Catturd: 2.3 million views

Mann: 98.5 thousand views

Incidentally Mann also believes Elon Musk is a Russian asset.

What a tortured soul.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/C2fnTVS

September 6, 2024 at 08:01AM

By Paul Homewood

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66cda5c1e39a8536eac0532e/sos-chris-stark-letter-clean-power-2030.pdf

.

This is Miliband’s SOS letter that I mentioned the other day. (Note that “SOS” appears in the link!)

It makes you wonder what Chris Stark, now head of Miliband’s Mission Control, has been doing for the past few years while in charge at the Committee on Climate Change! After all, the CCC has been publishing goodness knows how many reports, budgets and assorted advice to government on Net Zero. Now it appears that they themselves never had the slightest clue as to how it could be achieved.

As for Fintan Slye at the National Grid, what else can he say than what is already in the Future Energy Scenarios (FES) which he published just a couple of months ago. These laid out various pathways to Net Zero by 2050, but also gave plenty of detail on how we might progress in the years leading up to 2050.

The FES included this useful table:

.

Miliband’s manifesto plans for renewables in 2030 are in essence the same as the FES EE pathway in 2035 – 76GW offshore wind, 31GW onshore and 48 GW solar.

The FES also projected peak demand of 65GW in 2030, rising to 81GW by 2035. (These figures and the rest of this analysis are based on the Electric Engagement scenario (EE), which assumes mass roll out of heat pumps and EVs, and is the most likely pathway). The electricity system in place by 2030 must be robust enough to handle the increased demand in 2035, so I will stick with the figure of 81GW. In practice, you would need about 100GW of available capacity, so as to allow for plant outages and unexpected events.

So let’s dig a bit deeper. Below I have listed the FES EE capacities for 2035, but plugged in their 2030 figures for bio, nuclear and others:

So we have an immediate problem, in that we only have dispatchable capacity of 45.6GW, against a requirement of 100GW. Even adding in the 11.7GW of Interconnector capacity, we will still be well short when the wind soes not below. There are many occasions in winter when wind can run at less than 5% of capacity for days on end. And in winter solar only produces at about 3% of capacity, meaning that the contribution from wind and solar could be as little as 5GW or even less.

Leaving this issue aside however, we can also see that the FES includes 18.4GW of unabated gas, which Miliband’s plan eliminates., so matters are made even worse. They also assume 6.1GW of hydrogen burning power stations and 8.1GW of CCGT with CCS, meaning a total of 32.6GW of thermal power. There is of course no chance of having any meaningful amount of the latter by 2030, as CCS has still not been proven at scale. As for hydrogen, we simply will not have the infrastructure for distributing and storing it in that timescale. Even the FES only projects 9 TWh of hydrogen production in 2030, and 41 TWh in 2035, nowhere near enough to make a dent in electricity generation.

In any event, we will need to build a whole new fleet of thermal power stations in the next decade, as demand for electricity rises and older gas plants close. Miliband does not appear to have grasped this simple fact yet.

In theory, in overall terms there is enough electricity to power the grid over the year as a whole using Miliband’s assumptions. But that is only if we get a constant output of wind and solar power. He clearly thinks that as long as we build enough wind farms, all of the problems will magically go away.

Maybe Fintan Slye might educate Ed Miliband about the physical reality.

I am going to stick my neck out here and predict that Miliband will end up dropping his 2030 deadline for decarbonising the grid. In justification he will use the upcoming ESO report, which will essentially say it is an impossible objective, and then blame the Tories for their failure to act earlier. He will probably put back the deadline to 2035, by which time he will long be gone.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/0tPugCN

September 6, 2024 at 05:14AM

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/Yw7WHc3

September 6, 2024 at 04:05AM

55.60298 -2.46853 Met Office assessed CIMO Class 4 (but clearly Class 5) Installed 1/1/1941.

A prime example of Met Office weather stations installed in locations specifically designed to NOT reflect their natural wider environment. Quite how the Met Office can claim this is a Class 4 site (up to 2°C inaccuracy due to siting) and not a total junk Class 5 site (up to 5°C inaccuracy) defies common sense. As I stated in reviewing Edinburgh RBG, even Wikpedia reports that walled gardens enhance their natural climate by “several degrees”. Surely trained “Meteorologists” would know better than to claim national records for such locations wouldn’t they?…..Well they certainly did try. Record chasing seems to trump rational thought every time.

The Floors Castle Stevenson Screen is located in the famed walled kitchen garden of the former large stately home that is now a major tourist attraction. Close to an easterly facing wall and due south of the extensive heated greenhouses, this manual station has readings taken by the Castle’s dedicated staff. Details of the reading protocol together with views of the site are proudly proclaimed in a video clip on the Garden’s Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1893457610801591

Clearly the weather station is both a well cherished feature of this tourist attraction but also quite blatantly not at all typical of the surrounding area. 4 metre high/500mm thick brick walls surrounding glass houses are not natural features thus the location is not, in any way, adequately representative for its data to be included in the temperature record. Here is a close up view.

To put into perspective how unrepresentative such locations actually are, consider the 1987 BBC documentary series “The Victorian Kitchen Garden” . Head gardener Harry Dodson regularly commented on how the site modifications were intended to transfer the site’s climate to those of the “South of France”. Probably every gardener and farmer understands this but seemingly professional meteorologists do not as demonstrated by Sean Batty of Scottish broadcaster STV.

“STV’s meteorologist Sean Batty said it was “absolutely incredible”.

I said in Tuesday’s news when I was at Floors Castle that the Scottish record had been set at Charter Hall 34.8 degrees Celsius,” he said.

“However, I did see that Floors Castle didn’t record their reading until 9am this morning and I thought that would be the new record holder and it now officially is.”

“It’s Scotland’s hottest place provisionally with a new high of 35.1C. That is absolutely incredible when you think that the previous record was 32.9C recorded at Greycrook, which is just a few miles away from Floors Castle, back in 2003.

“To break that by two degrees is absolutely phenomenal. Breaking and blowing that previous record right out of the water.”

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/hottest-day-in-scotland-officially-recorded-as-temperatures-reach-35-1c-at-floors-castle

So this “meteorologist” (who openly admits to have visited the site so no excuses) felt it was quite normal to proclaim national “records” taken in walled kitchen gardens specifically designed to enhance temperatures by several degrees……and so did the UK Meteorological Office – for a while.

However, following multiple immediate queries of the site’s acceptability from members of the general public, the Met Office ruled out its “record” and opted to accept the (former RAF) Charterhall site (also assessed CIMO Class 4) figures in lieu.

n.b. Interesting to consider – How did the RAF new site record compare with former record holder Greycrook’s readings on that July 2022 day? Well Greycrook was closed down 1/10/2004 – just a few months after setting its record – the CEDA archives show every subsequent month’s data as –

These almost immediate closures after setting records will be the subject of a future post.

To conclude, I will simply reiterate my previous assertions – it is not acceptable for a public, tax payer funded agency to operate in such a contrived manner. The use of data from such poorly sited and unrepresentative locations only distorts the climate record. It should be stopped forthwith.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/tqjPAZv

September 6, 2024 at 04:05AM