Month: July 2025

Daily News 18 Jul 2025

Up Is Down, And Renewables Are Cheaper–It’s Jackanory Time At The BBC

By Paul Homewood

It’s official! Renewable energy is definitely cheaper than fossil fuels and the tens of billions we pay out to subsidise reduce your electricity bills!

It must be true – the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit says so!

I complained about a BBC World at One soft soap interview with the lobbyist for the wind industry, Adam Berman, a few months ago. He was allowed to get away with the lie that renewable energy is cheaper than gas power, and that our electricity bills are high because of the price of gas.

I covered the story here.

Predictably the ECU has rejected my complaint. In doing so they have totally ignored the evidence I sent them, viz:

1) Fiscal data from the OBR regarding Environmental Levies, aka subsidies for renewables, which will amount to £17.1 billion this year, all of which is added to bills.

2) Costs of grid balancing, which amount to £2.6 billion, nearly all of which are incurred because of the intermittency of renewables, and all of which are added to bills.

3) Details of subsidies paid out via CfDs, which specifically destroy the notion that renewables are cheaper.

4) Details of other subsidies, such as Renewables Obligation.

Not only did the ECU ignore this evidence, they failed to refute it or explain why it was in any way irrelevant to electricity bills.

In rejecting my complaint, the ECU concluded:

In my judgement, the interview provided a duly accurate and clear explanation of how the UK electricity market functions. It served to clarify the complex relationship between gas prices and electricity costs, and the role of renewables in the current day to day pricing structure.

Bear in mind that the specific topic of discussion was “why are UK electricity prices so high?”. It was not a discussion of how the market works. As such the ECU’s response is not relevant.

As for the ECU’s “proof” that renewables are cheaper, they state:

In the second half of 2021 and most of 2022, the price of gas significantly increased because of market changes after Covid-19 restrictions were lifted and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This has made renewables comparatively even cheaper.
Even before the rise in gas prices, new renewables schemes were able to generate electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels. In 2021, the global average lifetime cost of electricity generation for new solar panels and hydropower generators was 11% lower than the cheapest new fossil fuel generator, while onshore wind was 39% lower.

The fact that gas prices spiked in 2022 have no relevance to why prices are so high now.

As for the second paragraph, they link to this report from the International Renewable Energy Agency:

https://www.irena.org/publications/2022/Jul/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2021

Their theoretical costings are global ones, based on new construction and have no connection whatsoever to the actual prices and subsidies paid out in the UK for wind and solar farms built years ago, or that still continue to be built.

Why does the ECU need to go back to a theoretical study published four years ago and based globally, when there is the actual data readily available?

It is not theoretical costings that determine our bills, it is what we actually pay to generators.

The ECU also wheel out that old BEIS study from 2023, purportedly showing that new build renewables are cheaper.

In addition, the most recent Government assessment of electricity generation costs shows the levelised cost of electricity from wind and solar is generally lower than for gas-fired generation.

The same report they wheel out every time this issue is raised. Whether they are cheaper is irrelevant, because wind farms built in future don’t affect current bills.

But what really struck me was this section at the end of the ECU letter:

However, I think it is worth noting Contracts for Difference provide low carbon generators with a guaranteed price per MWh of electricity generated but they also mean generators have to make payments back to suppliers if the market price of electricity is higher than the guaranteed, so-called “strike” price. My understanding is most CfD strike prices are currently below the wholesale market price.

My understanding? What does “your understanding” have to do with anything? Is it so difficult to get hold of the facts?

I presented the facts surrounding CfDs, which conclusively show that “your understanding” is false. So why do you still maintain otherwise?

So, just to make this crystal clear. The OBR say that CfDs will be paid a subsidy of £1.4bn this year, and this will increase in the next four years:

https://obr.uk/download/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2025/

And on a monthly basis, subsidies have been paid throughout the period of the scheme, except for a few months in 2021/22:

https://data.spectator.co.uk/energy

The response was sent by Colin Tregear, who you may recall is off on a six-month course with the Oxford Climate Journalism Network, which aims to make the ‘climate crisis’ a central element in the journalism of the attendees.

The ECU will always defend the BBC against complaints, regardless of the facts.

But this latest judgement proves that it is also prepared to defend the BBC’s Net Zero agenda, come what may!

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/bvmprK3

July 18, 2025 at 11:26AM

Daily News 18 Jul 2025

Buchan (No identifier number) – From the undead to the ante-natal clinic.

57.45884 -1.81035 No existing CIMO assessement known. Installation date – not known

Buchan is an interesting weather station at “Remote Radar Head Buchan” that is most certainly not open for public inspection being a secure location. Interesting in that it does not appear to have any standard District County Network Number (DCNN) identifier nor any WMO designation. In fact does it even exist? Well it is not on the list of Open/Closed stations nor does it appear on the CIMO listing of stations. So what is the story?

The Met office publishes a list of all its Synoptic and Climate reporting stations in alphabetical order by country i.e. English followed by Northern Irish, Scottish and then Welsh. Check it out, there is no mention of Buchan anywhere on that list either. So let’s go to the archives where it does appear as below:

So far so good but there is no archived temperature data at all and in fact nothing at all to indicate there is any data available.

This is very similar to Plymouth Kinterbury Point where the site is solely for supplying immediate site data for specific local purposes but managed to have its data drifted into the public arena by “mistake” as explained to Paul Homewood of NALOPKT who inquired on my behalf.

“Hi Paul, thank you for your enquiry.

I have checked the weather station you mentioned in your enquiry and it has come to light that an administrative error resulted in data from this site recently making it on to our external website for extremes.

This is a customer-only site and as such is used to inform the customer’s specific decisions rather than being used for public records. As this site is used to provide very specific customer information, which is not climate related, it therefore does not have a CIMO rating and should not be available for our external website for extremes. The issue has now been resolved and will no longer be seen in any of our products.

Thank you for making us aware of this.

Nicky

Nicola Maxey BSc (Hons) Senior Press Officer”

So why is Buchan similar? Well yesterday the Met Office published this and note there is no hyperlink for this station name to more details.

Should Buchan be appearing in this public record? I would ask but, of course, I am deemed vexatious and they would not answer me. So unless anyone else chooses to query if this is a mistake then it will simply carry on. Of course I could ask from another email address, surely they would not know it was me. Well over 1 month ago on the 13th June I did that very thing, different name, different email address from a different supplier. And no responses at all as at 17th July despite a gentle reminder……..

…………but a little after note for the Met Office about Buchan for when they read this……..how do I know exactly where it is?

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/5Z78nfh

July 18, 2025 at 11:01AM

Daily News 18 Jul 2025

Pinchbeck’s Soviet Solution

By Paul Homewood

In some ways I pity Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart, who, on the latest edition of their The Rest is Politics podcast, have put themselves through an hour of Net Zero word soup from the new Climate Change Committee CEO Emma Pinchbeck. I have listened to it (or as much as I could endure) so you don’t have to!

But it is alarming that someone like this is anywhere near the levers of power. Take Ms Pinchbeck’s views on electricity costs, for example. In one place, she says:

Gas is more expensive than renewables. And it means that the electricity price that would be cheaper is driven up by the cost of gas. And so our electricity price tracks the gas price.”

To anyone who understands electricity markets, this remark is positioned somewhere between ‘misleading’ and ‘deceptive’: it is only wholesale markets that track gas prices, and since gas prices are now only a whisker above their long-term average, they can no longer be (correctly) blamed for pushing bills up.

Moreover, she repeatedly invites Campbell, Stewart and the listeners to believe that renewables are not the problem. She mentions ‘cheap renewables’ three times, as well as other terms insinuating the same idea.

But in another part of the interview, she seems to recognise that it’s policy costs pushing bills up:

Our policy costs sit on the electricity part of our bill… what we have accidentally done is make the fuel of the future…more expensive with a policy choice.

(The ellipses there cover a positive deluge of word soup, but I think I have captured her meaning correctly.)

What is more, she seems to understand that those policy charges to consumers are covering the costs of all the green nonsense:

…the decision to put those costs on electricity is in one way logical because some of that is financing new electricity infrastructure.”

She is not wrong. Analysis of Ofgem data (Figure 1), shows that policy costs are now 33% of the electricity bill, 20% of it being renewables subsidies and most of the rest being Net Zero related. Net Zero is also driving up grid costs (the red sections of the pie).

Figure 1: Breakdown of median electricity bill

Figure 2 shows the difference in bills today and bills ten years ago. It is almost solely about Net Zero.

Figure 2: How bills changed between 2015 and 2025.

Having somehow contrived to get two somewhat contradictory thoughts – ‘gas is driving up electric bills’ and ‘renewables subsidies are driving up electricity bills’ – in her head, Ms Pinchbeck seems mystified that people find her unconvincing.

So when they hear people like me telling them that renewables are cheap or these technologies are cheap and they see their bill, they think…we must be making it up.’

And they would be right to think so.

Ms Pinchbeck proceeds to her solution. Which is to move those policy costs off electricity bills and onto taxation. This in an odd remedy, given that she has told everyone that electricity bills track gas prices.

It is also remarkable given she clearly understands that the policy levies represent the costs of “new electricity infrastructure”. As most of my readers probably know, prices convey information about underlying costs, supply and demand to buyers. Removing levies from electricity bills would simply destroy that information flow. In other words, the Pinchbeck solution would have electricity buyers and sellers operate entirely in the dark.

This is, of course, where the Soviet Union went wrong. I suppose we should cut Ms Pinchbeck some slack, because she was only seven when the wall came down. And I might cut Messrs Campbell and Stewart some slack for failing to pick up the contradictions or idiocies – neither are experts, and Ms Pinchbeck’s word soup is nothing if not impenetrable. But it will still be be depressing if, having appointed someone so young to such an important position, the UK has to learn the lessons of history all over again.

Andrew Montford

The author is the director of Net Zero Watch.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/PQldEVb

July 18, 2025 at 10:22AM

Daily News 18 Jul 2025

Storm Chasing with Michael Mann: How to Stay in the Climate Spotlight

Charles Rotter

It’s hard not to notice when Michael Mann’s name appears in the author list of a climate paper—after all, he’s about as synonymous with climate alarm as Al Gore is with PowerPoint slides. One could say spotting his name in a paper about “intensification of the strongest nor’easters” is like finding Waldo in a crowd where everyone’s wearing a red-and-white striped shirt—inevitable, but somehow still amusing.

To the meat of the matter: this paper by Chen et al., published in PNAS in July 2025, claims that the strongest nor’easters affecting the U.S. East Coast are not only getting stronger in terms of maximum wind speed, but also producing more precipitation over time, especially since 1940. Naturally, this finding is attributed to—you guessed it—“a warming world,” though, as is tradition, the underlying uncertainties and methodological sleights-of-hand are tucked away in the statistical shadows.

The paper leans heavily on reanalysis data (ERA5, 1940–2025) and cyclone tracking algorithms to cobble together a historical record, touting its “homogeneity” and “comprehensiveness.” Yet, buried within the technical details, there is acknowledgment that models and data sources are patchy at best, especially in the pre-satellite era—a recurring Achilles’ heel in this field. Indeed, the authors admit:

“The precise significance levels vary depending on the choice of statistical test, time interval, and effective storm radius… Of specific potential concern is the sensitivity of the trend to changes in input data sources during the transition from traditional surface and radiosonde observations in the early part of the record to multisensor observations in later years. However, we find that the trends of interest are even greater in magnitude… if confined entirely to the satellite era (1979–2025)…”

In other words: the “clear finding” that nor’easters are becoming more intense is more “clear” the shorter and more satellite-heavy the dataset. It’s a bit like insisting your cooking skills are improving because you swapped out a foggy bathroom mirror for an Instagram filter—suddenly everything looks better, but is it really you that changed, or the tool?

The authors do recognize the ambiguity and the wobbly ground their conclusions stand on. Previous studies, as they admit, have reached everything from “no significant change in median cyclone intensity,” to a decrease, or an increase.

“There is, as a result of these confounding factors, considerable divergence in future projections of ETC intensity in past studies, with findings ranging from no significant change in median cyclone intensity, to a decrease, or an increase.”

This is climate science in a nutshell: if you don’t like the answer, wait for another model run.

Quantile regression, the paper’s statistical hammer of choice, is used to hunt for trends in the upper tail of nor’easter intensity. The median shows no significant trend—no surprise—but the “upper quantiles” (think: the rare, nasty storms) show a “statistically significant” upward blip. Here, “significant” is a term of art, stretched nearly to the breaking point. As the authors write:

“Trends… become statistically significant at P < 0.10 for quantiles above 0.66. A similarly pronounced increasing trend at higher quantiles is also evident when applying the Mann–Kendall trend analysis… the results overall lead to a clear finding: the strongest nor’easters are becoming stronger.”

A P-value of 0.10, in case anyone’s forgotten, means there’s a 10% chance the result is due to random noise. For comparison, most scientific disciplines would require P < 0.05 (or even lower). Here, we’re invited to hang public policy on a confidence threshold that wouldn’t pass muster in most reputable poker games.

Then there’s the matter of reanalysis data, which the authors themselves acknowledge is a stitched-together Frankenstein’s monster of models and sparse measurements, especially in the first half of the twentieth century. If this is the bedrock for billion-dollar policy decisions, it’s no wonder taxpayers feel seasick.

The study’s discussion pivots to a familiar script, predicting more damage, more floods, and (curiously) “the counterintuitive possibility of increased winter cold air outbreaks in regions neighboring the U.S. East Coast.” It seems global warming, much like a Las Vegas magician, can pull any outcome from its hat—hotter, colder, drier, wetter, all roads lead to Rome.

And let’s not overlook the obligatory economic scare numbers:

“The total economic loss from [the Ash Wednesday storm, 1962] was estimated at approximately $3 billion (1962 USD). When adjusted for inflation, a storm of similar magnitude striking today would result in losses exceeding $21 billion (2010 USD)… Accounting for inflation, that would be equivalent to $31 billion, which is in proportion to the typical cost of a major landfalling hurricane.”

One almost expects the next sentence to warn of a biblical plague of frogs, with losses adjusted for inflation.

Now, about Michael Mann: his presence on this author list is not just a punchline, it’s a calling card. Mann, famous for the “hockey stick” graph that gave Al Gore a PowerPoint and generations of schoolchildren nightmares, has become something of a celebrity meteorologist—equal parts scientist, activist, and legal enthusiast. If his name’s on it, you can bet the conclusion will be that weather is getting worse, and humanity is to blame. It’s less a finding than a branding strategy.

Yet, let’s give credit where due. The authors stop short of outright libel or slander against skeptics, which is more than can be said for certain climate “debates” on social media. Instead, the rhetorical force is channeled into statistical acrobatics and economic extrapolations. The real comedy here is not in the intent to deceive, but in the perennial hope that just one more regression, one more reanalysis, will finally clinch the case for “unprecedented” danger.

In summary, this paper offers a case study in climate science as performance art. There’s an obligatory nod to uncertainty, a parade of statistical significance at thresholds so generous even carnival barkers might blush, and a supporting cast led by Michael Mann, the maestro of the climate anxiety industrial complex. For policymakers and the public, the lesson is simple: always read the fine print—and if the numbers look scary, check who’s holding the calculator.

HT/rhs