Bjorn Lomborg points to cold facts of global warming

Bjorn Lomborg has written a powerful piece in the Weekend Australian which looks at the “cost” of climate emergency driven policy. It makes a complete mockery of the people who tell us we must save the planet with their prescriptions. Although CM has made the assertion many times that politicians make promises which are so unaffordable for so little return that it makes no economic sense. The hypocrisy of signatories is also telling.

Some of the choice quotes,

After New Zealand made its 2050 zero emissions promise, the government commissioned a report on the costs. This found that achieving this goal in the most cost-effective manner (which strains credulity because policy seldom if ever manages to be cost efficient) would cost more than last year’s entire national budget on social security, welfare, health, education, police, courts, defence, environment and every other part of government combined. Each and every year.

To replace a 1ha gas-fired power plant, society needs 73ha of solar panels, 239ha of onshore wind turbines or an unbelievable 6000ha of biomass...We often hear that wind and solar energy are cheaper than fossil fuels, but at best that is true only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. It is deeply misleading to compare the energy cost of wind or solar to fossil fuels only when it is windy and sunny

Most people think renewables are overwhelmingly made up of solar and wind. Nothing could be further from the truth. Solar and wind contributed only 2.4 per cent of the EU total energy demand in 2017, according to the latest numbers from the International Energy Agency. Another 1.7 per cent came from hydro and 0.4 per cent from geothermal energy…In comparison, 10 per cent — more than two-thirds of all the ­renewable energy in the EU — comes from the world’s oldest ­energy source: [burning] wood.

Today, fewer than 0.3 per cent of all cars are electric, and even if we could reach 200 million electric cars in 2040, the IEA estimates this would ­reduce emissions by less than 1 per cent. That is why, in the face of years of failure, politicians have continued doing one thing: making ever bigger promises.

The promises made in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and in the Kyoto Treaty in 1997 fell apart. A new study of the promises made under the Paris Agreement finds that of almost 200 signatories, only 17 countries — the likes of Samoa and Algeria — are living up to them, and these are succeeding mostly because they promised so little. But even if every country did everything promised in the Paris Agreement, the emission cuts by 2030 would add up to only 1 per cent of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2C.

UK’s utterly mad electricity operator

The defunct Rugeley power station in Staffordshire

The National Grid Electricity System Operator (NGESO) has said the UK has not used coal-fired power for a week, the first time since 1882. Hooray! High fives all round! NGESO director, Fintan Slye, believes that UK electricity generation could be zero carbon by 2025. What you will read points to the utter madness and inadequate planning that will crush the grid in winter if zero carbon happens. He clearly doesn’t believe in energy poverty, something 331,000 Germans suffered from in 2017.

Let’s look at the latest UK energy mix published by OFGEM.

Coal: 4.8%

Gas: 32.8%

Nuclear: 13.2%

Hydro: 1.95%

Wind/Solar: 15.16%

Biomass: 7.68%

There is an irony to hear the UK government will phase out coal by 2025. It is hardly a goal to phase out 1% per year. How is it possible to zero carbon by 2025 with a junking of 37.6% of the grid? Crank up nuke? Biomass, which is more environmentally unfriendly than coal?

Maybe Mr Slye should read its own endorsed reports?

The Summer Outlook 2019 notes,

Gas Demand – during the summer gas-fired electricity generation becomes a more significant component of GB demand, unlike winter when domestic heating dominates. We are expecting increased volumes of LNG supply, which affects flows of gas across GB.

This OFGEM report calculated the % of the 26.3mn homes that use gas heating in the UK during winter as follows.

England: 85%

Scotland: 78%

Wales: 79%

So what happens when fossil fuels get phased out for a zero carbon world by 2025? Perhaps they need to rely on electricity generated heat onto a grid that plans to knock out c.40% of its fossil fuel baseload. OFGEM notes,

In Great Britain, 25% of flats use electric heating compared to only 4% of houses.

Homes with electric heating systems tend to have a lower energy efficiency rating, partly reflecting the higher running costs of using electric heating. In England, 2% of dwellings with mains gas heating are ‘F’ or ‘G’ rated, compared to 14% of dwellings with storage heating systems, and 57% of dwellings with direct-acting heating.

Storage heating systems can be found disproportionately in private-rented and social housing while direct-acting heating systems can be found disproportionately in the private-rented sector. Households living in these properties are more likely to be:

of lower income. In England, around a third fall in the lowest income quintile, with incomes of less than about £14,500.

fuel poor. In Scotland for example, 48% of households with storage heating systems and 68% of households with direct-acting electric heating are in fuel poverty, compared to 31% of households that use mains gas.

-single adult households and households with no children. There is generally no significantly increased likelihood of householders having a long-term illness or disability (with the exception of storage heating households in Scotland).

So essentially in the quest to virtue signal, policymakers risk pushing more into energy poverty. The only outcome here is far higher prices. Given the UK wants to go full EV by 2040, throw more on the bonfire of stupidity.

Has the NGESO calculated the extra impact to the grid that transferring heating gas to the grid to get zero emissions by 2025 will cause?


Now that former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull has chimed in applauding the UK’s week of non coal power generation alongside the embattled UK PM Theresa May, it confirms this energy policy is a dead cert dud.