you're reading...
Climate Science, CO2 mitigation?, General Topics, Hypocrisy, Industrial Strategies, Loony Toons, National Grid, Shale gas, These items caught my eye

These items caught my eye – 3 June 2013

Scare-mongering is a recurring fail amongst alarmists; A green future will lead to lower fuel bills? Yeah, right; Ignore the greens, shale is the future; How on Earth can the greens justify renewable energy?; Greens blathering again – reality is a foreign country to these clowns. Please remember to read the comments, as the information (and the links) contained in them often put the main article into context.. If you follow a site that is, maybe, a bit off the beaten track and think it would be of interest, please contact me and I’ll take a look.

Call The Fukushima Fear-Mongers To Account

Posted on June 3, 2013 by Andrew Bolt

Andrew Bolt

Andrew Bolt

Fukushima Damage

WHERE are those shameless nuclear hysterics who whipped up the Fukushima panic, now punctured by a United Nations report?

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation last week found none of the Japanese public is likely to get sick from the 2011 incident, when a tsunami smashed into the Fukushima reactor.

“It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers,” UNSCEAR it said.

“No radiation-related deaths or acute effects have been observed among nearly 25,000 workers . . . It is unlikely that excess cases of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure would be detectable.”

Click here to read the full article

Will de-carbonising the UK’s electricity by 2030 reduce bills?

Posted on June 2, 2013 by Robert Wilson

One of the simple lessons from the history of energy forecasting is that we are pretty awful at it. However as with all types of prediction there is a market for it, and it is not going away. Such predictions often take a central place in the debate over whether the UK should set a target to de-carbonise its electricity grid by 2030. Roughly speaking this would require the equivalent of 10% of UK electricity to come from gas, and the rest from nuclear or renewables (the exact number will vary depending on levels of Carbon capture and storage etc.). A difficult task quite clearly.

This decision is often made appear quite easy by claiming that it would be cheaper than relying on gas for electricity. Why oppose something that cuts bills and carbon? And this seems to be the argument put forward by the Labour Party’s Shadow Environment and Climate Change Secretary in today’s Independent:

In the next decade, a quarter of Britain’s power supply will be switched off for good. This week MPs will vote on the Government’s Energy Bill, which will determine what we replace it with. To tackle soaring energy bills, improve energy security and stop dangerous climate change, we must de-carbonise the power sector by 2030.

and apparently

Breaking Britain’s dependence on fossil fuels, cleaning up our power supply and investing in energy efficiency would lead to lower, not higher, bills.

Click here to read the full article

UK shale gas reserves may be ‘bigger than first thought’

Posted on June3, 2013 by Rog Tallbloke

From the BBC

One of the energy firms hoping to exploit the UK’s resources of shale gas says it may be sitting on significantly more gas than previously thought.

UK firm IGas will tell investors there may be up to 170 trillion cubic feet of gas in the areas it is licensed to explore in northern England.

Shale gas is extracted by fracking – pumping water and sand at high pressure into rock to release gas within it.

Click here to read the full article

Electric Power in Florida

Posted on June 2, 2013 by gallopingcamel

This little study got started several years ago because Florida Power & Light and its parent (Next Era Energy) were vigorously lobbying for rate increases and subsidies to support their craving for “Green Energy”. Was FP&L about to go “Green” with energy policies modeled on Spain, Germany, Denmark or the UK? If so Floridians, who already pay more for electricity than the US average might end up challenging Connecticut’s $0.17 /kWh. Two years ago I published a review of solar power in Florida based on the opinions of people who operate major power plants.

My goal was to find out how the electricity generating technologies applicable to Florida compare in terms of economic performance at the plant level, where the real wealth is created. The higher the operating margins, the more wealth is available to pay taxes, reward investors and pay employees. In a better world, high operating margins might even lead to lower consumer prices! In contrast, weak operating margins encourage companies to seek subsidies which inevitably fosters corruption while wasting tax dollars.

Click here to read the full article

Waiting For HADCRUT (Again!)

Posted on May 30, 2013 by Paul Homewood

Last month the HADCRUT numbers for March did not come out till after the UAH ones for April did. They are late again this month, so I am putting out the GISS, UAH and RSS figures without waiting any longer.

HADCrut data

Current temperatures are below the 12-Month averages, which are still affected by the small El Nino episode last summer. More significantly, current temperatures are also lower than the 10-Year averages.

Click here to read the full article

No more nice springs if we don’t vote green!

Posted on June 2, 2013. by Michel

Vote Green for more nice Springs

Vote Green for more nice Springs

This weekend I was catching up reading. One of the pieces that I missed last week was a news paper article about the cold weather of this spring. It was about some statements made by Wouter Van Besien, chairman of the Flemish green party (Groen!).

It had the catchy title (translated from Dutch):

Bad weather is the fault of the Flemish and Federal Government

That got my attention. Some excerpts:

Many bad springs will follow from the policies of these governments […]
According to Van Besien, there is an obvious link that this cold weather is caused by climate change […]
Even though there are much bigger polluters such as the U.S. and China, Kris Peeters and Elio Di Rupo to that effect are partly responsible for global warming.

Click here to read the full article


No comments yet.

Add your thoughts. . .

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow me on Twitter

Flag Counter
%d bloggers like this: