Month: June 2018

Why Britain can never rely on wind power

Why Britain can never rely on wind power

Andrew Montford has a new article in the Spectator, on wind power and the possibility of small-scale nuclear reactors:

Why Britain can never rely on wind power

For the last ten days or more the UK has been becalmed. In theory, our windmill fleet should be able to generate 20 megawatts of power, more than 50 percent of peak demand at this time of year, but with barely a puff of wind this month, it has been generating next to nothing. If the weather forecasters are right, the lull will not end for a few more days yet. We should be thanking our lucky stars that we still have fossil fuels and nuclear to keep the lights on.

It’s hard to think of a better demonstration of the absurdity of windmills as a way of powering a modern economy. Despite this, Lord Deben, the former John Selwyn Gummer and current chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, has taken to the pages of the Guardian today to argue for more wind power, and in particular, onshore wind power…

 

via Climate Scepticism

https://ift.tt/2MiSLjZ

June 11, 2018 at 08:02AM

Andrew Montford: Why Britain Can Never Rely On Wind Power

For the last ten days or more the UK has been becalmed. In theory, our windmill fleet should be able to generate 20 megawatts of power, more than 50 percent of peak demand at this time of year, but with barely a puff of wind this month, it has been generating next to nothing.

If the weather forecasters are right, the lull will not end for a few more days yet. We should be thanking our lucky stars that we still have fossil fuels and nuclear to keep the lights on.

It’s hard to think of a better demonstration of the absurdity of windmills as a way of powering a modern economy. Despite this, Lord Deben, the former John Selwyn Gummer and current chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, has taken to the pages of the Guardian today to argue for more wind power, and in particular, onshore wind power.

Nevertheless, there are at least hints though that the government is finally “getting it” on the parlous state into which environmentalism has plunged the UK’s electricity grid: a planned new nuclear power station on Anglesey received a boost last week when it was announced that negotiations between the developer and the government were underway and that the state was looking to take a substantial stake in the project.

As low-carbon technologies go, nuclear of course has the great advantage of not being at the mercy of the weather, but as the debacle of Hinkley Point has shown, it is now so expensive as to make a nuclear strategy almost as mad as a renewables one.

Or is it? Another announcement last week received much less attention, but intriguingly suggests that nuclear could soon be a genuine competitor even to fossil fuels. Nuscale Energy is a US-based startup that is trying to develop small nuclear reactors that can be built in a modular fashion, allowing most of the construction to take place in a factory, before final assembly on site. The company has been riding a wave of optimism this year, after regulators gave approval to key safety elements of its design. With the major hurdle to full regulatory approval completed a few weeks later, the company now expects to be producing electricity at its first site, in Utah, by 2025.

Nuscale has previously suggested that its technology, once mature, might produce electricity at a cost of $85 per megawatt hour: cheaper than offshore wind and biomass, but more expensive than onshore wind or natural gas (although without the reliability issues of wind, which makes direct cost comparison difficult, and also without the carbon emissions of gas or biomass). However, a couple of days ago the company announced that optimisation of the design had allowed them to increase power output by 20 percent without materially affecting costs. That means that its cost per megawatt hour should fall by a similar proportion.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/2l0F9gT

June 11, 2018 at 07:54AM

Government Report To Confirm Germany Will Widely Miss 2020 Climate Target

The government’s Climate Protection Report 2017 will confirm that Germany is set to miss its 2020 national climate target by a wide margin.

A draft, seen by the Clean Energy Wire, says that the country will only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent compared to 1990, instead of the 40 percent aimed for. An internal paper of the environment ministry from October 2017 had already warned that Germany would only achieve 31.7 to 32.5 percent. In 2014, the government had initiated a “Climate Action Programme”. The programme’s measures, however, were not enough to close the gap to the 2020 goal, due to “the unexpected dynamic economic development and the unexpected significant population growth”, writes the government in the upcoming report. The government is now working on a programme for 2030 target, based on Germany Climate Action Plan 2050, says the draft.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/2y0xgBl

June 11, 2018 at 07:54AM

The debate. Part II

The debate. Part II

by Judith Curry

Countdown to the ‘conversation’ between Mann, Titley, Moore, Curry.  Looks like you can now register for the live broadcast, for a fee of $10 [link].

I will post my talk about 15 minutes before the start of the event.

Stay tuned.

via Climate Etc.

https://ift.tt/2sOx1UZ

June 11, 2018 at 07:17AM