No, we won’t fix climate change…….

28 06 2019

Professor Jordan Peterson explains why the world won’t unite to solve the complex issue of climate change.





Greenwashing at its best……

27 06 2019

From Tim Watkins’ excellent Consciousness of Sheep…….

The same mainstream media that told us last month that we had a “climate emergency” that required urgent action seems determined to lull us back to sleep with a large dose of Bright Green hopium today.  That, at least is the only conclusion one can reasonably arrive at when Jeremy Hodges at Bloomberg informs us that:

“The U.K. will generate more energy from low-carbon sources than from fossil fuels this year for the first time since the Industrial Revolution.

“Wind, solar, hydro and nuclear plants provided 48% of the nation’s electricity in the first five months of 2019, according to the U.K. network operator National Grid Plc. Coal, which made up more than 30% of the mix a decade ago, fed just 2.5% at the end of May.

“Britain has led major economies in decarbonizing its power systems as it exits burning coal for power by 2025 and has installed more offshore wind turbines than anyone else. So far this year, the country has gone without burning coal for around 1,900 hours, the equivalent of 80 days. That included a record-breaking run of 18 full days without the dirtiest fossil fuel.”

Nor is Bloomberg the only cheerleader for the green energy industry.  The BBC’s Roger Harrabin also reports on this apparent feat of green new dealism:

“National Grid says that in the past decade, coal generation will have plunged from 30% to 3%.

“Meanwhile, wind power has shot up from 1% to 19%.

“Mini-milestones have been passed along the way. In May, for instance, Britain clocked up its first coal-free fortnight and generated record levels of solar power for two consecutive days.”

After informing us that this is really important because we need to lower our greenhouse gas emissions, Harrabin repeats the unfounded belief that electric vehicles will take the place of fossil fuels in balancing supply and demand on the basis of the unlikely claim that as a result of yet-to-be-proven “smart technologies” their owners will be happy for the electricity companies to drain electricity from their batteries while the cars are supposed to be charging.

Harrabin, gives the lie to this greenwash in a chart he reproduces from National Grid:

This shows that it is gas rather than renewables that is the dominant energy source in the UK; and is likely to be for many years to come (not least because a large part of Britain’s nuclear power is at the end of its lifespan).  There is also the unasked question as to where “biomass” fits.  A small amount of UK biomass comes from anaerobic digesters which separate methane from manure and decaying vegetation.  The large part, however, comes from the Drax converted coal power station, whose voracious appetite for wood is devastating North American forests, and whose greenhouse gas emissions are higher than the coal plants it is meant to replace.  Put UK biomass in its correct place alongside coal and gas and you falsify the story; carbon-emitting generation continues – albeit by the smallest margin – to outstrip low-carbon alternatives.

In fairness, Harrabin does concede that ‘the electricity sector was seen as the easiest place to start’.  But even this observation may obscure more than it clarifies.  As with everything else energy-related, the deployment of non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies has proceeded on a lowest hanging fruit basis.  The combination of state subsidies and business investment, together with the transfer of manufacturing to Asia helped drive the price of the technologies (but not the necessary infrastructure) well below the cost of fossil fuels (which continue to be essential in balancing loads).  At levels of penetration now seen in several European countries, however, the cost of overcoming the weaknesses inherent in wind and solar power is beginning to accelerate.

Worse still, as the rest of the world seeks to follow the UK’s lead, and as developing states seek to jump straight to non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies; there is growing competition for the planet’s fast-depleting mineral resources.  As Prof Richard Herrington, Head of Earth Sciences at the Natural History Museum warns:

“Over the next few decades, global supply of raw materials must drastically change to accommodate not just the UK’s transformation to a low carbon economy, but the whole world’s. Our role as scientists is to provide the evidence for how best to move towards a zero-carbon economy – society needs to understand that there is a raw material cost of going green and that both new research and investment is urgently needed for us to evaluate new ways to source these. This may include potentially considering sources much closer to where the metals are to be used.”

Herrington is particularly scathing about the assumption that we can simply switch to electric cars over the next couple of decades:

“To replace all UK-based vehicles today with electric vehicles (not including the LGV and HGV fleets), assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation NMC 811 batteries, would take 207,900 tonnes cobalt, 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE), at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium, in addition to 2,362,500 tonnes copper. This represents, just under two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production during 2018. Even ensuring the annual supply of electric vehicles only, from 2035 as pledged, will require the UK to annually import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt needs of European industry…

“There are serious implications for the electrical power generation in the UK needed to recharge these vehicles. Using figures published for current EVs (Nissan Leaf, Renault Zoe), driving 252.5 billion miles uses at least 63 TWh of power. This will demand a 20% increase in UK generated electricity… If wind farms are chosen to generate the power for the projected two billion cars at UK average usage, this requires the equivalent of a further years’ worth of total global copper supply and 10 years’ worth of global neodymium and dysprosium production to build the windfarms.

“Solar power is also problematic – it is also resource hungry; all the photovoltaic systems currently on the market are reliant on one or more raw materials classed as “critical” or “near critical” by the EU and/ or US Department of Energy (high purity silicon, indium, tellurium, gallium) because of their natural scarcity or their recovery as minor-by-products of other commodities. With a capacity factor of only ~10%, the UK would require ~72GW of photovoltaic input to fuel the EV fleet; over five times the current installed capacity. If CdTe-type photovoltaic power is used, that would consume over thirty years of current annual tellurium supply.”

As demand for these critical minerals increases – especially if, as expected, western governments adopt some variant of a green new deal to offset the gathering economic storm – so too will their price.  This is not lost on science advisors who advise government ministers behind closed doors.  For example, a New Zealand committee established to examine plans for decarbonising the economy has concluded that further decarbonisation of the electricity system is counterproductive.  In a report leaked to Stuff magazine they note that:

“High electricity prices would slow the decarbonisation of the wider economy, making it more difficult for New Zealand to meet its target under the Paris Agreement to cut greenhouse emissions…

“Instead of focusing on 100 per cent renewable electricity generation, the committee urged the Government consider New Zealand’s energy use as a whole, with industrial heat and the transport sectors generating far more in terms of carbon emissions than electricity.”

This problem arises for both households and industry.  Money that has to be spent on the higher electricity bills that have been common around the world is money that cannot be invested to lower consumption.  A household whose electricity bills eat away their disposable income is not in a position to install double glazing, insulate walls and ceilings or swap gas central heating for an electric heat pump system.  In the same way, a business whose profit margins are eaten up with increased electricity bills is not about to invest in expensive energy saving technologies; still less swapping its internal combustion engine vehicles for electric ones.

In this sense, the continued installation of non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies exacerbates an economic trend that is already taking its toll in the UK.  The electricity industry business model is based upon the belief that our demand for energy will continue to grow.  As a consequence of general inflation, wage stagnation and austerity policies, however, Britons are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for electricity.  This has led to a two-fold response.  On the one hand – and celebrated by the bright green lobby – households and businesses have turned to the low hanging (and low-cost) fruit of energy efficiency (installing LED lightbulbs, turning down thermostats, wearing an extra layer, etc.)  On the other hand, and especially among the millions of households experiencing “energy poverty,” people have simply been disconnecting themselves – perhaps not entirely shivering in the dark; but only using that electricity that is considered essential.

One result of this declining energy use has been that the brave new world of open competition envisaged by the UK government has fallen flat on its face.  As a new report from Citizens’ Advice warns:

“British energy customers are facing a potential bill of £172 million from the collapse of 11 suppliers since January 2018. On top of this, thousands of people who owed money to failed suppliers lost out on consumer protections and faced aggressive debt collection as a result…”

New entrants to the market had offered too low a price based on the assumption that their customers would use the saving as a reason to consume more electricity when, in practice, they used the saving to fund shortfalls elsewhere in their budgets.  Meanwhile, the “big six” suppliers – whose near monopoly position was supposed to be broken by the new competitors – are increasingly subsidising their domestic electricity business out of profits from industrial users and from the proceeds of investment in the fossil fuel sector.

There is also a political dimension that it is becoming difficult to ignore.  This was raised by some of the participants of a recent energy discussion reported by Christopher Snowden at the Spectator:

“Phil Graham said that switching gas boilers to zero-carbon alternatives, such as hydrogen, is going to require more money. Charlie Ogilvie (Special Adviser to Claire Perry MP) noted that the government’s goal of getting all homes up to Band C by 2035 will cost between £35 billion and £65 billion. While the lower cost of electrified transport could make up for it, this is still a hard sell. Ultimately, said Andrew Neil, the costs of decarbonisation will be met by ordinary people through higher taxation or higher prices. He named several political parties, including the Australian Labor Party and Macron’s En Marche, that have lost public support in recent months as a result of green policies. With all this top-down planning, could there be a democratic deficit?

“But what about the political backlash? Will there be anger at shareholders getting rich while people pay more? Will there be a call for state ownership?”

Perhaps the biggest problem of all, however, is that for all of the deployment of non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies around the world, our greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase; with only the prospect of a new recession on the horizon to provide temporary relief.  If eye-watering domestic energy prices are a hard sell in their own right to a population whose discretionary income has collapsed since 2008; they are even more so as it becomes clear that they are failing to dent the environmental problem for which they are proffered as the best solution.

Greenwash this any way you like, but the growing difficulties emerging in the UK and Europe as non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies account for a greater proportion of electricity generation can only get worse from now on.  And in the end, the leaked report of the New Zealand Interim Climate Change Committee is far more honest than the green energy lobby in stating what ought to be patently obvious – if our intention is to stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, then we need to stop doing all of the things – including economic growth and having babies – that cause greenhouse gas emissions.  We cannot grow our way out of the consequences of growth; but it is easier to brush over this inconvenient truth in bright green paint than it is to take the hard decisions that are now essential.





Peak Democracy….?

8 06 2019

I’m BacK! Make a coffee and read my grim take on the Australian Electoral scene from 1950 to 2030. (Lonnnng Rave from my friend John Barker)

Trends in Australian Politics Described in 4 Simple Graphs

John Barker PhD

One week on and the explanations of the 2019 Australian Federal election are already getting very detailed and complex. Nick Evershed’s analysis in the Guardian (22May) believable, but is probably only understandable by a few.I’ve tried to boil it down to 4 graphs – 3 are historical, one predictive – which are about as simple as they can be made. Some people shrink away from graphs, so the following description might help.

The axes of the graphs show two major parameters – the “socio-economic index (SOI)” and the percentage at that SOI level. The SOI aggregates a lot of things, but mainly income, education and social status. Broadly, the higher the index, the more wealthy, usually more educated and a greater sense of affluence and social fulfillment. Of course there are many exceptions, but I think that these are the main drivers.

The first graph depicts Australia in and before about 1950. There are two political parties (despite minor issues, the Liberal Party and the Country (National) Party are joined at the hip, so are aggregated as the LNP). The LNP is depicted in blue and has its peak to the right of the median SOI. They are the “bosses, bank managers, shop owners and farmers. In other words, the “SOI better-off” tended to vote LNP, tailing off rapidly to the Left, which has a similar-looking and similar-sized curve for the ALP. In 1950, the ALP voters are mainly the “working class”, ie manual laborers, clerical assistants and shop-assistants. Note that the grey curve, which is the total of all voters, is fairly narrow- that is the difference of affluence between the average LNP voter and the average Labor voter was not great. There are little humps at the far-left and far-right, representing, respectively, the few very wealthy and the few very poor- ie unemployed.

The second graph depicts the scene from about the mid-1950s until about 1980. The famous Labor split of 1955 created the Democratic Labor Party (DLP), with its chief strategist and Tony Abbott-mentor BA Santamaria, which, although it shared some general social justice policies with the ALP, was otherwise staunchly conservative and ant-Left. Its main effect was to appeal to a significant number of poorly-educated “working-class” (ie Labor) voters and deliver its second preferences to the NLP. The graph shows the combined LNP-DLP vote, which was enough to exclude Labor from office until 1972. During this period, Australians, on average (and including Labor voters), grew more affluent- illustrated by the grey overall curve moving to the right, and broadening somewhat- meaning the gap between the more- and less- affluent was widening. The number of very wealthy was growing, as was the number of under- and partly employed. This widening gap- which is more evident in the USA, seems to be the main reason for the resentment of the poorer groups on the mid-left of the next group- the ALP.

The third graph depicts Australia in 2019. The median of the SOI has continued to move to the right- “on average” Australians are wealthier than ever, but many more are further from the average on both sides. The less- affluent and less-well-educated on the left have found a champion in Pauline Hanson and the fairly affluent, inner-city dwellers, with the capacity for social concern, now identify with The Greens. The Greens have taken a sizeable chunk of Labor voters, but generally give their second preference to Labor. The far-right of the grey and blue curves has grown disproportionately, with the top 10% having a very high SOI. What is hard to show on this simple graph is the increased number of “SOI-Elite”, who can direct millions of dollars of their “own” fortunes at whatever cause they wish.

So what? All of this is pretty obvious- at least when it is laid out in a few simple graphs. What we have now is 5 major political groups- the LNP, the ALP, the Greens, the One Nation and the “SOI-Elite”. This last group generally don’t stand for election, but sponsor others to do their bidding- they are the “rent-seekers”. The two smaller groups- the ON and Greens- are essentially extremists or idealists- the ON, comprising about 10%, are being cultivated to blame and resent some visible social groups- Muslims, Asians, African Gangs, etc for their misfortunes and blame the ALP’s globalist, distributive policies for having created these groups as well as having abandoned the “working-class” as they (the ALP) have become more affluent. The Greens imagine an ideal world which they believe can be created in a very short time-frame and decry anyone who is less optimistic- including the ALP. Their idealism has attracted about 10% of the voters and have hardened their views in their endeavor to attract more voters.

The word “elite” has shifted recently from meaning a select group displaying extreme (and usually commendable) attributes – like athleticism, scholarship, bravery or wealth – to become an epithet – an insult implying a group who are indifferent to the well-being of the public-at-large. This shift is not just a semantic quibble- the word has been weaponised by both the Right and the Left. Oddly, the Right, in both the USA and Australia has classified the 10% Greens and probably an equal number of the ALP as “inner-city elites”. Not long ago, no-one would consider a group comprising about 20% of the population as “elite”. But the Right has done just that. On the other hand, the Left has started using “elite” to describe the top 1% of the SOI as “elite”- more technically correct, but as an epithet, not a commendation.

What happens next? The fourth graph predicts Australia in about 2030. It is markedly different from the previous three graphs. The ALP has completely disappeared and One Nation (or something similar) now commands a large chunk of the population, most of which has moved dramatically to the left of the SOI, but with a long tail that goes to the far right of the graph. The LNP has also shrunk, but has moved up in the SOI. There is a small group, which had its origin in the Greens, that is now called “Dissidents” that is just to the right of the middle of the SOI. This graph is essentially what one sees now in most of Africa and Asia and what is clearly happening in the USA. It depicts a totalitarian state- the economy, as we presently know it has collapsed- mainly because oil prices have collapsed due to electric vehicles, coal prices have collapsed through China moving to inland gas and renewables for its electricity and China has withdrawn its full-fee-paying students from Australia (worth $15 billion in 2018) and stopped building apartments in the capitals because of Australia’s craven alliance with the increasingly unfriendly USA. The Indian economy has collapsed under the weight of intense air and land pollution and water shortages due to climate change.The remaining resource industries are fully automated and are controlled by global screen-jockeys. The LNP members are rather like the Soviet “Nomenklatura”- open-followers of the ruling elite, who “manage” the remaining economy and police the large under-employed classes – who vote for the government in sham elections, for fear of further reprisals. The Green/Dissident group is allowed to survive to give the appearance of an open society and so that the government can easily keep an eye on them.

A post-apocalyptic dystopia? Certainly. I have spent most of the past two years travelling across China, Central Asia, Africa and India, with some time in Europe, Cuba, USA and Mexico. It already exists in most of these countries. I cannot see how Australia can avoid this, now that it has confirmed its preferred economic direction as being more “resource intensive”. This is known as the “resource curse” with added features. In many countries, the high export-demand for resources has created unbalanced economies with high currency values, but little or no manufacturing. Fluctuation in resource exports creates a chaotic downward spiral. In Australia’s case, the systemic reduction in demand for its resources (which have become highly automated), together with a dramatic weakening in otherwise-compensating sectors (education, construction and climate change- reduced agriculture) creates a negative economic cascade.

Can it be avoided? Could it have been avoided if Labor had won the 2019 election? Probably not. Australia is – and always has been – hostage to geopolitics. China saved us from the GFC 2008 by its own GFC counter- measures. That won’t happen again. And Australia has little or no “economic resilience” left.





EVs’ Limits to Growth….

8 06 2019

THIS will throw the cat in amongst the pigeons…. some months ago, I downloaded a BBC podcast in which a British scientist claimed there wasn’t enough Cobalt and Lithium on the entire planet for just the UK to convert to EVs. It was on a USB stick that I use to listen to such things in my cars while either driving or working on the house. I promptly lost the darn thing and no amount of googling could find the BBC podcast again…… now this piece comes along in my newsfeed. Might be one of the scientists on the panel, I don’t know……

PRESS RELEASE

Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050

First published 5 June 2019

A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change

The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.

A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.

Last month, the Committee on Climate Change published a report ‘Net Zero: The UK’s Contribution to Stopping Global Warming’ which concluded that ‘net zero is necessary, feasible and cost effective.’ As a major scientific research institution and authority on the natural world, the Natural History Museum supports the pressing need for a major reduction in carbon emissions to address further catastrophic consequences of climate change. Using its scientific expertise and vast collection of geological specimens, the Museum is collaborating with leading researchers to identify resource and environmental implications of the transition to green energy technologies including electric cars.

A letter which outlines these challenges was delivered to Baroness Brown, who chairs the Adaption Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change.

Prof Richard Herrington says:

The urgent need to cut CO2 emissions to secure the future of our planet is clear, but there are huge implications for our natural resources not only to produce green technologies like electric cars but keep them charged.

“Over the next few decades, global supply of raw materials must drastically change to accommodate not just the UK’s transformation to a low carbon economy, but the whole world’s. Our role as scientists is to provide the evidence for how best to move towards a zero-carbon economy – society needs to understand that there is a raw material cost of going green and that both new research and investment is urgently needed for us to evaluate new ways to source these. This may include potentially considering sources much closer to where the metals are to be used.”

The challenges set out in the letter are:

The metal resource needed to make all cars and vans electric by 2050 and all sales to be purely battery electric by 2035. To replace all UK-based vehicles today with electric vehicles (not including the LGV and HGV fleets), assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation NMC 811 batteries, would take 207,900 tonnes cobalt, 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE), at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium, in addition to 2,362,500 tonnes copperThis represents, just under two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production during 2018. Even ensuring the annual supply of electric vehicles only, from 2035 as pledged, will require the UK to annually import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt needs of European industry.

The worldwide impact:If this analysis is extrapolated to the currently projected estimate of two billion cars worldwide, based on 2018 figures, annual production would have to increase for neodymium and dysprosium by 70%, copper output would need to more than double and cobalt output would need to increase at least three and a half times for the entire period from now until 2050 to satisfy the demand.

Energy cost of metal production: This choice of vehicle comes with an energy cost too.  Energy costs for cobalt production are estimated at 7000-8000 kWh for every tonne of metal produced and for copper 9000 kWh/t.  The rare-earth energy costs are at least 3350 kWh/t, so for the target of all 31.5 million cars that requires 22.5 TWh of power to produce the new metals for the UK fleet, amounting to 6% of the UK’s current annual electrical usage.  Extrapolated to 2 billion cars worldwide, the energy demand for extracting and processing the metals is almost 4 times the total annual UK electrical output

Energy cost of charging electric cars: There are serious implications for the electrical power generation in the UK needed to recharge these vehicles. Using figures published for current EVs (Nissan Leaf, Renault Zoe), driving 252.5 billion miles uses at least 63 TWh of power. This will demand a 20% increase in UK generated electricity. 

Challenges of using ‘green energy’ to power electric cars:If wind farms are chosen to generate the power for the projected two billion cars at UK average usage, this requires the equivalent of a further years’ worth of total global copper supply and 10 years’ worth of global neodymium and dysprosium production to build the windfarms.

Solar power is also problematic – it is also resource hungry; all the photovoltaic systems currently on the market are reliant on one or more raw materials classed as “critical” or “near critical” by the EU and/ or US Department of Energy (high purity silicon, indium, tellurium, gallium) because of their natural scarcity or their recovery as minor-by-products of other commodities. With a capacity factor of only ~10%, the UK would require ~72GW of photovoltaic input to fuel the EV fleet; over five times the current installed capacity. If CdTe-type photovoltaic power is used, that would consume over thirty years of current annual tellurium supply.

Both these wind turbine and solar generation options for the added electrical power generation capacity have substantial demands for steel, aluminium, cement and glass.

The co-signatories, like Prof Herrington are part of SoS MinErals, an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research focusing on the science needed to sustain the security of supply of strategic minerals in a changing environment. This programme falls under NERC’s sustainable use of natural resources (SUNR) strategic theme. They are:

Professor Adrian Boyce, Professor of Applied Geology at The Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre

Paul Lusty, Team Leader for Ore Deposits and Commodities at British Geological Survey

Dr Bramley Murton, Associate Head of Marine Geosciences at the National Oceanography Centre

Dr Jonathan Naden, Science Coordination Team Lead of NERC SoS MinErals Programme, British Geological Society

Professor Stephen Roberts, Professor of Geology, School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton

Associate Professor Dan Smith, Applied and Environmental Geology, University of Leicester

Professor Frances Wall, Professor of Applied Mineralogy at Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter