Month: May 2017

Climate Policies, Electricity Prices And The Energy Price Cap

Climate Policies, Electricity Prices And The Energy Price Cap

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

In the run-up to the general election on 8 June, the GWPF is calling on all parties to adopt policies that prevent further economic harm to the UK economy and halt the rising policy costs to energy bills for households.

Theresa May is proposing a cap on increases to energy prices charged on the Standard Variable Tariff, which covers about three quarters of the United Kingdom’s 26 million households. It is essential to grasp that she is proposing a cap on the prices for gas and electricity charged under some domestic energy tariffs. It is not a cap on bills and it does not affect all tariffs.

The Prime Minister has suggested that this controversial move is the result of some deep-seated injustice in the energy markets. She says that “if you want fairer energy prices vote for me”. The implicit target here are the energy retailers, a safe target since no one trusts them.

In response, energy companies claim that renewable energy subsidies and other policy-driven costs are the main cause of recent price rises.

The last set of data published by the Government in 2014 shows how policies have been driving up prices to domestic consumers, and how they threaten even greater price impacts in the future.

The cost of government policy on electricity prices in 2014 was estimated have increased prices by 17%, some £24/MWh. These figures were essentially confirmed by the Committee on Climate Change’s more recent study of Energy Prices and Bills which estimates that in 2016 climate policies were still responsible for about 17% of the total electricity price to household consumers.

Median electricity consumption of electricity in the UK is approximately 3.5 MWhs, so this amounted to about £91 per household per year, or roughly £2.4 billion a year, assuming 26 million households.

The Prime Minister says that she is “fed up with rip-off energy prices”, and claims that consumers pay £1.4bn a year more on Standard Variable Tariffs than they need to. Yet the government’s very own climate policies are responsible for a much bigger rip-off, more than £2bn a year in fact, just on domestic electricity bills.

Furthermore, UK climate policies add another £4bn to the bills of industrial and commercial consumers, a cost that they pass on to households in higher prices of goods and services. If a supermarket has to pay more for electricity to run its refrigerators it must recover this cost in the price of fish fingers and milk and the checkout.

Energy and climate policies have a negative effect on the general cost of living that is both much larger and much broader than any defects in the Standard Variable Tariff. According to the government’s own estimates this problem is set to grow dramatically. In 2020 the price impact will have more than doubled, to £52/MWh, or about £180 a year on the electricity bill, a nationwide cost of about £5 billion per year.

Moreover, according to official figures, the Climate Change Act will cost the UK economy over £300 billion by 2030, costing each household £875 per annum.

The Prime Minister is clearly right to be concerned about the cost of energy to households, but in seeking to put price caps on energy suppliers she has chosen the wrong target, energy retailers, and the wrong instrument, price caps. Her own government policies are much more of a problem, and much more readily addressed.

Price caps will almost certainly prove to be counterproductive, causing higher prices later in the cycle as the result of damage to investment signals. It would be both simpler and more effective, and much more beneficial to consumers, to abandon all extravagant and ineffective subsidy spending on renewable energy that is driving prices up for years to come.

See also GWPF Energy Manifesto 2017

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

May 9, 2017 at 08:11PM

KAM theorem, and its application to the stability of the Solar system. Why Phi?

KAM theorem, and its application to the stability of the Solar system. Why Phi?

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
http://ift.tt/1WIzElD

I’m not expecting much discussion of this post, I don’t understand it either, though I have run across KAM before in another context, and eventually some light may dawn that illuminates some relationship with our phi-solar system dynamics work. I’ll just leave it here for now so it doesn’t get lost. One random synchrony is that Gabriella Pinzari is at the same university as Nicola Scafetta. Maybe we can get him interested enough to talk to her about our theory.

The following message is a guest post by Boris Khesin. Boris summarizes the wonderful talk given by Gabriella Pinzari at the workshop.  –Jim Colliander

Ecliptic_plane_3d_viewGabriella Pinzari (30min talk) described her joint result with her advisor Luigi Chierchia on a recently found fix for the famous KAM theorem, or rather for its application to the stability of the Solar system.

Namely, the original KAM theorem in Arnold’s 1963 paper claimed the persistence of the Liouville tori for perturbations of integrable systems under some nondegeneracy assumption – some determinant must be nonzero. This was a perfectly correct statement proved in the paper. But Arnold applied it to the Solar system without properly checking that for that system the determinant is indeed nonzero. (More precisely, Arnold checked the non-degeneracy condition for the first nontrivial case, the planar three-body problem, and claimed that this could extend to the general case: spatial, arbitrary n.) However, it turned out to be identically zero in the spatial case.

So later M.Herman developed a theory for how to deal with such a degeneracy in the KAM theory. Essentially it shows how to use a slighter nondegeneracy “in the next term”, which worked for the application to the Solar system. (It was published by J.Fejoz.)

But now Gabriella Pinzari explained that the source of the degeneracy in the application of the KAM theorem to the Solar system was the necessity to mod out rotations!! Once one mods out rotational symmetry in the Laplace plane, the system becomes nondegenerate (i.e. Arnold’s determinant is nondegenerate) on the quotient! This is somewhat similar to the relation of Morse and Morse-Bott functions, as far as I understand.

Quoting Pinzari, “Arnold gave only some ideas on how to construct (by series) such a reduction, but did not develop these ideas. What we have done was in essence to construct explicitly such a reduction. The miracle is that you can do it without singularities in the transformation (in a sense this is needed to control the convergence of the series that Arnold had in mind).”

[Note that since the determinant is identically zero, no higher order terms are nonzero. So M.Herman introduced a modification of the Hamiltonian which broke the rotation invariance of the modified system and computed a modified torsion with nondegeneracy in higher orders and this worked for the application to the Solar system. On the contrary, keeping the rotation invariance allows one to stay in the nondegenerate setting on the quotient.]

I am really shocked that this unavoidable degeneracy had such a simple explanation, which came unnoticed for 40 years. So all one needed was to develop a rotation-invariant version of the KAM theory. (As far I as understand, an equivariant KAM still does not exist beyond this rotation case.) And Arnold, who developed both KAM and group actions was in the best position to marry these two domains, but somehow it did not happen then!  –Boris Khesin

Here are some references from G.Pinzari:

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop http://ift.tt/1WIzElD

May 9, 2017 at 08:09PM

Vermonters Vent Fury at the Wind Industry’s Constant Stream of Lies

Vermonters Vent Fury at the Wind Industry’s Constant Stream of Lies

via STOP THESE THINGS
http://ift.tt/2kE7k62

Annette Smith is Executive Director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Inc. She is the Burlington Free Press’s 2016 Vermonter of the Year. And, having graced these pages many times, an STT Champion. In this sharp and insightful piece, Anna unloads on the lies, treachery and deceit that makes the wind industry tick. The winds … Continue reading Vermonters Vent Fury at the Wind Industry’s Constant Stream of Lies

via STOP THESE THINGS http://ift.tt/2kE7k62

May 9, 2017 at 07:33PM

New Video : Why Arctic Warming Is Fake News

New Video : Why Arctic Warming Is Fake News

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O

May 9, 2017 at 06:40PM