Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

You are not wrecking your energy security quickly enough, you are Very Naughty Nations!

Thus spake the International Energy Agency (IEA) to a bunch of more than twenty international energy ministers gathered in London this week.

The wagging finger of authority was delivered when the IEA warned not enough is being done by nations (that would be the faltering western economies) to avert significant climate change in the coming decades.  You read that right.  By obeying the IEA  we can stop the coming of the next ice age catastrophic anthropogenic global warming in its tracks and, by George (no, not that one), we had better jolly well comply or we’ll be sorry.

So David Cameron, like an errant schoolboy hauled before the headmaster, immediately went down on bended knee and tongued IEA sphincter promised to spend billions we haven’t got to build more wind farms.  Apparently he’s unaware the contributions to the National Grid from the existing wind farms are negligible.  That they are incapable of keeping the lights constantly burning in the smallest of hamlets without back-up from conventional power stations that burn fossil fuel.

Ask the residents of the tiny island of Eigg in the Inner Hebrides about the reliability of unsupported renewable energy.  They discovered to their cost that wind power isn’t the planet saving, renewable energy panacea they believed it to be.

Therefore let us ignore the facts, because iDave clearly has, that the UK economy has slipped into a double dip recession, that there has been no increase in global warming, catastrophic or otherwise, for fifteen years and that all the climate alarmists’ science climate modelling techno-scrying has been thoroughly discredited.  Let’s ignore that James Lovelock, a hardcore alarmist contemporary of Hansen and Gore, has seen the writing on the wall and is rapidly distancing himself from the steaming heap of bovine ordure that is CAGW; that he donned sackcloth and ashes by admitting publicly he was wrong.  Let us instead concentrate on destroying our energy capacity and letting poor people freeze to death in the winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes.  After all, isn’t that why people voted for Cameron in the first place.  Oh, wait…

So what the hell is the IEA and how come it thinks it has the brass necked clout to dictate the energy policies of more than twenty countries?

The IEA was founded in 1974, just after the oil crisis.  I’m assuming that it was as a direct result of the oil crisis – please correct me if I’m wrong.  There are twenty eight member countries of which the UK is a founding member.  Most if not all the founding member countries were affected by the Middle East embargo on oil production and distribution in 1973 (ending in March 1974).  I am going to assume that the original goal of the IEA was to keep the wheels of industry turning in the west and protect western economies from being held to ransom by the Middle East oil producing countries. All very understandable and respectable.

Unfortunately there seems to have been a change of policy.  These days the IEA appear keen to emasculate the west’s conventional energy generation and are aggressively promoting renewables that are spectacularly unsuitable to provide energy on a national scale.  So what went wrong?

Has the IEA has been hijacked by idiot alarmists who believe they can stop climate change by aggressively destroying energy security promoting renewable energy?  It seems to take its lead from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and is financed, no doubt, by us whether we want it or not.  The IEA certainly comes across like just another mob of rent seeking parasites demanding we save the earth at any cost but theirs.  And the bullying tactics they use are based upon debunked junk science.   Is there no end to this weapons grade CAGW bullshit?  Take a look for yourselves.

The first article on the front page is pushing for progress in carbon capture and storage (CCS).  Pumping plant food into the ground – a greenie agenda that benefits no one but the owners of the technology and the sellers of carbon indulgencies credits.

The second article weighs the pros and cons of renewables and their perceived role in aiding electricity security. It was written by Laszlo Varro, IEA’s head of its Gas, Coal and Power Division.

Of course wind and solar depend on the weather. This is not a problem specific to renewables: from coal trains blocked by snow to the effect of a heat wave on nuclear plants’ cooling water, weather has long had an impact on the power system. Nevertheless, the volatility will increase, requiring back-up capacity as well as a rising ramp rate, or the time it takes to ramp up from zero or low generation to higher levels of production. In the first week of January 2012, British wind production went from its maximum level to almost zero in three hours as a gale forced the safety stop of turbines. A modern power system can integrate substantial variable renewables – as Britain’s did, for London did not go dark – by mobilising its flexibility.

Just take a moment for that to sink in.  This expert seems to be suggesting that London keeps its lights blazing thanks to wind power and kept the lights blazing during nationwide gales and storms thanks to the flexibility of stand-by conventional electricity generation.  Shome mishtake, shurely…

He is eager to point out that conventional energy is equally as volatile as renewables which is strange coming from someone whose brief includes gas and coal power generation rather than renewables. He cites coal trains can get impeded by snow, which they do from time to time.  He also mentions that heat waves adversely affect the cooling systems of nuclear power stations and it is true because nuclear power stations in Texas and Tennessee encountered problems with their cooling systems when they couldn’t discharge warm water into rivers and lakes during the recent drought.  Apparently modern coal fired power stations no longer have the capacity to stockpile fuel to carry them through a short term fuel supply crisis.  Likewise nuclear power stations built in areas prone to drought and heatwaves (which are a natural variation of the local climate) can’t build more cooling towers or discharge warm water into ponds in order to cool before releasing the water back into the natural water system.

Conventional power plants are and will remain a major flexibility source, but their operation will be exactly as volatile as wind and solar.

Yep, this guy, after wibbling on about how conventional electricity generation is at the mercy of everything from solar flares to rats getting themselves fried playing chicken with sub-station bus bars, wants you to believe that conventional power is exactly as volatile (unreliable) as renewables because things can go wrong.  While there is a kernel of truth in what he says the reality of the situation says he’s talking bollocks.  London does not run on wind power.  No city does.  At best wind power is supplementary and barely so.

There is irony in citing heavy snow falls necessitating the need for more renewables designed to save us all from Thermageddon during periods of transport disruption. However, the irony seems to be lost on Mr. Varro.  Perhaps some kind person will point out that solar panels do not operate too well when covered in several feet of snow and that wind turbines do not operate in extremes of cold and, in fact, add to the load of increased electricity demand by requiring energy to keep the blades free of ice.

The third article is demanding that countries “seize the opportunity” to cut CO2 emissions.  And why, I ask myself, should we do this?

“We have a responsibility and a golden opportunity to act,” said IEA Deputy Executive Director Ambassador Richard H Jones. “Energy-related CO2 emissions are at historic highs; under current policies, we estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would likely send global temperatures at least 6°C higher. Such an outcome would confront future generations with significant economic, environmental and energy security hardships – a legacy that I know none of us wishes to leave behind.”

Oh, I see.  We must set aside the evidence that rising levels CO2 will not cause a 6°C temperature rise in the coming decades.  We must ignore that warming has stopped for more than a decade and the climate is actually cooling (something even the IPCC acknowledges).  We must throw empirical evidence, accountability and common sense out of the window.  And for why?  Because we must think of the chiiiiildren!

These are the idiots Cameron is listening too.  These are the idiots to whose tune he dances when it comes to energy policy.  These are the idiots Germany is ignoring in order to build coal fired power stations as fast as it can.

Well I”ve got a message for Cameron and the IEA.  You can shove your wind turbines where the solar panels don’t work.

H/T GWPF

3 Comments

  1. john in cheshire says:

    As far as I’m aware Carbon Capture and Storage doesn’t work and probably will never work. But even if it does/will for how long are we supposed to do it. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer was elected as the city waste disposal company. They filled every orifice with other peoples’ waste till it started to erupt in the most unlikely places. CCS is junk science for idiots.

  2. RAB says:

    The hilarious thing about Carbon Capture John, isn’t just that it doesn’t work, but that it is like Frakking in reverse. One extracts a gas from rock, and the other tries to inject it. But if one causes earthquakes and methane firestorms, what the fuck do they think Carbon Capture will do?

    “Er, like don’t bother me wid da details man, Capture is cool and Frakking is catastrophic. Think of the Badgers and the Polar bears dude!”

  3. John Galt says:

    Don’t forget that when you extract oil and gas from a well you also reduce the pressure. By pumping in either sea water or alternately CO2 you can maintain the necessary pressure to extract the oil and gas efficiently.

    At the end of the day you end up with a hole in the ground filled with CO2 doing nobody any harm.

    The only problem with all of this is that the technology to do this even as a prototype was going to cost 1 billion quid.

    That’s a lot of money to find underground storage for plant food.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: