- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is from Net Zero Watch, formerly The Global Warming Policy Foundation. It is easily digestible for me and claims to demonstrate that estimates of usable generation from wind, is possibly overestimated by up to a third.
Raises the possibility, that they know they won’t be able to produce electricity in anywhere near the required levels from renewables. And are well aware they can’t…_
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/whitehall-predictions-meet-real-world-data
And just to keep you all up to date…_ https://gridwatch.co.uk
Net Zero Nonsense, the lunacy must be close to peaking by now.
Thinking will have to come back to earth – soon.Quote BBC
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused Labour of “adding even more burdens on farmers”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gpv0qx9wxoThe U.K.’s population is growing, primarily because of migration, and is projected to reach 70 million in 2026,
that’s next year.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uks-changing-population/Hang on a moment, won’t increasing the population lead to increasing the need for food ?
Quote BBC
To meet environmental targets, 9% of England’s farmland will need to be converted into forests and animal habitats, according to new proposals released by the Labour government.
The benchmark was set out in a consultation launched on Friday by Environment Secretary Steve Reed, external on managing England’s land to prioritise food production, Net Zero targets and nature.
In total, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) predict nearly a fifth of the U.K.’s farming land will need to cut agricultural use but argue greater efficiencies on the remaining land could maintain U.K. food production at current levels.
Can’t we have some joined up thinking, please?
Perhaps the new government thinking includes keeping cattle in indoors concrete sheds?Peak NetZero? ….am I the first person to coin that phrase. I must check the dictionary.
Well, I can find NetZero, but not Peak NetZero. I hope the OED credits me properly when the time comes.
I don’t believe the 10% of land for the ecopaths will see the light of day…_
30 January 2025
The United Kingdom has restated ambitious plans to reduce its emissions of Planet-Warming-Greenhouse-Gases by 81% by 2035, but has not explained how it will achieve the goal?In a new action plan submitted to the United Nations, the government also signed up to global goals to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030.
That’s quite impressive Labour Government.
The country is going down the pan at a really fast rate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyv4g7000m4oNuclear 12% Biomass 7% Wind 24% Solar 5% Hydro 1%.
Less than 50% with today’s temperatures.CCGT (Gas) 36% Imports 14%
The fantasy of NetZero is unsustainable…_29 Jun 2021
Chris Wright, (Liberty Energy) Trump nominee for Energy Secretary chatting with Dr. Steven Koonin, author of Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nizA7hjZg9c&t=2054sI’ve printed out this topic today, sealed it in a metal container and buried it in the garden. Perhaps in a few years when the last of the hairless apes that once populated this planet is foraging for food, they may happen upon it. A small possibility of course, but if they can still read and understand a little, perhaps it may provide them with a little enlightenment if not an explanation as to why their species collapsed towards extinction and why they are now living underground eating insects.
Chris Wright, Trump’s pick for Energy Secretary
In a video posted to LinkedIn in January 2023, he said, “There is no climate crisis and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition either”. He claimed that the climate movement around the world was “collapsing under its own weight”.He also said that the term “carbon pollution” is misleading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Wright_(energy_executive)Now you may say , that this person has made his fortune in Fracking, that would be true.
However I suppose Chris Wright and Dr. Steve Koonin and others are still allowed to hold the other side of the argument, that we are not all going to fry in a fireball, anytime soon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._KooninDr. Steve Koonin isn’t somebody who has been front and centre of my thinking. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has been in discussions I’ve watched or articles I’ve read. He should be a person of interest to anybody in the climate debate. Chris Wright is a total unknown to me, will research him.
Dr. Koonin has been commented on by the Skeptical Science blog. Remember, never smile at a crocodile…_
https://skepticalscience.com/review-koonin-unsettled.htmlThis is how close we have come to blackouts recently. It is not a good situation. This is from Net Zero Watch/ Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Go, Miliband, go…_
“NESO is currently able to manage falling inertia, but the regularity with which frequency is drifting outside operational bounds is a cause for concern. As the energy transition progresses, this task will become increasingly difficult, and the risk of blackouts will rise”
2 February 2025 in England
Wind turbine burns out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rq4yqe4z4o
The Coldham Wind Farm in the Fens, Cambridgeshire
Coldham Wind Farm was constructed in 2005 and is a joint project between ScottishPower Renewables and the Co-operative GroupApparently wind turbines are built with a 21 year life expectancy.
The gearboxes last about seven years.
So, three rebuilds of gearbox per life expectancy.
“20 – 25 pecent of working wind turbine life costs, are due to work on gear boxes”
The bigger the turbine the less working time they have.
The full spec working time per wind turbine if less than 50%
So, the rated spec for a wind farm, will achieve nothing like that over its twenty year working life.
Basically, it is a ponzi scheme, to benefit mates of politicians.Half a century ago, 85% of energy was from Hydrocarbons, today it is still 85%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmICJPvUx44
So, for forty years we have been obsessing about Global Warming and CO2 release, so what has changed?
Not much.
As Trump pulls out of Paris accord and shouts drill baby drill, we might as well throw in the towel for Net Zero, the quicker the better, if we are to save any U.K. jobs.Has not much changed?
Temperatures have changed
See the accompanying infosheet: Global Temperature Record, by Tim Osborn & Phil Jones.Fat Jon, your link does not work for me.
Perhaps you could let us know , what is your thinking?
Please.
—
[ Mod: The error with the embedded image has now been rectified, and an explanatory link added.There are many related graphs using similar datasets on the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit page for Global Temperature 2024. ]
Fat Jon,
in this group, we are supposed to let people have an insight to our thinking, not just put up website url.
Half a century ago 85% of energy use was from Hydrocarbons.
Today the same is true.
Do you dispute these figures?
Perhaps the World has warmed between one and two degrees, since the end of The Little Ice-Age.
So what.Aniakchak began erupting at least 850,000 years ago.
At least forty eruptions took place since the end of the last glacial maxim.
Equivalent to one eruption every 340 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Aniakchak
Aniakchack Two eruption
about three and a half thousand years ago, contemporarily with the Santorini event, which might have been the last knockings of the bronze age.
Massive volcanic eruptions, can have devastating world wide effects, on climate and on people.All of which has conveniently bypassed explaining the reasons for the acceleration of the upward graph in the last 40 years.
Mind you, this is nothing new – as most deniers have been trying to avoid explaning this graph for decades.
We burnt vast amounts of coal in the 19th century, and yet the global temperatures didn’t skyrocket. Yes, they are hydrocarbons in the broad sense, but maybe the majority of the carbon in coal is turned into soot, which being composed of relatively large particles, gets deposited back on the ground?
There seems to have been a rapid rise between the world wars, and yet after that the graph remains relatively calm for the next 35 years. Something very significant happened around 1980.
Could it be that the switch from coal to natural gas has triggered the warming, coupled with a switch away from more socialist transport of trains and buses, towards private cars and jet aircraft holidays is responsible for this?
To me, the last few years of that graph are nothing short of frightening, and it may be that we have passed a tipping point from which we cannot return. It certainly looks as if nothing short of a 10 year global recession would turn that trend in the opposite direction.
My question must be, how many more years of this has to happen before the “drill baby, drill” psychopaths get the message?
Currently, 66% of our electricity is being produced by North Sea Gas, essentially Methane.
Yet in four and a half years, Ed Milliband has pledged to cut most of this out?Fat Jon, that graph is quite interesting.
I expect the upwards shoot from 1980, is mostly from Asia, industrialising.MN: “Fat Jon,
in this group, we are supposed to let people have an insight to our thinking, not just put up website url.”I’m afraid that’s totally untrue, Michael.
No such rule exists. I set up this subject for testing the assertions of denialists – and you have no respect for that whatsoever.
Fat Jon disproved your evidence-free assertion. Could you address it? That’s what this thread is for.
Ed Milliband said he “Utterly rejects that there is a choice between economic growth and Net Zero, arguing that clean energy provides the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century for jobs and the planet.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yd828009wo
Ed Milliband agrees with whatever the government, as a whole, agree.
He can personally think that more runways are not a good idea but if he wishes to keep his job, he must keep quiet.
He may not like opening up Rosebank but he must keep silent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosebank_oil_and_gas_fieldHere is the rub, we have shut down all of our coal fired electricity production facilities.
Our base load is North Sea Gas and Nuclear.
Most of our Nuclear plants are old.
Essentially Methane is unlimited, at least for the next hundred years or so.
The Eastern Mediterranean Methane Basin, if it ever comes on stream will have enough Natural Gas for North Africa, Europe and the Middle East for at least one hundred years.
Hinkley Point C is not expected to come on stream till the early 2030’s.
https://www.building.co.uk/buildings/hinkley-point-c-building-britains-first-nuclear-reactor-in-30-years/5130997.article#:~:text=Originally%20scheduled%20to%20complete%20in,lessons%20from%20two%20earlier%20projects%3F
Ed Milliband claims our Electricity Grid will be 95% Carbon free in four years time?
Maybe in twenty five years time, it could be achieved, four and a bit years, is just stupid.“Essentially Methane is unlimited, at least for the next hundred years or so.”
Classic. Keep ‘em coming.
Thankfully, reports entering the parliamentary scrutiny system are becoming more objective and questioning.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has warned of the risks involved with the unproven technology, at scale, for Carbon Capture, Utilisation & Storage (CCUS) Considering the total costs are estimated at £22 billion, which will be in the region of £800 p.a. for households.
Wether the costs go up or down is not my criticism, it’s why the all in on something we know little about.If any of you are interested, you should do the maths on how many of these projects would be needed on a global scale. The numbers are off the radar…_
“Essentially Methane is unlimited, at least for the next hundred years or so.”
It may be, but you had better make sure any of it doesn’t escape into the atmosphere because it is 80 (eighty) times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
As an amusing aside, Susie Dent (a wordsmith in the ‘i’ newspaper) wrote the following the other day:
Word of the Day is ‘bayard’ (16th century): one who has the supreme self-confidence of ignorance.Rather fitting!
Agree with that. The so-called transition to a green economy is mostly bull-shit. Carbon capture being a prime example. Even at a local level, the eco-initiatives are poorly structured and little more than a cash cow for the installers. Products are cheap and ineffective; properties having cavity wall insulation when it isn’t needed and usually leads to dampness in older properties by reducing airflow.
There is no way the world is going to magically transition to a fossil fuel free world. Just isn’t going to happen, not by human agreement and collaboration. Persuading smokers to give up cigarettes tomorrow would be easier and more likely successful. So we’re leaving this new generation of children to learn the hardest of lessons: That their parents and those before them were too selfish and stupid to reign in their excess and greed.
The only way humanity will prevail is if there is a sudden and significant depopulation to < 1 billion globally. If the event was uniform then the UK population would be less than 1 million. If that seems extreme, the probable alternate is extinction.
Ah well. Perhaps Mother Nature will conjure up a Divine Intervention soon, given the increasing seismic and volcanic activity in a remarkably similar geological landscape and circumstance when Krakatoa erupted. A horrible prospect for sure, but perhaps our best chance of survival and salvation. Should an underwater explosive eruption occur near Santorini then a major tsunami will likely decimate the Greek islands, Turkish coastline, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula and Saudi Arabia. Look at the geography and maps.
And the impact won’t just be felt there.
Isn’t there a scenario where volcanic activity in the Azores or Canaries, results in a collapse of an underwater caldera which results in a 20 metre tsunami crossing the Atlantic and engulfing the entire east coast of the USA?.
