Our old friend Eaun Mearns, in the Aberdeen Press and Journal;
Reading your letters pages in recent months, there seems to be significant anger within local populations at the implementation of Scottish and UK energy policies, and justifiably so. Here, I try to cast some light on the origins of that anger. In the recent past, sound electrical engineering design dictated that electricity generation centres were located close to the population centres where the electricity was to be consumed. This was because transmitting electricity through high voltage alternating current (AC) lines results in losses that had to be paid for by the consumer, and the lines themselves were expensive to build and scarred the landscape. In the recent past the driving motives of politicians, planners and industry was to optimise the service provided to constituents and consumers.
During the early days of “the transition” renewables initiatives were sold to the public based on the proposed benefits of distributed as opposed to centralised generation (coal, gas and nuclear) where members of the public were encouraged, via generous subsidies, to install roof top solar to generate their own electricity at home. If you were lucky enough to own a farm, then you could generate your own power using a small wind turbine. Honourable goals perhaps, where wealthy property owners could harvest subsidies that were paid for by the whole population, who on average were much less well-off.
What we now have instead are vast centralised wind and solar power stations distributed outside of population centres, and quite distant to the eventual market for the third-rate power that is being produced. This is the exact opposite of the original proposals for distributed power located within population centres. In January 2022, The Crown Estate Scotland alone, licensed 17 vast offshore wind projects amounting to 25GW peak power capacity that may deliver next to nothing when the wind does not blow. Some individual projects are rated at 3 GW. These individually represent the equivalent of 3 nuclear power stations located in the middle of the North Sea, fifty miles from shore and several hundred miles from the eventual market for this power that is likely to lie somewhere in the Midlands of England. What politicians, and members of the public need to understand, is that these giant power stations will need 25GW of dedicated power lines to connect them to their market – where are these power lines going to go and who is going to pay for them? The protest banners that now line the A90 are a mere shadow of what is planned for the future.
So, what about exports to Europe? The fantasy of local politicians is that Scotland will become some kind of renewable power house, exporting electricity to England and beyond. In 2010, the UK had 2.5 GW interconnector capacity with the rest of Europe. By 2021, this had grown to 7.5 GW. In that period, electricity exports to Europe were effectively flat. On the other hand, net electricity imports in 2010 were 2.7 TWh. By 2021 these had grown to 24.6 TWh (UK government statistics). A 3-fold increase in interconnector capacity has led to a 9-fold increase in net imports. The explanation is quite simple. The UK has closed down significant amounts of dispatchable coal and nuclear generating capacity creating supply vulnerability when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Conversely, there is a high degree of correlation in wind supply between the UK and Europe and this means that when the UK generates a surplus, Europe has a surplus too. The UK surplus has no market resulting in high constraint payments paid for by already hard-pressed consumers.
Yet another frailty of the current strategy is the need to maintain significant amounts of dispatchable generating capacity to cover supply when renewables fail. In effect, 20 GW of combined cycle gas turbines will have to be maintained to back up the 25 GW of proposed offshore wind. In addition, gas import facilities (pipelines and liquefied natural gas) will need to be maintained for occasional use. The high cost of maintaining backup supplies is normally ignored when the levelized cost of wind and solar power is reported. The proponents of the net zero strategy seem content to pile these costs on to hard pressed consumers while politicians seem content to blame the high cost of energy on Vladimir Putin.
I urge politicians in Holyrood and Westminster to suspend all new large-scale wind and solar developments and grid expansions until a comprehensive analysis and report on the real environmental and economic costs of current net-zero energy policy is presented to the public for scrutiny. This report must be based on sound thermodynamic and economic principles and not upon wishful thinking and net zero dogma that appears to underpin much of current energy policy.
Dr Euan Mearns
Aberdeen
(republished with permission)
Surely he’s not suggesting that people who know something about energy should supersede the brilliance and enlightenment of former media whores and Greenpeace psychopaths. Every grade two victim of public education knows that net zero is achievable and oil must be vanquished immediately.
Were I capable of such succinct eloquence I might have said the same thing. Thumbs up.
The gang greens believe math is racist. Engineering, especially electrical engineering, uses math so it too is racist. Lawyers and political scientists, with a sprinkling of arts majors, should design complicated systems.
All of Euan Mearns’ essays are well worth reading. Kate should put a direct link to his blog. It may be focused on Scotland but it is applicable just about anywhere.
Even to the most ignorant Canadian it must be apparent that the present government has no inkling of the nature of things (https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/).
Here is a simple explanation for the enlightenment of the host of the aforementioned production and his Liberal governing paymasters.
The average Canadian consumes 14,000 Kwhs of energy to live in ‘temperate’ Canada. To attain the net zero threshold that has been arrived at by the government that thinks that budgets balance themselves we have to find an alternate source of energy. To complicate things a little further if we continue on the immigration program of this Liberal government then we have to choose between increasing our demand on net zero targets or decrease our dependence on the 14,000 Kwhs of personal energy.
To put it bluntly you can’t have it both ways, net zero targets are unattainable in Canada and are doubly unattainable when immigration targets are factored in. Either way Canadians are going to realize a reduction in their standard of living but when the government doubles down on their power and immigration policies the Canadain standard of living will experience a double hit.
This quote is the one journalists and politicians either do not understand or are pretending not to understand, “The high cost of maintaining backup supplies is normally ignored when the levelized cost of wind and solar power is reported.”
The total cost of intermittent power is considerably higher than reliable baseload power if intermittent power is forced to include backup baseload power, increased infrastructure (power lines), imports and paying green power not to produce power
-“UK generates a surplus, Europe has a surplus too. The UK surplus has no market resulting in high constraint payments paid for by already hard-pressed consumers.”-
The total cost of production for intermittent power is not accurately calculated. Just another lie on top of the big pile of other government lies. Unreliable, intermittent power sources can not replace reliable baseload power in total cost of production nor as a 24/7/365 source of reliabile, dispatchable electricity. It’s that simple.
The US (tax benefit) subsidies for Solar power per unit of energy delivered is 200 times that of nuclear power: https://substack.com/notes/post/p-137282468?selection=22ede8fa-efad-4f89-a3ba-83b3170a1b51#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20when%20measured%20by%20the%20amount%20of%20energy%20produced%2C%20solar%20energy%20got%20200%20times%20more%20in%20federal%20tax%20incentives%20than%20nuclear.
But solar power is free!
(… it just costs a lot to collect, store, and distribute it.)
Wishful Thinking. 40 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj20LKdg8-8
Enjoy your Sunday afternoon. 3 months until Christmas Eve.
Net Zero means one thing and one thing only…mass starvation. Best get on board with that mindset because that’s exactly what it means.
They want you dead. Full stop.
And the sad thing is that Eaun could have and did espouse all this years ago and yet here we are.
The longer I live the more I know that British / European “western” society is over the tipping point and is no longer salvageable. Doubtful at this point whether the US can survive we can but hope.
This is another replay of how Rome collapsed under the pretorian guard and likewise the Greek, Babylonian and Egyptian societies collapsed decaying from within with the wilful destruction of their once progress.
Those once considered great tomes of learning like “Rise and fall of the Roman Empire” consigned to the rubbish heap of history, replaced by vacuous instant pleasure inducing “culture” .
With the news feed every day, I am reminded that we are living in the “end days”.
Only in the west (Canada, US, Europe, Australia and New Zealand). The so called “Golden Billion”. Things are still relatively normal in the rest of the world. The news feed is a big part of the problem.
There’s a solution. Lower today’s energy costs by kicking the debt can down the road for a generation or two. That’s what Blubber Douggie did.
I’ll say it until I’m blue in the face: can’t beat the energy density of liquid hyrocarbon fuels for mobile applications. Prove me wrong.
Take a look at https://www.flightaware.com/ and scroll over the Atlantic Ocean. Tell me what energy source envisioned in the Net Zero scam will keep all that aluminum and a few thousand souls aloft in our Brave New Future.
Solar power dirigibles
Sarc
Here is a better one.
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-45.7/centery:39.1/zoom:4
Tell me how we will continue to feed the world, hmmm where have I heard that before, when all these transports and tankers are converted to solar/wind power. It is one thing to put a plane into the sky to transport 300 people to another continent it is quite another thing to transport the produce of one country to another to keep people alive.
Good one!
Signing on to Canada Confederation Sept 1,1905 was the worst decision ever made by Alberta and Saskatchewan, and by Manitoba in 1870 and BC in 1871. The only benefit was the national railway, and everything has steadily gone downhill since the Aberhart regime and his “funny money”, elected 1935, during the depression in Alberta, and rising socialist parties everywhere. The last credible PM was Diefenbaker, although even he was a bit of a red tory.
Funny money continues under Liberal and NDP regimes nationally, provincially, regionally, municipally, and in all unions and health organizations, as well as corporations who feel that they must promote green stuff, crappy EV cars, disgusting fake hamburgers and other crappy goods and food.
Queen Victoria made a good choice in her time, but a poor choice in selecting Ottawa as our capital, and we unfortunately never moved it.
Eastern Canada, Quebec and the Maritimes do not share our culture anymore. BC has been historically rather crazy politically, but we do have water access and resources, so best not to write us off.
“Net zero,” whether it be climate or covid is the purview of collectivists, incompetents, totalitarians and their useful idiots. But of course I repeat myself.
Net zero is a disastrous policy with net zero benefits to anyone or for the environment. BC has the data to show that many years of carbon taxes are bullshite.
Where has all the money (flowers) gone?
Gang greens will still want to fly on vacation and to conferences.
Q. What do you think fuels jet aircraft?
Gang greener “Jet fuel, which is not an hydrocarbon”
True story.