Month: January 2022

Net Zero Watch pours scorn on Tony Blair Institute claims about ‘cheap’ onshore wind

London, 21 January — Net Zero Watch has ridiculed claims by the “Tony Blair Institute for Global Change” that the recent sharp rise in energy prices could have been avoided if the UK had only erected more onshore wind turbines over the last decade.
 

Given that Tony Blair introduced lavish subsidies for land owners and wind investors 20 years ago, it is unsurprising that his institute is trying to downplay their contribution to rising energy bills. However, its claim that more onshore wind turbines would have avoided rising energy bills is simply untrue.
 
Audited accounts show that the actual breakeven cost for new onshore wind in the 2010s was about £95 per MWh in current prices, not some fictional figure of £50 per MWh as claimed, and this did not change significantly between 2008 and 2018. 

Building more of this expensive and unreliable energy source would have made things today much worse not better. Indeed, it would have been better if the UK had limited the growth in wind power and concentrated on the construction of the latest high efficiency Combined Cycle Gas Turbines and nuclear power. Electricity today would not only be cheaper, it would also be cleaner.
 
Further details

The “Tony Blair Institute for Global Change” has claimed that the falling cost of onshore wind means that the UK has lost out by not building more of this technology, first introduced in bulk by the Blair government after 2002. Similar statements have been made by Carbon Brief.

Neither claim stands up to scrutiny.

Onshore wind farms cost consumers in the UK just under £1.5 billion in subsidy in 2020, or about £50 per household in total, one third hitting consumers through electricity bills and the rest finding its way to them through the cost of goods and services as shops and businesses pass on their own share of the subsidy. Because of this subsidy, onshore wind electricity was supplied at an average cost of about £90/MWh, roughly double the cost of conventional energy.

Analysis of the audited accounts of onshore wind farms between 2008 and 2019 conducted by Professor Hughes of the University of Edinburgh, showed no significant reduction in capital or operational costs over this time. Windfarms built in 2008 broke even at about £92/MWh, and those built in 2018/19 at about £91/MWh.

Both the “Tony Blair Institute” and “Carbon Brief” rely on an estimated break-even cost for new wind farms over the last decade of about £50/MWh. This is wishful thinking for which there is no empirical evidence in the audited accounts.

Furthermore, as is well-known, but not apparently to the “Tony Blair Institute” or Carbon Brief, onshore wind was restricted in England by the willingness of communities to accept it and not at all in Scotland, which has 60% of all the onshore wind in the UK. Mr Cameron’s “ban” was half-hearted and had no real effect. Insofar as onshore wind development was limited, it was discouraged by reductions in subsidy driven through by the Treasury.

The only realistic option for developing more renewable capacity at the time would have been to increase the amount of offshore wind. This would have involved a commitment to pay between £140 and £180 per MWh – the current prices for offshore projects developed in the 2010s. Those prices are 3.5 to 4.5 times the average market price in real terms for 2015-19 and would have imposed a huge burden on electricity customers, not just temporarily but for another 12-15 years.

It should also be remembered that the wind does not blow on demand. The current gas crisis has been exacerbated by low wind conditions that would have becalmed any additional onshore capacity that Mr Cameron might have built.

Advocates of more reliance on wind generation should tell us how we are to ensure that the electricity system continues to function in such conditions without relying on gas – and what the cost will be. Gas generation is the cheapest form of backup to intermittent wind generation.

By opposing the extraction of Britain’s massive shale gas reserves, Tony Blair’s Institute together with other green NGOs, MPs and ministers have directly contributed to the UK’s gas supply and energy cost crisis. 

What is more, they also sabotaged any prospect of building new – and much more efficient – gas plants which would have met the current needs at lower cost and with lower carbon emissions.

The authors of those policies should reflect on their part in making the current situation worse than it might have been.

Professor Hughes said:

The ‘Tony Blair Institute’ and ‘Carbon Brief’ authors appear to live in an alternative universe of speculative numbers. We have plenty of actual evidence about the cost of onshore wind in exactly the period under discussion. It was (and still is) extremely expensive. To have built more of it would have made the current situation even more painful for consumers.”

via Net Zero Watch

https://ift.tt/3Ig5Oz0

January 21, 2022 at 03:02AM

Trust & Truth Deficit: BBC Busted Telling Big Fat Lies About Wind Farm Subsidies

Never let the facts get in the way of the ‘green’ cult’s narrative, seems to be the BBC’s new motto. Its official line is that: “trust is the foundation of the BBC. We’re independent, impartial and honest”.

‘Independent’, maybe. But the Beeb is hardly impartial or honest when it comes to reporting on Britain’s wind industry.

One of its number, Justin Rowlatt was recently busted for telling lies about the massive subsidy stream that’s directed to Britain’s offshore wind industry. In another one of his typically ‘puffy’ pieces, Rowlatt made the farcical claim that Britain’s offshore wind farms are “now virtually subsidy-free”.

After Paul Homewood took the BBC to task over Rowlatt’s monstrous howler, BBC’s executive complaints unit gave Rowlatt a wrap on the knuckles – but not without leaving the equally false impression that Britain’s new offshore wind farms are “virtually subsidy-free”. That too is another BBC lie, by omission.

The wind industry is always and everywhere about subsidies, and no wind turbine will ever be erected without a solid subsidy foundation. Remove the subsidies and this so-called ‘industry’ would disappear in a heartbeat. So much for being ‘impartial and honest’!

BBC Uphold My Complaint About Wind Farm Subsidies
Not a Lot of People Know That
Paul Homewood
13 December 2021

The BBC have censured Justin Rowlatt following my complaint:

The BBC‘s climate editor has been censured for giving viewers an ‘inaccurate impression’ of wind farm subsidies.

A viewer complained after Justin Rowlatt reported in June that the offshore wind industry was ‘now virtually subsidy-free’.

Upholding the objection, the BBC’s executive complaints unit said it was not clear that he was only referring to projects which had been recently approved.

A viewer complained after Justin Rowlatt (pictured) reported in June that the offshore wind industry was ‘now virtually subsidy-free’

This meant viewers were ‘likely to form the impression’ that the statement covered the industry as whole. ‘As existing installations are expected to receive significant subsidies over their lifetime, that would have been inaccurate,’ added the unit.

The finding was ‘discussed’ with the Oxford-educated journalist, 55, and an online version of his story was amended.

Mr Rowlatt was made the BBC’s first climate editor in September after being chief environment correspondent, his job at the time of the report. Last night a BBC spokesman said: ‘We note the ECU findings.’
Daily Mail

Just for the record, offshore wind subsidies last year amounted to £3.5bn.
Not a Lot of People Know That

via STOP THESE THINGS

https://ift.tt/3KxRunx

January 21, 2022 at 12:30AM

Wrong Again, Atlantic, High Lumber Prices Are Not Being Caused by ‘Climate Change’

From ClimateREALISM

By Linnea Lueken -January 19, 2022

A truck loaded with lumber leaves a sawmill in Oregon

Near the top of the results of a Google search for “climate change” was a story in The Atlantic, titled Lumber Prices Are off the Rails Again. Blame Climate  .” This is false. The evidence shows supply chain disruptions are responsible for higher lumber prices.

The article claims that recent high lumber prices and volatility are due to climate change severely impacting the lumber supply coming from Canada.

“When it comes to lumber, climate change has manifested itself in extreme volatility, lack of supply, and a paradigm shift in how lumber markets have behaved for decades. Lumber prices are the second highest they’ve ever been, today, this moment—ever. And it was precipitated by mudslides, which was precipitated by burning, which was precipitated by beetle kill. There’s an infrastructure story in there. There’s a climate story.”

While it is true that lumber prices are currently abnormally high, as shown by this screenshot of a five-year trend from the NASDAQ report on lumber (LUM), climate change is not to blame.

Screenshot taken from NASDAQ: https://ift.tt/3ucB5fN

The recent spike in lumber prices is due to the post-pandemic supply chain and shipping bottlenecks. The already climbing prices were exacerbated by the destruction of infrastructure like roads and rail lines in British Columbia and the North-Western United States due to heavy rainfall that struck the region this winter. Parts of major highways like British Columbia Highway 1 were closed for repairs or debris clearing after the flooding and associated mud slides.

This atmospheric river event that carried rain to the West this winter is not an unprecedented climate event, but is instead a weather event. Climate Realism discusses the difference between weather events and climate change here and here, for example.

A recent Climate Realism article showed the claim that the recent atmospheric river event spanning the Pacific Northwest was caused by climate change was false. In the article, Cliff Mass, Ph.D., of the University of Washington, cited rainfall data proving the recent weather event was not sign of climate change. Mass analyzed the rainfall data from Bellingham and Clearbrook Washington, which goes back more than a hundred years, and found no evidence to support the claim that there has been an increase in heavy rainfall.

“There is NO HINT of a trend towards more extreme precipitation at either of these sites.” Dr. Mass said.

Atmospheric rivers have occurred in the region many times throughout history, and have been much more severe in the decades prior to the Industrial Revolution, as described by meteorologist Anthony Watts:

“The highest rainfall ever in California during recorded history likely occurred in January 1862, during the “Great Flood”. This was an atmospheric river event like we are experiencing now, but lasted several days, dumping 24.63 inches of rain in San Francisco, 66 inches in Los Angeles, leaving downtown Sacramento underwater.”

Strong weather events always have been, and always will be potential causes of infrastructure damage and supply-chain disruptions. The potential for localized natural disasters should be factored into infrastructure plans. Corporate media outlets like The Atlantic are wrong to blame climate change every time the skies open.

Linnea Luekenhttps://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/linnea-lueken

Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/3rzO1vX

January 21, 2022 at 12:18AM

Working As Designed

Israel leads the world in injections and infections.

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/3IrpWxY

January 20, 2022 at 11:11PM