Rain Forest

[Jools 584]

Delingpole: Cambridge Prof – UK’s Green Energy Targets Require ‘Herds of Unicorns’

The green energy targets being pursued by Britain’s main political parties are so impossibly deluded, fantastical and overambitious that they could only be achievable with the intervention of herds of magical unicorns.

So says Cambridge engineering professor Michael Kelly in a stinging rebuke to the Net Zero policies currently being championed by Boris Johnson and his rivals in their desperate race to the green bottom. The Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats are all committed to carbon emissions reduction targets which they cannot hope to attain and which will be hugely damaging both to Britain’s prosperity and freedoms.

Professor Kelly has said:

“For the world to reverse two centuries of industrial development in a few decades would require the efforts of herds of unicorns.”

Kelly was speaking in London at the annual lecture of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

His speech – Energy Utopias and Engineering Reality – is a much needed corrective to the view, shockingly prevalent among the groupthink-afflicted political class not just in Britain but throughout most Western economies, that dramatic decarbonisation is both desirable and possible.

According to Kelly, one of the few serious thinkers to have considered the practical implications of taking an economy ‘Net Zero’, decarbonisation is neither desirable nor possible – at least not outside a 400-year time frame.

Green evangelists often talk about decarbonisation being the next Moon landing – one of those massive projects which the weight of government can get behind to create a better future.

But in fact, Kelly argues, the better analogy is President Nixon’s 1971 State of the Nation address in which he promised to throw whatever funds were necessary to finding a cure for cancer. Five decades on the cure remains elusive.

Kelly says:

So the recent academic plea for mass leave of absence to ‘save the planet’ was quite misleading in appealing to the moon-shot as an exemplar – climate is more akin to the cancer example.

The target of decarbonising the world economy by 2050, he argues, is unrealistically ambitious.

In order to keep global temperatures to within 1.5◦C of pre-industrial levels, we intend to eliminate emissions of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide) by replacing all the energy developments since about 1880 with zero-carbon alternatives. This is to be achieved by 2050. Even reaching the old target of an 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would be miraculous; this is a level of emissions not seen since 1880. I assert that a herd of unicorns will be needed to deliver this target, let alone full decarbonisation. I also point out the utter nonsense of Extinction Rebellion’s demands to complete the task by 2025.

Whatever paltry efforts Western economies make to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels are being dwarfed by a developing world which is hungry for real, reliable energy.

One notes that we have not had an ‘energy transition’: fossil fuels have continued to grow steadily at a rate about 7–8 times that of renewable technologies over the last 20 years. The energy demand of the major developed countries has been static or in small decline over that period. Most of the increase has come from growth in the global middle class, which increased by 1.5 billion people in the 20 years to 2015. The World Bank is anticipating a further increase of 2.5 billion by 2035, much of it the result of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and BP estimate a further 40% growth in global energy demand by then.

In the UK there has been a steady fall in carbon dioxide emissions since 1990. But in the international context, this is entirely pointless.

However, UK decreases are dwarfed by global increases. After no-growth years in 2016 and 2017, global carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3% in 2018. European emissions fell but the growth in all the other parts of the world was 17 times greater.

Worse, Britain’s – and Europe’s – decarbonisation has been achieved only at great cost to the economy, particularly with regards to balance of payments. UK manufacture has simply been offshored to China.

Figure 9 shows the increasing deficit of the UK balance of payments with respect to manufactures since then. In other words, a significant proportion of our emissions have been exported to China and elsewhere. Indeed, over the period 1991– 2007, the emissions associated with rising imports almost exactly cancelled the UK emissions reduction!

He adds:

Some of the measures introduced by the Climate Change Committee have actually made global emissions worse. Where we once smelted aluminium using electricity generated from a mixture of nuclear, gas and coal, we now import our aluminium from China where electricity is nearly all made from coal. What is worse, the smelter in Anglesey had a contract to use more electricity when the local demand was low (at night and on weekends); costs were kept lower for everyone. Now the smelter has gone, local consumers have to pay more for their electricity as the generators are less efficiently used.

This is not – it hardly needs stating – a good look for all those political parties claiming to want to help workers and revive business in the regions: on energy and the environment, they are all pushing the very policies guaranteed to make British regional workers suffer.

Even were decarbonising Western economies practicable – which it is not – its putative benefits would be more than offset by the much more dramatic increase in carbon emissions from economies like India and China.

Kelly likens this to one group of people (the Western economies) digging tiny holes only to have another group (India, China etc) appearing with relays of wheelbarrows to fill them up again – and more.

I now have a simple pragmatic question to ask. Suppose I agree to pay you £100 to dig a two-metre-deep hole for me to bury family treasure. You set about digging, but find your progress thwarted by a hundred people with wheelbarrows full of earth coming to fill in your hole. What would you do? Keep on digging regardless or stop and try to find out what is going on? To your protest that you are being paid to dig a hole, you are told that the others are being paid much more to fill in any holes that appear!

At this time there are people in several countries, including both the United Kingdom and New Zealand, both of whose passports I hold, who are straining to turn off the last coal-fired power stations in the cause of climate change mitigation. But the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, the largest civil engineering project in the world, will help over 2 billion people in West Asia and Africa out of poverty and hunger over the next 30 years, just as earlier projects took 600 million people in China from rural squalor to middle-class comfort over the last 20 years. The initiative will include 700 new coal-fired power stations, over a third of which are currently being built. I do not support the neo-colonialist tendencies associated with the initiative, but it will go further than any other project to deliver the first and second of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals: the elimination of world poverty and hunger. The climatic Sustainable Development Goal is number 13 on this list.

Professor Kelly’s speech ought to be required reading for the Britain’s political class and its attendant Civil Service, mired as they are in green groupthink. Exposure to the facts confounding their uncosted, ill-considered green virtue-signalling might well cause their heads collectively to explode. But given how badly their pie-in-the-sky policies have betrayed the people they’re supposed to serve perhaps that would be no bad thing.

 

by James Delingpole

[TCCANARY 263]

Still trying to make Delingpole credible?

Everyone else gave up ages ago.

 

[Barbe bleu 814]

50 minutes ago, Jools said:

And your environmental policies are .....?

Fair question.   I agree nuclear is a good long term option.  We also need a mix of renewables, including  tidal as its the most reliable and predictable with peaking power by hydro,  municipal waste incineration and shale gas.

 

Short term end all coal, phase out north sea gas and invest in a renewable mix.

Medium term we must do so much more to reduce and regulate demand.   Renewables (except tidal) are by their nature variable and we must be prepared to drop demand when supply drops as energy storage is going to be an increasing problem.

 

I dont think any bird has ever died as a result of a wind turbine though...

 

[Jools 584]

4 minutes ago, TCCANARY said:

Still trying to make Delingpole credible?

Everyone else gave up ages ago.

 

Really? Did you bother reading the speech included in Delingpole's article by Cambridge engineering professor Michael Kelly?

[Herman 9,713]

1 hour ago, Jools said:

And your environmental policies are .....?

If we could utilise the power of old windbags we could get rid of fossil fuels overnight. 

[TCCANARY 263]

35 minutes ago, Jools said:

Really? Did you bother reading the speech included in Delingpole's article by Cambridge engineering professor Michael Kelly?

Even the people Delingpole quotes are a bit dodgy. Kelly's bio reads like a man desperate for the energy industry to give loads of cash for 'research'.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

And your environmental policies are .....?

Instead of look for arguments against each time, look for the arguments that say the cost of building  new reactors is greater than putting up enough wind turbines to satisfy our current needs.

Now we know the Surrey folk will not want them in the area so the rest of us will have to have their share in our areas,

How long to build a new reactor? Who finances it? Who profits from it?

[Barbe bleu 814]

28 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

And your environmental policies are .....?

Instead of look for arguments against each time, look for the arguments that say the cost of building  new reactors is greater than putting up enough wind turbines to satisfy our current needs.

Now we know the Surrey folk will not want them in the area so the rest of us will have to have their share in our areas,

How long to build a new reactor? Who finances it? Who profits from it?

That's true but what if the wind refuses to blow? We need a balanced ecosystem of power generation. Each method compensating for a weakness elsewhere

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

That's true but what if the wind refuses to blow? We need a balanced ecosystem of power generation. Each method compensating for a weakness elsewhere

Solar and wave have potential and must not just be **** pooed because they don't fit with people's entrenched ideas of energy.

Of course, using a lot less would help.

We use two loads in the washing machine each day and there is me, my wife and one grandson. And the smart meter goes into red as soon as it is switched on. We all shower at least once a day, hence the washing of towels. We eat very generous portions of food all cooked by a gas cooker. Gas central heating that goes on as soon as Mrs KG feels a bit parkey. And endless electrical items that must consume some portion of electricity.

 

[kick it off 1,948]

4 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Fair question.   I agree nuclear is a good long term option.  We also need a mix of renewables, including  tidal as its the most reliable and predictable with peaking power by hydro,  municipal waste incineration and shale gas.

 

Short term end all coal, phase out north sea gas and invest in a renewable mix.

Medium term we must do so much more to reduce and regulate demand.   Renewables (except tidal) are by their nature variable and we must be prepared to drop demand when supply drops as energy storage is going to be an increasing problem.

 

I dont think any bird has ever died as a result of a wind turbine though...

 

Agree, except for the part about Shale gas - Fracking is suspended in this country for good reason - it's far too damaging to the environment and ecosystems. Pollutes water, air and causes earthquakes - not a viable solution or one we should even consider

[Van wink 2,994]

Jools post quoting Prof Kelly has a lot of merit. Kelly isnt a climate change denier, he is fundamentally an engineer seeking realistic achievable solutions, Delingpole will recruit apparant supporters without fully understanding their position.

For me the issue Kelly raises about powering huge conurbations has merit and I dont have a problem with fusion as part of a balanced energy solution to reduce the accelerating speed of climate change.

As for the geopolitical issues, they obviously need different solutions.

[Barbe bleu 814]

18 minutes ago, Van wink said:

 I dont have a problem with fusion as part of a balanced energy solution to reduce the accelerating speed of climate change.

Really?  You dont see even a small problem with this?

I'm not sure how much I trust an academic piece with five references, all his own...

[Van wink 2,994]

8 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Really?  You dont see even a small problem with this?

I'm not sure how much I trust an academic piece with five references, all his own...

I certainly see a problem with nuclear but it’s a question of how do you get a realistic and rapid approach to reducing carbon emissions. I’m not advocating nuclear on its own, far from it, but it should not be disregarded as a component in a wider energy strategy.

[Barbe bleu 814]

13 hours ago, Van wink said:

I certainly see a problem with nuclear but it’s a question of how do you get a realistic and rapid approach to reducing carbon emissions. I’m not advocating nuclear on its own, far from it, but it should not be disregarded as a component in a wider energy strategy.

I was being cheeky (unless of course you have cracked how to contain a fusion reaction)

I do think that nuclear energy should play a key role in our energy future

[Van wink 2,994]

52 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I was being cheeky (unless of course you have cracked how to contain a fusion reaction)

I do think that nuclear energy should play a key role in our energy future

Well Boris has apparantly pledged £200M to develop a fusion reactor by 2040, He's having to work very hard to contain lots of things blowing up in his face atm😉

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I just wonder about the management of energy. It has to come back into Government ownership for safety and profit management.

The cost of reactors is so high and the risk while perhaps minimal is still possible. I am hopeful that natural renewables will be pursued. R and D into fusion can still be supported. 

[Herman 9,713]

Meanwhile in Venice.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/15/venice-council-flooded-moments-after-rejecting-climate-crisis-plan

[Van wink 2,994]

"Veneto’s regional council rejected a plan to combat climate change minutes before its offices on the Grand Canal, in Venice, were flooded, it has emerged as the city continues to battle high water levels."

 

Bit like Aussie plans to exploit coal reserves and the country burns.

 

 

[Van wink 2,994]

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/amazon-deforestation-fires-brazil-bolsonaro-record-highest-level-inpe-a9208106.html

 

Somebody needs to grab this f.cker by the throat!

Edited November 18, 2019 by Van wink

[kick it off 1,948]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/amazon-deforestation-fires-brazil-bolsonaro-record-highest-level-inpe-a9208106.html

 

Somebody needs to grab this f.cker by the throat!

Chuck him in the ****ing fire and be done with it. He's an utter ****.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

When you look at the size of the areas, it is just figures. But in reality its probably Norfolk and Suffolk together.

The rest of the world's governments have to try and figure a way to sort this out.

[kick it off 1,948]

On 19/11/2019 at 10:36, keelansgrandad said:

When you look at the size of the areas, it is just figures. But in reality its probably Norfolk and Suffolk together.

The rest of the world's governments have to try and figure a way to sort this out.

Its 2000 football pitches per day - an area the size of the UK every year.

[Van wink 2,994]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/endangered-sumatran-elephants-found-dead-poisoned-electrocuted-indonesia-wwf-a9213646.html

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases once again reached new highs in 2018.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2 was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.

Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also surged by above average amounts.

Since 1990 there's been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.

What concerns scientists is the overall warming impact of all these increasing concentrations. Known as total radiative forcing, this effect has increased by 43% since 1990, and is not showing any indication of stopping.

Another bit of information for the deniers, with all their expertise, to call poppycock.

[Van wink 2,994]

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-11-25/zimbabwe-africa-drought-elephant-climate-crisis/

Having been to Hwange National Park this makes me weep.

[Van wink 2,994]

8 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases once again reached new highs in 2018.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2 was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.

Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also surged by above average amounts.

Since 1990 there's been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.

What concerns scientists is the overall warming impact of all these increasing concentrations. Known as total radiative forcing, this effect has increased by 43% since 1990, and is not showing any indication of stopping.

Another bit of information for the deniers, with all their expertise, to call poppycock.

This is really bad news, I'm not sure how much delay is built in to the cause and effect but it would appear that we are doing nowhere near enough! I seem to recall ozone depleters continued to rise for some time even after a lot was done to reduce them, a time lag, hopefully the same happening here but I very much doubt it.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Van wink

[Mr Apples 1,317]

The chart shown on this page illustrates nicely the increasing temperature trend. 👍

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50547073

Apples

[ron obvious 1,499]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#374f39212d6a

 

[Van wink 2,994]

Climate change debate on CH 4.....BJ running scared again. 

[kick it off 1,948]

3 hours ago, Van wink said:

Climate change debate on CH 4.....BJ running scared again. 

I'm surprised to see the media keep making headlines out of it. At this point, it's more of a story if he faces up to scrutiny. Him running away is par for the course now.