Day: December 18, 2023

COP 28: UN climate conference ends with more of the same tired ‘goals’

The UN’s annual climate meeting (COP28) is over. The reaction to the final agreement, dubbed “the Dubai Consensus,” is not unexpectantly being heralded as “historic” and “landmark” by the mainstream media.

By Craig Rucker

The UN’s annual climate meeting (COP28) is over. The reaction to the final agreement, dubbed “the Dubai Consensus,” is not unexpectantly being heralded as “historic” and “landmark” by the mainstream media.

“COP28 ends with historic deal to ‘transition away’ from planet-warming fossil fuels,” Time Magazine wrote.

“Oil, coal and gas are doomed, global leaders say in historic resolution,” USA Today Headlined.

“COP28 landmark deal agreed to ‘transition away’ from fossil fuels,” boasted the lead story in the UK Guardian.

In reality, these headlines are filled with much pizzaz and little substance. The actual agreement is far more “business as usual” than it is revolutionary.

Specifically, the “consensus” calls for countries to “transition away” from fossil fuels in a “just, orderly and equitable manner” – whatever that means, since none of these terms is defined.

It also renews nonbinding and unenforceable pledges that nations will try to reach “net zero” by mid-century and triple the still-minuscule worldwide amount of renewable by 2030. Yawn.

These are the “same old, same old” items many nations have been undertaking and spending billions on for years. As David Blackmon noted in Forbes, what was agreed to in Dubai was “merely a restatement of commitments many of the signatory governments have already embarked upon for years and failed to achieve.”

They will fail again. The reason is obvious, and it was brought to light throughout the COP-28 process.

Even before the gavel fell to open the proceedings, the G20 nations failed to issue a statement calling for the “phasing out” of fossil fuels last July. This was because countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and South Africa dug their heels in and refused to budge. This remained the case throughout the COP-28 process.

While they did eventually agree to the term “transition” instead of “phasing out” during the final hours of the COP deliberations, it’s unclear what all the fuss was about.

The fact of the matter is, these countries are never going to budge. None of them is about to gut the use of fossil fuels and follow the West’s lead in committing economic hara-kiri.

How can we be sure? Because actions speak louder than words.

The oil-rich UAE, which hosted COP-28, made no bones about placing Sultan Al-Jaber, president of the world’s 11th largest oil and gas producer, in charge of COP-28. While the UAE boasted to the applause of conference attendees that it was putting some $30 billion toward a fund to expand renewable energy development, it kept a little more quiet about the fact that it is spending five times that much – around $150 billion over the next few years – to expand its oil and gas development.

The same could be said for China and India. Despite having slick venues at COP-28 showcasing their commitments to a “clean energy future,” China approved two new coal plants every week in 2022 and India is set to increase its coal use by 25% by 2030.

Having attended 25 of the 28 UN climate meetings since their inception, I’ve become accustomed to this routine COP plotline.

In predictable fashion, as if penned by a second-rate Hollywood script writer, these gatherings have all the drama and intrigue of a sappy Christmas movie on the Hallmark Channel … minus the warm fuzzies that often make Hallmark worth watching.

These COP events typically start with assertions that a looming calamity faces humanity, requiring urgent action. At COP-28, this began when the media hyped natural weather events, like hurricane Idalia and Hillary, and all summer long linked them all to climate change. It continued into November, with the National Climate Assessment report saying climate change is making our modern ultra-high-tech lives harder.

The media narrative then thickens the plot by painting a picture of seeming hopelessness, with evil fossil fuels prevailing. We endure this rigamarole every year, with endless hype about oil-producing nations fueling discord during the conference and the possibility that the summit will end in collapse.

But, true to form, the drama always ends with a “happily ever after.” By the time the conference concludes, a “compromise” is reached, with those on the side of good triumphing (this would be Al Gore and company), evil being vanquished or at least being corralled (fossil fuel companies), and hope being restored for humanity and planet. Sigh.

The reality of these COP meetings is quite different. The heroes are not selfless defenders of “truth and justice.” They are elites, who never lead by example or give up their private jets, limos, red meat and other conveniences, for the betterment of humanity. They indulge in them every year, as I have seen firsthand, basking in the opulence of exotic cities like Dubai, while insisting that others (we commoners) follow their dictates, not their examples.

Perhaps when the public understands this ongoing, repetitive charade, these COP dramas will enter a final season and finally get canceled. Sadly, that’s likely wishful thinking. There’s far too much money and power at stake.

So expect the same sorry plotline to emerge same time, next year.

The post COP 28: UN climate conference ends with more of the same tired ‘goals’ appeared first on CFACT.

Government will hit target of 600,000 annual heat pump installations, insists minister

Britain will hit the target of installing 600,000 new heat pumps each year, the energy efficiency minister Lord Callanan has insisted today, as the Government announced a boost to the scheme.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

They really do live in Cloud-Cuckoo Land, don’t they!

From the Telegraph today:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/12/18/rishi-sunak-latest-news-heat-pumps-nhs-wes-streeting-live/#1702887814864

Biden’s Dam Removal Plan and Its Impact on Electrical Supply

In a recent development, the Biden administration, in concert with environmental groups and Native American tribes, has set in motion a plan that could lead to the removal of four hydroelectric dams in Washington state.

Ice Harbor Dam Snake River

From Watts Up With That?

In a recent development, the Biden administration, in concert with environmental groups and Native American tribes, has set in motion a plan that could lead to the removal of four hydroelectric dams in Washington state. This decision, ostensibly made to protect salmon populations, raises significant concerns about the stability and reliability of the western power grid, particularly in terms of grid inertia and energy supply.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-creates-pathway-eco-groups-shutter-energy-source-serving-millions-americans

The White House, in coordination with Native American tribes and environmental groups, announced actions Thursday that provide a pathway for breaching, or removing, four hydroelectric dams in Washington state to protect salmon.

As part of the announcement, the federal government entered into a legal agreement with the Pacific Northwest tribes and environmental organizations filed earlier in the day in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Under that agreement, the tribes and eco groups — which had sued the federal government in an effort to forcibly breach the dams — agreed to stay the litigation through 2028.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-creates-pathway-eco-groups-shutter-energy-source-serving-millions-americans

Understanding Grid Inertia and Stability

Grid inertia is a critical aspect of power system stability. It refers to the resistance of the electrical grid to changes in frequency, which is essential for maintaining a steady and reliable power supply. Traditional power sources like coal, gas, and hydroelectric dams contribute significantly to grid inertia due to their large rotating generators. These generators store kinetic energy, which acts as a buffer against sudden changes in power supply or demand, thereby stabilizing the grid.

The initiative explicitly recommends that dams are breached within two fish generations, or approximately eight years. While there isn’t an explicit plan to breach the dams — an action that the White House has acknowledged would require congressional approval — the agreement does include commitments to begin replacing the services provided by the dams.https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-creates-pathway-eco-groups-shutter-energy-source-serving-millions-americans

And opposition to this extra legal back door deal is growing.

“Congress — and Congress alone — can authorize removal of the dams on the lower Snake River. Bureaucrats, activist litigation, nor this administration’s radical agenda will determine the fate of any of the Northwest’s federal dams,” Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said in a statement to Fox News Digital. 

“This litigation effort was useless: It occurred behind closed doors, between two parties who wanted the same end result — to tear out our dams, and it completely excluded Idahoans who rely on the River System for its energy, transportation, agriculture and recreation benefits,” he continued. “I will continue to fight any breaching efforts, and, at every turn, I will reject the Biden administration’s efforts to usurp Congressional authority.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-creates-pathway-eco-groups-shutter-energy-source-serving-millions-americans

The hydroelectric dams in question are not just sources of renewable energy; they are also vital contributors to grid inertia. Their removal, as proposed in the Biden administration’s plan, poses a direct threat to the stability of the western power grid. The dams currently provide about 8% of Washington state’s electricity and have a total capacity of 3,000 megawatts. This is not just about losing a significant chunk of power supply; it’s about eroding the grid’s ability to withstand and quickly recover from power disturbances.

A grid with reduced inertia is more susceptible to fluctuations in power frequency, which can lead to blackouts and other reliability issues. As we transition to more renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which do not inherently provide inertia, the importance of maintaining other sources of inertia, such as hydroelectric power, becomes even more critical. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has highlighted the evolving role of inertia in maintaining grid reliability, especially as the energy mix changes (NREL).

The Irony of Green Energy Initiatives

The irony in this scenario is palpable. While the intention to protect salmon runs has some merit, the removal of these dams could lead to increased reliance on fossil fuels to compensate for the lost power and grid stability. This move could inadvertently result in higher carbon emissions, as replacing hydropower with natural gas generation would increase carbon emissions by up to 2.6 million metric tons per year.

The Agricultural and Economic Impact

Apart from the electrical implications, there’s also the agricultural angle. The dams facilitate the transportation of about 60% of Washington’s annual wheat exports via barges. Removing them could disrupt this supply chain, impacting both local and national agricultural markets.

In light of these considerations, it is imperative that decisions affecting our power infrastructure be made with a full understanding of their implications on grid stability, energy supply, and the broader environment. While the protection of salmon populations is important, it needs to balanced with the expense of grid reliability and the broader ecological and economic stability.

In conclusion, the Biden administration’s plan to remove these hydroelectric dams is a short-sighted approach that overlooks the broader implications on grid stability, energy supply, and environmental impact. A more balanced approach that considers all these factors is crucial for ensuring a stable, reliable, energy future.

URGENT WARNING Scotland’s climate changing at alarming rate

Back on Earth, February temperatures in Scotland have barely altered in the last twenty years

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Dave R

From the Scottish Sun

SCOTLAND’S climate is changing faster than expected, according to new research.

Boffins at the James Hutton Institute in Aberdeen says average February temperatures have already reached some projections for 2050.

They found in certain parts of Scotland, temperatures have risen by 2.5C in February – with an average of 16.9C in the period of 1960-1989 increasing to 19.4C during the three decades of 1990-2019.

Researchers also warned of an increase in water scarcity in the near future, stating it could threaten agriculture, forestry, animal habitats, and hamper the country’s peatland restoration efforts.

The number of consecutive dry days is also expected to increase in drier months, including September.

Dr Rivington said: “Our climate is changing and this has many implications.

“It will increase stress on species and habitats and how well ecosystems function.

“Without fully functioning healthy ecosystems, agriculture and other ways nature supports society and the economy become impeded.

“Threats include water shortages reducing agricultural productivity, and risk water supplies running out at points in the year.

“Less and warmer water in streams impacts river health and water quality due to higher concentrations of pollution, but also increased potential for flooding in winter due to increased rainfall.”

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/11671877/climate-change-scotland-alarming-rate/

Back on Earth, February temperatures in Scotland have barely altered in the last twenty years:

And summer rainfall trends have changed little over time:

I suggest the Scottish Government asks for its money back, as it has been sold a pack of lies.

The COP28 charade

‘All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players’, wrote William Shakespeare. He might have been foreseeing the show recently concluded in Dubai, where over 100,000 people reportedly came to play their roles at COP 28, the 28th major climate policy summit.

From Net Zero Watch

By Robert Lyman

‘All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players’, wrote William Shakespeare. He might have been foreseeing the show recently concluded in Dubai, where over 100,000 people reportedly came to play their roles at COP 28, the 28th major climate policy summit.

The centrepiece of the gathering was discussion of the ‘stocktake’ prepared by the United Nations, an assessment of countries’ performance in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in accordance with their five-year plans (‘NDCs’). The final stocktake report served as the decision document. The world’s media declared, with almost one voice, that the conference had produced a ‘historic agreement to transition away from fossil fuels’. Professor Johan Rockström of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany declared that the decisions taken at COP 28 marked the true ‘beginning of the end of the fossil fuel-driven world economy’.

In fact, COP 28 was a spectacular failure, as measured against the goals that the UN had set for it from the beginning. It did not achieve a single one of the objectives that climate activists sought. Even more important, in spite of the voluntary commitments that various governments made during the conference (mostly aimed at domestic audiences), it is virtually certain to have little or no effect on the global trends in GHG emissions or on the climate.

The news from the stocktake was bad. The report prepared for the conference estimated that, based on current NDCs, the gap in emissions consistent with limiting warming is about 20.3 billion tonnes (Gt) to 23.9 Gt of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. That is about half the world’s current emissions. The report urged more ‘ambition’ in order to reduce GHG emissions by 43% by 2030 and a further 60% by 2035 compared with 2019 levels and to reach net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 globally.

A new element at the conference was an increased emphasis on phasing out fossil-fuel production and use. The United Nations Environmental Programme published a report in which officials urged the conference to add a new set of targets for emissions reduction that are fuel-specific. It was anticipated that there would be a prolonged debate about whether the conference would endorse ‘phasing down’ or ‘phasing out’ fossil fuel production and about whether that reference should include the word ‘unabated’.

In fact, only intense lobbying by the European Union and the United States, along with several smaller countries, caused the conference to include in the stocktake decision document a carefully-worded reference. The reference is one of an eight-point list of things that the conference ‘called on the Parties’ voluntarily to make national efforts to do. The specific reference to fossil fuels was to ‘transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050’.

Five things are notable about this reference.

First, the statement of goals is not binding; it is not a legal commitment and there are no penalties if the Parties fail to act on it.

Second, the term ‘transition away’ does not require specific cuts in either fossil fuel use or production.

Third, the reference includes only fossil fuels in energy systems, not, for example, fossil fuel use as feedstocks in petrochemicals production.

Fourth, the reference to a ‘just, orderly and equitable manner’ provides loopholes that will allow the developing countries to argue that the goal does not apply to them and/or that ‘orderly’ excludes hasty action.

Fifth, despite its reference to ‘accelerating action’, there are no specific deadlines. In other words, the statement can be safely ignored unless countries intend to limit fossil fuel production and use anyway.

COP 27 in Egypt focused on the alleged need for more climate aid. COP 28 was expected to continue this effort. Developing countries insisted that the wealthier ones: meet the decade-long commitment to provide at least USD 100 billion per year to the Global Climate Fund to finance mitigation efforts up to 2025; agree to increase funding of climate mitigation up to USD 1.3 trillion per year from 2025 to 2030; double funding for climate adaptation, ideally to at least USD 600 billion per year; and provide large commitments for the ‘Loss and Damages’ fund to assist developing countries when they were affected by severe weather events that they attribute to climate change.

COP 28 failed to deliver on these expectations. The decision document noted that the developed countries did not provide USD100 billion in climate aid per year in 2021. It welcomed pledges made by 31 contributors for the ‘replenishment’ of the Green Climate Fund, resulting in a nominal pledge of USD 12.8 billion to date. That is USD 12.8 billion over a number of years, far from the USD 1.3 trillion per year the developing countries demanded.

It gets worse. The decision document stated that the adaptation finance needs of the developing countries are estimated at USD 215–387 billion annually up until 2030, and that about USD 4.3 trillion per year needs to be invested in clean energy up until 2030, increasing thereafter to USD 5 trillion per year up until 2050, to be able to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The significance of this statement is that without this funding the developing countries may claim that they cannot afford the enormous costs of the emissions reduction measures. As the developing countries now constitute almost 70 per cent (and rising) of global emissions, this means that the net-zero emissions goal by 2050 cannot possibly be met. 

The conference did little to ‘operationalize’ the Loss and Damages Fund that was approved in principle at COP 27. The key decisions about the design of this fund will be dealt with in a committee that will report back to COP 29. The UN did elicit voluntary pledges, and the decision document welcomed the pledges made to provide USD 188 million for the Adaptation Fund (i.e. far below the USD 600 billion per year sought) and pledges for USD 792 million for Loss and Damages. These were voluntary commitments, so there was no agreement to make them obligatory.

The failure of the conference to meet the financial demands of the developing countries should have been the main story coming out of it. Instead, the media ignored it. We can expect the show to continue next year at COP 29 in Azerbaijan.

Robert Lyman is a Canadian economist and the author of Net Zero Watch’s review of Canadian climate policy.

Disgusting Tactics in the Nana Akua Show 16th December 23 between Paul Burgess & Jim Dale

In this episode we were again limited to very little time but it is the disgusting tactics of Jim Dale that made it a very sad episode.

Climate Realism by Paul Burgess

In this episode we were again limited to very little time but it is the disgusting tactics of Jim Dale that made it a very sad episode.

He wastes time ignorantly attacking persons instead of keeping his promise provide evidence of increasing droughts.

Worse than that he slanders one person and does it out of pure ignorance.

NASA GISS Data Shows 2023 EL Nino Driving Global Temperature Anomaly Increases; NOAA Data Shows U.S. Nov. 2023 Temperature Anomaly Declining

The NASA GISS global average temperature anomaly for November 2023 was released (provided below) which shows an El Niño driven value of 1.44 degrees C (2.592 degrees F) with the November outcome hyped in an L A Times article as being “a new monthly record for heat” and the “hottest November”.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The NASA GISS global average temperature anomaly for November 2023 was released (provided below) which shows an El Niño driven value of 1.44 degrees C (2.592 degrees F) with the November outcome hyped in an L A Times article as being “a new monthly record for heat” and the “hottest November”.

This GISS anomaly value represents a November global absolute average temperature of 59.792 degrees F.

The prior highest measured GISS November global average temperature anomaly was in the year 2020 with a value of 1.10 degrees C (1.98 degrees F) which represents a November global absolute average temperature of 59.18 degrees F – a difference of 0.612 degrees F which the Times has hyped as being the “hottest November”.

The highest prior GISS measured EL Nino year average temperature anomaly was in 2016 at 1.37 degrees C (2.466 degrees F) which represents an absolute temperature of 59.666 degrees F – a difference of 0.126 degrees F (1/8th of a degree F) from the November 2023 EL Nino driven anomaly value. 

The climate alarmist propaganda media misleadingly exaggerate the small average temperature anomaly differences between these measurements by deliberately concealing the specific numerical value of such differences and instead hyping these carefully hidden small differences as being “a new monthly record for heat” and the “hottest November” even when the latest measured GISS global anomaly value is only 1/8th of a degree F changed from the highest prior year 2016 EL Nino value.

The L A Times climate alarmist article continues to conceal and downplay the overwhelming importance of the large year 2023 El Niño event with the obvious impact that such a naturally occurring global wide climate event has in hugely increasing both absolute and anomaly temperature measurement outcomes around the world.

The Times article ridiculously hypes (shown below) that November 2023 is the “sixth straight month to set a heat record” that “has truly been shocking” with people “running out of adjectives to describe this” when the NASA GISS data shown above clearly establishes that this many month-long pattern of increasing anomalies is completely consistent with the year 2016 Global El Nino event which experienced 7 straight months of increasing anomalies from October 2015 through April 2016.

The GISS November 2023 global average temperature anomaly represents a mathematically derived composite average value of all global average temperature anomaly measurement data representing an extraordinary array of five disparate global climate regions (shown below) along with the huge disparate climate behavior differences present in the global hemispheres with their unique and far flung oceans, continents, mountains, deserts, rain forests, low lands, etc.

The mathematically contrived global average temperature anomaly result is created through a composite menagerie of widely disparate climate region data outcomes that apply to no specific region or location anywhere on earth.

Additionally, climate alarmist hyped claims of “limiting global warming to 2 degrees C (temperature anomaly value) above pre-industrial times” are based on a climate model referred to as RCP8.5 that was rejected by Working Group I, The Physical Science, of the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report (AR6, 2021).    

The climate alarmist propaganda media erroneously misrepresent the contrived global average temperature anomaly data in support of their hyped climate alarmists claims while ignoring and concealing extensive anomaly and absolute   temperature measurement data that conflicts with their highly contrived global average temperature anomaly driven methodology.     

Extensive NOAA anomaly and absolute temperature measurement data is readily available for the Contiguous U.S that addresses both average temperature anomaly measurements as well as maximum absolute temperature measurements.

The graph below shows NOAA’s average temperature anomaly measurements through November 2023 for the Contiguous U.S. which clearly demonstrates there is no increasing trend in the average temperature anomaly data for the Contiguous U.S. using the most accurate USCRN temperature measurement stations that went into operation in 2005.

The NOAA November 2023 El Niño year average temperature anomaly value is 1.44 degrees F compared to the prior November 2016 El Niño year average temperature anomaly value of 4.88 degrees F.

Furthermore, the highest measured NOAA Contiguous U.S. November average temperature anomaly value from the USCRN temperature measurement stations was also the November 2016 El Niño year outcome of 4.88 degrees F compared to the November 2023 El Nino year value of 1.44 degrees F. 

The next highest NOAA Contiguous U.S. November average temperature anomaly outcomes following the 4.88-degree F year 2016 value occurred (highest to lowest order) in the years 2020, 2009, 2017, 2021, 2005, 2015 and then 2023 respectively.

Thus, the November 2023 Contiguous U.S. average temperature anomaly value is only the 8th highest measured by the USCRN for the month of November.  

The L A Times alarmist article conceals the most relevant Contiguous U.S. year 2023 climate average temperature anomaly data available from its readers with that data clearly showing the lack of any record-breaking climate anomaly outcomes in the Contiguous U.S. region.

Instead, the Times article hypes a contrived global average temperature anomaly outcome that applies nowhere on earth while at the same time falsely positing that this contrived global anomaly outcome is relevant to the Contiguous U.S. region.

The NOAA climate data shown below provides the November 2023 absolute maximum temperature measurements for the period 1895 to 2023 in the Contiguous U.S. that establishes the November 2023 outcome is only the 109th highest out of 129 maximum November temperature measurements recorded during the 1895 to 2023 period.

The NOAA data below provides the maximum November 2023 year to date interval temperatures in the Contiguous U.S. for the period 1895 to 2023 establishing that the year 2023 January through November absolute maximum temperature is only the 115th maximum temperature interval out of 129  maximum interval temperature measurements.

The NOAA data below provides the absolute maximum temperatures for all months between 1895 and November 2023 for the Contiguous U.S. establishing that month of November 2023 is only the 592nd highest maximum temperature out of 1547 absolute maximum temperatures measured with the highest ever measured maximum temperatures occurring in the dust bowl era of the 1930s.

NOAA has extensive temperature measurement data available for 9 U.S. Regions as shown in their Map below with access to this data obtained through NOAA’s Regional Time Series option at the links noted for the above graphs. 

Without belaboring this analysis any further all NOAA’s  9 Contiguous U.S. climate regions measured data establish that November 2023 does not represent the highest absolute maximum temperature for any of these regions regardless of whether one is evaluating just the month of November, the January to November period interval or all months over the period 1895 through November 2023.

NOAA also has data available for all 48 Contiguous U.S. states as well as for Alaska using NOAA’s Statewide Time Series option available at the links noted above.  

NOAA data for California establishes that November 2023 does not represent the highest absolute maximum temperature regardless of whether one is evaluating just the month of November, the January to November period interval or all months over the period 1895 through November 2023 as shown below where November 2023 is only the 602nd of 1547 absolute maximum temperature outcomes during 1895 to November 2023 period.

NOAA’s extensive and readily available climate data for the Contiguous U.S. (both average temperature anomaly and absolute maximum temperature measurements) clearly shows that climate alarmist propaganda claims of a “climate emergency” (including such claims in the L A Times) are unsupported by NOAA average temperature anomaly and absolute maximum temperature climate data measurements.

Additionally, this extensive NOAA data is deliberately concealed by climate alarmists while at the same time erroneously misrepresenting the critical climate science differences between maximum absolute temperature and average temperature anomaly data measurements. 

Red Card in Redcar

A couple of days ago, Evan Davis, host of BBC Radio 4’s PM programme interviewed Dr. Jan Rosenow about the recent Government announcement that the planned trial of hydrogen heating in homes at Redcar in Cleveland has been cancelled.

A thought-provoking interview

From Climate Scepticism

BY MARK HODGSON

A couple of days ago, Evan Davis, host of BBC Radio 4’s PM programme interviewed Dr. Jan Rosenow about the recent Government announcement that the planned trial of hydrogen heating in homes at Redcar in Cleveland has been cancelled. I transcribe the interview before, and follow it up with a few thoughts.

The interview

Evan Davis (ED): Now, the Government has abandoned its plan for a hydrogen village in Redcar. It was a section of the town that had been ear-marked to have the ordinary gas supply turned off, to be replaced with a hydrogen supply. And, as this was to be an experiment, everybody would get free, new, hydrogen appliances to replace the old natural gas ones, to test the idea of replacing natural gas with hydrogen. In fact, I even went to visit the hydrogen village at the end of August [cut to August interviews]:

ED: Hello, sorry to disturb you. We’re actually from the BBC, believe it or not. We are looking at this hydrogen village plan.

Female resident: I have been seeing bits and pieces on Facebook, and the opinion I’m getting is that the community are not looking forward to it.

ED: Gents, can we come and talk to you?

Male resident: Depends what about.

ED: So look. You’re in the hydrogen village.

Male resident: I am.

ED: Is that good news, bad news? Are you, what?

Male resident: To me, I’m indifferent. We’re not going to stop it, are we? No matter how many people protest about it, it’s going to happen.

ED: They’re going to give you two options. One is you can have a new boiler – hydrogen.

Male resident: Yeah.

ED: Or an electric alternative. What would you take if they, when they come and offer you that?

Male resident: I’ve tapped me head. Probably the hydrogen, because electricity’s a fortune.

[Back in the studio]

ED: Well, that was…those were comments in Redcar when I went there in August. But the plan has been scrapped. It wasn’t the only hydrogen village proposed – there was another one near Ellesmere Port. That had already been scrapped. There is one, though, in Fife that is proceeding. But the end of the Redcar trial is being seen as perhaps a fatal blow to the idea of using hydrogen to heat homes in this country as we progress to a fossil, erm, to net zero, and transition out of fossil fuels. Jan Rosenow is director of the Regulatory Assistance Project. It’s an energy NGO, and sits on the board of the Energy Institute. Jan, tell us what’s been going on here, and why do you think they have abandoned this particular trial?

Jan Rosenow (JR): I think the UK government has made the right decision, and is setting a clear example globally by backing down from hydrogen for home heating. We’ve seen ministers in recent months say again and again that hydrogen won’t play a major role for home heating, and this cancellation in my view confirms the Government’s increased scepticism that we’re seeing around putting hydrogen in people’s homes. So I think it’s a hugely significant decision and I believe is an indication of what’s to come next year.

ED: Right. And the basic issue they said – I mean it might have been just everyone was saying “I don’t really want hydrogen coming into my home” – because it was a voluntary sign-up. You were certainly going to have the gas turned off, but you had to sign up the hydrogen or you could take electricity. They said the problem is getting green hydrogen, a good supply of hydrogen from renewable electricity, and I guess that is just the problem of heating homes with hydrogen: it just takes a lot of hydrogen, which takes a lot of electricity.

JR: Indeed, and the science is very clear on this. Actually, just today I published a new meta-review of 54 independent studies. And the result from studies are [sic] very clear indeed. They agree that hydrogen is a lot less efficient. It needs a lot more electricity to make green hydrogen compared to using a heat pump, or district heating. It will cost consumers more than the alternatives, and therefore it’s gonna be a lot harder to persuade people to do it. And the supply problems we have with hydrogen are quite stark. Currently 99%+ of global hydrogen production – that is also the case in the UK – are from fossil fuels with no carbon abatement. So we have minuscule amounts of green hydrogen available right now, and they are much needed in other sectors that currently use very dirty and carbon-intensive hydrogen.

ED: What is going on in Fife, though? Because there is – there were three planned, two have gone – what’s happening in Fife? They do seem to be proceeding with one pilot there.

JR: Yeah, we still have the Fife trial going ahead. It remains to be seen to what extent that will succeed. I think a lot depends on the decision that the Government has said it would make in 2026 – although it has indicated that it could happen earlier – about the future of the gas grid more generally, and whether hydrogen will be a scaleable option for the UK to decarbonise home heating. But it’s very uncertain whether that’s going to happen after today’s cancellation of the Redcar trial.

ED: All right. Jan Rosenow, thanks for that, from the Regulatory Assistance Project.

A few thoughts

Alert readers may remember that in A Heated Debate I criticised a Guardian article seeking to suggest that heat pumps are more than twice as efficient as fossil fuels at low temperatures, out-performing oil and gas heating systems even at temperatures as low as -30C. Also that the UK is falling behind with regard to the heat pump roll-out because people have been scared by false information regarding their efficacy at low temperatures. That Guardian article was largely based on a study co-authored by (inter alia) Dr. Rosenow. Two of the other three co-authors also work at the Regulatory Assistance Project. Dr. Rosenow has also written a guest post for CarbonBrief with the title: “How heat pumps became a Nordic success story”.

And there’s this: “Is heating homes with hydrogen all but a pipe dream? An evidence review”, also written by Dr Rosenow (as an aside, in it he says “More than 95% of global hydrogen production is currently based on fossil gas and coal with no carbon abatement” whereas he claimed 99%+ for that figure in his PM interview).

As it happens, I share Dr Rosenow’s doubts about heating homes with hydrogen (though I don’t share his enthusiasm for heat pumps). My point is that he is a heat pump advocate and a critic of heating homes with hydrogen. That is well-known, and I’m sure that the BBC editors are aware of it. I am concerned, then, that Evan Davis simply introduced him thus: “Jan Rosenow is director of the Regulatory Assistance Project. It’s an energy NGO, and sits on the board of the Energy Institute.” I feel this potentially suggested to the programme’s listeners a neutrality that doesn’t exist. Would it have been too much to have introduced him as “a long-standing critic of heating homes with hydrogen and a heat pump enthusiast”? That would have had the benefit of being factually accurate.

Secondly, although the people of Redcar are no doubt pleased that they are no longer to be used as guinea pigs, it’s worth noting the authoritarian nature of the net zero project. It was made clear during the interview that had the trial gone ahead, they would simply have been forced to wave goodbye to natural gas central heating. The sole choice they would have been allowed to make would have been between heat pumps and hydrogen boilers. Given that most of us suspect that neither are as cheap nor as practicable as natural gas heating, what sort of “choice” is that? So much for democracy.

As was said in the interview, the reason the trial has been scrapped is a shortage of “green” hydrogen. That was certainly the reason given in the BBC website article that first mentioned the cancellation:

Northern Gas Networks (NGN), which would have run the Redcar trial, said it was “disappointed”.

The company said the trial was not going ahead because the expected green hydrogen facilities would not now be available.

“We’re disappointed that we won’t be able to take forward our plan to heat homes and businesses in Redcar with low carbon hydrogen,” a spokesperson said.

“Without adequate local hydrogen production, it is no longer possible to deliver the project.”

And that begs the question why the Fife hydrogen trial is still to go ahead (assuming that to be the case). Is this down to perversity on the part of the SNP/Green coalition Government north of the border (it certainly wouldn’t be the first time), or do they actually have some (no doubt expensive and probably futile) plans to create “green” hydrogen locally?

All this while we await the publication of the UK Government’s Hydrogen Roadmap, which is supposed to set out how the UK can build a network of hydrogen production factories, and convert homes, businesses, and transport networks to the “green” fuel. It’s all beginning to look ever more disjointed, but there seems to be no end to the unwarranted optimism and ongoing waste of taxpayer funds.

The Last Chance Saloon Is Still Open!

Once again, courtesy of Josh and Net Zero Watch, let’s take a look at all of the “last chance to save the planet” warnings, which have populated every COP

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Once again, courtesy of Josh and Net Zero Watch, let’s take a look at all of the “last chance to save the planet” warnings, which have populated every COP:

Bali, 2007

`Bali could be the last chance to avoid
the worst effect of global warming’ – New Zealand Herald, 3 December 2007

Poznan, 2008

`The world will “suicide” if it cannot
strike a strong climate pact soon’.
`[The summit is] the world’s last
chance to stop climate change before
it passes the point of no return’ – The Age, 9 December 2008

Copenhagen, 2009

`Copenhagen summit is last chance
to save the planet’ –  Lord Stern.
`Copenhagen Climate Talks are last
chance’ –  Gordon Brown

Cancun, 2010

`Jairem Ramesh, the Indian environment
minister, sees [the meeting] as
the `last chance’ for climate change
talks to succeed’ – Daily Telegraph, 29 November 2010

Durban, 2011

`…the World Council of Churches
general secretary, Reverend Dr Olav
Fykse Tveit, called the United Nations
UNFCCC COP 17 meeting a “last opportunity
for the international community
to be responsible in addressing
climate change”.’ – Christian Aid, 30 August 2011

Doha, 2012

`Tomorrow: the earth’s last chance
with climate change?’ – The Examiner, 25 November 2012

Warsaw, 2013

`Is the Warsaw Climate Change Conference
a last-chance summit? …
this summit could represent a turning
point in the fight against global
warming.’ – Sustainable Mobility, 14 November 2013

Lima, 2014

`Last chance: Change needed for climate
negotiations in Lima 2014…A
repeat performance next year would
be disastrous, not just for the progress
of these negotiations, but more importantly
for vulnerable communities
everywhere and the natural world on
which we all depend…‘ – WWF, 23 November 2013

.Paris, 2015

`The next climate summit in Paris
(COP21) may be the “last effective opportunity”
to negotiate arrangements
that keep human-induced warming
`to a limit safe for humanity, while
protecting the poor and the vulnerable
from ongoing climate change
that gravely endangers their lives’. – L’Osservatore Romano, 29 April 2015

Marrakesh, 2016

`Governments are drinking in the
“last chance saloon’ – Edie.net

Bonn, 2017

`The Bonn Conference may be our
last chance to get it right.’ – Vice, 5 May 2017

Katowice, 2018

`Katowice offers last chance to limit
warming to 1.5°C; countries must revise
national plans at the upcoming
climate conference’. – Down to Earth, 1 December 2018

Madrid, 2019

`UN climate change summit opens in
Madrid amid last chance warnings’. – City AM, 2 December 2019.

Glasgow, 2021

‘COP26 Glasgow: Climate summit is
world’s “last chance“ to aver disaster’. – The National, 9 August

‘“This is our last chance“: Biden urged
to act as climate agenda hangs by a
thread‘. – The Guardian, 18 October

Sharm, 2022

‘COP27 represents one of our last
chances to avert global catastrophe.‘ – The Observer, 30 October 2022

Dubai, 2023

COP28 is humanity’s last clear chance
to avoid a climate catastrophe – UN
chief. – Cleantechnica, 25th November 2023

More coal burned on Earth in 2023 than ever before in human history

So much for the “stranded dead asset”. In 2022 the world set a new all-time record for coal use — reaching 8.4 billion tons. In 2023, despite all the Net Zero billions in spending, despite the boom in windmills and solar panels, global demand for coal will top 8.54 billion tons.

By Jo Nova

The best kept secret in the world is that humans are using more coal than ever

So much for the “stranded dead asset”. In 2022 the world set a new all-time record for coal use — reaching 8.4 billion tons. In 2023, despite all the Net Zero billions in spending, despite the boom in windmills and solar panels, global demand for coal will top 8.54 billion tons.

The IEA is the “International Energy Agency” — supposedly, the impartial servant of 31 nations worth of taxpayers. Yet they decided to ignore the world record and instead tell us how coal is set to decline. It’s what they think the taxpayers need to hear.  Their press release:

It’s almost as if the IEA works for the renewables industry and their banker investors? Mr Vestas himself could hardly have written a more successful headline to hide the truth and gaslight the taxpayers.

The IEA has been predicting the end of coal for years. Back in 2017 the IEA was telling us China would move away from coal, because by 2025-2030 “solar would be cheaper than coal”. Instead, China’s burning more coal than ever before and the quarterly reporting season was a bloodbath for the solar and wind industries as projects get cancelled because their costs are rising.

In 2023 China uses more than half of the total coal on the planet —  an extraordinary 4.5 billion tons of that 8.5 billion ton total.

The three largest coal producers in the world are China, India and Indonesia which account for a blockbuster 70% of global production. The IEA is convinced coal use will decline any day now, but China’s growth rate in coal use was 5% in 2023, and India’s was 8%. These are hardly signs of the plateau before the fall.

Note how the IEA add their favourite “projection” at the end

To put some perspective on the success of the renewables transition in reducing coal —  Australia has more solar panels per capita than any other nation, and while global coal use is 8,536 Mt, in 2022 Australian coal use declined by all of 5 Mt. We only had to spend ten billion dollars to achieve that:

Overall coal consumption in Australia declined from 100 Mt in 2021 to 95 Mt in
2022 and is estimated to have continued its decrease over the course of 2023 with
a reduction of 4%.

Rejoice, global coal use is six one-hundredth of a percent smaller thanks to the Australian Renewable Energy Target and the Safeguard Mechanism emissions market.

In the West the biggest reductions in coal use have come from exporting factories to China, which of course, don’t cut global coal use at all. And ponder at just how incredibly fast the transition to coal has been — from the West to the East:

This year, China, India and Southeast Asia are set to account for three-quarters of global consumption, up from only about one-quarter in 1990.

Just one generation ago…