Federal Government Confirms Nearing Apocalypse -- it's very hard to dismiss this. - Page 48 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15069192
jimjam wrote:It may only be February, but 2020 is already “virtually certain” to be among the 10 warmest years on record, and has nearly a 50 percent chance of being the warmest ever, scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday.

The predictions follow a January that was the warmest ever in 141 years of record keeping, Karin Gleason, a climatologist with the National Centers for Environmental Information, said in a conference call. Global average temperatures last month were 2.05 degrees Fahrenheit (1.14 degrees Celsius) above average, slightly higher than in January 2016, the previous record-holder.

I like warm weather. There are plenty of places in the world to live if you like colder weather. Just learn to deal with it and stop your whining.
#15069208
Hindsite wrote:I like warm weather. There are plenty of places in the world to live if you like colder weather. Just learn to deal with it and stop your whining.

evidence of global warming is becoming stronger and more frequent …. daily. I was wondering how trump cultists/science deniers would react when their lies and fantasies become embarrassingly obvious. thank you for showing me.
#15069230
jimjam wrote:evidence of global warming is becoming stronger and more frequent …. daily. I was wondering how trump cultists/science deniers would react when their lies and fantasies become embarrassingly obvious. thank you for showing me.

My wife keeps complaining about the cold. I have been trying to keep our heating bill down, but her constant whining about the cold forced me to raise the thermostat another degree to 74 degrees F.
#15069751
Those shysters at GWPF are at it again
https://www.thegwpf.com/cost-of-net-zer ... orts-warn/

Firstly they use historic wind power numbers rather than current contract prices, inflating the price 4 fold. These reports they point to are blatant lies, DECC haven't existed for four years and IESIS modelling are actually the authors of the report (Capell Aris and Colin Gibson) so their only evidence is to quote themselves.
The second report claims £2.3 trillion for upgrading boilers and insulation. Again nonsense, the price is the difference between replacing an old boiler and fitting a heat pump and the cost of insulation less the saved energy cost of installing insulation.

Basically it's rubbish in / rubbish out. Neither paper is peer reviewed and they would never get past a review which is why it's shared by GWPF and not in a reputable science publication.
#15069807
The Mind-Boggling Cost of Net Zero

IS THE decision to reduce net carbon dioxide emissions to zero by 2050 one of extraordinary ambition or extreme foolhardiness? What we know for certain is that it isn’t an example of ‘evidence-based policymaking’. The Government and Parliament have given little thought to how it might be achieved, and how much it might cost.

Rather than publish their own estimates, they have outsourced this crucial task to the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). This is the organisation chaired by Lord Deben, who himself receives vast sums from green business interests through his ‘sustainability consultancy’ Sancroft. Sancroft’s clients include Drax, the largest recipient of renewable energy subsidies in the UK. If that wasn’t bad enough, Drax have also effectively appointed their own ‘Head of Sustainability’ to the CCC. These are the very last people you would go to for an independent assessment.

The CCC have kindly informed Parliament that the cost of achieving net zero emissions will be between 1 per cent and 2 per cent of GDP in 2050, with a headline figure of £50 billion. The small print of their report describes how at least half of this cost is due to increasing the target from an 80 per cent to a 100 per cent reduction in emissions. Very quietly, MPs appear to have nodded through a doubling of the cost of British climate policy with no real debate and no objections.

The limited information they received was misleading. The CCC’s estimate was for only a single year, 2050, despite the fact that there would be enormous capital costs in the intervening years. When blogger Ben Pile asked for estimates for the years from 2020-2049, he was told that such estimates did not exist.

Equally significantly, they would not explain their methodology. This means that it is impossible to say how reliable an estimate this is, or subject it to any scrutiny. The Government is therefore relying on an estimate that it can’t possibly explain or understand, because the CCC themselves cannot explain it.

Behind the scenes there are signs of private concern within Government that it will cost much more. Before they both left office, Philip Hammond wrote a letter to Theresa May warning that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) had estimated the cost would be 40 per cent higher, at £70billion per annum. This would mean households paying an average of £2,400 every year between now and 2050.

Unfortunately, BEIS has now gone all quiet, and the Government appears reluctant to admit that these calculations ever existed.

The GWPF was determined to get to the bottom of how much Net Zero might cost, so we commissioned some of the best in the business to apply their expertise to this important question. Their work has now been published in a selection of new reports. Unlike the CCC and the Government, our calculations are there for everyone to see, and we hope that they will trigger an important debate about the costs of Net Zero.

Michael Kelly is emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge, and a fellow of both the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. His report, Decarbonising Housing: The Net Zero Fantasy, looks at data from pilot studies to refine his cost estimates of achieving an 80 per cent decarbonisation target through retrofitting existing homes. That is, to make them more energy efficient by improving insulation, draught-proofing, cladding etc.

The results are staggering, but not surprising to those familiar with the impossible economics of deep retrofits. Professor Kelly found that £2.1trillion would be required, or £75,000 per house. The findings are very much in line with those from the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI), which found that £2trillion would be required for the entire UK housing stock. A further £1.5trillion would be needed to decarbonise non-residential buildings, resulting in a total cost of £3.5trillion.

The other side of the coin is electricity. Not only is it proposed that the National Grid completely decarbonise, but it must also expand significantly to power the electrification of transport and heat. Both Dr Capell Aris and Colin Gibson have decades of experience in the power sector, and they have used a levelised cost of energy (LCOE) approach to calculate the additional costs of a renewables-based grid compared to one based on gas generation. LCOE can be thought of as the minimum constant prices at which electricity must be sold in order to break even over the lifetime of the project (in present value terms).

Their analysis in The Future of GB Electricity Supply: Security, Cost and Emissions in a Net-zero System, explains that to deliver net zero carbon emissions you would have to build far more wind turbines than is necessary merely to cover peak energy demand. This is because wind cannot be relied upon to deliver power when it is needed. In this scenario, generation will also often exceed demand when it is windy, meaning that excess power cannot be used. The additional capital costs of building what is termed as overcapacity, and cost of paying wind turbines to switch off on windy days, entail a far more expensive system. In monetary terms, the cost is £1.4 trillion higher than in a scenario dominated by gas-fired power stations.

In theory, you could deliver net zero with a zero-carbon electric grid, and not have to bother about energy efficiency (albeit still making significant investments in heat pumps to replace gas boilers). In reality, a combination of approaches is needed to offset the price increases expected under electric heating systems that would otherwise make them even more unpalatable. Indeed, the National Grid assume reductions of 10-26 per cent in the demand for heat in their net zero compliant scenarios.

Andrew Montford has looked at both new papers in the round to calculate the total costs of reaching net zero. He concludes in £3 Trillion and Counting: Net Zero and the National Ruin that these costs would in all likelihood exceed £3 trillion once additional investments in decarbonising industry and transport were taken into account.

It is beyond belief that Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings and indeed most Tory MPs are yet to realise that such costs are not going to go down well with voters. These large sums may sound theoretical, but they would impose a brutal form of green austerity upon the public. The Government must be forced to level with people about the significance of the intervention they are planning to undertake, and when they do so, they must surely realise that such a damaging policy is unconscionable.

http://www.thegwpf.com/the-mind-bogglin ... -net-zero/
#15069810
Sivad wrote:The Mind-Boggling Cost of Net Zero

IS THE decision to reduce net carbon dioxide emissions to zero by 2050 one of extraordinary ambition or extreme foolhardiness? What we know for certain is that it isn’t an example of ‘evidence-based policymaking’. The Government and Parliament have given little thought to how it might be achieved, and how much it might cost.

Rather than publish their own estimates, they have outsourced this crucial task to the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). This is the organisation chaired by Lord Deben, who himself receives vast sums from green business interests through his ‘sustainability consultancy’ Sancroft. Sancroft’s clients include Drax, the largest recipient of renewable energy subsidies in the UK. If that wasn’t bad enough, Drax have also effectively appointed their own ‘Head of Sustainability’ to the CCC. These are the very last people you would go to for an independent assessment.

The CCC have kindly informed Parliament that the cost of achieving net zero emissions will be between 1 per cent and 2 per cent of GDP in 2050, with a headline figure of £50 billion. The small print of their report describes how at least half of this cost is due to increasing the target from an 80 per cent to a 100 per cent reduction in emissions. Very quietly, MPs appear to have nodded through a doubling of the cost of British climate policy with no real debate and no objections.

The limited information they received was misleading. The CCC’s estimate was for only a single year, 2050, despite the fact that there would be enormous capital costs in the intervening years. When blogger Ben Pile asked for estimates for the years from 2020-2049, he was told that such estimates did not exist.

Equally significantly, they would not explain their methodology. This means that it is impossible to say how reliable an estimate this is, or subject it to any scrutiny. The Government is therefore relying on an estimate that it can’t possibly explain or understand, because the CCC themselves cannot explain it.

Behind the scenes there are signs of private concern within Government that it will cost much more. Before they both left office, Philip Hammond wrote a letter to Theresa May warning that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) had estimated the cost would be 40 per cent higher, at £70billion per annum. This would mean households paying an average of £2,400 every year between now and 2050.

Unfortunately, BEIS has now gone all quiet, and the Government appears reluctant to admit that these calculations ever existed.

The GWPF was determined to get to the bottom of how much Net Zero might cost, so we commissioned some of the best in the business to apply their expertise to this important question. Their work has now been published in a selection of new reports. Unlike the CCC and the Government, our calculations are there for everyone to see, and we hope that they will trigger an important debate about the costs of Net Zero.

Michael Kelly is emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge, and a fellow of both the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. His report, Decarbonising Housing: The Net Zero Fantasy, looks at data from pilot studies to refine his cost estimates of achieving an 80 per cent decarbonisation target through retrofitting existing homes. That is, to make them more energy efficient by improving insulation, draught-proofing, cladding etc.

The results are staggering, but not surprising to those familiar with the impossible economics of deep retrofits. Professor Kelly found that £2.1trillion would be required, or £75,000 per house. The findings are very much in line with those from the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI), which found that £2trillion would be required for the entire UK housing stock. A further £1.5trillion would be needed to decarbonise non-residential buildings, resulting in a total cost of £3.5trillion.

The other side of the coin is electricity. Not only is it proposed that the National Grid completely decarbonise, but it must also expand significantly to power the electrification of transport and heat. Both Dr Capell Aris and Colin Gibson have decades of experience in the power sector, and they have used a levelised cost of energy (LCOE) approach to calculate the additional costs of a renewables-based grid compared to one based on gas generation. LCOE can be thought of as the minimum constant prices at which electricity must be sold in order to break even over the lifetime of the project (in present value terms).

Their analysis in The Future of GB Electricity Supply: Security, Cost and Emissions in a Net-zero System, explains that to deliver net zero carbon emissions you would have to build far more wind turbines than is necessary merely to cover peak energy demand. This is because wind cannot be relied upon to deliver power when it is needed. In this scenario, generation will also often exceed demand when it is windy, meaning that excess power cannot be used. The additional capital costs of building what is termed as overcapacity, and cost of paying wind turbines to switch off on windy days, entail a far more expensive system. In monetary terms, the cost is £1.4 trillion higher than in a scenario dominated by gas-fired power stations.

In theory, you could deliver net zero with a zero-carbon electric grid, and not have to bother about energy efficiency (albeit still making significant investments in heat pumps to replace gas boilers). In reality, a combination of approaches is needed to offset the price increases expected under electric heating systems that would otherwise make them even more unpalatable. Indeed, the National Grid assume reductions of 10-26 per cent in the demand for heat in their net zero compliant scenarios.

Andrew Montford has looked at both new papers in the round to calculate the total costs of reaching net zero. He concludes in £3 Trillion and Counting: Net Zero and the National Ruin that these costs would in all likelihood exceed £3 trillion once additional investments in decarbonising industry and transport were taken into account.

It is beyond belief that Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings and indeed most Tory MPs are yet to realise that such costs are not going to go down well with voters. These large sums may sound theoretical, but they would impose a brutal form of green austerity upon the public. The Government must be forced to level with people about the significance of the intervention they are planning to undertake, and when they do so, they must surely realise that such a damaging policy is unconscionable.

http://www.thegwpf.com/the-mind-bogglin ... -net-zero/
Did my previous link pass you by?
#15069812
I hope the UK goes all in on net zero, their folly will be our education. And when the energy riots kick off this stupid 100% renewable bullshit will be dead forever.
#15069824
Sivad wrote:I hope the UK goes all in on net zero, their folly will be our education. And when the energy riots kick off this stupid 100% renewable bullshit will be dead forever.
It's not doing Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland any harm.

Can you tell me why the GWPF would quote £120-£200 MWh for future wind when current contacts are being signed at £30-£40?

What about them quoting the cost of insulation but not the reduction in energy bills from the reduced heating cost?
#15069837
BeesKnee5 wrote:It's not doing Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland any harm.


I'd have to look at what's happening in those countries. I'm definitely not taking your word for it, you claimed the UK only started decarbonization in 2015. :knife:

Can you tell me why the GWPF would quote £120-£200 MWh for future wind when current contacts are being signed at £30-£40?


source? there's probably a clause buried in the fine print of those contracts that saddle the public with the excess costs when those quotes turn out to be bullshit. It's just a classic bait and switch, when the costs end up being 3x higher the public will have to bailout the renewable industry.

What about them quoting the cost of insulation but not the reduction in energy bills from the reduced heating cost?


because they're talking about the upfront costs and those will be enormous.
#15069855
Sivad wrote:
I'd have to look at what's happening in those countries. I'm definitely not taking your word for it, you claimed the UK only started decarbonization in 2015. :knife:



source? there's probably a clause buried in the fine print of those contracts that saddle the public with the excess costs when those quotes turn out to be bullshit. It's just a classic bait and switch, when the costs end up being 3x higher the public will have to bailout the renewable industry.



because they're talking about the upfront costs and those will be enormous.


Do you have a link to me saying 2015.
The evidence of decarbonisation in the UK is there for all to see so no need to take my word for it
https://infogram.com/british-electricit ... y9z1okdpjd

£30-£40 is the strike price and so is the maximum paid.

https://www.ft.com/content/472e18cc-db7 ... 216ebe1f17

"The government on Friday awarded 15-year contracts to 12 renewable energy projects that guarantee to developers a minimum price per unit of electricity generated. The winning schemes were largely offshore wind but also included several onshore wind farms planned on remote islands such as Orkney, and energy-from-waste projects.
Developers agreed to guaranteed prices as low as £39.65 per megawatt hour (MWh), a 30 per cent reduction on those agreed in the last comparable auction in 2017 and crucially well below forecast market prices for electricity. This implies that, on paper at least, the projects will be subsidy-free or will require a minimal contribution from consumers."

The GWPF is calculating upfront costs without factoring in the required replacement cost ( replacing an old boiler with a heat pump instead of a new boiler then the cost is the difference between a new boiler and a heat pump) and completely ignoring the saving from insulation. A genuine research paper put the up front cost at a tenth of that invented by GWPF.
https://www.nic.org.uk/publications/cos ... structure/
#15069891
BeesKnee5 wrote:
£30-£40 is the strike price and so is the maximum paid.





:knife:

How Contracts for Difference works:

The Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme is the government’s main mechanism for supporting new renewable electricity generation projects in Great Britain.

CfDs are 15-year private law contracts between renewable electricity generators and the Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC), a government-owned company that manages CfDs at arms’ length from government.

Contracts are awarded in a series of competitive auctions; the lowest price bids are successful, which drives efficiency and cost reduction.

Successful generators still sell the electricity they produce on the wholesale market but receive a ‘top-up’ payment over the course of the contract.

When the market reference price (a measure of the average market price for electricity) is below the strike price (a price for electricity reflecting the cost of investing in a particular low carbon technology, determined by competitive bidding), generators receive a top-up payment for the additional amount. Conversely if the reference price is above the strike price, the generator must pay back the difference.

This provides a degree of income stabilisation for new projects, making projects that have a high up-front cost but long lifetime and low running costs attractive to investors.

The CfD scheme is funded by a compulsory levy (that is, fee) on electricity suppliers, calculated in proportion to their market share of the GB electricity supply market.

The auction process is run by National Grid ESO, the Delivery Body for Electricity Market Reform (EMR). National Grid ESO responsibilities

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/clea ... low-prices
#15069909
Sivad wrote:
:knife:

How Contracts for Difference works:

The Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme is the government’s main mechanism for supporting new renewable electricity generation projects in Great Britain.

CfDs are 15-year private law contracts between renewable electricity generators and the Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC), a government-owned company that manages CfDs at arms’ length from government.

Contracts are awarded in a series of competitive auctions; the lowest price bids are successful, which drives efficiency and cost reduction.

Successful generators still sell the electricity they produce on the wholesale market but receive a ‘top-up’ payment over the course of the contract.

When the market reference price (a measure of the average market price for electricity) is below the strike price (a price for electricity reflecting the cost of investing in a particular low carbon technology, determined by competitive bidding), generators receive a top-up payment for the additional amount. Conversely if the reference price is above the strike price, the generator must pay back the difference.

This provides a degree of income stabilisation for new projects, making projects that have a high up-front cost but long lifetime and low running costs attractive to investors.

The CfD scheme is funded by a compulsory levy (that is, fee) on electricity suppliers, calculated in proportion to their market share of the GB electricity supply market.

The auction process is run by National Grid ESO, the Delivery Body for Electricity Market Reform (EMR). National Grid ESO responsibilities

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/clea ... low-prices


You really haven't understood it.

If the wholesale price stays above the strike price then there is no additional payment. The government actually gets money back.


£40 MWh is the wholesale price today, the only way that the government would have to make payment is if electricity inflation is negative.

What about the latest nuclear power station with a strike price of over £100 MWh?

This is how GWPF trick you
They use old contacts when the technology was new and expensive
https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds/ea-1-phase-1

Instead of today's contracts that match or better fossil fuels
https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds/ ... -beck-a-p1
#15069914
BeesKnee5 wrote:£30-£40 is the strike price and so is the maximum paid.

https://www.ft.com/content/472e18cc-db7 ... 216ebe1f17



A few quotes from your article that you conveniently left out:


Under the government’s auction programme, companies sell the electricity they generate on the wholesale market but receive a top-up payment if the market price is below the guaranteed price in their contract. These subsidy payments are met by consumers via their energy bills.



The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy declared on Friday that “for the first time renewables are expected to come online below market prices and without additional subsidy on bills, meaning a better deal for consumers”, although claims that such arrangements are truly “subsidy free” are the subject of rigorous debate in the energy industry as forecast market prices could turn out to be incorrect.



Cornwall Insight, an energy consultancy, said wholesale prices will fall as more wind projects start generating. It believes “regular levy payments may still be needed for these wind projects during the life of their . . . contracts”. 


https://www.ft.com/content/472e18cc-db7 ... 216ebe1f17
#15069917
Sivad wrote:
A few quotes from your article that you conveniently left out:










https://www.ft.com/content/472e18cc-db7 ... 216ebe1f17


What is your point here?

That wholesale prices falling and strike prices below today's wholesale price is a bad thing.

You are basically highlighting that the latest renewables make electricity prices fall lower than fossil fuels can compete at.

What have wholesale prices been over the last 10 years?
Image

Still think £30-40 MWh is a bad price?
#15069918
BeesKnee5 wrote:Youk really haven't understood it.

£40 MWh is the wholesale price today, the only way that the government would have to make payment is if electricity inflation is negative.



https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds? ... e_1&page=1

if I'm reading that right then most of those strike prices are way above £40 MWH, some of them are like £180?
  • 1
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50

I have an Irish friend who spent 43 days in a co[…]

Candace Owens for President 2024?

If you could just get them to stop quietly despis[…]

So how deadly is it?

social Darwinism fascist thinking white supre[…]

The historian McCullough likes to say that the pre[…]