Month: July 2025

The true cost of our energy delusions

By Paul Homewood

 

 image

In its latest Fiscal Risks and Sustainability Report, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirms the consequences of nearly two decades of failed energy policy. Not deliberately, of course. The document is written in the passive, data-heavy language of technocratic forecasters. But read carefully, and one thing becomes abundantly clear: Britain has built an energy system that cannot support its economy – and now the entire fiscal architecture is buckling under the strain.

For years, the political class convinced itself that energy was a secondary concern. What mattered was hitting targets, making announcements, and aligning with the global climate consensus. Meanwhile, fundamental issues such as intermittency were treated as mere afterthoughts. Affordability became someone else’s problem. And firm, dispatchable energy – the stuff that actually keeps the economy running – was quietly sidelined. Even as the cost of living has emerged in recent years as the defining political issue – surpassing climate change, migration, and even the NHS – Westminster persists.

Now the bill has arrived.

The OBR doesn’t shout about it, but the facts are there. Britain’s economic growth is anaemic. Inflation has proven more stubborn than expected. Interest payments on government debt are higher and more volatile than in peer economies. And the government has spent tens of billions responding to crises, with less and less room to manoeuvre each time. You don’t have to squint to see what connects these trends: myopic energy policy has made each one worse.

When the global energy crisis hit in 2022, the UK was uniquely vulnerable. The government was forced to spend £40 billion just to prevent household and business collapse. Not because markets failed, but because Britain had spent the previous decade dismantling its own resilience. It blew up coal-fired power stations. It shuttered gas storage. It blocked domestic production, including banning onshore gas. It let nuclear capacity wither. All while deepening its dependence on low-density, weather-dependent technologies with no serious plan for backup.

The £40 billion spent shielding households and businesses from the energy crisis was the fiscal consequence of a system built on fragility, which left us dangerously exposed to geopolitical shocks such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting spike in gas prices.

But instead of learning the lesson – including the need to invest in firm baseload, large-scale storage, and domestic hydrocarbon supply – the government is entrenching the problem. Miliband’s “clean power by 2030” mission will make the grid more dependent on intermittent generation while deterring investment from vital firm generation capacity. As the respected energy academic Professor Dieter Helm has warned, this rushed strategy is likely to drive up system and network costs, forcing consumers to pay more for an energy system that delivers less reliability and security.

The OBR puts the central government cost of Net Zero mitigation at £803 billion over 25 years – roughly 0.8% of GDP annually. That may sound a lot, but it’s a cautious figure built on highly uncertain assumptions. It excludes household and private sector costs, which could be ten times as much. It assumes smooth delivery and no overruns. And it’s based in part on data from the Climate Change Committee, which has already revised its own estimates down by 65% – not because the transition got cheaper, but because the modelling changed.

In short, it’s not that the number is too high but that it’s probably too low. A best-case forecast in a worst-case world.

Britain has pursued an energy model that is physically fragile and economically inefficient – but politically untouchable. Rightly, that model is now being exposed.

Unfortunately, it is about to get a lot worse. Every structural weakness the OBR identifies – low growth, stubborn inflation, rising debt, persistent deficits – will be made harder to fix by an energy system that demands ever more subsidy, ever more intervention, and delivers ever less reliability.

The political class has spent years ignoring this reality. The OBR, to its credit, cannot. Its spreadsheets may be bloodless, but the message is unmistakable: Britain is in trouble and energy policy is a primary reason why.

The question now isn’t whether the model has failed. It has. The question is whether anyone in power is prepared to admit it and build something better before the next crisis makes that impossible.

Maurice Cousins

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/fiFSaKH

July 11, 2025 at 10:43AM

Hereford Credenhill DCNN4863 – A possible record “High” site with a convenient big “H”

52.07999 -2.80241 Met Office CIMO assessed Class 4 Installed 1/9/1999

One glance at the above site image indicates this is not Hereford itself. Originally RAF Credenhill it is now known as “Stirling Lines” and home to the SAS. It is obviously not generally open to public inspection. It is also not a good site but it is currently being touted for a July hotspot figure.

The Met Office assesses this site as lowly Class 4 contrary to Tim Channon’s original Class 2 report. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/wmo03522-hereford-credenhill/

I feel Tim called that wrong in not considering the immediate topography and only concentrating on the hedge and boundary lines.

That embankment is the first warning sign of things not being as they really should be and highlighted by hache marks on the Ordnance survey sheet.

The entire site is artificially levelled with the weather station at the end of the rugby pitch immediately in front of the embankment works. This is remarkably reminiscent of the Pitsford site which is similarly prone to over-recording from thermals around embankments. Today and this coming weekend 11th July has the Met Office over ventilating and hyping up the a warm weather period as the “Third heatwave of the “season”. Weatherobs currently shows a high in the Hereford vicinity. at 14:00 11/7/2025.

The stand out issue here though follows on from my RNAS Culdrose report. The SAS are the Special Air Service after all and this is a major training facility. The headline image shows the helicopter use of the area and it is very obvious that helicopter rotor wash has major effects on temperature readings readily. A record can easily inadvertently occur from being picked up by a fast reacting PRT reading – the temptation to “engineer” such an event must be very great! Looking at this site in 2D indicates the likely take off and landing paths of the helicopters.

All put together this is yet again an unsuitable site for contributing readings to the national historic temperature record……but could prove very useful for other more dramatic purposes.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/kJeFzLT

July 11, 2025 at 08:33AM

Mann’s Hockey Stick – Still Crap After All these Years

From the “anybody can make a hockey stick out of random numbers department” and Twitter comes this interesting exercise. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick demonstrated this two decades ago. Of course Mann still insists he’s right, mainly because his super-sized ego won’t allow him to admit his errors.

@andy on X writes:

Did my own try on the Mann/Marcott/PAGES2K proxy screening routine and created an ensemble of 103 pseudoproxies consisting of random numbers between -2 and +2 for the time 0-2025 AD. To find the “temperature sensitive” proxies (as prescribed for this process) I tested correlation of the random proxies with the NOAA global temperature data set 1850-2025. The chart below shows what I received as average after discarding the negatively and non-correlating proxies. I created global warming from a bunch of meaningless casino numbers, pure noise.

The average of the whole ensemble of pseudoproxies shows no real trend, of course.

Simply flipping (changing the sign) of the pseudoproxies that have the worst correlation has a similar effect (chart below). That is also allowed in their view, since correlation is correlation and can be used, be it negative or positive.

Steve McIntyre weighs in:


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/mXtbEx4

July 11, 2025 at 08:03AM

Water, Water Everywhere

Once again a Guardian headline casually and lazily misinforms its readers:

Scottish households urged to cut water use as climate crisis limits supplies – Scottish Water boss says average Scot uses 40% more water than people in Yorkshire partly due to mistaken belief water is abundant in Scotland”.

In reality, the article is a puff piece for Scottish Water’s net zero credentials, and is a less than subtle piece of propaganda to try to encourage its customers to use less water, because that will help it to save money:

…In an interview with the Guardian, Plant said that Scottish Water, which supplies nearly all Scotland’s homes and businesses, faced spending up to £50bn by 2050 to adapt the country’s water and sewage networks for the impacts of the climate crisis.

But significant voluntary action by consumers would cut that deficit and the £50bn bill, most of which would need to come from households and industry, because Scottish Water’s ability to borrow money is significantly constrained by its public ownership rules….

The article contains a lot of speculation about what problems a future climate crisis might cause, and tells us that “Scotland already has a deficit of 60m litres a day during droughts, but by 2050, that deficit could hit 240m litres a day.

It also tries to suggest that the drought-ridden climate crisis is already here, by pointing out that Scotland has had its driest spring since….1964. And that’s all there is in the way of substantiation for the headline claim that the climate crisis is limiting Scottish water supplies. Is the claim justified? I had my doubts, given how much rain I experience when I venture north of the border to climb a few hills. I thought I should check the data to find out. Here is the Met Office rainfall data for Scotland.

As can be seen, it goes back to 1836, and so it covers just over a decade short of two centuries. This spring saw 204.3mm of rain, which is rather more than the 196.3mm recorded in 2001, the 187.8mm recorded in 1984, the 150.3mm recorded in 1980, and the 159.8mm recorded in 1974, so the article’s claims fall at the first hurdle. Strangely, given the 1964 claim, that year saw quite a wet spring, with rainfall of 279mm recorded by the Met Office, though 1963/4 did see a dry winter. Not that this fact helps the Guardian, because the winter just gone saw 425mm of rain. That’s more than in 2019, 2017, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2006, 2003 and so on – you get the picture.

In case any climate alarmists think I’m cherry picking (I’m not), let’s look at annual rainfall. 1836 saw an annual rainfall figure of 1,500.6mm, which isn’t much different from 2024’s figure of 1,551.7mm. The decade before that has seen annual figures between 1,397.5mm (2021) and 1,837.6mm (2015), with no discernible trend. The driest year in the record (at 954.6mm) is 1855. Indeed, the mid half of the 19th century seems to have been much drier in Scotland than of late, with eleven years showing rainfall below 1,200mm up to 1857. The last time the Met Office recorded less than 1,200mm of rainfall in Scotland was in 1941.

Climate crisis limits water supplies in Scotland? Pull the other one.

via Climate Scepticism

https://ift.tt/nSr2C6g

July 11, 2025 at 07:59AM