And so the cost of “net zero” comes to the front pages, and MPs are getting worked up about it. Unfortunately, they fail to draw the right conclusions regarding the mess we in the UK are in thanks to “net zero” energy policy.

Even the Guardian couldn’t fail to reportⁱ on the news that Ovo Energy has sent insulting and astonishing advice to those of its customers who it acquired when it bought SSE’s energy supply business from it (and by the way, SSE obviously saw the way the wind was blowing – or, rather, not blowing – when it decided to get out of the increasingly unprofitable energy supply business to concentrate on hoovering up wind farm subsidies instead).

SSE Energy Services (a division of Ovo Energy, which we are told is the UK’s third biggest energy supplier), sent an email to its customers, which:

listed 10 “simple and cost-effective ways to keep warm this winter”, such as “sticking to non-alcoholic drinks”, doing household chores, having “a cuddle with your pets and loved ones to help stay cosy” and “encouraging blood flow” by eating ginger but avoiding chilli “as it makes you sweat”.

Customers were also advised to “get moving” by “challenging the kids to a hula-hoop contest”, and to drink more water, alongside the warning that the “warming feeling from wine or whisky is temporary as you’ll soon lose heat from your core and end up feeling even colder”, the Financial Times reported.

Another piece of advice was to wear merino wool socks. Can vegans do that? By the way, merino wool socks don’t come cheap – advising people who can’t afford to heat their houses to buy expensive socks is truly a “Marie Antoinette” moment. Perhaps more so than advice to eat porridge.

And what do our MPs make of it?

Clive Lewis, Labour MP for Norwich South, said the recommendations were “clown-like” and “depressing”. “It is laughable and insulting, but then with this government’s lack of an energy strategy, you almost expect it,” he said, adding that the email “will be read by people who have to choose between eating and heating […] if that’s the state of the country we are now in, I find it quite depressing”.

Yes, Mr Lewis, so do I. Unlike most MPs, however, I don’t support policies that made this inevitable and pretty much guarantees that things will only get worse.

This is Mr Lewis, as reported in Net Zero Eastⁱⁱ, in March 2019:

MP for Norwich South Clive Lewis and Green Party MP Caroline Lucas and Labour Shadow Treasury Minister for Sustainable Economics have tabled a Private Members’ Bill that would require the government to enact a Green New Deal.

Tabled towards the end of March, the Decarbonisation and Economic Strategy Bill would require the government to “introduce a radical 10-year strategy for public investment designed to decarbonise the economy and eradicate inequality”. This would be achieved through strict environmental regulations and empowering communities and workers to transition from high-carbon to low and zero-carbon industries.

A Green New Deal would involve “huge investment” in clean energy, warm homes and affordable public transport. Lewis said: “We must cut carbon emissions by 50%, within a decade, to avoid climate breakdown. As climate strikers warn us, the planet will not wait.”

In the end, it’s all a question of what your priorities are. Do you believe that the UK can single-handedly and at great expense “save the planet”? Or do you think an MP’s first duty is to the people the MP is elected to represent, and to guarantee them access to cheap, plentiful and reliable energy supplies?

I know what my priority is. And it doesn’t involve saying “let them eat porridge” (and do star jumps and hug a pet) to keep warm.

Endnotes

i https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jan/10/do-star-jumps-uk-energy-supplier-sse-criticised-over-keep-warm-advice

ii https://netzeroeast.uk/index.php/2019/03/26/clive-lewis-mp-proposes-green-new-deal/

Don McLean’s American Pie was all about the day the music died; 2021 was all about the year that the wind industry died. Its well-worn claim that wind power is just a heartbeat away from replacing meaningful power sources – such as coal, gas and nuclear – took a battering across the globe last year.

On 16-17 February 2021, Texan wind power output fell to a paltry 2% of installed capacity – thanks to hundreds of wind turbines frozen solid during breathless, freezing weather. Solar panels were buried under inches-deep blankets of snow and ice and, likewise, just as useless.

The result was millions of Texans left freezing in the dark; no doubt, chuffed with the progress of their ‘inevitable transition’ to an all wind and sun-powered future. The only thing that kept the lights on were gas, coal and nuclear.

During the first half of 2021, Germany’s Greens watched on in horror as wind power output plummeted by more than 25% compared to the same period the year before. Over the same timeframe, Germany’s coal-fired power generators increased output by a whopping 38%.

Germany’s energy brains trust had earlier directed the forced closure of 11 coal-fired power plants (with a total capacity of 4.7GW) on 1 January 2021. Only to restart them a week later, when their 30,000 wind turbines failed to deliver anything like their nameplate capacity.

Things got worse as the year progressed and the Big Calm swept across Western Europe.

Starting in September, running through October and well into November wind power output collapsed (often for weeks on end) across Germany and the UK.

The Brits, like the Germans, were forced to reopen coal-fired power plants which they had earlier shuttered with delight.

Remember all that chatter about the death of coal?

After a string of paltry performances, anyone looking to pen a lengthy American-Pie-like dirge for the death of the wind industry has plenty to work with.

For those who missed 2021 and haven’t yet made the connection between wind power and the weather, Donn Dears spells it out below.

Wind Turbines Need Wind
Power for USA
Donn Dears
3 December 2021

This may seem to be a truism, but the speed of the wind is critical to how much electricity a wind turbine generates.

Europe is finding this out the hard way. Texas learned this past winter that the wind needs to blow rather robustly … but not too robustly.

But, what are the implications of this wind drought in Northern Europe?

This map from EnergyPostEU courtesy of World Climate Service, shows how little wind there was in parts of Europe during the summer of 2021.

The UK, and Ireland were especially affected by slow wind speeds. A major UK utility reported that, “Renewable assets produced 32% less power than expected between April and September.”

One researcher said there was no need to worry about this rare event, the least wind in 75 years.

But it only takes 14 or more days in a row without wind for there to be a disaster if there isn’t enough backup. And we are not talking about no wind, we are talking about wind at low speeds, such as 9 or 10 mph.

The amount of power that’s produced is related to the cube of the wind speed.

That is, of course, until the wind blows too hard, say above 55 mph, when the wind turbines must be shut down to prevent them from being torn apart by the wind.

Germany also experienced slow winds during the summer. The CFO of RWE, a large German utility, said: “[We need a portfolio] onshore, offshore, or solar or storage…”

What does that statement infer?

It plainly says, it’s necessary to have duplicate investments to guarantee a steady supply of electricity. If wind isn’t available, then a duplicate and equal amount of solar must be in place to back it up. Or, alternatively, storage is needed for back up.

This should make it clear that wind and solar are more expensive than fossil fuel power plants to achieve a reliable supply of electricity. Duplicate investments repeated every twenty years automatically make wind and solar more expensive than natural gas or coal-fired plants that last for forty to sixty years.

But it’s even more expensive than this, because storage will be needed no matter how much investment money is spent on wind and solar because they are unreliable and require storage for backup.

In addition, it’s important to remember there hasn’t yet been a battery invented that can store and provide enough electricity for days on end to replace the electricity lost when the wind doesn’t blow hard enough or the sun doesn’t shine.
Power for USA

The time to review and remark is now. Once this report is published, it will be too late and all our crabby complaints will be useless. All public comments filed via this system become a part of the record. If significant critiques and facts are ignored, this will be apparent when the comments are published.

The Federal Government’s 5th National Climate Assessment (NCA5) public comment period has officially opened its 45-day public comment period. During this time, the draft outline for the NCA5 is being shared for the first time with the purpose of seeking public feedback. Those wishing to participate in the public comment period must submit their comments via the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) Review and Comment System by 11:59 PM ET on February 20, 2022.

Over the next several months, the USGCRP will also launch public engagement workshops for each chapter; please join if you are interested in providing feedback. For more information on the NCA5, contact Emily Osborne (emily.osborne@noaa.gov).

HT/MM