd himself laments the waste of money, but academic freedom is an important principle and is thus hoping to raise enough funds to take the case all the way to the High Court if necessary.³⁰

Regardless of all I've written, not only do you still appear incapable of appreciating the level of deception being employed in the effort to convince us of there being a climate emergency, but also the mind-boggling cost of the climate action being demanded. Perhaps it's the rose-tinted prism of a little over 6 cents a unit clouding your judgement, but you're not the one facing the prospect of spiralling costs and power rationing.

Doing something simply for the sake of doing something is fine and dandy if one can afford to do it. This is not kicking the can down the road, like the IPCC regularly do with their climate conferences, but simple economics. I already pay the equivalent of nearly 31 cents a unit for my electricity and in Germany (with their Energiewende) it's even worse at a little over 45 cents a unit.³¹ This is the reality of energy markets destabilised by wind and solar renewables. And it can only get worse.

The loss of fossil-fuelled transport and gas, the latter being the primary source of heating for the majority of this country, will, unlike the relatively benign climate change we've presently seen, definitely have a profoundly negative effect on society. No matter how one cuts the cake, if common sense doesn't prevail and present plans continue unabated, there is going to be an immense backlash against the spending of so much to achieve so little. I kid you not; this truly is the stuff of revolution.


[1] [Link: thegwpf.org]
[2] https://polarbearscience.com
[3] [Link: amazon.com]
[4] [Link: euanmearns.com]
[5] [Link: en.wikipedia.org]
[6] [Link: cfact.org]
[7] [Link: thelancet.com]
[8] [Link: edmhdotme.wordpress.com]


[9]


[10] [Link: notrickszone.com]


[11]


[12]


[13]


[14] [Link: jbarisk.com]
[15] [Link: herefordshirehistory.org.uk]?


[16]


[17] [Link: telegraph.co.uk]
[18] https://polarbearscience.com
[19] [Link: wattsupwiththat.com]
[20] [Link: joseduarte.com]
[21] https://notrickszone.com/
[22] [Link: bbc.co.uk]
[23] [Link: newswise.com]


[24]


[25] [Link: researchgate.net]
[26] [Link: scmp.com]


[27]


[28]


[29]


[30] [Link: gofundme.com]
[31] [Link: notrickszone.com]


PS
I’m surprised you’re unaware of where I live as I’ve made no secret of it: it’s in my profile.

djy:

You completely lost all credibility when you said:
 

• The Climategate emails reveal collusion on a grand scale.

You may need to adjust your tinfoil hat.

Well, at least someone is actually reading what I write.

Note, though, that when making an assertion about credibility, it is somewhat incumbent the person making the claim to offer a credible argument as to why they believe what they say, otherwise their own credibility can be called into question.

Having the rare privilege of being supplied "dirt cheap" hydro power is clouding one's judgement over consumables derived energy. For the vast majority it is far from being more expensive, as the graphs, reports and examples I've previously supplied clearly demonstrate.

Previously supplied economic and engineering reports also clearly demonstrate that the UN's plans for tackling climate change will not help the world's poor, but actually keep them in a state of perpetual poverty. My argument is thus perfectly valid. The IPCC are using the embellished threat of climate change in an effort to stimulate an exchange of wealth which will not only not help those they are using as the excuse for that said exchange, but will exacerbate the problems already being faced by those expected to make the donations.

By your definition, the genocidal ideas of Malthusians could also be seen as adaption, but building flood defences is likely the more ethical, not to mention cheaper, option. Forgive me, but I find being lectured by someone paying five times less per unit of electricity than me (who appears to believe I should be doing more so that he doesn’t have to worry about local flooding and it’s consequences) a tad irksome. I’m perfectly willing to adapt, but the spending of trillions to achieve absolutely nothing is not adaptation, it's just plain madness.

And finally, why are you worrying the causes of the warming, when right at the outset you dismiss the science as being irrelevant?

I think there is too much stuff going round and round so I will try and consolidate
1)

you got me, I started coming here 20 (you and I have both been here before 2001 and that is when RC started registration) years ago buying my time just to troll you on global warming. Can we please not start with useless name calling?

2) seasons:

I get your point that (depending on where you live) there is a large discrepancy between summer and winter

i.e. if Anthony is OK with –30 - +30 why have an issue with (for example) –27 - +37 especially when in the distant past it might have been -20-+40 or –40-+20

I just don’t think it works well. The world is built for how things are (aka where when built) not for how things will be. In 2018 [Link: globalnews.ca] there were over 70 dead because of a heat wave in the area, when discussing with a friend at the time he asked if public transit had air conditioning, I said not usually, jus some of the newer busses, which surprised him, so then I asked him if busses there had heaters that would make them comfortable at –30 and the answer was obviously no on his side, why would they when the temp is always +

3) ice age/ cooling

let me make my point clear

a) I am not sure why we are discussing ice ages (or cooling) as far as I know there is no reasonable prediction of it happening any time soon.
b) I don’t want it to get colder the same way that I don’t want it to get warmer.
c) yes cold and ice ages can be destructive but so is warmer and (to use a word that you love) it is easier to adapt to colder.

4) energy


a) are you being told that you DJY needs to replace your furnace?
or
b) is it that the electric company needs to produce greener electricity?

If it is a) then I apologies for misunderstanding the situation. If it is b) then the graph is useless * since we are not talking about different ways to heat a home.

my point (assuming b) is that if the electricity comes from coal the electric company has to charge for all the coal that is used and if it is Natural gas then it needs to charge for the gas .... so the electricity becomes expensive * ( let me pout it this way

back in the late 60’s hydro Quebec decided to go Nuclear, the plan was to build 35 Nuclear reactors throughout the province Gentilly-1 came on line in 1970 ( Gentilly-2 came on line a few years later, they started on Gentilly-3 but never finished it). But in the late 70’s there was a change in direction and instead of inexpensive nuclear reactors that cost around 120M each they decided to go with the insane James bay project where the first phase alone cost 13.7B before any electricity could even be used.

If Hydro Quebec had continued with the nuclear direction today our electricity would be much more expensive and I would not be as “privileged” as I am. Green energy plants cost more to build and they are scarier but maintenance and cost of production of electricity tends to be much so the electricity is cheaper to produce.

5) fear, science and me

I don’t know who (and more importantly by how much) they are right. I don’t know of anyone that thinks things are not getting warmer. My point is simple, think of a piece of meat being cooked. The heat is absorbed at first on the outside nearest the heat source and then is propagates deeper and deeper and further and further. I think where I live happens, for right now , to feel the effects more than many other places. It is hard to believe GW won’t create flooding when you can see it with your own eyes, it is hard to believe it won’t mean deaths when you know it has started. I am not asking you to save the people that died in the heat wave I am not asking you to turn back the clock and make sure my friends house is not flooded. I am saying the fears can’t be 100% BS because it is happening hear and it might happen elsewhere next as the whole roast reaches the same temperature. To put it differently unfortunately for where I live we are the canary in the coal mine, and I am pointing out how I we are doing, you can do or believe what you want.

I think there is too much stuff going round and round so I will try and consolidate

1). Trolling:

You got me, I started coming here 20 (you and I have both been here before 2001 and that is when RC started registration) years ago buying my time just to troll you on global warming. Can we please not start with useless name calling?

The trolling comment was not meant as a slur; it was merely an expression of my disbelief at what I believe to be your not appreciating the extremity of an ice age.

*

2). Seasons:

I get your point that (depending on where you live) there is a large discrepancy between summer and winter; i.e. if Anthony is OK with –30 - +30 why have an issue with (for example) –27 - +37 especially when in the distant past it might have been -20-+40 or –40-+20

I just don’t think it works well. The world is built for how things are (aka where when built) not for how things will be. In 2018 [Link: globalnews.ca] there were over 70 dead because of a heat wave in the area, when discussing with a friend at the time he asked if public transit had air conditioning, I said not usually, jus some of the newer busses, which surprised him, so then I asked him if busses there had heaters that would make them comfortable at –30 and the answer was obviously no on his side, why would they when the temp is always +

Extreme weather events occur all the time. Here are just two examples:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org]
[Link: en.wikipedia.org]

Both occurred long before CO₂ became an issue. What is interesting to note, though, is that as the planet warms temperature extremes have reduced. Tony Heller has commented on this numerous times in his videos.

https://realclimatescience.com/

*

3). Ice age/ cooling:

Let me make my point clear:

a) I am not sure why we are discussing ice ages (or cooling) as far as I know there is no reasonable prediction of it happening any time soon.
b) I don’t want it to get colder the same way that I don’t want it to get warmer.
c) yes cold and ice ages can be destructive but so is warmer and (to use a word that you love) it is easier to adapt to colder.

a) To drive home the point that there are far greater forces at work in nature than CO₂. CO₂ is not the primary driver of climate change, thus to suggest we can control climate by controlling CO₂ emissions is pure hubris.

b) Nature doesn't care about what you, I or anyone wants.

c). "…it is easier to adapt to colder." Not if you cannot afford to heat your home.

*

4). Energy:

Having the rare privilege of being supplied "dirt cheap" hydro power is clouding one's judgement over consumables derived energy.

a) are you being told that you DJY needs to replace your furnace?
or
b) is it that the electric company needs to produce greener electricity?

Like the vast majority, if it is a) then I apologies for misunderstanding the situation. If it is b) then the graph is useless * since we are not talking about different ways to heat a home.

My point (assuming b) is that if the electricity comes from coal the electric company has to charge for all the coal that is used and if it is Natural gas then it needs to charge for the gas .... so the electricity becomes expensive * ( let me pout it this way

back in the late 60’s hydro Quebec decided to go Nuclear, the plan was to build 35 Nuclear reactors throughout the province Gentilly-1 came on line in 1970 ( Gentilly-2 came on line a few years later, they started on Gentilly-3 but never finished it). But in the late 70’s there was a change in direction and instead of inexpensive nuclear reactors that cost around 120M each they decided to go with the insane James bay project where the first phase alone cost 13.7B before any electricity could even be used.

If Hydro Quebec had continued with the nuclear direction today our electricity would be much more expensive and I would not be as “privileged” as I am. Green energy plants cost more to build and they are scarier but maintenance and cost of production of electricity tends to be much so the electricity is cheaper to produce.

Given all the information I've previously provided, I'm at a loss to understand why you still believe "Green Energy" is universally cheap. Clearly your hydropower is, though I wonder if the price Quebec customers pay is discounted against the amount paid by the export market. The UK energy market, however, is an entirely different beast.

As previously mentioned, the GridWatch website provides details (updated every ten minutes, I believe) of grid demand and the energy mix being used to supply that demand. At the time of writing, present demand is 29GW, which is being provided primarily by gas (CCGT) at 16GW and nuclear at 6.6GW. "Green Energy's" contribution (that's wind and solar) is presently 0.7GW, which represents approximately just 2% of installed wind and solar capacity. (Note, as previously mentioned, renewable energy is prioritised, thus that 2% represents all that is presently available.) Herein, then, lies the first problem with wind and solar: their inherent inefficiency.

Installed UK wind capacity is approximately 21 GW, but this year to date actual output has ranged between 0.143-12.443GW, with a daily average of 5.046GW – which represents an improvement over the 2018 average of 4.272GW. Evidently then, real-world performance is far removed from nameplate capacity and suggests a more realistic assessment of the output of the Burbo Bank Extension (32 x 8MW turbines) is likely to be closer to 64MW than its 256MW nameplate capacity.

At present, the market price for electricity is approximately £45 per MWh, at which price, assuming the above, the BBE would make just £25,228,800 per year (64x45x24x365), meaning a return on investment (£800m) of over 30 years. With research finding turbine life expectancy to be around 15 years, with efficiency dropping away significantly after five years, such a time frame is nonsense. The answer to this is subsidies. Rather than paying market price, the BBE presently receives £170.03 per MWh with the extra cost being passed onto the consumer. Not for nothing did Warren Buffett say the only reason to build wind turbines was for the subsidies they attract.

Due to these lavish subsidies, wind and solar are not cheap, hence the price I pay per unit and the even more ridiculous price paid by the Germans - who have travelled further down the renewables rabbit hole. It has also had the knock-on effect of discouraging alternative power station investment unless that is, they also receive an above market price contract - Hinkley C (if it ever works), for example, has been guaranteed a starting price of over £100 per MWh. Furthermore, the subsidies racket has created a whole raft of get-rich-quick schemes headed by some truly shady characters; i.e. the alarmism has incentivised the implementation of some largely unnecessary projects merely to take a slice of the subsidies pie. (Mark Shorrock's madcap Swansea Bay tidal lagoon plans might have hit the rocks, but he's nonetheless managed to acquire for himself a small fortune out of it.)

Another effect of the inefficiency of wind power is the sheer number of turbines which would need to be built, the timeframe for their construction and their location. Regardless of this, the CCC believes that by 2050 renewables (primarily wind) will be supplying 57% of the UK's energy needs, which is in direct conflict with numerous engineering reports (some of which I've previously linked to) and that letter from an engineer I reprinted in my last post. Non-synchronous energy sources pose many headaches when it comes to grid balancing, and system instability becomes a severe threat when it reaches 30%. How the CCC proposes to almost double this figure and retain control remains to be seen.

Because electricity is the most expensive means by which to heat the home (and water), most households in the UK use gas - the table graphic being a means to illustrate the scale of the differential. Natural gas, however, is a fossil fuel and recent legislation will see the banning of gas boiler (furnace) installation in new build homes after 2025. This doesn't directly affect me (at least for the moment), but that was never my concern. That's reserved for the younger generation who are unwittingly creating their own climate-related disaster: not as a result of climate change itself, but as a direct consequence of their actions for which they will be the ones paying the price.

Like fossil-fuelled cars, gas is now very much a target, [1] but the natural gas network is enormous - the energy delivery in the domestic supply alone is easily equal to the whole of the National Grid. So what are the alternatives? Obviously there's electric, but with no one being prepared to build unless they get a big fat cheque, from where is the extra capacity to come? There are low carbon heating systems, which the CCC claims will cost me £26,300 ($44,300 Canadian) plus running costs. There's converting to hydrogen, though that is predicated on the development of a vast industrial complex to produce the stuff and the yet to be developed CCS system necessary to remove and store the CO₂ produced during the process.

No matter how one cuts the cake if plans continue as they are the cost of electricity in the UK is going to rise dramatically. This will have a profound effect on industry, jobs, those with low or fixed income and just about every aspect of life as we know it – and I've not even mentioned EV's, the inevitable travel restrictions and the loss of revenue from fuel duty which, it would seem, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has finally caught up with. [2] And, of course, the truly shocking thing about this waste (and waste it is, for the only people benefiting from this would be the scammers and troughers in the renewables market) is that it will make not one jot of difference to either CO₂ emissions or climate change.

I could rattle on, but if you haven't got the message by now, then you likely never will. "Green Energy" over here is NOT cheap and just adding more will only exacerbate the problems already being faced by those struggling to pay their bills.

Somewhat serendipitously, Paul Homeward has just posted an article on the impact of decarbonising heating. [3]

*

5). Fear, science and me

I don’t know who (and more importantly by how much) they are right. I don’t know of anyone that thinks things are not getting warmer. My point is simple, think of a piece of meat being cooked. The heat is absorbed at first on the outside nearest the heat source and then is propagates deeper and deeper and further and further. I think where I live happens, for right now , to feel the effects more than many other places. It is hard to believe GW won’t create flooding when you can see it with your own eyes, it is hard to believe it won’t mean deaths when you know it has started. I am not asking you to save the people that died in the heat wave I am not asking you to turn back the clock and make sure my friends house is not flooded. I am saying the fears can’t be 100% BS because it is happening hear and it might happen elsewhere next as the whole roast reaches the same temperature. To put it differently unfortunately for where I live we are the canary in the coal mine, and I am pointing out how I we are doing, you can do or believe what you want.

No serious scientist or observer is claiming that the world has not warmed, but it's cynical political opportunism feeding the belief that CO₂ is the sole culprit and that by controlling its emissions we can control the climate.

Weather-related incidents and disasters are a constant throughout history, but the spending of gazillions of dollars, pounds, euros or yen (in an attempt to cut CO₂ emissions) will not stop them. Indeed, after spending/wasting all that money, who will then be to blame if famine, drought, misery and death continues?

If, as you appear to believe, climate change played a role in the Montreal flooding, surely you should be lobbying your government to implement a flood mitigation/prevention programme, not expecting other countries to impoverish themselves in the pure blind hope it will stop the flooding.

Note: Regarding the science, Judith Curry has some interesting comments about uncertainties in this [4] blog post at her website. And in the comments to the post there is a link to this [5] video presentation from Dr Ronan Connolly and Dr Michael Connolly who have reanalysed a considerable mass of radiosonde data which, if correct, has the potential to turn the greenhouse effect question on its head. Sounds dramatic, I know, but when taken in conjunction with the work of Professor Nasif Nahle [6] it does lend weight to the argument of CO₂ playing a (very) minimal role in the present warming.

[1] [Link: notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com]
[2] [Link: bloomberg.com]
[3] [Link: notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com]
[4] [Link: judithcurry.com]


[5]


[6] [Link: notrickszone.com]

djy:

Your Kool-Aid is all dried up. No-one is going to drink any more of it.

And yet you keep coming back to take a sip.

I agree it is enormous, I just also realise that
1) when one looks at the past, warming has always been a bigger disaster then cooling. Like I said, and you mocked, mammoths and the rest and the great extinction did not happen when the ice age was staring, it did not happen when it was at its peak, it happened with the warming.
2) no one in his right mind is talking about entering a new ice age. so it is a bit ridiculous fretting over nothing.


yes extreme weather does happen and yes it can have natural causes (like volcanos erupting, sun spots....) but your examples don't really work well since both of them happened after the start of the industrial revolution. If its pollution and the coal burning was enough to change the pepper moth how do you know that it did not also played a role in those incidents?


you have not shown any evidence, you have rambled on but you miss the point each time by focusing on what is there instead of what could be there.


I agree our electricity is cheap. But (like most of this conversation) you are completely wrong.

[Link: cbc.ca]


we have technically been over charged for the last decade. And no where near subsidized (in any real way) with exports.

I say "real way" because like you said we are few and far between and so we most likely would not have been able to do the projects if it was just for the Quebec market. But those other markets (and industry) pay less per kWh than I do.



agree and there in lies the problem ;)


but that is the point you are looking at the past you need to look at the present and the future

[Link: carbonbrief.org]



[Link: independent.co.uk]




I get what you are saying and I agree. In the UK right now it does not make sense to heat electrically. What you are missing is that there was a time , not so long ago, when that was the case here as well which is why my houce was built with an oil furnace and later updated to bi-energy (electric+oil) and only recently I went full electric. Quebec usd to have more of its electricity that fossil fuel based and at first it was going to go nuclear and until very recently those two nuclear stations were creating expensive electricity.



cool we agree on that

but who is saying sole culprit? from the every beginning when you asked why CO₂ I said it I not the only one but the easiest o deal with. Either you do nothing, procrastinate and only start reacting wen it is too late or you need to start somewhere.


Quebec redraw flood maps this year
Offered to buy the homes (up to 200k which is very little for a home) in the new flood zones.



I am not, like I said repeatedly it is too late for these people. my question is what impoverishment would happen if the UK needs to redraw flood zones and needs to buy out people living in places like London the same way Quebec needed to do right now)

Sorry, but your arguments are becoming increasingly surreal: that extinction events were the result of warming, that weather events post the industrial revolution must be attributable to it, and having gone to great length explaining the expense of renewables derived "Green Energy" in the UK one bizarrely claims I've not provided any evidence? The mind truly boggles!

On October 18, 2019 at 19:54, djy said...
The trolling comment was not meant as a slur; it was merely an expression of my disbelief at what I believe to be your not appreciating the extremity of an ice age.

I agree it is enormous, I just also realise that
1) when one looks at the past, warming has always been a bigger disaster then cooling. Like I said, and you mocked, mammoths and the rest and the great extinction did not happen when the ice age was staring, it did not happen when it was at its peak, it happened with the warming.
2) no one in his right mind is talking about entering a new ice age. so it is a bit ridiculous fretting over nothing.

1). Though much remains unknown, it's believed that at least four of the five known mass extinction events were as a result of planetary cooling. [1] That an animal, which evolved during a cold phase, died out as the planet naturally rewarmed is hardly surprising. It lends no weight to your contention that warming is more dangerous than cooling – particularly the intense cold of a glacial period.
2). Not now no, but it was a concern in the late 60s and 70s, as I've previously pointed out and provided evidence for.

*

Extreme weather events occur all the time. Here are just two examples:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org]
[Link: en.wikipedia.org]

Both occurred long before CO2 became an issue.

yes extreme weather does happen and yes it can have natural causes (like volcanos erupting, sun spots....) but your examples don't really work well since both of them happened after the start of the industrial revolution. If its pollution and the coal burning was enough to change the pepper moth how do you know that it did not also played a role in those incidents?

To claim the examples I’ve provided are tainted by the industrial revolution is to suggest that all weather related events since are such. I somehow doubt, however, that atmospheric soot in Manchester [2] has ever had much in the way of influence over typhoons in the South China Sea.

*

Given all the information I've previously provided, I'm at a loss to understand why you still believe "Green Energy" is universally cheap.

you have not shown any evidence, you have rambled on but you miss the point each time by focusing on what is there instead of what could be there.

I've told you how much I pay per unit of electricity.
I've provided a link to how much they pay in Germany (who have invested far more in renewables).
I've provided information on the lucrative subsides enjoyed by renewables.
I've provided information on the climate change levies received by government in their financial reports.
I've provided information on the CCC's future plans.
I've provided information on the technological constraints of these plans.
I've provided information on UK fuel poverty.

Perhaps one would care to clarify what one considers evidence?

*

Clearly your hydropower is, though I wonder if the price Quebec customers pay is discounted against the amount paid by the export market.

I agree our electricity is cheap. But (like most of this conversation) you are completely wrong.

[Link: cbc.ca]

The Quebec government is expected to force Hydro-Québec to return $1.5 billion to customers who have been overpaying the Crown corporation for electricity.

I say "real way" because like we have technically been over charged for the last decade. And no where near subsidized (in any real way) with exports.

you said we are few and far between and so we most likely would not have been able to do the projects if it was just for the Quebec market. But those other markets (and industry) pay less per kWh than I do.

This was simply a speculative comment based on the investment required to build the plants and the income which could be derived from the relatively small population base. You claim my comment is incorrect, which may very well be the case, but offer no evidence in support of your claim. You do, however, provide a link to a report indicating your already "dirt cheap" electricity should really be cheaper. Forgive me if exhibit a distinct lack of empathy.

And in regard to the linked news report, did one note the comments of Seethal Pathak?

'Seethal Pathak works at Project Genesis, an anti-poverty non-profit in Cote-des-Neiges. She said some people can only afford to heat part of their apartment.
"[They] go to the mall to avoid their cold apartments or who even make the choice between eating or heating," she said.'

Fuel poverty at 6 cents a unit!? Do you still believe it easier to adapt to cold?

*

The UK energy market, however, is an entirely different beast.

agree and there in lies the problem ;)

As previously mentioned, ... At present, the market price for electricity is approximately £45 per MWh...

but that is the point you are looking at the past you need to look at the present and the future

[Link: carbonbrief.org]

In the third quarter of 2019, the UK’s windfarms, solar panels, biomass and hydro plants generated more electricity than the combined output from power stations fired by coal, oil and gas, Carbon Brief analysis reveals.

During the three months of July, August and September, renewables generated an estimated total of 29.5 terawatt hours (TWh), compared with just 29.1TWh from fossil fuels, the analysis shows.

[Link: independent.co.uk]

12 new energy projects coming in at a record low price of between £39.65 and £41.61 per megawatt hour, the government revealed on Friday.

That is less than half of the £92.50 per megawatt hour that the government has committed to pay for power from the delayed and over-budget Hinkley Point C nuclear plant which is due to open in 2025.

Compounding one's bizarre claim about my not providing evidence of the destabilising and costly effects of U.K. renewables, one condescendingly claims I should be looking to the present and future. Clearly, then, one has not troubled oneself to read the CCC's Net-Zero Britain report, which gloomily does precisely that. Indeed, it rather seems one would prefer the fanciful scribblings of The Carbon Brief and a puff-piece from The Independent.

Presently run by former Guardian reporter and WWF worker Leo Hickman, The Carbon Brief is funded by the European Climate Foundation, which channels millions from far left liberal organisations to promote Green ideology. The Carbon Brief is thus a fully paid up member of the Green Blob and one which is handsomely rewarded to promote carbon issues and the 'benefits' of renewables, albeit at the expense of the hard pressed British consumer.

By its inclusion of biomass in its list of renewables, The Carbon Brief's inherently untrustworthy nature almost immediately becomes evident; a hint of this being found in the report when it says:

"Some two-thirds of electricity generated from biomass in the UK comes from 'plant biomass', primarily [American] wood pellets burnt at Lynemouth and the Drax plant in Yorkshire. The remainder comes from an array of smaller sites based on landfill gas, sewage gas or anaerobic digestion.
The Committee on Climate Change says the UK should "move away" from large-scale biomass power plants, once existing subsidy contracts for Drax and Lynemouth expire in 2027.
Using biomass to generate electricity is not zero-Carbon and in some circumstances could [does] lead to higher emissions than from fossil fuels. Moreover, there are more valuable uses for the world’s limited supply of biomass feedstock, the CCC says, including carbon sequestration and hard-to-abate sectors with few alternatives."

Having already explained the preferential treatment afforded renewables (i.e. their indexed linked pricing and guaranteed market) it is not unusual for them to produce as much electricity as fossil fuels during the months of least demand. Furthermore, though the 29.5 TWh appears large, it still represents only 38% of wind and solar's potential given its installed capacity of 35 GW - once again highlighting their inherent inefficiency and the need for a huge amount of over capacity to supply even modest amounts. One is also ignoring the fact that sheer volume of production is no good measure of a systems worth; i.e. it does not demonstrate that renewables simply cannot be relied upon to produce output when most needed, or too much when it is not. As 'Planning Engineer' discusses here, [3] not all megawatts are created equal:

"Myth 3 – All Megwatts are equal – An electric power system is very complex and must operate within narrow parameters while balancing loads and resources and supporting synchronism.
Conventional rotating machinery such as coal, nuclear, and gas plants as well as hydro generation provide a lot of support to the system. This includes reactive power (vars), inertia, regulation of the system frequency and the capability to ramping up and down as the load varies. Most renewable resources lack these important capabilities and furthermore are only intermittently available (not dependable). Since wind turbines must rotate at variable speeds their rotational energy cannot be used to support the system.
Some, but not all of the disadvantages of solar and wind energy can be mitigated at extra costs through electronic and mechanical means. When these resources only make up a small percentage of the generation on the system, it is not a big deal. The system is strong enough that utilities are ok with letting a small percentage of solar lean on the system. But as the penetration of solar and wind energy increases the system robustness will degrade and reliability will be compromised without costly improvements. Such additional costs are not generally applied to renewable resources at this time."

(Note: Russ Schussler (Planning Engineer), P.E., Retired Vice President of Transmission Planning at Georgia Transmission Corporations, has spent over 35 years in the electric utility industry. Russ has served in various roles working to ensure the reliability of the grid including serving on the NERC Planning Committee and Chairing the SERC Engineering Committee.)

Now turning our attention to that latest round of wind farms, The Daily Telegraph's idiotic Ambrose Evans-Pritchard had this to say:

"Rejoice: Britain's huge gamble on offshore wind has hit the jackpot. Wind has won the argument. The auction prices for offshore projects announced today have blown away the competition.
Four projects on the Dogger Bank – more than 60 miles out into the North Sea, and invisible even to the most outraged Nimby armed with a telescope – will have five gigawatts (GW) of capacity at a strike price ranging from £39.65 to £41.61 per megawatt/hour (MWh) from 2023 to 2024.
A further project off Scotland will come in at similar price levels."

Leaving aside the suspicion of how supposedly unrelated companies manage to bid the same price…



...and why, if they were only going to bid market price they even bothered with the CfD auction (just get on and build) what is never considered is the cost of wind power's intermittency and the need to maintain standby capacity for when the wind doesn't blow. AEP's 'gamble' also ignores the over £100 billion already committed to get us to this position; i.e. that we've paid/going to pay over £100 billion developing an inefficient and intermittent energy source no cheaper than what we already have. These costs are as follows:

1). ROCs - Renewable Obligation Certificates.
This was the original means of subsidising renewables. In the last financial year they awarded subsidy payments of £3.3 billion to wind operators, which is on top of the value of the electricity sold. Estimated cost to the consumer over the lifetime of the assets - £82.5 billion. Unsurprisingly, this system is now closed to new projects.

2). CfDs - Contracts for Difference.
Previous to the latest round of awards, wind power CfDs totalled 7541 MW at an average price of £119.40 per MWh. [4] Removing market value and assuming a capacity utilisation of 40% (producing 26.4 TWh a year), the annual subsidy equates to £1.8 billion (index linked) payable for 15 years. Total cost passed on to the consumer - £27 billion.

3). Capacity Market.
As previously discussed, the inefficiency and intermittency of wind power requires the National Grid to provide cover for when the wind doesn't blow. This year alone, that cost is set to be £1 billion. However, with coal set to be completely phased out in the next few years (spare capacity thus becoming even tighter) that figure will almost certainly rise. Cost to the consumer - £25 billion.



4). Constraint Payments.
While the primary focus should rightly be on wind power's inability to provide when the wind doesn't blow, it should not be forgotten that there are times when there is simply too much energy for the grid to absorb. At times like these, the National Grid has to pay wind providers to switch off supply. Last year these constraint payments cost consumers £124 million; £115 million of which going to Scottish wind farms due to a lack of transmission capacity to England where the demand was.

Since 2010 this cost has inexorably risen and will continue to do so as more wind power is added to the system. Indeed, it’s believed these payments could easily reach £1 billion annually in the foreseeable future.



(Note: The updated table shows 2019 payments have reached £109 million. [5])

5). Total cost.
Summarily dismissing the previously provided data and expert analysis as not being evidence of the true cost of wind and solar's destabilising intermittency and inefficiency (for propaganda from The Carbon Brief and a puff-piece in The Independent) clearly demonstrates one's innate desire not to understand the realities of living with wind and solar renewables. It is all the more galling coming from someone with the sinecure of abundant "dirt cheap" dispatchable hydropower who has no personal experience of the issues. It is not I who is missing the point (the one paying the price for this madness) it is you.

Pointing to a few extra GWs of wind power, having a strike price circa that of market price, as being a reason for optimism, completely ignores the over £150 billion the hard pressed British consumer/tax payer has already been committed to covering. Why on earth do you think I'm paying over five times more for my electricity and the Germans over seven times more? It's certainly not due to the cost of fossil fuels, as that heating costs chart clearly indicates. And what of the future, which we've not even touched upon?

6). The future.
The CCC's plans, if you trouble yourself to actually read them, sees baseload being provided by nuclear, renewables providing the bulk of the supply with gas/biomass acting as a balancing and emergency backup mechanism. Sounds simple on paper, but the obstacles in achieving this supposed energy utopia are huge, costly and run contrary to all known engineering principles.

With plans to remove Natural Gas as a domestic energy source, the CCC's proposals have already been dealt a hammer blow by the collapse of talks to build a new generation of nuclear plants - lack of funding being cited as the primary reason. Gas could take up the slack, but its continued use is predicated on the, as yet undeveloped, cost effective CCS - £££s.

Regardless of diminishing baseload, the government is forging ahead with renewables in the hope it will eventually generate 57% of supply which, as I’ve already pointed out (and you have completely ignored), is almost twice the accepted level by which one can expect to maintain grid stability. Furthermore, the amount of extra capacity required is enormous (over 200 GW) and dwarfs that circa 6 GW being promoted by The Independent and Telegraph.

This impossible target has seen the CCC champion the idea retro fitting housing stock with improved insulation (at incredible cost), the installation of heat pump systems (also at immense cost) and the development of hydrogen as a replacement for Natural Gas (at lord knows what cost). Add to this the curtailing of freedom of movement (by the enforced removal of fossil fuelled transport) and the inevitable power cuts (the true reason behind the smart meter programme – the cost, £10-20 billion, once again to be borne by the consumer) and I can easily see frustration boiling over into violence.

The bottom line is that wind and solar renewables do not reduce electricity cost, they increase it. This is a proven fact no matter what you, The Carbon Brief or the MSM might say. [6-15]

Note:
Using data freely available from GridWatch, my own analysis of third quarter electricity generation (by type – in TWhs) is as follows:

Gas (CCGT) – 24.3387
Gas (OCGT) – 0.0149
Coal – 0.4108
Oil – 0.0000

Wind – 10.2175
Solar – 3.812
Hydro – 0.8704
Pumped Hydro – 0.3533

Nuclear – 12.656
Biomass – 3.9747

While they’re happy to toss around statistics like they’re going out of fashion, The Carbon Brief do not offer the reader the opportunity to review their calculations - nothing new there then.

*

Because electricity is the most expensive means by which to heat the home (and water), most households in the UK use gas - the table graphic being a means to illustrate the scale of the differential. Natural gas, however, is a fossil fuel and recent legislation will see the banning of gas boiler (furnace) installation in new build homes after 2025. This doesn't directly affect me (at least for the moment), but that was never my concern.

I get what you are saying and I agree. In the UK right now it does not make sense to heat electrically. What you are missing is that there was a time , not so long ago, when that was the case here as well which is why my houce was built with an oil furnace and later updated to bi-energy (electric+oil) and only recently I went full electric. Quebec usd to have more of its electricity that fossil fuel based and at first it was going to go nuclear and until very recently those two nuclear stations were creating expensive electricity.

You appear incapable of understanding that dispatchable baseload generation is the mainstay of any grid. Wind and solar are not baseload and their inefficiency and intermittency add cost by the need for grid balancing. It will never make sense to heat electrically with such an energy mix, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

*

No serious scientist or observer is claiming that the world has not warmed,

cool we agree on that

but it's cynical political opportunism feeding the belief that CO2 is the sole culprit and that by controlling its emissions we can control the climate.

but who is saying sole culprit? from the every beginning when you asked why CO2 I said it I not the only one but the easiest o deal with. Either you do nothing, procrastinate and only start reacting wen it is too late or you need to start somewhere.

The IPCC. And I don’t consider the spending trillions of dollars, impoverishing countries, destroying livelihoods, to achieve nothing (and almost certainly creating civil unrest in the process) the easy option.

Doing something simply for the sake of doing something is simply stupid and wasteful. And as I’ve been pointing out, the science simply doesn’t support the various doomsday theories.

*

If, as you appear to believe, climate change played a role in the Montreal flooding, surely you should be lobbying your government to implement a flood mitigation/prevention programme,

Quebec redraw flood maps this year
Offered to buy the homes (up to 200k which is very little for a home) in the new flood zones.

And?

*

not expecting other countries to impoverish themselves in the pure blind hope it will stop the flooding.

I am not, like I said repeatedly it is too late for these people. my question is what impoverishment would happen if the UK needs to redraw flood zones and needs to buy out people living in places like London the same way Quebec needed to do right now)

The Government would likely address the problem as and when it arises. Flooding happens [16]. Get over it.

[1] [Link: worldatlas.com]
[2] [Link: mothscount.org]
[3] [Link: judithcurry.com]
[4] [Link: lowcarboncontracts.uk]
[5] [Link: ref.org.uk]


[6]


[7]


[8]


[9] [Link: wattsupwiththat.com]
[10] [Link: notrickszone.com]
[11] [Link: notrickszone.com]
[12] [Link: notrickszone.com]
[13] [Link: notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com]
[14] [Link: notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com]
[15] [Link: notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com]
[16] [Link: bbc.co.uk]

first of all let me try and make it clear again. I think any big change is detrimental. To put it simply if you take a dolphin and put it in the desert it will die because it needs to be surrounded by water, if you take a camel and drop it in the middle of the ocean it will die because there is too much water and it will drown. If you take a tropical bird and leave it in Antarctica it won;’t survive but neither will a penguin in a tropical rain forest.

as for your link, I find it funny we both can read the same thing and get something completely different out of it

according to the link the two first ones where due to cooling (with a bit of a question mark on the second one), the third one and I quote “This mass extinction, is considered the worst in all history because around 96% of species were lost” and it was caused by “carbon dioxide” that caused global warming the last two (that destroyed dinosaurs) happened due to asteroids.




OK, so can we stop talking about cooling the same we we are not talking about the effect of our flying cars and weekend trips to Mars might be having? even though in the 60’s and 670’s thought some predicrted those as the reality of today back then?


I did not say they are tainted. I went out of my way to say “it can have natural causes” the problem is after the industrial revolution happened it became harder to tell what percent is of human origin.


I can’t help you find evidence to make your point because if I knew of any such evidence I would not hold the view I have. But the issue is you start with a wrong conclusion (like 6 cents is too cheap for electricity so it must be subsidised ) and then look for facts you think support your conclusion (expenses and market size ) that in the end are irrelevant.

What you are missing is the obvious, water wind and sun are like buying a house, you need a big down payment and then you mortgage the rest (i.e. for a home it might be a 100k check and a 2k monthly mortgage payment) on the other hand oil, gas, coal... will have that aspect as well to a lesser degree but for this argument is a lot like renting a place, (i.e. pay rent the first year of 1.8k) the issue is that over time the landlord will raise the rent and eventually it will be more than 2k on the other hand at some point that home will be paid off and that 2k will go down to 0

what you are missing when looking at Quebec is that the massive hydro projects started 50 years ago some of the bonds to pay for those projects have matured and paid off (like the last mortgage payment on a home) so the real cost for that portion is 0$ because you don’t need to pay water to flow.

now as for your idea of subsidy, at first I was going to link to Hydro Quebec's site and show you what I pay vs farmers (a bit less) industry (a bit less) and an article talking about the various export prices (even less) and ask you who is subsidizing who in this case. But 1) I see it more a s a whole sale discount than a subsidy and so I would not have been honest with myself, 2) it would have been more work, 3) IMHO it would not have proved that all of the prices were not subsidized. That link was easier and said it all. Now maybe you need a bit more context, so here it is. HQ is a company 100% owned by the government of Quebec once a year it pays (the government) a dividend base on last years numbers (for 2018 was 2.394B) and projects the total costs for the new years and then asks the government to OK the new consumer price based on those projected costs. the issue is both parties (gouvernemnet HQ) have a vested interest to over charge customers and there is a law to limit that gouging

1) yes the price is cheap per kwh, but don’t forget that in total cash this person is paying for electricity to heat their place roughly what you see in your table for electricity. The weather here gets much colder and for much longer.

2) this is an anti poverty advocate so yeah things might be a bit more “bleak” I get the first part of the statement (even though I would choose the library over a mall) but the second part is made to pull on heart strings, the simple truth is in 98 there was a major storm and we lost electricity for several days, the first day was not easy but the second day I had to move out. not because I was cold, but when the house reaches near 0 you need to shut down all the water (or risk frozen pipes and huge costs) and so until the electricity came back I was sleeping on my grand parents floor. Heating isn’t really a choice in this neck of the woods like it can be in some others.

3) Let me answer your question with my own what is worst: a) going to the mall; b) choosing between food and heating your apartment; c) dying in a heat wave? Every few years here the news talks about someone senile person getting locked out and freezing to death or a homeless person ding from the cold but every year there are several people that dye from the heat


I did not go out searching those sources, if their numbers are wrong point out the real and accurate numberrs. I was looking for info and those stuff and they were the first things to pop up. If the numbers are right then who cares who publisehes them?


first I never said you should heat electrically. Let’s take a fictional place where all electricity comes from coal and heating comes from coal would it make sense in any way shape or form to to change heat sources? no using coal to make electricity to heat a house is way more inefficient then using coal to heat a home.

yes there are batteries, and small scale ( using solar cells on a home with battery banks) they can work but not really in large scale. For the most part electricity can’t be stored and so that means no matter the source(s) grid balancing is necessary since supply must equal demand and demand is never static. On a hot spring day when I am at work and the temp outside = inside there is almost no electricity used at home. On the other hand on New years day when I am watching a film in my HT while the furnace is working full blast (because it is –27) and a turkey is cooking in the oven I am using a lot of electricity.

The issue is grid balancing has no added cost in and of itself. The issue arises when you need to supplement a cheap source of electricity with an expensive source of electricity. But you don't like the cheap sources

1). Big change may indeed be detrimental (as per the cataclysmic events which triggered the extinction events), but on a geological timescale what we are experiencing is not a big change. The present warming is well within the scope of natural variability. ^[1] It's politicians, scientists wishing to maintain their income stream and environmental extremists (all with various axes to grind) claiming otherwise in the hope it will stir the gullible into action. One could say some have completely lost the plot. ^{[2 & 3]}

*

2). One may be reading, but one is undoubtedly not understanding. Note what was said of the Late Devonian Extinction:

"Volcanic ash is thought to be responsible for cooling earth's temperatures which killed off the spiders and scorpion-type creatures that had made it on land by this time."

The cataclysmic events bringing about the Triassic–Jurassic and Cretaceous–Paleogene extinctions were, as you say, believed to be asteroid impacts. However, the resultant dust cloud triggered catastrophic climate change (as per the above) cooling the planet. (Note: Atmospheric pollution causing cooling is the central theme of Rasool and Schneider 1971 ^[4] - which, as previously explained, was published during the time of the global cooling scare. Note too that the same paper also claims the induced heating effect of CO₂ to be minimal.)

This leaves the Permian–Triassic extinction which may well be as a result of another sudden climatic shift, but to say it was caused by CO₂ is being somewhat disingenuous; as the following quote (you didn't reproduce) clearly states it was the result of an enormous volcanic eruption releasing CO₂.

"'The Great Dying' was caused by an enormous volcanic eruption that filled the air with carbon dioxide, which fed different kinds of bacteria that began emitting large amounts of methane. The Earth warmed, and the oceans became acidic."

(Note: Again as previously explained, an upwelling of CO₂ can have serious consequences: ^[5] the reason for my concern over the storage component of CCS.)

It could be argued that in regards to the Permian-Triassic Extinction, the conclusions voiced in the article run contrary to the findings of Rasool and Schneider and the known understanding of CO₂ lagging temperature change. The argument, however, is moot as none of the above supports your assertion that planetary warming is more detrimental to life than cooling - something you've inadvertently affirmed when you later go on to say:

"…yes the price is cheap per kWh, but don’t forget that in total cash this person is paying for electricity to heat their place roughly what you see in your table for electricity. The weather here gets much colder and for much longer."

*

3). Unless one is an environmental extremist, it's recognised that CO₂ didn't become an issue (if, indeed, it is an issue) until the 1950/60s; thus, my two examples are perfectly valid. What you are also failing to recognise is that contrary to MSM reports, extreme weather events are occurring less frequently - which is a regular theme of Tony Heller's videos. This, of course, doesn't sit well with the gatekeepers of historical temperature data sets, as they are presently busying themselves rewriting temperature history - cooling the past and warming the present to support the illusion of there being a more significant warming effect than there has been. I would call this fraud, you may disagree, but whatever it is it isn't science.

*

4). Comparing investment in dispatchable hydro with non-synchronous sources such as wind and solar is like comparing apples to oranges. This has been made abundantly clear by the evidence and expert testimony I've provided. Your simplistic economic model doesn't work with present renewable technologies.

*

5). If one wishes to infer something unintended from a simple throwaway comment so be it. The reality, however, is I care not one jot about your paying 6 cents a unit. I do, though, care that someone who, while benefitting from almost 100% dispatchable hydropower, is trying to lecture me on the economics of non-synchronous generation; i.e. that it's perfectly viable and cheap when all the evidence, my practical experience and the expert testimony from those having worked in the industry is screaming no it isn't and never will be.

*

6). Pray tell how one can determine whether the 'answers' published by The Carbon Brief are correct or not when they do not provide the data and analysis upon which they are based? However, as previously stated, a measure of the report's worth can be determined by the inclusion of biomass in the renewables column, when even (as the TCB themselves report - in the same article) the CCC now sees biomass as being non-renewable. Putting it in its rightful place and their whole analysis and claim, if my figure for 3rd quarter biomass production is anything to go by, gets shot to pieces.

As previously explained, my analysis is based upon the freely available GridWatch data. This data appears to come from unimpeachable sources and as such also gives cause to question the validity of the TCB article. I do not, however, claim it to be 'correct' as I have no means of verifying traceability.

Note: One would do well to read this paper ^[6] on the Limitations of 'Renewable' Energy; the conclusions of which goes thus:

"In the years since I was first tempted to engage in trying to understand the real issues behind power generation - especially electrical power generation - there is, above all, one salient feature that emerges across the board. Sanity and rationalism have been cast aside, and the whole arena is now a political and ideological battleground whose main protagonists understand little or nothing about the industry they seek to bend to suit their ideological (and possibly commercial) needs.

"In short, the world is full of people who have an opinion about power generation, who understand nothing about how it actually works or even what actually works. They will readily believe contrary things at the same time. They believe the governments when it tells them that climate change must be addressed by renewable energy, they disbelieve it when it quietly lets slip that nuclear disasters are not actually disasters on much of a scale at all. They believe scientists who tell them that climate change is a proven fact, and it’s all the fault of Big Oil, they don't believe scientists who tell them that if that is so, the remedy is, in fact, nuclear power.

"Government policies are riddled with contradictions. Merkel shuts nuclear power stations and builds dirty brown coal ones, instead - the renewables don't work, and industry can't afford to continue funding the lost cause, but politically that can't be admitted, because with a PR system and enough Greens to hold the balance of power, the minority lunatic fringe must be kept appeased. The UK is in a similar position with a coalition comprised of people who know that nuclear power is needed, and are deeply sceptical of renewables, but are hamstrung by their coalition partners utter determination to drive it off the face of the planet and install windmills irrespective of their actual benefit.

"It’s a political minefield. One of the most telling statements I ever read came from a Danish paper ^[7] some years back. It bears repeating.

'Hitherto, the radical transformation of the Danish energy system has almost entirely been driven by economic considerations based on technical feasibility. The recent imposition of arbitrary targets by politicians that require unquestioning implementation by the infrastructure suppliers, without any apparent estimates of costs, is a relatively new and worrying departure for the way Denmark is organized.

The very fact that the wind power system, that has been imposed so expensively upon the consumers, cannot and does not achieve the simple objectives for which it was built, should be warning the energy establishment, at all levels, of the considerable gap between aspiration and reality. [My bold]

Denmark needs a proper debate and a thorough re-appraisal of the technologies that need to be invented, developed and costed before forcing the country into a venture that shows a high risk of turning into an economic black hole.'

"Rational scientific analysis shows conclusively that renewable energy cannot ever deliver on the very basis that it has been sold to the public. It's not cheap, it's anything but free, it’s not environmentally desirable, it offers no energy security, and it cannot exist in isolation from other technologies that are either even more costly than itself is or have grave risks associated with them. [My bold]

"What we find when we analyse the intermittency problem, is that intermittent non-dispatchable power actually carries very little value at all. What society requires, is dispatchable power – power that can be on tap when it’s required, and turned off when it's not, and it requires, in addition, a large component of cheap baseload power, that never needs to be turned off. What it does not require is wilful power that's here today and gone tomorrow.

"You cannot run a country on volunteers who turn up for work when they want to, and at other times don't (and take up 1000 times the office space of your normal workers even when they don't turn up at all). If the power density of renewable energy makes it large, awkward, expensive, and environmentally challenging, the intermittency destroys its value completely. It is not something you can engineer out either: if the fuel supply is intermittent, lacking storage, so too will be the output. And the fond hope that engineers can build anything you want given enough time and money is total fantasy. We simply do not know how to build storage - we do not even know where to begin - that is better than fossil or nuclear fuel in terms of cost, size and safety considerations. If we did, we would long ago have done it - and halved the capital cost of the rest of the grid in the process.

"The renewable lobby must know this. They simply seem not to care. If you look at the complete range of political pressures applied to the power industry worldwide, it benefits only one set of people: those engaged in the construction and supply of renewable technologies, and gas. Policies, when examined, result in no significant emissions reductions, but only increase profits for a minority. In fact, it makes more sense to regard the renewable energy business as a pure piece of cynical marketing with only profit in mind. They compare apples with oranges, and the solution is bananas! The cost metrics and the utility of renewable energy are simply not comparable with conventional plant. But by pretending that they are, hidden costs are brushed aside, and conclusions reached that are plainly fraudulent. [My bold]

"Above all, this emotional narrative of renewable energy has to march forward on the fundamental assumption that it is, in the end, the only long term solution to global energy needs. That no matter how outlandish, or costly, or complex it gets, the alternative is a fossil stripped world with no power at all.

"And yet, the actual reality that nuclear power can do everything that renewable energy claims to be able to do (but fails to achieve) at a fraction of the cost and far, far better, must not be allowed to gain traction. Reason must not be allowed to prevail. Affordable zero-carbon power that is clean safe and be tucked into a corner of the country and largely forgotten? No way! Not when you own a gas field in Azerbaijan or Texas. Or your wife is on the board of a wind power company...

"And if you are not concerned about climate change (and let's face it, a world with no electricity at all is a lot more terrifying than one a degree warmer) there's several hundred years of coal, which the Chinese will be burning anyway."

Of further interest may be Orsted’s latest research showing wind farms slowing wind speeds more than previously believed. ^[8] This will obviously impinge upon output, but what of the effects on local weather conditions, particularly if we continue down the path of mega off-shore wind farms? Could this be yet another environmental own-goal?

*

7). "First I never said you should heat electrically."

And at a stroke one highlights just how little one has taken on board what I have been saying.

I never said you said it, and I entirely agree to its being madness to replace a cheap heating option with one being circa three times as expensive. That, however, is precisely one of the options being faced by UK consumers if the CCC have their way and remove natural gas as a domestic energy source.

All this (and more) is detailed above, but clearly you've not troubled yourself to read (or if you have understood) it. Indeed your comments, vis-à-vis The Carbon Brief article ("I did not go out searching those sources..." "I was looking for info and those stuff, and they were the first things to pop up."), epitomises the lack of rigour in your research and arguments. Furthermore, your determination to maintain a belief in the cheapness of wind and solar renewables, in the face of a vast wealth of substantial physical evidence, academic studies and industry veterans explicitly explaining otherwise, illustrates your complete lack of rational thinking on the subject.

As I said previously, the bottom line is that wind, and solar renewables do not reduce electricity cost, they increase it. This is a demonstrably proven fact no matter what you, The Carbon Brief or the MSM might think. ^[9]


[1]

[2] [Link: notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com]
[3] [Link: notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com]
[4] [Link: pubs.giss.nasa.gov]
[5] [Link: en.wikipedia.org]
[6] [Link: templar.co.uk]
[7] [Link: templar.co.uk]
[8] [Link: orsted.com]


[9]