Month: February 2020

The Decline and Fall of Britain’s Energy Regulator, Ofgem

By Paul Homewood

 

An excoriating piece from John Constable about OFGEM’s new Decarbonisation Programme Action Plan:

 image

This confirms concerns that as a long-term Whitehall policy insider and responsible in part for both the Climate Change Act (2008) and Electricity Market Reform (EMR), Mr Brearley was not an appropriate choice to lead the regulator.

In October 2019, Ofgem, the UK regulator for the gas and electricity markets, announced that Jonathan Brearley, its own Executive Director for Systems and Networks, would be succeeding Dermot Nolan as Chief Executive, taking over at the end of February 2020.

Faced with such vast proposals for expenditure an objective regulator would require stringent cost benefit analysis and justification, but under Mr Brearley that not will happen

Mr Brearley’s Whitehall career is practically a history of modern British climate change policy. From 2002 to 2006 he served as “Head of Team” in Tony Blair’s Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit (PMSU). The PMSU was at least in part responsible for the Energy Review of 2002, and for The Energy Challenge study of June 2006, amongst other things (a full list of the PMSU publications and of those to which it contributed can be found on the National Archives site).

From July 2006 until September 2009 Mr Brearley worked as Director of the Office for Climate Change (OCC), an offshoot of the Department of Environment (DEFRA) that formed the administrative nexus drawing together six other departments for work on the Climate Change Act (2008).

This experience led to a further appointment in late 2008 in Gordon Brown’s new Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), where he became Director of Energy Strategy and Futures, and then Director of Electricity Markets and Networks. In this latter position he is said to have “led the delivery of the Governments’ Electricity Market Reform (EMR) programme”, the programme which introduced Contracts for Difference (CfD), the subsidy scheme introduced to replace the Renewables Obligation (RO).

Mr Brearley continued to serve under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, but in 2013 he resigned visibly and dramatically from DECC, with the Independent newspaper reporting a source to the effect that Brearley was “not happy… DECC is working to improve the investment climate and the Treasury is stopping it”.

Full post here.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/2GUYJWT

February 5, 2020 at 04:04AM

The government’s eco-edict that all new cars be electric in 15 years is doomed to backfire – because old bangers can be greener, says JOHN NAISH

By Paul Homewood

 

 

A dose of realism at long last!

 image

For those readers left scratching their heads over the Government’s ban on sales of all new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars from 2035, here’s what I — a former Fleet Street motoring editor — will be doing to help save the planet.

Our family car, a VW Golf, has at least a decade left in its petrol engine. Good care and servicing should stretch that to 2033. Then I’ll buy the very latest-technology petrol or diesel car, just before the pre‑ban sales scramble causes prices to spiral.

Why? Because I’m convinced it is the greenest thing to do all round.

Debacle

The government’s attempt to meet its near-zero carbon target by bringing forward by five years its ban on petrol, diesel and hybrid cars is well‑intentioned. Yet it is doomed to backfire as badly as a Model T Ford.

We all know well from the great diesel debacle what happens when politicians grab the steering wheel on eco policy.

John Naish says his VW Golf could have another 13 years left on the clock (pictured, a 2018 model)

Back in 2001, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown slashed road tax and fuel duty on diesel cars because some boffin in a white coat had told him they emit 15 per cent less CO2 greenhouse-gas carbon dioxide than petrol cars.

Sales rocketed as eco-minded drivers rushed to buy.

But then some other boffins discovered diesels spewed out vastly more damaging nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide than petrol cars.

What’s more, their exhausts send asthma and heart disease rates soaring.

So punishing new taxes got slapped on diesels. Costs spiralled and re-sale prices plummeted. Those well-meaning motorists got taken to the cleaners.

Now we are experiencing the great electric car push — and that is set to be still more of a shocker, both for people and the planet. At a local level, we require massive amounts of new infrastructure to be built to support electric cars.

We will need at least 25 million new roadside charging points — the equivalent of installing 4,000 new ones a day, starting yesterday — with roads and pavements having to be ripped up in the process which will, of course, create plumes of emissions.

And where on earth will the electricity needed come from?

More than a third of Britons commute by car. Imagine, in 2035 and beyond, each of those motorists arriving home at night and hurriedly plugging in their vehicles at around the same time.

Malcolm McCulloch, head of Oxford University’s Energy and Power group, has warned that the National Grid will need another 20 gigawatts of generating capacity — double the amount currently generated by all the UK’s nuclear power stations — to cope.

The Engineer magazine says that charging an electric car at home with a medium-speed charger is like ‘leaving the electric shower on all night. If just a few people in a street decided to do that, it’d blow the local distribution fuse.’

Indeed, the whole system may fail.

Ofgem, Britain’s energy regulator, thinks this can be solved by making motorists pay more for peak-rate recharging. This would create a two-tier system in which lower-earning commuters would be penalised and effectively taxed out of work.

The government’s electric car dream wantonly ignores the other rapidly growing demands on our supply of ‘clean’ electricity, including Ofgem’s new drive to stop us using gas to heat our homes —and to use electric instead.

On top of this is our ever-spiralling use of internet streaming, downloading, phoning and texting. By 2025, it is predicted that the server ‘farms’ storing digital data from billions of devices will be using 20 per cent of all the world’s electricity.

So we’re going to need a lot more juice, or face regular blackouts such as the one last August that caused rush-hour chaos across the UK’s biggest train stations, railways, roads and airports, and left almost a million homes in the dark after two major generator outages.

The economic impact would be greater still if a third of Britain’s workforce couldn’t make it to work the next morning.

We can’t rely on wind-farms or solar power to meet such needs. We don’t have the technology to store large amounts of electricity, so it has to be generated on demand.

More power stations powered by fossil fuels or nuclear fission thus appear the only answer — at least, for the moment.

Another problem threatens to crash the electric party — sourcing the metals needed to make the car batteries.

The newer electric cars, like this VW Mk7 e-Golf, may not be greener overall than an old banger, says John Naish

Some experts fear that the planet’s available reserves of lithium are insufficient to make enough lithium-ion batteries to replace all of our petrol-driven vehicles.

Others say that the cobalt needed comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, infamous for its use of child labour and human rights abuses.

Wanton

Most worrying of all is the need for rare-earth metals such as neodymium, essential for manufacturing the magnets that make electric car motors run. Mining neodymium releases such vast amounts of radioactive contamination and other murderous toxins such as sulphuric acid that only one nation allows it: China.

China controls about 80 per cent of the global market for rare earth metals and their export is tightly controlled.

Oil gave Arab nations power over the West for most of the 20th century; today neodymium may give China a similar energy weapon. Already the Chinese government is threatening to restrict supplies as retaliation against U.S. tariffs.

Some may feel that risking a trade war may be a fair price to pay for greener motoring, but swapping our petrol cars for electric ones is not guaranteed to deliver that for all the reasons outlined above.

What’s even more shocking are the figures I unearthed when our smug middle-class hippy neighbours began braying about how ‘green’ they’d been by trading their year-old petrol car for a new hybrid.

Radioactive

I discovered that manufacturing an average car generates more than 17 tonnes of CO2 — that’s almost the amount generated by gas and electricity use over three years in a typical UK home.

(That’s why it’s ‘often better to keep your old banger on the road than to upgrade to a greener model’, according to The Guardian newspaper’s green-living blog.)

The situation is even worse with electric cars. A Swedish-government report says that making the battery alone releases as much CO2 as eight years’ worth of driving a petrol vehicle.

So, to return to my opening point: all we need to do to make a green difference is use our existing cars sparingly and keep them going for longer.

Of course, that doesn’t suit the carmaking lobbyists who sit at the Government’s ear. They want us to keep buying new ones.

Come 2033, when I’m finally in the market for a new car, I predict that technological advances will have made fossil-fuel-engined motors significantly cleaner.

The signs are already there in the technical journals. One of the most promising developments is in the world of . . . wait for it . . . cleaner diesel engines with far fewer emissions.

You couldn’t make it up. But actually, that’s what the Government is doing with its ‘greener’ motoring policies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7968085/Eco-edict-new-cars-electric-15-years-doomed-backfire-says-JOHN-NAISH.html

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/39bJHIe

February 5, 2020 at 03:46AM

DOING AWAY WITH GAS WILL DO A LOT OF DAMAGE TO THE UK

Continuing on from yesterday’s piece, the Mail has another big article on the proposed banning of gas boilers in our homes. This huge project is proposed by OFGEM to begin before 2030. People will now start to be concerned at the prospect of having their gas boiler ripped out during the next decade – replaced with an unknown and more costly, less effective substitute. 

People will, quite rightly, be angry – even more so if they have to pay for it, which they will in some indirect extra cost or tax. By then it will be too late. Time now for a Climate Realist Party lead by a Nigel Farage character, but where is he?

via climate science

https://ift.tt/3bgGJEy

February 5, 2020 at 01:30AM

Swedish Lawmakers Nominate Climate Activist Greta Thunberg For A Nobel Peace Prize

Energy

Daily Caller News Foundation logoDaily Caller News Foundation logo

Chris White Tech Reporter

February 03, 2020 9:46 AM ET

Swedish lawmakers nominated activist Greta Thunberg for a Nobel Peace Prize Monday in the belief that the teenager will help save the Paris climate agreement.

Thunberg “worked hard to make politicians open their eyes to the climate crisis,” Jens Holm and Hakan Svenneling, both members of Sweden’s Left Party, told the Associated Press. They believe the 17-year-old activist’s work prodding officials to take the deal seriously is worth the prize.

“Action for reducing our emissions and complying with the Paris Agreement is therefore also an act of making peace,” Holm and Svenneling said. (RELATED: Greta Thunberg’s Father Says ‘She Is Happy,’ But He Is Worried)

Thunberg is receiving heaps of praise after she appeared at the United Nations’ climate summit in 2019. She won TIME Magazine’s “Person of the Year” in December 2019, making her the young person to receive the honor since the magazine started naming people of the year in 1927.

She traveled to the U.S. from her home in Sweden in August on a racing yacht to avoid taking jets, which activists argue are responsible for spewing tons of carbon emissions. Her visit was designed to galvanize support for action on global warming ahead of September’s United Nations climate summit.

Thunberg’s emotional speech at the summit appeared to be the catalyst for much of the praise.

“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words and yet I’m one of the lucky ones,” she said at the summit. “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”

UN climate officials struggled to find a spark after President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement in 2017. The deal required the U.S. to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. China only committed to “peak” emissions by 2030 while India made no promise to curtail future emissions growth.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/3bejn24

February 5, 2020 at 12:59AM