Day: September 3, 2024

The Graphs That Prove Labour is Lying That Renewable Energy Will Cut Bills

The new Labour Government has set itself the mission of making Britain a “clean energy superpower” to “cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to Net Zero”.

This article examines those claims and the forces that are likely to crush the Net Zero pipedream.

From The Daily Sceptic

by David Turver

The new Labour Government has set itself the mission of making Britain a “clean energy superpower” to “cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to Net Zero”.

This article examines those claims and the forces that are likely to crush the Net Zero pipedream.

Cost of Renewables

First, as discussed here, existing intermittent renewables are much more expensive than the reliable gas-fired electricity which must be displaced if we are to achieve a zero carbon grid by 2030. Although new renewables are cheaper than the existing fleet, they are still much more expensive than gas-fired power as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Change in CfD Strike Prices from AR5 to AR6 vs Recent Market Price (£ per MWh)

All the technologies that are being pushed by the Government for GB Energy and the debt-funded National Wealth Fund have increased in price since last year, and the basic costs of the Contracts for Difference (CfDs) are more expensive than the £66 per MWh average market price for the first four months of financial year 2024-25. The average market price is largely set by gas and includes carbon taxes.

In addition, we should add extra costs to renewables such as the £2.5 billion in grid balancing costs we paid last year and around £1 billion for the Capacity Market which would not be needed on such a scale if we did not have so much renewable capacity on the grid. Finally, National Grid ESO has announced £54 billion of spending on the electricity network infrastructure up to 2030 and a further £58 billion in the 2030-2035 period, a total of £112 billion. This is over £10 billion per year for more than a decade to connect remote intermittent renewables to the grid.

Yawning Gap Between Projections and Reality

The claim the Government is going to cut bills and deliver cheaper, cleaner zero-carbon electricity by 2030 looks to be on very shaky ground. We need to understand where this claim comes from. Many reports of cheaper renewables originate from the (previous) Government’s 2023 Generation Costs Report, which made some extraordinary claims that are proving to be untrue.

When two lines diverge on a chart, they are often referred to as ‘crocodile jaws’. As we shall see below, the crocodile jaws made by comparing the reality of contract awards and offers in the allocation round auctions to Government predictions are getting wider. The upper jaw in purple is the contract awards and offers and the lower jaw in orange is the Government projections made in the 2023 Generation Cost report. The yawning gap between projections and reality must surely crush its Net Zero plans.

Solar Power Projections vs CfD Awards and Offers

Let us start with solar power, see Figure 2. Remember Labour wants to triple solar capacity by 2030.

Figure 2 – Government Solar Power Projections vs CfD Awards and Offers (£ per MWh)

The Generation Cost report quoted all technologies using 2021 prices and they stated solar power could be delivered in 2025 at £41per MWh, falling to £30 per MWh by 2040. We can see that the price of solar power was over £110 per MWh (in 2024 prices) when Triangle Farm won a Contract for Difference (CfD) in AR1 and became operational in 2018. Prices then fell to AR4 with awards made for 2024-25 delivery in AR4 at £64 per MWh. That was the low point of offers and delivery, AR5 awarded contracts for 2026-27 delivery at £66 per MWh and AR6 is offering new contracts for 2027-28 delivery at £85 per MWh, more than double the Government projections for 2025 and 2030.

These recent offers are above current market prices, even without factoring in the extra costs that should be attributed to renewables, so there is no way that tripling solar power by 2030 will cut bills.

Onshore Wind Projections vs CfD Awards and Offers

Moving on to onshore wind, see Figure 3. Remember Labour wants to double onshore wind capacity by 2030.

Figure 3 – Government Onshore Wind Projections vs CfD Awards and Offers (£ per MWh)

The Generation Cost report stated onshore wind power could be delivered in 2025 at £44 per MWh, falling slightly to £41 per MWh by 2040. Moor House onshore wind farm was awarded a contract in AR1 and became operational in 2018 at a current price of over £110 per MWh. Prices then fell, with awards made for 2024-25 delivery in AR4 at £59 per MWh (at 2024 prices). That was the low point of offers and delivery, AR5 awarded contracts for 2026-27 delivery at £73 per MWh and AR6 is offering new contracts for 2027-28 delivery at £89 per MWh, more than double the Government projections for 2025 and 2030 and above recent gas-fired electricity prices. Again, there is no way that adding more expensive onshore wind capacity will bring down bills.

Offshore Wind Projections vs CfD Awards and Offers

Finally, we come to offshore wind, see Figure 4. Remember Labour wants to quadruple offshore wind capacity by 2030 and want it to become the largest source of renewable electricity.

Figure 4 – Government Offshore Wind Projections vs CfD Awards and Offers (£ per MWh)

The crocodile jaws of the chart are widest for offshore wind. The Generation Cost report stated offshore wind power could be delivered in 2025 at £44 per MWh, then fluctuating somewhat before settling at £41 per MWh by 2040. Prices have fallen since East Anglia 1 was awarded a contract in AR1 at £166 per MWh at today’s prices and activated its CfD in 2019. More recent projects such as Triton Knoll and Moray East also saw prices falling further. The low point of contract awards came with AR4 when projects for 2024-25 delivery at £52 per MWh (at 2024 prices) won the auction. However, we should remember that Vattenfall has pulled out of the Norfolk Boreas project that won a contract in AR4 because of soaring costs. Other projects are being offered the possibility of re-bidding parts of their projects at higher prices. AR5 offered contracts for 2026-27 delivery at £61 per MWh but received no bids. AR6 is offering new contracts for 2027-28 delivery at £102 per MWh, much more than double the Government projections for 2025 and 2030 and higher than gas-fired electricity. Again, adding more offshore wind capacity at these prices will only increase our energy bills.

Conclusions

It is clear the Department for Energy and Net Zero, under the previous Government, peddled dangerous disinformation in its Generation Costs report from 2023. The Department must know the prices it projected are wrong because it also sets the strike prices for the CfD auction rounds. But Labour and others use this report to substantiate their claim that renewables are getting cheaper.

In reality, the opposite is the case; renewables were never cheap and they are now getting much more expensive. More expensive than Government projections and more expensive than gas-fired electricity. Yet the Labour Government has recently increased the budget for AR6 so it can deliver even more of this more expensive, intermittent electricity. Labour has also announced that the Winter Fuel Allowance will be cut, reducing the ability of pensioners to pay for this more expensive electricity. Its self-declared mission to “cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper zero-carbon electricity by 2030” is in tatters. We can only hope that the jaws of the reality crocodile close soon to avoid further damage and the 2023 Generation Cost Report is withdrawn.

David Turver writes the Eigen Values Substack page, where this article first appeared.

New Study: Human Emissions ‘Irrelevant’ In Determining Changes In Atmospheric CO2 Since 1959

Another day, another new scientific paper has been published reporting efforts to curb anthropogenic CO2 emissions are “meaningless.”

From NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard

“The main factor governing the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the SST [sea surface temperature] rather than human emissions.” – Ato, 2024

Another day, another new scientific paper has been published reporting efforts to curb anthropogenic CO2 emissions are “meaningless.”

In this study multiple linear regression analysis was performed comparing SST versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions as explanatory factors and the annual changes in atmospheric CO2 as the objective variable over the period 1959-2022.

The model using the SSTs (NASA, NOAA, UAH) best explained the annual CO2 change (regression coefficient B = 2.406, P = <0.0002), whereas human emissions were not shown to be an explanatory factor at all in annual CO2 changes (regression coefficient B = 0.0027, P = 0.863).

Most impressively, the predicted atmospheric CO2 concentration using the regression equation derived from 1960-2022 SSTs had an extremely high correlation coefficient of r = 0.9995.

Thus, not only is the paradigm that says humans drive atmospheric CO2 changes wrong, but “the theory that global warming and climate change are caused by human-emitted CO2 is also wrong.”

“SST has been the determinant of the annual changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and […] anthropogenic emissions have been irrelevant in this process, by head-to-head comparison.”

Image Source: Ato, 2024

This is not the first study to have addressed this lack of correlation between annual changes in atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Wang et al. (2013) assessed that CO2 emissions derived from human activity (fossil fuel combustion and land use changes) only account for about +0.1 to 0.3 PgC/yr of the annual change in CO2 concentration. This is about “10% of the variance (σ²) of the CO2 growth rate.”

Image Source: Wang et al., 2013

Jones and Cox (2005) have pointed out that the changes associated with annual fossil fuel emissions are unlikely to explain CO2 growth rate anomalies.

“…it is unlikely that these anomalies can be explained by an abrupt increase in anthropogenic emissions, as the anomalies are much larger than annual increases in fossil fuel emissions.”

Image Source: Jones and Cox, 2005

Dr. Jari Ahlbeck (2009) also assessed the correlation between fossil fuel emissions and the increase in CO2 growth rates is “clearly statistically insignificant.” He therefore excluded this factor from consideration in his analysis of the mechanisms of CO2 variability.

A chart included in the body of the paper reveals 5-year periods where there was either a decline in the annual CO2 emissions trend (5.33, 5.17, 5.13, 5.11, 5.29 GtC/yr for 1980-1984) or a flattened trend (6.40, 6.53, 6.63, 6.59, 6.57 GtC/yr for 1995-1999).

Image Source: Ahlbeck, 2009

Even an analysis detailed in the Carbon Brief blog from a few years ago suggests “global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years.” This obviously does not support the conclusion that an increase in the CO2 growth rate has been driven by flat to declining human emissions.

Image Source: Carbon Brief

An additional side note found in the Ato paper addresses the lack of a link between human methane emissions and atmospheric methane growth rates.

Although human methane emissions have risen dramatically in recent decades, “atmospheric methane concentrations have declined since the 21st century.”

“…natural fluctuations are far more powerful than human emissions in terms of the influence on atmospheric methane levels.”

Image Source: Ato, 2024

So we not only have a lack of correlation between human emissions and annual variations in atmospheric CO2 (and CH4), we even have flat to declining trends in annual anthropogenic CO2 (and CH4) emissions in recent decades – the opposite explanatory directionality.

Climate Science goes full-bore witchcraft: Your beefsteak makes bridges fall like Tinker-Toys

Today the supposed “newspaper of record” for the most powerful nation on Earth is effectively telling people that the steak they eat, the car they drive and the heater they use could cause bridges to collapse “‘like Tinkertoys”. But you’ll have to join the dots yourself, because they never do. No one asks the experts: How many Tofu-burgers does it take to save Brooklyn Bridge? How many bus trips will we need to save the Golden Gate?

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

The Modern West is regressing to 8th Century occult science

Today the supposed “newspaper of record” for the most powerful nation on Earth is effectively telling people that the steak they eat, the car they drive and the heater they use could cause bridges to collapse “‘like Tinkertoys”. But you’ll have to join the dots yourself, because they never do. No one asks the experts: How many Tofu-burgers does it take to save Brooklyn Bridge? How many bus trips will we need to save the Golden Gate?

The worlds leading journalists never ask the obvious questions. They just leave a trail of breadcrumbs: Man makes CO2, CO2 causes Spooky weather and Spooky weather eats bridges. So good people drive EV’s!

Each breadcrumb looks like bread, like it might be real, but no one sees the whole loaf and before you know it, everyone is lost in the woods, installing solar panels to save their bridges.

Two days ago the breadcrumbs said “good people go without air conditioners”.

Things are so bad the New York Times tells us that on a 95 degree day in summer, one bridge in Manhattan got stuck open “for hours”. (The tragedy).  Another time a railway bridge in Iowa got washed away and some pavement buckled in Maine.

The truth is that US bridges are a miracle. There are, seriously, more than 600,000 bridges across the country and yet this was all the catastrophe they could find in the leading paragraph. We’re supposed to believe that we’re in a bridge crisis, and that “extreme” heat, floods and “snap weather changes” are new, and worse, and we’re causing it.

Be afraid:

“…now, extreme heat and increased flooding linked to climate change are accelerating the disintegration of the nation’s bridges, engineers say, essentially causing them to age prematurely.

The New York Times doesn’t mention the big numbers, but they do say that a quarter of the bridges in the US were built before 1960. So amazingly there are 150,000  bridges which are over 60 years old. The oldest is 327 years old. They’re trying to make out that old bridges weren’t built to cope with modern”climate change”.  But who designs bridges that can’t handle warming of a half a degree?

The last time anyone died in a bridge collapse in the US it was not climate change but because a ship ran into it.

The time before that, the footbridge that collapsed was still under construction.

People are not being killed by climate change, they’re being killed by incompetence.

The Professor was paid to find a crisis

And as I keep saying “we got what we paid for”:

“We have a bridge crisis that is specifically tied to extreme weather events,” said Paul Chinowsky, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder who researches the effects of climate change on infrastructure. “These are not things that would happen under normal climate circumstances. These are not things that we’ve ever seen at this rate.”

So if Prof Chinowsky found that “climate change” had no effect at all he wouldn’t get much of a grant next year. His field is hardly likely to be starring in emergency sessions at the UN and he probably won’t get a paid ski-trip to meet Harry and Megan at Davos either. On a more mundane level the top students won’t be beating a path to his door. Even if he is a decent bloke and a breadwinner, all roads in Science World serve the government.

The real problem in this story is that one sided government funding has killed science, and the journalists are conducting a seance with the ashes.

Looming ‘clean’ energy disasters off our coasts

Photos of oil-covered seals and birds from California’s 1969 Santa Barbara blowout helped launch the environmental and stop-oil movements. More recently, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon drillship disaster killed eleven workers and blasted 3-4 million barrels of oil and enormous amounts of natural gas into the Gulf of Mexico.

From CFACT

By Paul Driessen

Photos of oil-covered seals and birds from California’s 1969 Santa Barbara blowout helped launch the environmental and stop-oil movements. More recently, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon drillship disaster killed eleven workers and blasted 3-4 million barrels of oil and enormous amounts of natural gas into the Gulf of Mexico.

These accidents spurred industry to implement better blowout-prevention technologies and procedures.

Such industry actions, of course, never placated environmentalists who wanted them banned forever. But now the question is whether they will apply the same standards for wind energy today.

A recent mishap off the coast of Nantucket, an island in Massachusetts, underscores yet another reason why hundreds or thousands of monstrous wind turbines should not be permitted in America’s coastal waters. Shards, chunks and finally the rest of a turbine blade fell into the ocean. One blade … from a 62-turbine project that is only three-fourths completed.

The blade was broken by its own weight, not even by a storm. And yet it was enough to force the closure of beaches amid peak tourist season, while crews picked up pieces of fiberglass-resin-plastic-foam. Boats were also forced to dodge big pieces floating in the water. Worse, Vineyard Wind, the company behind the project, didn’t even warn Nantucket officials about the problems until two days after the blade began disintegrating.

Each blade is 350 feet long and weighs 140,000 pounds. That’s more than a fully occupied Boeing 737 jetliner. The Vineyard Wind project involves 186 blades, or 65,000 feet (12 miles) in total combined length and a combined 26,000,000 pounds in weight.

The Biden-Harris offshore wind plan calls for 30,000 megawatts of generating capacity by 2030. That would require 2,500 gigantic 12-megawatt offshore turbines. Offshore wind’s contribution toward meeting future demands for all Atlantic Coast states could easily require 5,000 such turbines. That means 15,000 blades, weighing a combined 2 billion pounds and spanning a combined 5,250,000 feet (995 miles).

That’s a lot of potential ocean-bound junk.

Every year, the entire Atlantic coastline is hurricane country. The only questions are how many hurricanes, how powerful, and where each one will hit. NOAA records for landfalling hurricanes — those that actually hit U.S. beaches and cities — reveal that 105 Category 1-5 hurricanes struck the Atlantic seaboard, from Florida to Maine, from 1851 through 2023. Add in those that remained at sea, where the turbines will be, and that number could double.

Of that total, 23 were Category 3 through 5, meaning their winds were 111 miles per hour of higher. Most struck Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, but 39 made landfall between North Carolina and Delaware. Nineteen hit Northeastern states, including nine Category 2-3 monsters (96 to 129 mph winds).

Mind you, these turbines will be weakened by constant corrosive salt spray and frequently by sub-hurricane storms. When the inevitable big hurricane roars up the coast, devastation will follow.

Kamala Harris is bullish about offshore wind. For the last three-and-a-half years, she has helped run an administration that’s determined to convert the nation to wind, solar and battery power, expedite permits for onshore and offshore “clean energy” projects, and even waive requirements that offshore wind developers post bonds and pay for removing damaged, broken and obsolete offshore wind towers. She supports banning plastic straws, but has she ever considered how many plastic straws it would take to equal 15,000 offshore wind turbine blades?

Harris, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) and other wind advocates dismiss worries about hurricanes as anti-wind-energy fearmongering. Yet history says otherwise.

The 1935 Labor Day Hurricane clobbered Florida with 200-plus mile-per-hour devastation and Georgia with Category 1 winds. The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 smashed into New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts with 115-120 mph force. The Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 — punished the coast from North Carolina to New Jersey and Massachusetts with Category 2 winds.

Hurricane Edna hit the Northeast with Category 2 winds in 1954, Donna did it again in 1960, and Gloria clobbered the region with 96-115 mph blasts in 1985, even reaching New Hampshire and Maine. Isabel hit North Carolina and Virginia in 2003. The “minor” Category 1 hurricane of 2012, better known as Superstorm Sandy, was also devastating.

This is just a sample of the kind of weather that will hit our planned forests of offshore turbines. Whether they are fixed to the seafloor or sitting atop enormous floating platforms, the likelihood approaches 100 percent over time of a massive failure that makes this summer’s trouble in Nantucket seem mild by comparison.

Replacing hundreds or thousands of torn, damaged and smashed turbines and blades could take years, perhaps decades, to say nothing of the cleanup process or environmental damage.

Before we rush further into this “renewable energy transformation,” can we first have some realistic, common-sense analysis?

This article originally appeared in The Hill

Rising Global Temperatures Saving Millions Of Lives, Study Finds. Cold Kills 30 Times More!

Fact: Cold kills nearly 30 times more people than extreme heat, 4.6 million vs. 0.155 million. Rising temperatures drive up the number of heat deaths, but not in extreme heat, but in moderate heat, as TKP recently reported and broke down. However, rising temperatures also reduce the number of deaths from cold.

From NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin

By Dr. Peter F. Mayer – https://tkp.at

Hat-tip: Linke Zeitung here. 

Over the past 11,000 years of the current interglacial period, phases of prosperity and cultural flourishing are clearly linked to warmer temperatures. A reduction in deaths with rising temperatures can also be observed for the last two decades.

Fact: Cold kills nearly 30 times more people than extreme heat, 4.6 million vs. 0.155 million. Rising temperatures drive up the number of heat deaths, but not in extreme heat, but in moderate heat, as TKP recently reported and broke down. However, rising temperatures also reduce the number of deaths from cold.

Bjorn Lomborg used this data to illustrate the ratios graphically:

Chart: Björn Lomborg

Overall, this has meant saving 166,000 lives per year over the last two decades. This is according to the Lancet study by Qi Zhao (2021), which TKP has already reported on.

“Globally, 5,083,173 deaths per year were associated with sub-optimal temperatures, accounting for 9.43% of all deaths. 8.52% were cold-related and 0.91% were heat-related. There were 74 temperature-related excess deaths per 100,000 population. The mortality burden varied geographically.”

Eastern Europe had the highest heat-related excess mortality rate and sub-Saharan Africa had the highest cold-related excess mortality rate.

So we see that global warming saves lives, exactly the opposite of what politicians like Health Minister Karl Lauterbach or EU-Leyen claim and of course the mainstream media.

Full article here: https://tkp.at/2024/08/11/steigende-temperaturen-retten-leben

(Translated/summarized in the English by P. Gosselin)

August 2024 Arctic Ice, NOAA Missing Nearly Half a Wadham

The annual competition between ice and water in the Arctic ocean is approaching the maximum for water, which typically occurs mid September.  After that, diminishing energy from the slowly setting sun allows oceanic cooling causing ice to regenerate. Those interested in the dynamics of Arctic sea ice can read numerous posts here. 

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

The images above come from AARI (Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute) St. Petersburg, Russia. Note how the location of remaining ice at late August varies greatly from year to year.  The marginal seas are open water, including the Pacific basins, Canadian Bays (Hudson and Baffin), and the Atlantic basins for the most part.  Note ice extent fluctuations especially in Eurasian seas (lower right) and in Can-Am seas (upper right).  Notice the much greater ice extent in 2021 compared to 2018. As discussed later on, some regions retain considerable ice at the annual minimum, with differences year to year. [Note: Images prior to 2009 are in a different format.  AARI Charts are (here)

The annual competition between ice and water in the Arctic ocean is approaching the maximum for water, which typically occurs mid September.  After that, diminishing energy from the slowly setting sun allows oceanic cooling causing ice to regenerate. Those interested in the dynamics of Arctic sea ice can read numerous posts here.  This post provides a look at end of August from 2007 to yesterday as a context for anticipating this year’s annual minimum.  Note that for climate purposes the annual minimum is measured by the September monthly average ice extent, since the daily extents vary and will go briefly lowest on or about day 260. In a typical year the overall ice extent will end September slightly higher than at the beginning.

The melting season mid July to mid August shows 2024 melted at nearly the average rate, while retaining more ice extent at the end than some other recent years of note.

Firstly note that on average August shows ice declining 1.8M km2 down to 4.9M km2.  2024 started 288k km2 below average and on day 244 was only 98k km2 or 2% in deficit to average. The extents in Sea Ice Index in orange  were considerably lower during August, meaning that SII August 2024 monthly average will be ~400k km2 lower than MASIE., nearly half a Wadham.

The table for day 244 shows how large how the ice is distributed across the various seas comprising the Arctic Ocean.

Region2024244Day 244 ave2024-Ave.20072442024-2007
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere48024554900416-979624525136277319
 (1) Beaufort_Sea331017568911-237894629454-298437
 (2) Chukchi_Sea50835026150424684696232412118
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea476831342187134644196476635
 (4) Laptev_Sea20996716393846029245578-35612
 (5) Kara_Sea25347999-4774674307-74054
 (6) Barents_Sea015867-1586711061-11061
 (7) Greenland_Sea101048171695-70647288223-187174
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence5142826156252723280418624
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago224943301460-76516234389-9445
 (10) Hudson_Bay386819658-1579028401-24533
 (11) Central_Arctic28936222980244-866222883200.5810421

The largest deficit to average is in Beaufort Sea, followed by smaller losses in Greenland Sea, CAA and Central Arctic.   Hudson Bay and Barents Sea are mostly open water. The offsetting surpluses are in Chukchi, East Siberian and Laptev seas.

For context, note that the average maximum has been 15M, so on average the extent shrinks to 30% of the March high before growing back the following winter. Presently 2024 is at 32% of last March maximum.  In this context, it is foolhardy to project any summer minimum forward to proclaim the end of Arctic ice.

Resources:  Climate Compilation II Arctic Sea Ice

Miliband’s flagship wind farm paid nearly £2.5m to keep turbines switched off

Ed Miliband’s flagship wind farm has already been paid close to £2.5 million to keep its turbines switched off, The Telegraph can reveal.

FILE PHOTO: An off-shore wind farm is seen in the English Channel near Clacton-on-Sea in England August 29, 2014. REUTERS/Toby Melville/File Photo

Renewable Energy Foundation figures show 62 per cent of Viking’s output has had to be discarded in its first month

Ed Miliband’s flagship wind farm has already been paid close to £2.5 million to keep its turbines switched off, The Telegraph can reveal. The Telegraph has the story.

Mr Miliband, the Energy Secretary, praised the Viking wind farm in the Shetlands, which officially opened on Thursday, saying “hundreds of thousands of homes” across the country would benefit from “cheap, home-grown energy”.

He said the development, the UK’s largest onshore wind farm, “shows why we need more developments like this to make Britain a clean energy superpower”.

SSE, which operates Viking, promised that it would be Britain’s “most productive” onshore wind farm. But figures from the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) show 62 per cent of its output has had to be discarded in its first month.

The wind farm has so far been paid £2.48 million by the National Grid to reduce its energy output, according to the REF analysis. 

The payouts, which will ultimately be added to consumer bills, have been made almost every day this month and have varied between £227,192 and £8,408 per day.

Known as constraint payments, they are paid out by the National Grid to incentivise wind farms to reduce output when more energy is generated than can be used locally or exported to consumers elsewhere in the UK, usually as a result of higher wind speeds.

The value of constraint payments to wind farms has increased rapidly in recent years as more of Britain’s power has come from renewable sources. Last year, wind farms were paid over £310 million to stop producing energy, up from £174,000 in 2010, according to REF data.

The charity’s analysis found that £1.8 billion had been spent since constraint payments began in 2010, which had ultimately been passed on to consumers’ electricity bills.

Dr John Constable, the director of the REF, said: “The paradoxical outcome is that wind farm developers actually make more money when they are paid to reduce output rather than when they are selling normally on the market. The British consumer is being ripped off, and developers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Read the full story here.

Climate Communism: “… violence and destruction of the environment are key to capitalism …”

The Conversation channeling the work of far left Indian philosopher Amitav Ghosh.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

The Conversation channeling the work of far left Indian philosopher Amitav Ghosh.

Climate change has deep historical roots – Amitav Ghosh explores how capitalism and colonialism fit in

Published: August 30, 2024 5.01pm AEST

Amitav Ghosh is an internationally celebrated author of 20 historical fiction and non-fiction books. The Indian thinker and writer has written extensively on the legacies of colonialism, violence and extractivism. His most famous works explore migration, globalisation and commercial violence and conquest during the colonial period, against the backdrop of the opium trade in the 1800s.

…

Julia Taylor: In Ghosh’s recent non-fiction book, The Nutmeg’s Curse: Parables for a Planet in Crisis, he used his storytelling prowess to outline the roots of climate change within two systems of power and oppression: imperialism and capitalism. 

…

Capitalism is the dominant economic system where ownership of the means of production (industry) is private. Private actors are driven by profit and growth, which has relied on combustion of fossil fuels. 

What Ghosh makes clear is that violence and destruction of the environment are key to capitalism, as they were to colonialism.

Imraan Valodia: Ghosh challenges us to think more deeply about the role of conquest and violence in shaping the planetary crisis we’re facing. And the need to reshape our economic and social relations to address climate change. He does this with remarkable acumen and clarity in another of his works of non-fiction, The Great Derangement. In the book he seeks to explain our failure to address the urgency of climate change. He asks very powerfully whether the current generation is deranged by our inability to grasp the scale, violence and urgency of climate change.

…Read more: 

https://theconversation.com/climate-change-has-deep-historical-roots-amitav-ghosh-explores-how-capitalism-and-colonialism-fit-in-237586

Amitav Ghosh neglected to cite examples of perfect societies which have defeated the evils of capitalism, which is a shame because history abounds with examples of nations which cancelled capitalism – Cambodia’s killing fields, Soviet Gulags, Chinese mass famines are all features of nations which reject rewarding people who do the work.

Perhaps these are examples of good governance to a green – population control in action. And those enterprising Venezuelans searching trash cans for food, you’d struggle to find a better example of fulfilling the green ideal of reducing food waste.

Ghosh seems to be OK with a little personal capitalism, though who knows, perhaps all the profits are going to a good cause. Ghosh’s book is on sale through University of Chicago press for prices starting from US $17.99. Or you can see Ghosh speak next week in South Africa, in a series of public talks.

UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2024: +0.88 deg. C

The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2024 was +0.88 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up slightly from the July, 2024 anomaly of +0.85 deg. C.

From Roy Spencer, PhD

September 2nd, 2024 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2024 was +0.88 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up slightly from the July, 2024 anomaly of +0.85 deg. C.

Persistent global-averaged warmth was (unusually) contributed to this month by the Southern Hemisphere. Of the 27 regions we routinely monitor, 5 of them set record-warm (or near-record) high monthly temperature anomalies in August, all due to contributions from the Southern Hemisphere:

Global land: +1.35 deg. C

Southern Hemisphere land: +1.87 deg. C

Southern Hemisphere extratropical land: +2.23 deg. C

Antarctica: +3.31 deg. C (2nd place, previous record was +3.37 deg. C, Aug. 1996)

Australia: +1.80 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.16 C/decade (+0.14 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.21 C/decade over global-averaged land).

The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 20 months (record highs are in red):

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2023Jan-0.04+0.05-0.13-0.38+0.12-0.12-0.50
2023Feb+0.09+0.17+0.00-0.10+0.68-0.24-0.11
2023Mar+0.20+0.24+0.17-0.13-1.43+0.17+0.40
2023Apr+0.18+0.11+0.26-0.03-0.37+0.53+0.21
2023May+0.37+0.30+0.44+0.40+0.57+0.66-0.09
2023June+0.38+0.47+0.29+0.55-0.35+0.45+0.07
2023July+0.64+0.73+0.56+0.88+0.53+0.91+1.44
2023Aug+0.70+0.88+0.51+0.86+0.94+1.54+1.25
2023Sep+0.90+0.94+0.86+0.93+0.40+1.13+1.17
2023Oct+0.93+1.02+0.83+1.00+0.99+0.92+0.63
2023Nov+0.91+1.01+0.82+1.03+0.65+1.16+0.42
2023Dec+0.83+0.93+0.73+1.08+1.26+0.26+0.85
2024Jan+0.86+1.06+0.66+1.27-0.05+0.40+1.18
2024Feb+0.93+1.03+0.83+1.24+1.36+0.88+1.07
2024Mar+0.95+1.02+0.88+1.35+0.23+1.10+1.29
2024Apr+1.05+1.25+0.85+1.26+1.02+0.98+0.48
2024May+0.90+0.98+0.83+1.31+0.38+0.38+0.45
2024June+0.80+0.96+0.64+0.93+1.65+0.79+0.87
2024July+0.85+1.02+0.68+1.06+0.77+0.67+0.01
2024August+0.88+0.96+0.81+0.88+0.69+0.94+1.80

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for August, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.

Lower Troposphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Mid-Troposphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt

Tropopause:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt

Lower Stratosphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt

Megabattery project run by former Chinese diplomat approved after national security review

I’m not sure what is more scary. Putting the idiot Miliband in charge of energy, or Lammy in charge of relations with China!

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

Letting China loose on the power grid! What could go wrong?

A project led by a former Chinese diplomat to build one of Britain’s biggest battery storage facilities has been given the green light after a national security review.

Pat McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, last week approved a deal for a joint venture to develop an 80-megawatt storage plant near Grimsby.

The deal is financed by the US giant BlackRock and KX Power, a UK-registered asset manager run by a former Chinese diplomat and with links to Chinese investors.

It was reviewed under national security laws but allowed through with minor conditions, according to a Government notice. It is one of the first national security reviews decided by the Government since Labour came to power.

A security notice published last week said that the Government had required KXP to notify the Cabinet Office if it changes the power “offtaker” – the party buying power from the site – which would also be subject to restrictions around data sharing.

KX Power describes itself as “a leading developer and asset manager of utility scale energy storage”.

Its joint venture with BlackRock has said it plans to build up to two gigawatt-hours of storage capacity, which would make it one of the country’s largest operators of grid batteries.

KX Power is run by Zhe Zhang, a former Goldman Sachs banker who previously worked for China’s Ministry of Commerce.

According to an SEC filing, Mr Zhang worked for the department in Europe for 14 years before working in Goldman’s Beijing office, where he “led multiple overseas acquisitions by Chinese state-owned enterprises and listed companies”.

KX Power does not list its investors, and UK filings identify its overseas parent entities as controlling the company.

One shareholder is a British Virgin Islands company called Infinity-Star Holdings. US stock market filings list Infinity Star as potentially being subject to national security scrutiny by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which reviews foreign transactions.

Executives at KX Power are also listed as working at Still Waters Green Technology (SWGT), a renewable energy investor owned by Hong Kong investor Sift Capital.

Sift Capital, which is regulated by authorities in Hong Kong and China, was also founded by Dr Zhang. Its website says it has “strategic partnership[s] with Chinese sovereign wealth funds and state-owned enterprises”. It is registered at the same London address as KX Power.

Sift Capital also has a joint venture with Everbright, the state-owned investment giant. Stephen Markscheid, the former head of GE Capital in Asia, previously worked as KX Power’s chairman, while its executives include renewable energy and investment veterans.

National security laws introduced by the previous government have seen a slew of Chinese deals blocked. The majority of the 15 deals blocked, reversed or allowed through with conditions during the law’s first year involved Chinese companies.

David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, has vowed to overhaul relations with China, and has reportedly been planning to visit the country.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/31/chinese-backed-megabattery-project-approved-security-review

I’m not sure what is more scary. Putting the idiot Miliband in charge of energy, or Lammy in charge of relations with China!

But leaving the security aspects aside, the key bit of the Telegraph is this:

As usual the MSM make the thing sound huge.

In reality however, 160 MWh is only enough to power the UK for about ten seconds, quite literally.

For this BlackRock will want their £200m back, along with a nice fat return on capital.

CORRECTION

The article has been corrected to read “ten seconds”, instead of one second.