Bill S January 23rd, 2011 9:01 PM "The point always made when discussing renewable energy economics seems to be that they don't supply energy at the low costs we've become accustomed to using finite fossil energy." You really need to look at the availability of gas especially with shale gas soon to come online. Prices have fallen through the floor. As someone who has worked in the oilfield for 25 years please show me the falling production levels that do not involve armed conflict etc. France has shown that nuclear is not only safe but cheap, especially with modern reactors! You would also appear to be naive when it comes to the coal stocks under the UK but then again, that does not matter to you as long as people in the UK are forced for no good reason into medieval poverty! Why get used to it when there ARE alternatives?

WastingtonDC: Net metering schemes automatically limit homeowners, and business alternative power generators, solar, et al, to replacing only the amount of power they paid for in the prior year, at full retail price. So basically, no investment in competitive alternative or renewable electrical generation can earn cash profits, to pay for the system, maintenance, and improvements, beyond simply reducing one's electric bill. Worse, all net metering states apparently allow the monopoly utilities to simply take any excess electricity generated, above one's prior year retail purchases, for nothing in some states, and for 1/5th the retail price, in the rest of them, each year. Even worse, lobbyists are working overtime to insure that all Renewable Fuel Credits for generation of electricity will be owned by the monopoly utility wrongfully taking any power in excess of your prior years use, instead of the independent generator, at no cost to the utility, of course. Forcing monopolist owned grids to purchase, and sell, alternative and renewable electrical energy, at Time Of Use rates, without limiting the amount of power I can generate, and sell to the system, also at Time of Generation Rates, would end production of petroleum powered vehicles within a generation, and cut our OPEC and other terror financier oil suppliers off at the knees. The NAFTA free trade grid would be powered by millions of independent businesses created by ending the electrical energy monopoly that keeps the grid fragile. During Peak Electric Rate hours, farmer’s hybrid tractors would be idling on alternative fuels, CNG et al, pouring power into the grid. At off peak hours, spare battery pods, or hybrid vehicles primary batteries would be charging, to minimize our transport energy costs. Of course, independent distributed generator operators would not send bucketfuls of cash to lobbyists, to restrain American’s trade in electricity. They would just buy surplus generators, and install water wheels, windmills, etc, to compete heavily for the renewable energy subsidies that congress thought it had reserved exclusively for their big money contributors. Eighty million Americans are members of families dependent on truck based vehicles for their living, their lifestyle, and their business profits. Tiny BEV or Plug In only hybrids, like the solar power collection scams, are part and parcel of the regulator's sucker plays that have enslaved electricity consumers to monopolists from Edison, until yesterday. Few working Americans will ever take a loan larger than their home cost, to buy a mini-hybrid that requires them to buy their transportation energy from the same old monopoly utility, and ride inside a flyweight vehicle within arm's reach of a high energy battery system's extremely dangerous chemistry, and a fuel tank filled with fumes, air, and fuel, every time they use the vehicle. On the other hand, every working American family will buy a Plug In and Out Hybrid alternative fuel capable profit center, the hour congress stops the lobbyist's hamstringing competition in power generation, and forces Time of Use Rates, for independent alternative and renewable fuels distributed generators of electricity. Allowed to charge my vehicle batteries from the grid, at off peak electric rates, and to compete for and earn cash profits, and government alternative fuel generation credits for selling electricity to my utility at peak electric use rates, I can afford to invest sums equal to or larger than the combined costs for the $120K BEV or Plug In only Hybrid costs, and the equally silly solar installations designed for installation on my home or business, at higher prices. With the restraint of trade in electricity ended, I can afford to put $200K or more into a million mile capable Detroit truck based Plug In and Out hybrid, and Drive America to Energy Independence. Plug In an Out hybrids can be exempted from all taxes, fees, and title, license and weight fees, by state, local or other jurisdictions, along with their parts, labor, and indeed all expenses of owning and operating an alternative fuel capable hybrid generator, that happens to be usable on the highway, when not charging the grid for profit. I will install Power Exchange Stations on my farm, at my business, and will frequent those businesses providing PES at enough parking spaces to insure my overnight charging to the grid will pay for my truck stop dinner and earn my business some profits besides. We can continue enriching the monopoly utilities so they can avoid transporting wind or other electricity to places where it is needed, or we can start millions of new businesses, recapture Detroit’s wholesale ownership of the world working truck markets, and end American Energy Dependence, in a single generation. Choose wisely, OPEC is not going to stop financing terrorists, and taxing oil consumers world wide.

The point always made when discussing renewable energy economics seems to be that they don't supply energy at the low costs we've become accustomed to using finite fossil energy. Welcome to the real world of energy, the availability in real time and cost of which was the limiting factor of civilization for eons. Look at the production declines in oil fields globally compared with new discovery and production, and get ready for a very limited civilization for the rest of the eons humanity faces. Intermittent sources are all there are when using natural, real-time energy.

It seems everything that needs to be said has been in this well written essay and comments. I'd like to mention an excellent resource for studies and news of the "green" energy sector: http://www.masterresource.org/ Kent Hawkins has been particularly energetic in uncovering the downsides of WE. http://www.masterresource.org/?s=Kent+Hawkins

There are too many anomolies in the whole AGW theory, with periods of measured increases in CO2 matching colder temperatures and increased glaciation, and vice verca, for it to hold water. The temperature was, probably 2-3 degrees warmer in the mediaeval warm period and 2-3 degrees colder in the little ice age. Humans adapted, that's why we are still here. We need to tackle polution, use of pesticides and water conservation so we can continue to feed an ageing and growin world population. Cutting "carbon" emmissions is the least of our worries

Interesting article with one flaw. The apparent assumption by John Constable that 390 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem and of that figure only 3% is assigned to human activity. Atmospheric CO2 tracks behind global temperatures, because warming oceans release CO2,but cooling oceans absorb CO2. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation is entering a cooling phase and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation will soon follow. CO2, whatever Obama thinks, is most certainly NOT a pollutant. Plantlife benefits from elevated levels of CO2. CAGW is a lost cause and the worldwide political implications of trying to impose taxes will promote civil unrest and fell governments. I suspect the author is aware of that outcome.

And, of course, it's not as if it's all that important to stop CO2 "pollution" or 'greenhouse gas emissions". One thing is certain, there are billions to be made from junk science and prophets of doom. We non-Brits may just start a fund to supply blankets. Not the electric-kind but "green" ones made out of renewable straw.

I really fear for the UK. I can only see a very bleak future in the coming few years. I am really pleased to live somewhere electricity generation is 85% nuclear. It is utterly futile to think that mankind can affect climate to any worthwhile extent. The numbers are very simple and are backed up by acceptance from a renowned UK government advisor, the US Department of Energy and many other reputable scientific minds. Why cant we get to the nub of the problem ? with NUMBERS NOT ADJECTIVES and there is a good chance that the numbers below are in the right ballpark. On average world temperature is ~+15 deg C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect ~33 deg C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at ~-18 deg C. Running the rough and ready numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into degrees centigrade: • Water Vapour accounts for as much as 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = ~ 31.35 deg C • Other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) account for 5% = ~1.65 deg C • CO2 is 75% of the remaining effect when accounting for the enhanced effects of Methane, Nitrous Oxide and other GHGs = ~1.24 deg C • Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than ~93% • Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~0.087 deg C for the carbon economies of the whole world • UK’s contribution to World CO2 emissions is ~1.8% = 1.6 thousandths deg C Maximum efforts in the UK can only achieve an insignificant and immeasurable part of that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0_SNSM8kg And whatever is said, outside Europe the rest of the world is not joining in. The non-joiners already amount to 62% of the world CO2 emissions and 48% of the world population. But the UK is the only Government that has enshrined action on CO2 into legislation. (http://www.energytribune.com//articles.cfm/5961/The-Utter-Futility-of-Re...) The probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic. So if the numbers above are even close to the right ballpark, the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy: • all concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted. • it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose. • if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind. • any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility and reducing water needs of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production. • a warmer climate, within natural variation, as has occurred over the last century, would provide a future of greater prosperity for human development and much more food for the growing world population. This has been well proven in the Roman and Medieval pasts and would now especially benefit the third world. This is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. It remains absolutely clear that our planet is vastly damaged by many human activities such as: • environmental pollution. • over fishing. • forest clearance. • farming for bio-fuels. • and all other habitat destruction. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of: • security of supply • increasing scarcity • rising costs • their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them. The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French electricity prices and CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world. However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades as anticipated by Piers Corbyn and many others. And as UK power stations face closure according to Green Euro policies, the lights may well go out in the winter 2015 if not sooner. This is all because CO2 based Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion. And now after “Splattergate” thanks to the 10:10 organisation everyone worldwide now knows exactly how they think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g Splattergate was classic NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION. It is probably the most egregious piece of publicity ever produced in the Man-made Global Warming cause. So any misrepresentation is valid in the Cause and any opposition however cogent or well qualified is routinely denigrated, publically ridiculed and as we now see literally terminated. And so to carry on: If the capital cost of Nuclear power is ~£1.4 billion / gigawatt (according to Prof David MacKay) and the newly commissioned array off Thanet cost £0.78 billion and is rated at 0.300 gigawatt but even using a generous load factor of 35% is only capable of producing on average 0.105 gigawatt , it appears that in capital cost terms alone offshore wind costs ~£7.5 billion / gigawatt or more than 5 times the cost of the equivalent nuclear production. This of course ignores all the additional costs of the essential parallel backup generating capacity as well as the costs of continuing feed-in tariffs, estimated at about a further £1.2 billion over the 20 year life of the project. Paying just for starters more than 5 times as much for an unreliable energy source must make utter economic nonsense. Supporting renewable energy, especially wind farms, is something that this cash strapped government should re-examine very carefully. And just to add to the nonsense, Carbon Capture and Storage can only increase electricity costs and deprive the planet of a source of increased plant fertility. It is one of many suggestions, which might reduce CO2 emissions. All are expensive and all are pretty well pointless. So major government savings and greatly increased national prosperity could be achieved by terminating all CO2 related Government green activities and repealing the Climate Change Bill. Otherwise the UK is “standing into grave danger”. Future Energy Security (destroyed by both the last Government and sadly continued by the current Coalition) is the foremost responsibility of a government to its citizens, probably more important than even than its Military Security.