Bishop Hill Stott on Huhne
May 14, 2010 Energy Philip Stott has now written two articles in the last two months, but the latest was worth the wait. His taken on the appointment of Chris Huhne to the post of energy minister is a must read and frankly rather scary.
The lamentable fact that David Cameron has appointed Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat MP for Eastleigh, Hampshire, as the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, underscores one’s profoundest fears that our leading politicians have still still not grasped, despite all the red flag warnings, the depth and urgency of the UK energy crisis. This, after all, is the man who is avowedly opposed to the development of a new generation of nuclear powers stations, who believes that we can fill our looming energy gap with wave, wind, and waffle, and who is totally uncritical of the ‘global warming’ message.
Reader Comments (22)
I actually am pleased at the appointment of Chris Huhne. It will cause the end of the whole global warming/climate change meme in this country. He will not take the decisions required (going nuclear etc), and wibble on about renewables etc for potentially 5 more years, and come 2015-20, the lights will start going out. When people are shivering in their homes because of power cuts in mid winter, global warming as a concept will finally be dead.
More of the same, it would seem. I wonder if these politicos are at all aware of the likelihood of an impending severe winter? There are enough portents in the ether, and even dodgy forecast models generally predict the same trend. The dearth of the recent El Nino, the likelihood (despite original thoughts to the contrary) of a strong La Nina, the state of the PDO, the continuing low level of sunspots and the volcanic activity in Iceland are all conspiring to induce cooling in the northern hemisphere, if not globally.
Once the public have woken up to the fact that the coming winter is more than likely going to be colder and more prolonged than the last, I hope they turn on these stupid MPs who blithely support the man-made global warming myth. The UK in particular seems utterly unprepared for this eventuality, and the possibility of several more years of the same. Where is the generating capacity going to come from? Do they REALLY think the country's future energy needs are going to be supplied by windfarms and solar panels?
What will it take to make these dimwits sit up and take notice, and plan accordingly? When will they twig that carbon dioxide isn't a participant in the equation, and distance themselves from that particular belief? Why do we live in a world of ostrich-like thinking? Give us strength - we're going to need it.
I keep in contact with Philip Stott, read him assiduously and listen to him on Home Planet. He talks a great deal of sense. The appointment of another energy minister to a department that is full of greens and now lacks any energy expertise is indeed worrying. I have colleagues who have also worked in the power industry and regularly try to communicate with ministers and politicians, but to no avail. In many cases no reply is forthcoming.
In my case, because of where I live, I heat with oil and wood and am seriously considering installing a generator to give independence from the grid.
As someone who worked in the nuclear industry for donkeys years and is an active expert witness opposing wind farms at public inquiries, the appointment of yet another numpty to arguably the most important ministerial position (securing energy and killing climate change nonsense), make me deeply depressed about the future of our country.
Natsman: Indeed.
Food and Ethanol Shortages Imminent as Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change, issues today the following warning of imminent crop damage expected to produce food and ethanol shortages for the US and Canada:
Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period.
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
The IAC - IPCC Review is now open for business.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10112136.stm
One glaring problem is that the IAC will have appointed a review panel and it's own peer-review panel. This goes against all accepted practice that peer review is an independent process and that peer reviewers are typically anonymous. The IAC will now be open to the charge of cronyism.
The IAC are now employing a flawed process in reviewing what are certainly flawed IPCC processes that involve the appointment of controversial lead authors, the censoring of criticism, misrepresentation of scientists views, rule breaking, the use of grey literature and conflicts of interest.
Not a good start for the IAC, and considering the opening comments of IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, this review has now has all the hallmarks of another whitewash.
As an outsider ( I'm a kiwi ) I was hoping for a clear Conservative win in your elections because they seemed to be less wedded to the AGW argument and also they would probably be more pragmatic when the true state of the UK finances were realised. But now I have to agree with Philip Stott in that this appointment will lead to more of the same.
I was listening to an interview with Chris Huhne on the radio the other day as I went to work. He was very cagey when pressed about nuclear power stations, stressing several times that he would sanction them only with zero subsidies; my feeling is that he may well try and delay the application processes for new nuclear plants for as long as he can. When asked about plugging the energy gap, he talked briefly of renewables and energy-saving, which seems to be mostly what we'll be left with if we have a) no new coal-fired power stations to replace those the EU want us to shut down, and b) delayed/obstructed nuclear power stations. Another option (for peak load at least) is more natural gas, conventional or otherwise, but I have no idea what Huhne's position is on this; however, as natural gas is seen by many as a "bridge fuel" to a low-carbon future, he would theoretically be in favour of it - a ray of hope?
If (when?) we do start to have energy-rationing and brownouts, it will concentrate minds wonderfully. Is London going to start to resemble Lagos, where they have only a few hours of electricity a day, where those who can afford it have their own generators and the rest have to get by with kerosene lamps and candles? Even those innocent souls who still enjoy Earth Hour might find themselves longing for the days when we could rely on 24/7 house current to keep our freezers, kettles and computers running, and to light us to bed.
Independence.
A small generator fueled with SVO* & coupled up to house batteries via an inverter. How to do it?
Professional Boatbuilder has carried a number of relevant articles that are applicable to dry land and are available on line. Registration is free. http://www.proboat.com/digitalsubs
Issue 107 page 82 Hybrid marine power 1
Issue 108 page 82 Hybrid marine power 2
Issue 109 page 140 Beyond efficiency criteria alone
Issue 111 page 104 Breakthrough
Issue 112 page 74 Synchronising inverter
Issue 113 page 56 Genset shootout
Issue 119 page 38 A multiplexed Malo
Issue 120 page 52 Running the numbers.
Yes, the subject is comprehensively covered and will take some time, even if a reader avoids all the other articles. If, on the other hand, a person insists on thoroughly reading all the issues, then we'll see you again in 3 weeks.
*SVO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_vegetable_oil
I like having a waffly green as Energy Minister. Finally he has to stop waffling and actually do the math. And he will see that wind etc doesn't cut it. He will see tens of billions disappearing into wind and solar and other, WHICH COULD BE SPENT BETTER. He will have to approve nuclear. No gvt money is easy to get round, it's the back-end costs in 30-50 years time. Someone else's problem.
I don't think he's stupid, just deluded. Now he has responsibility, and a very tight budget.
I'm not so keen having him as Climate Change secretary. All we can hope for is that money is so tight he can't do any harm, just has a few jollies in Europe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8yx0VJrlZw
'..the greatest challenge for mankind.."
Huhne and Cameron at DECC, 14 May 2010.
Adrian:
That youtube video is truly frightening. Is Cameron a plant from Greenpeace or WWF?
The country will pay a heavy price for this woeful appointment. Peter Lilley should have it. Former Shadow Chancellor and Secy of State for Trade and Industry among many senior appointments, where is he now? A backbencher, because he is a sceptic.
As Alex says, when interviewed by the BBC Chris Huhne did not seem so opposed to nuclear as you might think. He seemed to say that as long as it could be done without subsidies, he would be happy.
Though quite why there can be no subsidy for powerful reliable nuclear, but a massive subsidy for feeble unreliable countryside-ruining windfarms remains a mystery.
Tomorrows Times online has
'Nuclear will not get atom of help from this Government, says Chris Huhne'
And, yes, then he says it, the golden sentence 'The overwhelming consensus of scientists is that if we do not take urgent action on climate change then we are going to face catastrophic levels of global warming'. Score 10 points each for 'overwhelming', 'consensus', 'urgent', catastrophic' and 'global warming'.
The only crumb of comfort, as Jim has said, is that this will perhaps bring matters to a head. BuffHuhne is perhaps an even sillier appointment that would be Caroline Lucas. He is likely the "brains" behind the Dim's manifesto policy on Energy & the Environment which includes such ludicrous and unachievable gems as:-
"40 per cent of UK electricity to come from clean, non-carbon-emitting sources by 2020, rising to 100 per cent by 2050, underpinned by guaranteed price support; and ensure that at least three-quarters of this new renewable energy comes from marine and offshore sources."
“Reject a new generation of nuclear power stations"
"The Liberal Democrats are committed to securing a legally binding global agreement on limiting the increase in global temperatures to below 1.7 degrees Celsius."
Forget the idea that BuffHuhne's guarded comments mean he won't actually oppose nuclear. One has to assume that an Oxford PPE graduate is at least bright enough to realise that (a) the planning process (remember Sizewell B?) would be interminable and hugely costly and (b) that faced with the "zero subsidy" mantra (actually meaning not even political support) that potential nuclear plant constructors / operators will just toss the UK in the "too risky & too difficult" tray and concentrate their own resources on the many countries across the world that are crying out for nuclear power plants.
And don't forget 'Two Jags' Prescott's tactic when he was in charge of the planning process - on several occasions he received a Planning Inspector's recommendation for consent after a Public Inquiry into a surface mining coal application, sat on it for up to three years and then rejected it without explanation.
I have a nice wood / coal burning stove and plenty of candles. I'm toying with the idea of buying a small generator. Wrap up & keep warm!
As I've said elsewhere -
'Mummy, what did we in the UK use for lighting before candles?'
'Electricity darling.'
But why always that phrase and those exact words? Why not, for instance 'Most scientists are of the opinion that we need to deal with the problem of climatic shift otherwise the effects will be calamitous'? Are they all incapable of independant speech? Out it comes every time, chanted like the Lords Prayer or the national anthem. I could scream whenever I hear it.
The Victorians knew a little bit about energy, this was written in 1865:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/The_Coal_Question:_Opinions_of_Previous_Writers
"The first great requisite of motive power is, that it shall be wholly at our command, to be exerted when and where and in what degree we desire.
The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour, for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear.
Before the era of steam-engines; windmills were tried for draining mines; "but though they were powerful machines, they were very irregular, so that in a long tract of calm weather the mines were drowned, and all the workmen thrown idle. From this cause, the contingent expenses of these machines were very great; besides, they were only applicable in open and elevated situations."
They were worried about "Peak Coal".
"The manufacturing industry of this island, colossal as is the fabric which it has raised, rests principally on no other base than our fortunate position with regard to the rocks of this series. Should our coal-mines ever be exhausted it would melt away at once, and it need not be said that the effect produced on private and domestic comfort would be equally fatal with the diminution of public wealth; we should lose many of the advantages of our high civilization, and much of our cultivated grounds must be again shaded with forests to afford fuel to a remnant of our present population."
The Green, Green Grass of Huhne:
http://www.chrishuhne.org.uk/news/28/wwf_and_greenpeace_champion_lib_dem_approach_to_tackling_climate_change.html
26 April 2006
Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary, Chris Huhne MP said:
"It is great to gain endorsements from the WWF and Greenpeace. The Liberal Democrats are honest enough to accept that individual behaviour must change in order to halt climate change. We are the only party campaigning for an increase in environmental tax, while allowing other taxes to fall, to bring about this change.”
Chris Huhne's been one of three Lib Dems rubbing shoulders with old favourites like Stephen Byers and Lord Oxburgh in the GLOBE All-Party Parliamentary Group, of course.
Richard,
re GLOBE - Greg Barker too, now Minister of State at DECC . Accompanied David Cameron on his 'fact finding mission' to the Arctic in 2006 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Barker. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/gregory_barker/gregory_barker.aspx
Also Charles Hendry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hendry http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/charles_hendry/charles_hendry.aspx
What is 'Globe' exactly? Why should it be a concern?
It's not Globe, it's GLOBE and I think that says everything you need to know. It wasn't Smersh that James Bond was up against, was it?
More seriously, I'm not sure that anyone knows. As I remember it GLOBE only emerged from the shadows when The Register was digging around for background information on Lord Oxburgh after he'd been announced as head of the so-called inquiry into the so-called science of CRU. That same night Channel 4 happened to be showing head honcho of the UK arm Stephen Byers willing to accept many thousands a day to influence Parliamentary legislation, leading to his rapid demise as a future leader of anything much at all. As I said on Climate Audit at the time no PR company could have given the outfit such publicity, even if it had tried. Which was funny because clearly GLOBE didn't want publicity one little bit. And surely the situation at that point has rendered it much less useful to those who might have wished to organize good or bad things through it. You alone can decide if the desire for 'privacy' in such important matters as world climate and energy policy tends towards good or bad things being planned, as a general rule.