BBC BLOGS - Richard Black's Earth Watch
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

China and EU share climate vision

Richard Black | 14:57 UK time, Monday, 7 March 2011

China and the European Union are setting out plans for changing energy use and curbing carbon emissions within a space of a few days.

As one of them is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases while the other would be third in the global list if its emissions were tallied as a single entity, what they come up with is obviously of some importance in shaping the world of the future.

National Party Congress in Beijing

 

The contexts of the two announcements are somewhat different.

In Beijing on Saturday, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao unveiled his report to the National People's Congress, the Chinese parliament.

In part he assessed progress on various measures over the last five years, and in part he outlined targets and aspirations for the five years ahead.

(Time has posted English translations of the various documents that are downloadable and searchable.)

Regarding energy and climate, one target is to generate 11.4% of energy from renewable sources by 2015 - up from 8% in 2010.

Energy will be used more efficiently - about 16% more efficiently, on the same timescale.

But by targeting economic growth just slightly lower than it's seen over the last decade, the Five-Year Plan also guarantees that energy use overall will still rise.

The size of the targets probably shouldn't come as a surprise given that back in 2009, before the Copenhagen climate summit, China vowed to improve carbon intensity by 40-45% between 2005 and 2020, and to produce 15% of energy renewably by 2020.

High-wire walker and power station chimneys

European energy and climate policy is proving a difficult balancing act

The Five-Year Plan targets are logical steps on the road.

Back in Europe, the European Commission will on Tuesday unveil its energy and climate "roadmap" to 2050.

This doesn't carry the weight of formal policy, because everything has to be signed off by member states.

But because member states engage actively in lobbying and pressurising during the process of drawing up documents such as the roadmap, you can be fairly sure that what emerges won't be a million miles away from where nations will eventually converge.

As I outlined on Friday, the commission is set to stick explicitly to its existing target of a 20% cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 - ignoring lobbying from green groups who cite scientific studies to argue that after the recession, going for 20% is less ambitious than "business as usual".

To them, the debate should be between 30% and 40%.

There's clearly been a row going on behind the scenes between Connie Hedegaard's Climate Directorate and its Energy counterpart headed by Gunther Oettinger; and as of Friday, Mr Oettinger appeared to have emerged victorious.

Nevertheless, there is at least a sense of the EU moving forward here - like China, driven partly by concern over climate change, partly by growing awareness of the insecurity of depending on fossil fuels, and partly by studies suggesting that a "green energy revolution" is positive for jobs and employment.

In terms of what it means internationally, there's an intriguing phrase in the draft commission report leaked a couple of weeks ago:

"Quite a number of the EU's key partners from around the world, like China, Brazil and Korea, are addressing these issues..."

Given that the country traditionally closest to the EU on things political is the US, its absence from the list is telling in a couple of different ways.

Firstly, it's another indicator that the US is not really moving forwards anything like as quickly as China and the EU on green energy and climate issues.

As Time's Bryan Walsh put it:

"At least they have a plan.

"What do we have in the US? On Wednesday, Republican Representative Michele Bachmann reintroduced her Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act."

This seeks to repeal the 2007 Congress decision (made under the presidency of George W Bush) that from next year, only energy-efficient lightbulbs could be sold in the US.

Aeroplane nose

The shortage of alternative fuels for aviation means curbs will probably end up being tougher elsewhere

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, the US direction of travel on climate and energy is putting it out of kilter with most other countries in the world.

Whether that matters for the US - and whether its basic premise is correct - are questions on which you'll have different views.

But it certainly has implications.

For example; if the Senate had passed climate legislation that included a cap-and-trade system, there's every prospect that the talk now would be of how carbon trading in the US could link up with the European carbon market.

That prospect is apparently dead; and the most likely link-ups, that are even now being explored, involve Japan and China.

The second way in which the "partners... like China, Brazil and Korea" phrase becomes important is over international moves to curb carbon emissions, and the notion - raised in that previous post of mine - that the rest of the world might not be as willing to wait for the US as it was in the run-up to the Copenhagen summit.

Partnerships come in many guises; and there is a school of thought that says only now are European politicians understanding how to work with China, which is culturally so much more distant than North America.

China's political process means that policies are largely decided centrally, at five-year intervals, after long discussions with interested parties inside the country.

So perhaps there's no point in coming to an event such as the Copenhagen summit and expecting to negotiate on emission curbs, given that they tie so closely into economic policy.

Perhaps instead the logical path should be to take the pledges that China makes (and other countries too) - and, accepting that they amount to targets that the government is totally serious about meeting, regard them as being equal to the internationally-binding targets that have been the traditional stock-in-trade of the UN climate process.

We're due to see a more detailed and nuanced discussion of this idea emerge in a few weeks' time, so I'll leave it at that for now.

In the meantime, we'll report on the European Commission's final document when it emerges on Tuesday afternoon, and wait to see what else emerges from the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

What sort of lightbulbs are in use there one can only guess...

 

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 3:37pm on 07 Mar 2011, Vic Smith wrote:

    Richard Black: "As I outlined on Friday, the commission is set to stick explicitly to its existing target of a 20% cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 - ignoring lobbying from green groups who cite scientific studies to argue that after the recession, going for 20% is less ambitious than "business as usual"."

    Good to see that uncritical acceptance of the scientific advice on this subject is no longer in fashion.


    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 5:29pm on 07 Mar 2011, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Vic Smith #1

    Some aspects of the science are rather less controversial than others. The impact of the economic recession on emissions of greenhouse gases is pretty straightforward. Although it is a bit naughty the way the politicians gloss over outsourcing of emissions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 5:36pm on 07 Mar 2011, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Those documents were worth a read. Some of the Chinese policies appear to be more socially cohesive than some of the effects of UK policies, of which we are experiencing. (I like the bit in one of the documents where it states that China is aiming to get rid of industries who produce sub standard work.) I think the document should be out there for everyone to read, so that people in the UK can compare and contrast what our government intends to do to support us and what China intends to do to support the Chinese people. I don't believe the grass is greener anywhere else, but I do believe a bit of healthy competition is good.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 6:17pm on 07 Mar 2011, JunkkMale wrote:

    China and EU share climate vision

    Plus a few other things, with a few others.

    Not always in a good way.

    Worth thinking about, before closing time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 6:56pm on 07 Mar 2011, Sly Oaf wrote:

    JunkkMale at #4

    Your post make no sense. It really must be near closing time ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 7:15pm on 07 Mar 2011, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    Richard,

    Your sub-editor has used a picture of the long closed Battersea Power Station. It has not generated anything except controversy since 1983 (and what's more no district heating either!) - It also possibly shows the BBC's own Helen Skelton doing her Comic Relief stunt.

    What does this have to do with future plans/visions?

    As in Uncle Jo's (Stalin) time the only accurate figures are the fiver year plan. The outcomes are unmeasurable and will not be measured anyway, only the plan (sorry 'vision') has significance and that has no connection with reality and real policies. Sooner or later the so called climate scientists will have get real jobs doing something useful! It really is such a pity to see the energies of the green movement being dissipated in attempting to achieve something that has little or no effect of the climate - they would be better occupied in campaigning for policies that ameliorate the effects of change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 7:34pm on 07 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Richard says: "Regarding energy and climate, one target is to generate 11.4% of energy from renewable sources by 2015 - up from 8% in 2010."

    But the Chinese government states: "the proportion of non-fossil fuels in China's primary energy consumption should reach 11.4 percent by 2015, from 8.3 percent in 2010."

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011npc/2011-03/05/content_12121180.htm

    Note the critical difference between "renewables" and "non-fossil fuels."
    NOT the same. The difference is that most of this increase in non-fossil fuel use is coming from China's massive buildup of nuclear power. That is why the Chinese are so much smarter than the EU.

    Richard says: "Energy will be used more efficiently - about 16% more efficiently, on the same timescale.

    But by targeting economic growth just slightly lower than it's seen over the last decade, the Five-Year Plan also guarantees that energy use overall will still rise."

    The same chinadaily source explains that this 16% reduction is PER UNIT of GDP growth... while total GDP is seen rising at 8% per year. So, yes indeed, energy use and emissions will keep rising. Moreover, China is moving into less energy-intensive industries - following the same basic economic evolution as the West - so this target is not nearly as difficult for them to achieve as it would be great as doing something similar in the US or EU now. Thus simple comparisons are extremely misleading.

    Bottom line, from the same china daily source:

    "China should give a boost to the use of clean energy, such as nuclear power, and wind, solar and biomass energies in the following five years to trim dependency on coal, which contributes 70 percent of China's total energy consumption... The government would also cap total energy consumption at 4 billion tonnes of coal equivalent by 2015, an annual increase of 4.24 percent in the five years, he said. Last year, the country consumed 3.2 billion tonnes of coal equivalent, he added."

    So, in terms of CO2, slower increases but rapid increase nonetheless.

    As a big fan of nuclear power, I support what China is doing there. I also support their development of ALL energy sources, which is exactly what they are doing.

    For comparison, here's the UK energy sources lately:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/wind-producing-almost-1-of-uk-energy-today/

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 8:14pm on 07 Mar 2011, Jack Hughes wrote:

    The chinese are very happy for europeans to drink the Kool Aid.

    They will sell us the plastic cups and help us to mix it.

    And they will tell us about their own plans to drink in about 5 years as europe slips away....

    Read the details and they are actually doing nothing - while energy prices in europe are forcing europeans into fuel poverty and forcing businesses to relocate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 8:45pm on 07 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #8. Yes Jack, here's some stats on the green heroes of China, and some other interesting comparative info:

    "China takes big lead in CO2 emissions race

    February 1, 2011

    The Department of Energy released yesterday its estimates for global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy use:

    Global CO2 emissions from energy use were 30.45 billion metric tons.

    U.S. emissions were 5.42 billion tons, about 17.8% of global emissions (2nd place).

    China’s emissions were 7.71 billion tons, about 25.3% of global emissions (1st place).

    India has overtaken Russia for third place (1.60 vs. 1.57 billion tons).

    South Korea’s growing emissions (528 million tons in 2009) is on the verge of passing Canada’s declining emissions (541 million tons).

    North Korean emissions increased 14.5% to 79 million tons from 2008 to 2009, while U.S. emissions declined 7.1% during that period.

    For those who wonder why we can’t be more like the Chinese, here are a few more facts:

    US GDP in 2009 was $14.1 billion according to the World Bank.
    China’s GDP was a mere $4.98 billion.

    For every ton of CO2 emitted, the U.S. added $2.60 to GDP.

    For every ton of CO2 emitted, China added about $0.64 to its GDP.

    The figures for France, Japan, Germany and the UK are $6.68, $4.62, $4.35 and $4.18, respectively.

    While the U.S. is not the most efficient user of energy, as measured in terms of CO2 emissions, it is way ahead of China. There can be no doubt that heavy reliance on nuclear power by France (79%) and Japan (61%) is what makes those economies so efficient emissions-wise."

    http://greenhellblog.com/2011/02/01/us-co2-cap-more-nonsensical-than-ever/

    Why do Watermelons love China? Here's a hint: it is not because of what they are doing about the environment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 8:53pm on 07 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Nobody talks the green talk as much as the EU. Talk is cheap.

    "Germany Talks Solar, But Goes Coal.

    (Reuters) Germany and other coal-mining nations secured an extension of coal subsidies until 2018 after a months long battle with environmentalists.

    The European Commission, the EU’s executive, had proposed in July that the coal mining industry should only get four more years of state aid before subsidies are phased out in 2014, the sixth such extension of state aid since 1965.

    But with thousands of jobs on the line, Germany led other coal-mining countries such as Spain in pushing hard to extend subsidies to 2018, to fit around Berlin’s own national laws."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B93D420101210

    More on this story here:

    http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/germany-talks-solar-but-goes-coal/

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 02:01am on 08 Mar 2011, chronophobe wrote:

    Speaking of coal (and China), I'd be curious to know what you all think of this fairly recent essay by James Fallows.

    His basic premise is that:

    a) barring catastrophe, collapse, or miracle, coal is going to be major part of any future global energy equation.

    b) there are promising practices and technologies (sequestration, whether pre or post combustion, basically) which make coal less of a carbon (and heavy metal) liability.

    c) it's the Chinese, because of their rapid expansion of coal fired plants, who will be leading the way in implementing these technological developments.

    Anyway, I thought it was a good read ... .

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 07:08am on 08 Mar 2011, JunkkMale wrote:

    '5. At 6:56pm on 07 Mar 2011, Sly Oaf wrote:

    It's pity that what I wrote made no sense to you.

    Sometimes one needs to be more cryptic than ideal for some to avoid referral or, worse, see the thread prematurely terminated.

    Methodologies that any less starstruck of certain Chinese or EU authoritarian practices (and those of their favoured, or supportive organs) may be familiar with.

    If you, at last, get my drift.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 07:22am on 08 Mar 2011, JunkkMale wrote:

    6. At 7:15pm on 07 Mar 2011, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    I actually thought of this...

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yS90tj4ZmfQ/TMNHljtDNuI/AAAAAAAAABM/4nbdR_gjrlo/s400/animalsPIG.jpg

    Maybe the sub-ed is more subtle than first imagined?

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 07:24am on 08 Mar 2011, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    It is easy to cherry pick data and select the stuff that makes a particular country/place look better or worse. What I would like to see is up to date information that is completely objective and broken down. Let us all see. It is completely unrealistic to say country A is more of an environmental nuisance than country B when each are compared as a whole unit. For instance, the Wales cannot be compared to the USA and cyprus cannot be compared to Iceland. Each country has its own environmental handicap; population per square meter; area of habitable land; resources, etc. What would be interesting is up to the minute access to such data. It is absolutely useless to compare data from years ago because times and practices have moved on. As we are all in this mess together, some joined up thinking would go a long way. if world governments argue continuously about who-does-what and who-gets-what, then let an informed citizenship decide.
    This planet and its human population have so much potential. The much maligned environmental scientists (on this blog anyway) will have all the data about populations and resources and will have up to date information.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 07:31am on 08 Mar 2011, PAWB46 wrote:

    Plants and animals are carbon-based life forms, for the survival of which three main things are required; energy from the sun, water and CO2. Given that the climate makes earth habitable due to the energy from the sun, water and CO2, shouldn't we be emitting as much CO2 to the atmosphere as possible to help plants grow and to keep the planet nice and warm?

    Carbon is a remarkable element and CO2 is a remarkable compound. Let's have more CO2. Grow your footprint.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 08:02am on 08 Mar 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    I too Richard am a little confused as to the figures you report for china.

    If i'm correct, they're actually INCREASING their co2 output- despite the framing of the 'cuts' to suggest otherwise. It's a very canny way to play on the co2-centric madness of europe; china 'pretends' to be doing something about co2 (all the while selling us exceptionally toxic and environmentally damaging wind farms) while europe grasp at the approval with both hands. they know china aren't actually doing anything, but need the percieved backing to make their position seem less, well, economically suicidal.

    -chronophobe- interesting article that.

    As for energy efficiency.... nuclear? seriously, why aren't we building 5 new reactors already....

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 08:24am on 08 Mar 2011, PAWB46 wrote:

    16. At 08:02am on 08 Mar 2011, LabMunkey

    It's patenely obvious that we should be building nuclear reactors now and stopping all wind and solar developments. We should be pouring research into thorium MSRs before we have to start buying the technology from the Chinese.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 08:33am on 08 Mar 2011, Jack Hughes wrote:

    @Grannie,

    Who says "we are all in this mess" ?

    What mess ?

    Everybody in the world is better off than 10 years ago. Our rivers are cleaner than 40 years ago. Our air is cleaner than 40 years ago. Our beaches are cleaner.

    I am baffled by the weary pessimism that Richard dishes out week-in week-out on this blog.

    Maybe it's some kind of eco Munchausen's ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 10:36am on 08 Mar 2011, Richard Black (BBC) wrote:

    #7 CanadianRockies - yes, you're right, thanks for spotting my error. It's non-fossil fuels rather than renewables. The nuclear programme continues, but in 2009 China overtook the US as the leading investor in renewables, according to a Pew analysis.

    #16 LabMunkey - sure, China's CO2 output is to rise. But its per-capita emissions are far below those of, for example, the US - and the premise of the UN climate convention is that developing countries aren't expected to reduce emissions yet, just to constrain their rise.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 10:39am on 08 Mar 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 19- Richard.

    But then isn't this just political posturing an in fact doing nothing to combat climate change as it is seen by the IPCC et al? I.e. gross hypocrasy?

    Look- i pledge to lower my growing co2 footprint by 20% in the enxt 50 years. What does that mean? precisely nothing- just as the chinese statement doesn't.

    It's clearly a political gesture- not a practical one- hence my confusion over why you seem happy with it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 12:27pm on 08 Mar 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Sounds a bit like my diet: "I hereby promise to ensure that my waistband expands by 20% less than it would otherwise have expanded".

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 12:56pm on 08 Mar 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    What's that psychological technique called? It's like shut-door technique or something?

    I.e. you pretend to be doing something worse/more that you are (i.e. in this case emitting tons and tons and tons of co2) to allow you to 'compromise' to what you're actually going to do anyway (emit tons AND tons of co2)- making you look like the good-guy for doing naff all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 2:39pm on 08 Mar 2011, rossglory wrote:

    this is all about the holy grail of decoupling co2 emissions from gdp growth. if co2 emitted per % gdp is decreasing then that's good but if your gdp is 10+% (which is what china aims for) co2 emissions still go up.

    personally i can;t see chinese growth continuing at anything like 10% (unless they completely restructure their economy...oh and political system!) so maybe this is all a bit moot anyway.

    and given what's happening in the middle east i think the walter mitty contigent that have opposed renewables for so long are looking a bit foolish. renewables are seen as a big export market by china.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 3:50pm on 08 Mar 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    "and given what's happening in the middle east i think the walter mitty contigent that have opposed renewables for so long are looking a bit foolish. renewables are seen as a big export market by china."

    Personally it's not renewables per say that i have issues with, it's WIND power.

    Give me tidal (go india!), geothermal and to a lesser extent solar- but wind? It's a morons choice.

    Toxic to produce, hopelessly inefficient and a blight on the landscape- madness.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 4:03pm on 08 Mar 2011, escapedfromny wrote:

    10. At 8:53pm on 07 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Nobody talks the green talk as much as the EU. Talk is cheap.
    -------------------------

    The same holds true with the current administration in the US.

    While Obama talks as if her cares, his actions do not support it. Instead, we have roadblocks thrown up to every effort to make things greener.

    Build a 2,000MW solar plant? NO!! - It would ruin the view and hurt the cactus and the lizards and the owls, so we cannot build it where it is the most sunny. How about Maine or Alaska!

    Build a dam across ANY river? NO!!!! - the snail-darter or speckled trout or some fish will lose its habitat and think of all the poor animals that will their home flooded! OH NO, we can NEVER build a dam there (or anywhere).

    Build windmill where it is actually windy? NO!!!!!!! - It would ruin the view, it will destroy property values for rich people, it would hurt migrating birds, it would keep us awake at night (People in Massachusetts are suing to shut down their brand new windmill because it is too loud, and they now turn it off at night.).

    So in the US, none of the people who CLAIM to be green really WANT to be green, because it costs too much and is too inconvenient.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 4:09pm on 08 Mar 2011, JaneCai wrote:

    Hey, following your final question, I am happy to find that the Great Hall of People in Beijing, China has used energy-efficient bulbs already! They are from a LED manufacturer from Hai Yan City, Zhe Jiang Province.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 4:20pm on 08 Mar 2011, JaneCai wrote:

    And to be fair, most of the Chinese households, especially in cities, like Shanghai and Beijing have already been using energy-efficient bulbs. I was so surprised to see that so many houses here in U.K. are still using ordinary bulbs. But my recent shopping experience in supermarkets tells me that the government is promoting energy-efficient bulbs as they are really cheap now, much cheaper than three years' ago.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 5:23pm on 08 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    escaspedfromny (25)
    The problem is that every energy source has its problems.
    Producing solar panels and wind turbines is polluting, but so is producing and building a gas or coal power station.
    Tidal power is incredibly difficult to harness (wave power even more so) not to mention the fact that everything is in salt water with all it's inherent maintenance issues.
    Hydro is one of the more straightforward, but you need the water!

    You could easily argue against every single form of energy!

    labmunkey (24)
    I don't know why more progress hasn't been made on Geothermal.
    The Germans wouldn't agree with you on wind power - the north German plain has thousands of wind turbines. And I wouldn't agree with you on them being a blight on the landscape, especially when it is mostly sterile agricultural land or the supposedly beautiful British hills which are nothing more than over grazed sheep farms.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 5:28pm on 08 Mar 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    The green revolution doesn't just disfigure the landscape with windmills.

    Ordinary (glowing tungsten filament) bulbs produce blackbody radiation, which means that if you draw a graph of their light intensity versus wavelength, you'll get a smooth line (which if not quite flat, at least won't have bumps at odd places).

    To the human eye, direct light from an energy-efficient bulb might seem whiter than that from a filament bulb, but its reflected light is much less reliable. For example, it can change the appearance of clothes -- typically, something brown might appear olive green.

    Anyone working with colour -- or just appreciating colour in a serious way -- has to avoid this sort of lighting.

    Aesthetically, the green revolution makes me feel a bit green about the gills!

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 5:35pm on 08 Mar 2011, Dr Brian Skinner wrote:

    27. JaneCai wrote:

    "And to be fair, most of the Chinese households, especially in cities, like Shanghai and Beijing have already been using energy-efficient bulbs. I was so surprised to see that so many houses here in U.K. are still using ordinary bulbs."

    If you've got an old-fashioned light meter try testing modern bulbs against their alleged output on the packet. About 70% is normal in my little run of experiments. Try a few yourself.
    So I need to use two bulbs for reading whereas previously one was fine.

    Some Carbon saving eh!

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 5:37pm on 08 Mar 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    One of the things I dislike most about windmills is the way they remind us of the presence of Man everywhere. It is amazing how many people who claim to "dislike technology all over the place" want to put technology all over the place! Many of the same people seem not to see nature in lawns and gardens. It's as if they are using their political agenda rather than their eyes to see beauty or ugliness.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 6:21pm on 08 Mar 2011, blefuscu wrote:

    Keep on deindustrialising EU.

    By 2020 the Asian market will be self-sustaining and a deindustrialised EU will no longer compete for raw materials.

    The number of nuclear power plants being built or planned by 2030 in China shows where the 'savings' will arithmetically appear like magic to 'reduce' CO2 per capita output.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 6:49pm on 08 Mar 2011, rossglory wrote:

    #31 bowmanthebard

    "It's as if they are using their political agenda rather than their eyes to see beauty or ugliness."

    i love old windmills, don;t mind turbines but hate pylons. that said, turbines should not be splattered all over the countryside. i prefer the danish approach where a couple of turbines are built by a cooperative to benefit the local community (there was one in oxfordshire that was oversubscribed).

    generally i don;t like them all along a ridge, ruins the wind flow and makes it difficult for gliders to soar the ridge hunting for thermals :o(

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 7:17pm on 08 Mar 2011, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Richard Black

    Richard,

    China and the European Union are setting out plans for changing energy use and curbing carbon emissions within a space of a few days.

    As one of them is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases while the other would be third in the global list if its emissions were tallied as a single entity, what they come up with is obviously of some importance in shaping the world of the future.


    You keep banging on about carbon emissions and GHG's, but there is no proof that CO2 can significantly raise the global temperature. With the latest from Capitol Hill which proves beyond doubt that emails were deliberately deleted by The Team and the Team broke IPCC rules by incorporating unpublished work in review answers, don't you think it is time that AGW was dropped by the BBC?

    CAUTION: Link to sceptical blog

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/08/to-serve-mann/
    http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/08/wahl-transcript-excerpt/

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 7:27pm on 08 Mar 2011, margare wrote:


    @31 bowmanthebard

    I feel your pain.

    As long as the tail (corporations) wag's the dog (the population)
    nothing really constructive, I fear, can/will be accomplished
    in any kind of positive vein.

    In addition to that, as long as population runs rampant (you
    think this is getting bad wait until 9 billion) one can expect
    advertising signs on trees after the corporations take the parks
    kindly off our hands because we just can't afford to take care of
    them ourselves.

    When 'such' as we cover the planet you really have nothing to say
    about windmills aesthetically or otherwise.

    Just grin and bear it (And feel the pain)

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 7:45pm on 08 Mar 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    rossglory #33 wrote:

    i love old windmills, don;t mind turbines but hate pylons.

    I think I'm OK with pylons because they are so familiar at this stage. They can have a lonesome, romantic sort of aspect (think Wichita Linesman), as do lightships (think "channel light vessel automatic" from the shipping forecast). I was also interested to see thousands of pylons stretching out as far as the eye could see across the desert -- with not a human to be seen anywhere.

    I think it's the constant movement of windmills that upsets me -- it gives me a vague sense of anxiety, actually -- because I can't stand the old "biscuit tin souvenir of Holland" windmills either.

    I'm sure I'm not alone in getting that "vague sense of anxiety" -- their sinister/foreboding aspect was used in Don Quixote and Bride of Frankenstein (complete with angry mob). Perhaps Doctor Freud would have something to say about giant whirling blades?

    generally i don;t like them all along a ridge, ruins the wind flow and makes it difficult for gliders to soar the ridge hunting for thermals

    Do you not find they add a troubling busy-ness to the landscape? I imagine they're an accident waiting to happen for gliders looking for ridge lift.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 7:55pm on 08 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #19. Richard Black (BBC)

    People love to gush about China's investment in solar and wind power. This puts that into perspective, though is slightly out of date; since this they have announced a 50% increase in their nuclear targets for 2020:

    "Mainland China has 13 nuclear power reactors in operation, 25 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.

    Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give more than a tenfold increase in nuclear capacity to 80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.

    China is rapidly becoming self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.

    Most of mainland China's electricity is produced from fossil fuels (80% from coal, 2% from oil, 1% from gas in 2006) and hydropower (15%). Two large hydro projects are recent additions: Three Gorges of 18.2 GWe and Yellow River of 15.8 GWe. Rapid growth in demand has given rise to power shortages, and the reliance on fossil fuels has led to much air pollution. The economic loss due to pollution is put by the World Bank at almost 6% of GDP.1 In 2009 power shortages were most acute in central provinces, particularly Hubei, and in December the Central China Grid Co. posted a peak load of 94.6 GW.

    Domestic electricity production in 2009 was 3643 billion kWh, 6.0% higher than the 3,450 billion kWh in 2008, which was 5.8% more than in 2007 (3,260 billion kWh) and it is expected to rise to 3,810 billion kWh in 2010. Installed capacity had grown by the end of 2009 to 874 GWe, up 10.2% on the previous year's 793 GWe, which was 11% above the previous year's 713 GWe.2 Capacity growth is expected to slow, reaching about 1600 GWe in 2020. At the end of 2007, there was reported to be 145 GWe of hydro capacity, 554 GWe fossil fuel, 9 GWe nuclear and 4 GWe wind, total 713 GWe. In 2008, the country added 20.1 GWe of hydro capacity, 65.8 GWe coal-fired capacity, and 4.7 GWe wind."

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

    Some newer relevant info:

    "China to ensure energy supplies (Xinhua) 2011-01-28 21:55

    Coal supply will be improved with the construction of 14 large coal bases and increased imports, he said.

    Net coal imports totaled 146 million tonnes in 2010, he said.

    Installed electricity capacity is forecast to expand by 80 million kilowatts in 2011 to 1.04 billion kilowatts, he added.

    China will focus on offshore oil and gas exploitation during the 12th Five-year Plan (2011-2015) period, he said."

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-01/28/content_11936453.htm

    To your point about their 'green' investments (from two extremely dubious sources of statistics):

    "$20b deals take clean energy cooperation to practical levels
    2011-01-26 10:57

    Latest statistics from Greenpeace and the Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association show that China installed 16 gW of wind power capacity last year, bringing its total capacity to 41.8 gigawatts, surpassing the US and becoming the largest wind-installation country in the world.

    Moreover, investments in China's clean energy sector have been soaring in recent years to maintain a strong development of China's green industry."

    http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2011-01/26/content_11919822.htm

    Note that last line: "to maintain a strong development of China's green industry."

    That is why China is doing what it is doing. They are extremely pragmatic. Their first, second and third concern is their economic development. They don't care about human rights or things like that when they invest in other countries. And they only care about this 'green' thing if it is advantageous to them economically - which it definitely is right now - although they actually will need to START cleaning up their horrendous pollution problems for actual public health reasons.
    But right now, as you know, Beijing looks like London in the coal days.

    People need to read more about Chinese history. It is very long.

    In any case, China will certainly benefit from all this, as the EU exports its carbon emissions for manufacturing there and the Chinese and their global multinational corporation partners laugh all the way to the bank... where the Banksters laugh even louder... at the expense of the 'little people' of the western countries.

    One can only wonder at how much money Maurice Strong, now hiding in China, is making out of all this. This whole thing only makes sense when you follow the money.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 8:03pm on 08 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #30. DrBrian

    We have had similar experiences with those extremely expensive 'eternal' new lightbulbs which do not last very long.

    But they have been a $ dream come true for Philips and GE... so, of course, GE is a true believer in the AGW threat and all that.

    The worst thing about them is the MERCURY!!! Which makes them about as 'green' as windmills in a golden eagle flightpath or an environmentalist flying around the world for meetings or ecotours.

    Definitely some very convenient blind spots in the so called green movement.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 8:14pm on 08 Mar 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    margare #35 wrote:

    When 'such' as we cover the planet you really have nothing to say
    about windmills aesthetically or otherwise.


    The only reason we didn't cover the planet many thousands of years ago was that roughly the same number died as were born. When the population started rising big-time a few centuries ago, that was because fewer were dying.

    "Fewer dying" is normally a good thing. But there is a danger in "fewer dying" if it is powered by a simple engine (such as cheaper food because of cheaper energy) that can easily go into reverse gear. This sort of thing happens before famines. It seems to me that the best way to circumvent that danger is to somehow have people reproduce less. The Chinese "one child policy" was a stick. I suggest instead a carrot. Let them get rich and have little choice but to invest more in each child.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 9:03pm on 08 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #39. bowmanthebard wrote:

    "The Chinese "one child policy" was a stick."

    But it had many problematic unintended consequences, notably a huge surplus of frustrated and spoiled young men with no prospects for marriage, and a demographic shift that, like western countries and Japan, leaves too many old people depending on too few younger workers.

    Back in the 'good old days' they used to have wars to use up that surplus, and people didn't live so long after their retirement.

    This population reduction thing is a bit of a Catch 22 when seniors depend on pensions funded from younger generations. The global multinational 'multicultural' gang suggests that such countries just allow a flood of immigrants, but then they do not care at all about individual nations or cultures or "citizens." They just care about "consumers."

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 9:16pm on 08 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    25. escapedfromny wrote:

    "While Obama talks as if her cares, his actions do not support it."

    Obama talks a lot. That's all he is good at.

    "Build a dam across ANY river? NO!!!! - the snail-darter or speckled trout or some fish will lose its habitat and think of all the poor animals that will their home flooded! OH NO, we can NEVER build a dam there (or anywhere)."

    It is even stupider. There is a big movement in the Western US to get rid of dams to restore some lost salmon runs. Really, who needs electricity, or water for irrigation, or flood control?

    And even more stupider - pardon the flexible vocabulary here - is the recent decision last year to CUT OFF the water for irrigation to California's Central Valley - otherwise known as America's Garden - to supposedly save some invented 'species' of minnow called the Sacramento Smelt. Inventing bogus 'species' or 'subspecies' or 'distinct geographic populations' is standard dishonest operating procedure for the save the world industry now. That's how they rack up the fake numbers for 'species at risk' lists, and how then they lever that into other actions. And each 'species' that they can label Threatened or worse becomes a legally funded franchise that can provide jobs for life for some researchers... usually the same ones who 'discovered' the supposed 'species' and/or that it needed their protection. Quite the racket. Expect no end of this lucrative and politicized junk 'science' as the gang shifts from AGW to the Great Biodiversity Crisis.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 9:30pm on 08 Mar 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    bowmanthebard wrote:

    "The Chinese "one child policy" was a stick."

    I didn't mean it stuck, I meant it was "a stick as opposed to a carrot", a British idiomatic way of saying it tried to use brute force rather than a more engaging, attractive inducement. As far as I know, the "stick" is more often considered the less decent, less clever, less efficient way of getting the donkey to move forwards. (Although both are from cartoons.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 9:32pm on 08 Mar 2011, escapedfromny wrote:

    28. At 5:23pm on 08 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    escaspedfromny (25)
    The problem is that every energy source has its problems.
    --------------------------

    The problem is that those who condemn fossil plants condemn ALL types of power generation, and make it impossible to do anything.

    5 years ago, Obama and his fellow Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin, touted the development of a power plant that would remove CO2 from the air. So far, even though Obama is President and Durbin are is the #2 man in the US senate, not a shovel has been raised. Nothing Nada.

    So as far as I can tell, everything every environmentalist who can actually DO something is nothing but a liar because they have all the power and money in the world and have yet to lift a finger.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 10:01pm on 08 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #42. bowmanthebard wrote:

    "I didn't mean it stuck, I meant it was "a stick as opposed to a carrot", a British idiomatic way of saying it tried to use brute force rather than a more engaging, attractive inducement. As far as I know, the "stick" is more often considered the less decent, less clever, less efficient way of getting the donkey to move forwards. (Although both are from cartoons.)"

    Yes, got that. Either way, with a growing senior population and a shrinking younger population, there are problems for pension plans. Of copurse, with what the Banksters just did, there are problems no matter what.

    As for how one gets lower population growth, how did the EU do it? Or any developed country? Seems the places where population growth is still excessive are countries where more children are an economic benefit. Higher numbers will actually survive and be useful, on farms or whatever. Is that a carrostick?

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 10:15pm on 08 Mar 2011, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    The unavoidable has become apparent. Seems the denial game is no longer working. the bankers would like to make another robbery through cap and trade and their political handmaidens would like to help them out. Cleaning up the environment is no longer a tree-huger dream but rather a necessary action impacting the sustainability of communities. The fight over bio-fuel production and food for the starving will be interesting. China is facing a big drought in the wheat belt and other nations are also looking for water. Impotent political leaders continue to lie for their banking and big business patrons...people are no longer awaiting their approval to move forward...they know who they work for.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 10:31pm on 08 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Latest from the crooked hockey stick factory:

    "Sources confirm that a federal inspector has questioned Eugene Wahl and Wahl has confirmed that Mann asked him to delete emails. Wahl has also informed the inspector that he did delete emails as the result of this request."

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/08/to-serve-mann/#comment-616327

    More details here:

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/08/wahl-transcript-excerpt/

    Yes, this confirms that 'its worse than we thought' as they say, although it was obvious how bad it was. Great article that reads like a detective thriller, led by the work of our Canadian hero Steve McIntyre.

    This again reveals the difference between what happens in the US to the whitewashes the UK elite gets away with. And it is just starting.

    But speaking of UK whitewashes, look what's bubbling up out of that cesspool:

    "Apparently the U of East Anglia paid the Muir Russell inquiry nearly £300,000."

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/28/the-muir-russell-contract/

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/28/the-muir-russell-budget/

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/02/ipcc-and-the-east-anglia-refusal/

    Hmm. Haven't seen any coverage of this on the BBC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 11:05pm on 08 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #11. chronophobe

    Found this:

    "The Waigaoqiao III Power Plant in Shanghai is ultra-super critical and operates as 46% thermal efficiency, well above the global average of 30% thermal efficiency."

    http://www.energy.siemens.com/co/pool/hq/energy-topics/living-energy/issue-2/LivingEnergy_Issue2_Cleaner_Coal_in_China.pdf

    But then there's still this legacy:

    ”The average efficiency of American coal-fired plants is still higher than the average efficiency of Chinese power plants, because China built so many inefficient plants over the past decade..."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html


    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 03:20am on 09 Mar 2011, melty wrote:

    Nice article Richard, thanks, also the US isolation one. People should remember that China has a population of over 1.3 billion (not for want of trying to stabilize it) and feeds almost 1/5th of the world with only 5% of the arable land. So. Why focus on uniforms in the pic at top? The pix with military uniforms reinforces the cultural stereotype that western readers have come to expect (i.e., confirmation bias). Many services have uniforms in China (like railway workers). The editor couldn't find a more suitable pic (like electric bikes in Beijing)? Stupid blog comment sections, what a waste of time -- don't you wish you could just go back to being a journalist and writing articles w/o comments?

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 07:19am on 09 Mar 2011, Faustino wrote:

    #23, rossglory, you say that those opposed to renewables are looking a bit foolish as “renewables are seen as a big export market by china.”

    Think about it. The West is adopting renewable technologies which have energy costs several times that of coal-fired electricity. China is using coal-fired power stations to produce the renewables hardware and exporting it to the West, thus (1) making lots of money from Western foibles and (2) increasing its energy-cost advantage. I suggest that it is the Westerners promoting this who are foolish.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 07:23am on 09 Mar 2011, JunkkMale wrote:

    48. At 03:20am on 09 Mar 2011, melty wrote:
    -- don't you wish you could just go back to being a journalist and writing articles w/o comments?


    Perhaps compounding the mea culpa 'waste of time', that can 'work' in China. Along with none of those governance interrupted by votes complications. One just has to ensure one works for... with the right folk to get on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 07:45am on 09 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    Mango (34) Canadianrockies (46)
    It's pretty desperate stuff from the climate skeptics to keep focusing on some emails from research years ago (the 'hockey stick' graph is TEN years old!!).
    There has been much more research and many more studies since then.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 08:28am on 09 Mar 2011, MangoChutney wrote:

    @PragueImp #51

    It's pretty desperate stuff from the climate skeptics to keep focusing on some emails from research years ago (the 'hockey stick' graph is TEN years old!!).

    It's pretty desperate stuff when "climate scientists" feel the need to resort to "careful speaking" in order to avoid answering the question and speaking the truth. Wahl has admitted that Mann asked him to delete emails relating to AR4, breaking both IPCC and FOI rules.

    It's time the "climate scientists" came clean on this issue.

    You know there used be an AGWer on this platform who would parrot on about "lies by omission", where is he now?

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 08:46am on 09 Mar 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    CanadianRockies #44 wrote:

    As for how one gets lower population growth, how did the EU do it?

    The EU as a political organization didn't do it -- the people of Europe got richer (sometimes with help -- as recently from the US in the form of the Marshall Plan). As they slowly grew richer, slowly their expectations and aspirations were raised. First it became "normal" for all children to attend school; more recently it has become "normal" for all children to expect a third-level education. The old family pattern -- of having a lot of children with short childhoods, the eldest helping out with the youngest -- began to disappear. The products of those families could not compete for highly-paid jobs or marriage prestige with the products of smaller families where childhood was longer and more intensive. A long intensive childhood is expensive for parents, and they generally want to have fewer children so they afford it, and can do it well.

    Seems the places where population growth is still excessive are countries where more children are an economic benefit.

    Or contribute to "safety in numbers".

    Higher numbers will actually survive and be useful, on farms or whatever.

    They won't be much use on farms that use recent technology. Work on farms doesn't involve as much "labouring in the fields" as it did, and those that do it seem to be despised "migrant workers". Western farmers are nowadays expected to operate and maintain computerized machinery; to have a good grasp of food technology; to compete with their neighbours in making new products that fill new market niches; and so on.

    Is that a carrostick?

    If we're talking about lowering population growth, punitive pressure from the authorities ( = "stick") is not likely to last as long or be as reliable as ordinary people simply no longer wanting to have a large number of children and freely choosing not to ( = "carrot"). It seems to me that wealth and growth are the best way of achieving that. The corollary is that growth is essential, of course. The nature of human society is that it is constantly developing and moving forwards. To impose a static state upon it would be like preventing a fish from moving forwards through the water, as it must to breathe.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 09:06am on 09 Mar 2011, rossglory wrote:

    #49 Faustino

    "Think about it."

    think about it. europe's economy is utterly dependent on energy imports. where does that energy come from? oil mostly from the middle east and gas from russia via ukraine (and the uk is right at the end of that 'first come, first served' pipeline).

    is the price of fossil fuel on a nice steady decline to allow us to grow our economies effectively? no.

    so even without the instability in the middle east fossil fuels are becoming more expensive.....and that's because cheap supplies are running out and most of what's left china, india, brazil etc are after.

    so how much sense does it make to stick with the status quo? not much imho no matter what china is up to (especially as the bulk of the chinese advantage is because its wages are low not its energy prices).

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 09:26am on 09 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    Mango (52)
    As I said, why are you still talking about such an old issue?!
    Most people have moved on and are focusing on up-to-date material and studies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 10:48am on 09 Mar 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 54- ross
    I agree wholeheartedly.

    Our energy security is not going to be met by our reliance on oil or gas (though maybe shale gas? i've been hearing a lot on this lately- but my knowledge on the subject is minimal)

    @ Pragueimp.

    First your # 28
    Re: german wind power- i was underthe impression, that they- along with spain and a few other countries were moving away from wind as it was becoming patently obvious that it was economically unviable

    Re:my point on it being woefully inefficient- you are aware as to just HOW inefficient they are? have you looked into this,

    Re: your comment on their not being a blight on the landscape- well i'm afraid you will be in a very small minority if you thing the brittish country side is improved by large metal monstrosities.

    Re you # 55.

    The reason people still harp on about it is because the issue was never resolved (the more we look at the inquiries the more whitewash it seems they ordered)- it shows a potentially deliberate attempt to misrepresent data, stifle opposing views and subvert the peer review process a the centre of this debate.

    It will not go away until there has been a thorough investigation- as the sceptics who look at it just keep finding more and more 'dirt'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 11:11am on 09 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    LabMunkey (56)
    There are certainly more turbines being put up in Germany. No idea about Spain.
    If they really were so inefficient I'm sure they wouldn't be so common.

    The British countryside is totally artificial - agricultural landscapes, buildings, roads, power lines. Wind turbines are just another part of this industrial landscape. Only 10% of Britain is trees - hardly a natural landscape.

    re No. 55
    No, it really is desperate to keep focusing on one episode from the past.
    As I said, the 'hockey stick' graph is ONE study from TEN years ago!
    Why not look at more recent studies? If they were full of such problems then fair enough.
    Language like 'potentially deliberate', stifle opposing views' and subvert...' is just a sad reflection of clutching at straws.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 11:37am on 09 Mar 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 57

    Re- wind farms- of course they're still being built. They're massively subsidised and the people who build them are making a killing- this however does not equate to reliability, efficiency or actual output.

    I can only assume that you haven't looked into this-

    try here for a start

    http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

    Re- #55.
    So because an issue happened in the past it should be ignored? Regardless of what the other data showed he deliberatley misrepresented his data. This is fraud, had i done something like this in my place of work, i'd be facing dismissal and criminal charges- yet academia seem to get away with it.

    And this isn't the only issue:
    -the hocky stick
    -climategate (with prima facea evidence of collusion, peer review subversion, POTENTIAL data deletion- or at least the instructions to do so, dodgy code etc etc).
    -himilayangate and all the other gates(seriously- why do people insist on sticking 'gate' after everything).

    You then have the massive assumptions in the AR4 and the core science, the casual disregard for natural variation (on zero evidence) and the abject inability to understand clouds.

    It's one thing after another after another. NONE of which hae been addressed adequatley (i.e,. by a thorough investigation or, heaven forbid, an industry-standard audit).

    To put it this way- to put this whole debate to bed it would only take a number of external audits perhaps sixth months to get to the bottom of things. Yet this is avoided like the plague- i wonder why.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 12:34pm on 09 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    LabMunkey (58)
    All power generation is subsidised; coal and nuclear have been massively subsidised for years.
    I'm afraid I am having no luck with that link you provided.

    The hockey stick WAS investigated. Congress supported Mann on it.
    More importantly, over a dozen subsequent scientific papers produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick graph and came to the same conclusions.

    Climategate WAS investigated. All THREE investigations concluded that there was no evidence of scientific malpractice.

    Himalayagate is the least controversial of the lot. A SINGLE paragraph in the 938 PAGE Working Group report included a projection that Himalayan glaciers COULD disappear by 2035. This projection was not included in the final summary for policymakers. The date was found to be a typographical error (should have been 2350).
    So people are focusing on a typo in a working group report, which didn't even make it into the final policy document! Clutching at straws!

    It's amazing how these three things have taken up some much space on some (frankly awful) blogs and webpages.
    It is good that there is disagreement over the interpretation of data, but highlighting these three examples totally undermines the climate skeptics case.


    P.S. Yes, I agree that the 'gate' thing is quite strange given that the original was back in the 60s!

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 12:58pm on 09 Mar 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 59

    Re-the link- give it time- it DOES take ages to load, took about 30-50 seconds on my pc (there's a lot of data for it to bring up- it's quite comprehensive). If you're still struggling, on the left hand side there are a number of check boxes- un-check those you are not interested in- it will load quicker.

    Re: subsidies- they are significantly higher for wind. Coal and nuclear turn a profit- wind does not (well not without fixed and gauranteed prices it doesn't).

    Re- mann. The investigation was a sham- any institution that say's splicing two data sets to hide data that doesn't support your theory is not a scientist. I repeat- i'd be facing fraud charges if i did that.

    Re- the cliamte gate inquiries. Not one of the inquiries looked at the data (past 3 pre-selected cases, selected by the defendants), the emails or the other accusations- which is odd considering that is what they were set up for.

    One went so far as to say they WOULDN'T investigate something in case they found evidence of law breaking....

    Re- himalyain gate- this is significant for two reasons- they breached their own guidlines and pirachi LIED about it prior to copenhagen- going so far as to attack the scientist who noticed it.

    try again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 1:30pm on 09 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    60
    So, you call for investigations and inquiries (56), but when they don't agree with your views you disregard them?! Don't change the rules if you lose!

    These things have all been investigated and cleared. Most people have moved on to the more important issue of what is actually happening to climate.

    The really big problem is that more and more data keeps coming in showing that climate change IS happening, which makes arguing about the hockey stick and climategate all the more irrelevant.

    I have no problem is discussing whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, or whether we can or should be doing anything about it, but why argue that climate change is not happening because you see faults in a couple of pieces of old news?

    P.S. as we seemed to have monopolised this for the last few hours (not to mention that I really ought to get on with some work!) I'm going to log off for a while. Happy to reply (much) later.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 1:46pm on 09 Mar 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @61

    no- i called for AUDITS, they're a totally different kettle of fish. And it's not that i disagree with the investigations, it's that they catagorically didn't actually investigate the issues at hand. It's hard to disagee with something that doesn't even LOOK at the problems you have.

    - as for climate change- i never said it wasn't happening- it is happening, constantly. If anything the relatively recent stable temperatures are the anomoly, not the other way around.

    And again it isn't specifically about the hockey stick itself (shoddy though it is- incidentally the subsequent papers you cite used the same faulty data- hence the agreement) but the improper data manipulation. I don't care what the answer is- but if someone fudges data, then i DO care.

    You're either willfully or accidentally (due to lack of information) missing the point- you really need to check your information.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 6:16pm on 09 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #53. bowmanthebard wrote:

    "It seems to me that wealth and growth are the best way of achieving that."

    I agree. My questions were actually rhetorical and you answered them quite eloquently.

    On a recent blog about the 'extinction wave' and all that, some people brought up Madagascar as an example of a place where that was happening, and posed the question why it was so much different on that island than the UK. Same answer. Conservation is a luxury only wealthy countries can afford - which I suppose is the reason why some people think we should ship poor countries more cash to address that. Unfortunately, where and how that money is spent is THE question. And, of course, the definition of 'rich' and 'poor' or 'underdeveloped' countries is changing. Brazil and China have more than enough of their own, if they chose to use it properly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 6:23pm on 09 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #55. PragueImp wrote:

    "As I said, why are you still talking about such an old issue?!
    Most people have moved on and are focusing on up-to-date material and studies."

    PI, you sound like Tony Bliar talking about the Iraq war. Or the Banksters wanting the little people to get over being robbed by them. The only people who have "moved on" from this are those who want to cover it up. If a burglar broke into your house and stole all your stuff, would you just move on and forget it? The problem is that the whitewashes were whitewashes and nothing was properly investigated. The 'science' aside, this is more about unethical and illegal behavior by missionaries masquerading as scientists who were paid lots of money for their services. If we don't address this kind of stuff it will just get worse.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 6:56pm on 09 Mar 2011, Peter317 wrote:

    @PragueImp #59:

    It wasn't so much the "error" as the IPCC's reaction to it.
    Amongst other things, the Indian glacier expert who pointed it out was accused by Pachauri of "practising voodoo science".

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 6:58pm on 09 Mar 2011, MangoChutney wrote:

    @PragueImp #55

    As I said, why are you still talking about such an old issue?!
    Most people have moved on and are focusing on up-to-date material and studies.


    The issue is relevant to all discussions on climate change and policy. Without the hockey stick showing a rise in temperatures over the last few hundred years, there wouldn't have been an unfounded scare. Therefore the conduct of the "scientists" is extremely relevant. If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.

    If you are saying the hockey stick has no relevance to today's discussion, then you will need to disregard many of the other works that are based partly or wholly on the hockey stick.

    If you want to focus on up-to-date material and studies then consider all work including that of sceptical scientists.

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 7:11pm on 09 Mar 2011, MangoChutney wrote:

    @PragueImp #59

    Himalayagate is the least controversial of the lot. A SINGLE paragraph in the 938 PAGE Working Group report included a projection that Himalayan glaciers COULD disappear by 2035. This projection was not included in the final summary for policymakers. The date was found to be a typographical error (should have been 2350).
    So people are focusing on a typo in a working group report, which didn't even make it into the final policy document! Clutching at straws!


    The point about the Himalayan claim was the 2035/2350 date wasn't even based on peer-reviewed work - it was taken from a New Scientist report that was based on a telephone conversation with Syed Hasnain:

    Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

    This not only broke the IPCC's own rules, but wasn't even peer-reviewed

    You should bring yourself up to speed and stop denying that climate changes all the time

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 7:31pm on 09 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #57. PragueImp wrote:
    (LabMunkey #58)

    "There are certainly more turbines being put up in Germany."

    But PI, Labmunkey is right. Those building them are just milking the subsidy cow, which is now drying up:

    Denmark, home of Vestas, might stick it out longer just to prop up that welfare case corporation but look at the Netherlands:

    "The Dutch lose faith in windmills

    The new Dutch right-wing government has announced a radical overhaul of Dutch energy policy. It is cutting subsidies for most forms of renewable energy drastically, and is even putting an end to all subsidies for offshore wind, solar power and largescale biomass. It has also announced a warm welcome for new nuclear power stations – the first time a Dutch government has done so since the Chernobyl-disaster in 1986."

    http://energiaadebate.com/the-dutch-lose-faith-in-windmills/

    Gee, I wonder why? Here's the US reality:

    "the relative subsidies for various energy sources... wind and solar get in the neighborhood of 100 times the subsidy that oil and gas do, per unit of energy produced (according to the Energy Information Administration): $23.50 per MwH for wind, $24.50 for solar, $0.25 for oil and gas, whereas coal gets $0.44, nukes about $1.60, and dams $0.60"

    http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/231257/yes-lets-give-renewables-chance-compete/chris-horner

    And why anyone thinks windmills are green is beyond me. They are not if you consider all their costs - materials, manufacture, installation, repair, maintenance, and replacement - assuming they don't just tip over or blow over as some already have. They are also visual pollutants in my opinion. And then there's things like this:

    Wind Farm Projects Stalled Over Potential Golden Eagle Slaughter And Other Problems

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/13/ap-enterprise-eagle-conce_n_796096.html





    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 8:38pm on 09 Mar 2011, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    I am just about to watch a re-run of the energy debate from the 8th of March(parliament on the grot box UK)
    The energy issue is of real interest and concern. Start digging deeper and it is possible to see the multiplicity of issues surrounding energy provision. What do you do? Arguing about the aesthetics of a type of power provision is a waste of energy (pun intended.) We are all too used to an energy hungry lifestyle and to switch is not going to be a feasible short term solution. Changes in energy use will require changes in physical as well as social infrastructure.
    I can see one major difficulty arising from extraction of oil and gas from less abundant sources, and this is becoming more apparent. It is up to you to discover for yourselves what that difficulty is and it is and it is up to you to consider whether your current lifestyle is worth that cost. Remember again, we are all in this together.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 8:58pm on 09 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #69. sensiblegrannie

    When it comes to energy use, we already walk that walk and have since the 1970s energy crisis. Minimal driving and we heat all winter with wood which we grow on our land (and our grid electricity comes from hydro). If you care about CO2, our forest land absorbs enough of it to cover our annual emissions plus those of hundreds in any town. Can't see how we could use much less unless I turned off this computer - which I will do as soon as 'environmentalists' stop flying to junkets and ecotours. In other words, never.

    The solution to the UK's energy problems is simple. Nuclear power. It is only scary if you don't know anything about it or get your information from Greenpeace. See France. Or, perhaps more relevant, see Japan, which gets 61% of its power from nuclear despite its history of actually being nuked. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki are bustling cities these days, with no apparent glowing mutants.

    "2012 Olympic Games to be nuclear powered"

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/2012-olympic-games-to-be-nuclear-powered-2198261.html

    Nuclear power plus electric cars. That is the future.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 10:08pm on 09 Mar 2011, Morrissey Smiff wrote:

    I will asume the Chinese government is lying in order to get a competitive advantage over the west who's governments are being pushed into carbon trading by China's biggest investors, the international banks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 10:36pm on 09 Mar 2011, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    CanadianRockies

    I like what you have to say and it is good to hear that some people can live the dream right now.

    Nuclear power has to be resourced. Where do those resources come from and at what cost? Surely there is only a finite amount of raw material available to go nuclear? Who is the biggest supplier of such raw materials? What is the political cost of using outsourced supplies of materials needed for reinvesting into nuclear energy?

    How can electric cars be sustainable? In their present form, electric cars also appear to need finite and potentially environmentally damaging resources. Is it not a case of exchanging one problem for another?

    Have scientists have developed a cleaner and more efficient way of extracting energy from coal?

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 11:17pm on 09 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    Canadian (64) That's a poor response by your standards. What does it even mean?

    Peter (65) That's more like it - the response to it rather than the thing itself, that's what it's all about.

    Mango (66) They are NOT based on it. That's the whole point. They are independent investigations, based on the same data but making their own conclusions (which is what the controversy was about).
    ''If you want to focus on up-to-date material and studies then consider all work including that of sceptical scientists.'' Agreed!

    Mango (67) Everyone agreed at the time that it was a mistake. So what is your point?

    Canadian (68) ''But PI, Labmunkey is right.'' No, he isn't!
    And those figures for subsidies are clearly wrong - just think about it! (although, to be fair, it may be because the American system is different - in the UK nuclear power has been totally subsidised by the government).
    The cost of ''materials, manufacture, installation, repair, maintenance, and replacement'' being higher than nuclear or fossil fuels? No way!

    The crazy thing is that all the facts and statistics used for your arguments are just as open to criticism as the climate change stats you are shouting about!

    'Lies, damned lies and statistics!'

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 05:22am on 10 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #72. sensiblegrannie wrote:

    "Nuclear power has to be resourced. Where do those resources come from and at what cost? Surely there is only a finite amount of raw material available to go nuclear? Who is the biggest supplier of such raw materials? What is the political cost of using outsourced supplies of materials needed for reinvesting into nuclear energy?"

    Yes, all real factors. By far the biggest costs and resource requirements are the construction, and huge amounts of that are red tape. Richard's Chinese heroes build them much cheaper because they avoid that.

    The cost of the uranium, or later thorium, is almost insignificant to the total costs of operation, and will still be if the price of uranium skyrockets. But since the looming supply problems are a result of a lack of mine development (due to recent low U prices) the coming spike will be temporary. Even so, the U is the cheap part.

    Biggest U suppliers are Canada, Australia, and Kazahstan right now but there's lots of uraium in the world. Canada has the advantage of having, in the Athabasca basin, by far the highest grade U deposits in the world.

    Political costs? Hmmm. Compared to what? Does the UK make wind turbines or solar panels? If so, from local materials? Now that the North Sea has been sucked dry, looks to me that all the UK has left is coal... so isn't everything else outsourced?

    The political costs or moving ahead with nuclear will mostly come from the green hissy fit. Ignore them. Much bigger hissy fits to come when your lights go out due to an idealistically based power grid instead of a economically logical one.

    "How can electric cars be sustainable? In their present form, electric cars also appear to need finite and potentially environmentally damaging resources. Is it not a case of exchanging one problem for another?"

    If you want to reduce fossil fuel use what other options are there. The logical bridge would be natural gas but, again, the so called greens don't seem to want to do that... seems they have too much invested in solar and wind. Still problems with electric cars but they will just keep getting better. Expect to see them used in commercial fleets first, as short loop delivery trucks. In fact, expect to see them in London as early as this year. That is already happening in the US. Much simpler than dealing with private cars. Bottom line though, they need electricity, from nuclear if you want it to be dependable... there is NOTHING green about an electric car charged by coal-fired power. NOTHING.

    "Have scientists have developed a cleaner and more efficient way of extracting energy from coal?"

    Depends on the price, and the need. The Germans developed synthetic liquid fuel from coal in WW II. Already invented.

    Cheers

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 05:42am on 10 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #73. PragueImp wrote:

    "Canadian (64) That's a poor response by your standards. What does it even mean?"

    It is, as they say, not over until the fat lady sings, and those whitewashes you mentioned didn't even take the gag out of her mouth. You really ought to look further into the whole fiasco, including this latest development. Farewell to Pinnochio Mann.

    And I thought people with experience with Communism would be much more wary of what government committees say - or are you younger than that?

    And, assuming you really are in Prague, as I recall your ex PM is a very wise man when it comes to this AGW project.

    "Canadian (68)... those figures for subsidies are clearly wrong"

    Not for the U.S. they're not. And what you get from nuclear energy is mass amounts of reliable energy - like France. I just blabbed on about that in my last post to sensiblegrannie so I'll leave it at that.

    "The crazy thing is that all the facts and statistics used for your arguments are just as open to criticism as the climate change stats you are shouting about!"

    If you could be specific I could answer your question.

    "'Lies, damned lies and statistics!'"

    I agree. No inflation! Yippeee! Did somebody say a 0.8 C rise in global temperature since 1880... oh my god! Gee, wonder what the margin of error on those earlier measurements was? What's that - 97% of some cherry picked group (75/77) agrees, and the debate is supposedly over! Anyhow, I did a poll and 55% said that all my stats are impeccable. It was correct to within 45% 17 times out of 12. You can't argue with that!


    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 06:29am on 10 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Here's a seriously entertaining AGW related radio interview from Australia with the UK's own Jill Duggan. It is quite a few minutes into this but well worth it:

    http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8095

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 06:57am on 10 Mar 2011, MangoChutney wrote:

    @PragueImp #73

    Mango (66) They are NOT based on it[hockey stick]. That's the whole point. They are independent investigations, based on the same data but making their own conclusions (which is what the controversy was about).

    Add in dodgy statistical analysis, hide the decline, delete the post-1960 values and the divergence problem and "Hey presto! We have a hockey stick"

    Reviewers of AR4 even told the IPCC that there was a problem with the reconstructions after 1960, but the IPCC merely stated "it would be inappropriate" to show the reconstructions after 1960 (refer to reviewer comment 6-1122)

    Mango (67) Everyone agreed at the time that it was a mistake. So what is your point?

    The point is IPCC rules were broken and reviewers comments were ignored.

    It may seem trivial, but if the NIPCC produced a report containing such errors, then climate change deniers (AGW believers) would have a field day denouncing sceptics as charlatans.

    It may seem trivial, but $trillions are being ear marked to solve a non-existent problem.

    It may seem trivial, but the IPCC had several years to pick up this mistake, and indeed, reviewer David Saltz did pick up the error, so did the Government of Japan, as did Harry Fowler, but the IPCC chose to ignore these comments and printed the error with very high confidence.

    /Mango

    I don't deny climate changes, I know climate changes

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 07:04am on 10 Mar 2011, MangoChutney wrote:

    Will the largest full moon in 2 decades mean we will get record tides and claims that it's all man made? lol

    /Mango

    I don't deny climate changes, I know climate changes

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 08:11am on 10 Mar 2011, MangoChutney wrote:

    @PragueImp

    The other thing is, Imp, even if the Hockey Stick wasn't broken and the Himalayan glaciers melted by 2035, it still wouldn't tell us what caused the warming, would it?

    /Mango

    I don't deny climate changes, I know climate changes

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 08:34am on 10 Mar 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 73
    "in the UK nuclear power has been totally subsidised by the government)."

    Please provide sources for this. I was under the direct impression that the subsidies (past initial set up) were practically zero and that the power produced turns a hefty profit (just ask BNF).

    Wheras windpower requires subsidies to be built, to be ran, to make the power costs viable... .etc etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 12:19pm on 10 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    Lab (80)
    I think you have just made my point - the subsidies past set up may well be zero, but the building of the nuclear power stations cost much much more than wind ever will (not to mention decommissioning costs). Technically that may not count as subsidy, but it all came from the tax payer.
    (By the way, I am actually a fan of nuclear power as part of a sensible energy mix.)
    Canadian (74) Some good point about nuclear, but as you also say, we are running out of North Sea oil and coal, so solar and wind have to be developed. The UK has a huge energy gap looming - we need more energy generation urgently because a number of aging nuclear stations are going off line soon and nothing has been done to replace them. The Severn barrage has been scrapped, so what other choice is there?

    Mango (79)
    That's exactly the point - the hockey and Himalaya stuff is simply describing warming as a phenomena rather than what causes it. As I have said before, I can understand a healthy debate about AGW or not, but you can't just simply say global warming is not happening. Your point about trillions being spent on something that is non-existent is worthy of debate, but you weaken your position by saying it is because of a small amount of dodgy data.

    Canadian (75)
    I live in Prague but I am English.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 12:23pm on 10 Mar 2011, jackcowper wrote:

    Prague Imp

    Regarding the Climategate Enquiries, have you read the GWPF report on this:

    http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpf-reports/1531-the-climategate-inquries.html

    There is also Judith Curry's take on Hide the Decline here:

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/

    You may also want to look at some of Doug Keenans work here as it relates to Climate Gate as well, he has a reocrd of exposing fraud:

    http://www.informath.org/

    I am hoping to see an enquiry that both sides will be happy with. At the moment its a bit like the old Iraqi information minister stating "Everything is fine, nothing to see here"

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 2:08pm on 10 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    Jack (82)
    Does Judith Curry seriously expect anyone to read that?!! I thought WUWT was badly written, but this is awful.

    And anyway, why would I want to read three obviously biased reports? They are all blatantly saying 'if you are a climate skeptic then you will enjoy reading this'.
    Where is the balanced material in all this?

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 2:59pm on 10 Mar 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ prauge.

    So you admit you're basing your 'heavily subsidised' nuclear speil on pretty much nothign then.

    some direct questions to you-
    1- how much does wind power have to be subsidised by the government to make it viable (the produced energy not the units themselves).
    2- same question but for nuclear

    3- how much does one turbine cost and how much power can it produce yearly (not capacity, but measured output).
    4- same for nuclear

    finally, how many wind turbines do you need for the output of one, next gen (exceptionally CLEAN) nuclear station? What is the cost difference?

    Unless you can answer all these questions- you're clearly talking rubbish.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 3:08pm on 10 Mar 2011, jackcowper wrote:

    Thank you Prague Imp

    There was only 2 reports. The GWPF and Doug Keenan. As I understand it Doug has not got any interest in Climate Change, his concern here is scientific malpractice. The Judith Curry bit was a discussion at her blog, well worth reading.

    Your answer is so good at 83, that I can't be bothered carrying on. Thank you anyway. And by the way, Judith Curry is a pro AGW Climate Scientist who happens to engage with sceptics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 3:26pm on 10 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    Jack (85)
    I was using the word report in a more general sense - you gave me three things to look at, a blog, a report and a paper.
    'Well worth reading' Can't agree with that.

    Lab (84)
    So you're basically saying we should forget how much it cost to build nuclear power stations (not to mention the billions to decommission them) when it comes to working out the cost of electricity produced?!

    And stop getting emotional - you are resorting to insults and making mistakes!

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 3:36pm on 10 Mar 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ prauge. Where did i insult you? I said you were talking rubbish, that's not the same thing.

    no i'm not, but until you've done the exercise, and one can only assume you haven't given your position, you will not know that it's actually CHEAPER to go the nuclear route.

    Just try and answer the final question of my post # 84 (which should have been #5, 'cept i forgot to number it) to give yourself an indication of where you're going wrong.

    The only problem with nuclear, is the time it takes to design and build them- we should have started ten years ago.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 4:05pm on 10 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    Lab (87)
    You are right (84) about nuclear being the cleanest – once it has been built. But, wind turbines produce much more energy than was required to produce them compared to nuclear power stations. It takes 7 years for nuclear stations to ‘pay off’ the energy used to construct them; wind turbines do it in months.

    I agree, wind IS expensive (and not as green as many make it out to be), but nowhere near the cost of nuclear.
    An Australian study found that generating 20% of that countries needs with nuclear power would cost $15bn whereas wind power would do it for $9bn.
    American federal subsidies for nuclear power stations are an average of $13bn per plant.

    By ‘subsidies for wind energy produced' I now realise you meant the 'Renewables Obligation', which forces energy companies (in the UK) to invest in alternative energy. This is a levy which is paid by the customer (not the government) and used to fund renewable energy sources.

    I totally agree with your last paragraph - we need to get moving on it before it is too late. But the tax payer is going to have to fund it (=subsidy!).

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 4:17pm on 10 Mar 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @88,

    We seem to be getting somewhere. excellent.

    I disagree that wind is significantly cheaper- i'll dig the relevant calculations out, but unless i'm mistaken all the coast/benefit alanyses of wind power are past on capacity NOT output- watch out for that one.

    The other major advantage nuclear has is that it won't freeze over winter leading to massive blackouts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 4:26pm on 10 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    89
    Yes, wind turbines rarely (if ever?) achieve full capacity.
    And there needs to be a back up for those non-windy / freezing days. Germany is also building coal powers stations for back up when wind is not available.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 5:43pm on 10 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #90. PragueImp wrote:

    #89

    "Yes, wind turbines rarely (if ever?) achieve full capacity.
    And there needs to be a back up for those non-windy / freezing days. Germany is also building coal powers stations for back up when wind is not available."

    Well, you explained it. So massive redundancies everywhere... for the purpose of generating ridiculously expensive and unreliable energy... for the purpose of what again? Enriching certain people? Yes, in spades, at the expense of ALL the little people. Any net CO2 reductions in your German scenario. No. So, what was the point again?

    If you think any of this does make sense - and expanding energy sources away from increasingly scarce and expensive oil does make sense - just think how much more sense it would make if Germany was building nuclear power plants instead of coal plants.

    Even natural gas plants would be better than coal plants - other than increasing their reliance on Putin's gang.

    Here's a rather good website about power of all kinds:

    http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index.html

    I hear Prague is a very beautiful old city.


    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 5:58pm on 10 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #89. LabMunkey wrote:

    "I disagree that wind is significantly cheaper... the coast/benefit alanyses of wind power are past on capacity NOT output- watch out for that one."

    That's the key point. If you just went by capacity, it would be even more cost-effective to build all windmills inside barns.

    In contrast, nuclear power plants do consistently and reliably produce power at or very near their design capacity, every second of the day.

    I have seen reports - which I cannot find at the moment - that some windmills MUST be kept moving to avoid technical problems with them, so that power from the bad old grid is used to keep them turning when there is no wind.

    Here's a real test. Find the windiest CITY in western Europe. Propose to build a bunch of windmills in that city. No need for long transmission lines, minimal power loss. Urban Greens can marvel at their wonder daily. And so much better to put them in already developed areas than to screw up the countryside with them.

    Now imagine the NIMBY uproar! Call it a simple hypocrisy test.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 6:07pm on 10 Mar 2011, Brunnen wrote:

    @88. PragueImp wrote:

    Lab (87)
    You are right (84) about nuclear being the cleanest – once it has been built. But, wind turbines produce much more energy than was required to produce them compared to nuclear power stations. It takes 7 years for nuclear stations to ‘pay off’ the energy used to construct them; wind turbines do it in months.

    -------------------------------------------

    Which sounds wonderful. However you neglect to mention that large wind turbines never EVER pay for themselves. Since they only work an average of 1/3 of the time they are never able to generate electricity equivalent to the cost of building the buggers, let alone make a profit.

    There's a reason wind turbines are painted white, it's to remind us of the similarly coloured elephant...

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 10:00pm on 10 Mar 2011, david wrote:

    Clearly Richard Black has still to catch the toe-curling, jaw-dropping piece of radio history, comprising the interview in Australia of Jill Duggan by Steve Price and Andrew Bolt. (You can hear it all in the Bishop Hill blog under 'Rolls Royce minds' - or on James Delingpole's blog in The Telegraph...)
    Jill Duggan, for those of us who had never heard of her, is the British bureaucrat charged with the task of implementing the 20% reduction in emissions by the EU, by 2020.
    Ever polite, but increasingly frustrated, the two interviewers asked Ms Duggan how much this measure was going to cost.
    She didn't know.
    When the interviewers suggested a figure of EU250bn, she still waffled.
    Then they asked what would be the benefit in terms of lower global temperature.
    She didn't know.
    Frustrated, the interviewers suggested the figure that they had seen (from models) of 0.05C.
    She replied that different models gave different results..
    She then went completely off at a tangent talking about (incorrect) 'achievements' in terms of 'green' jobs in Germany, etc - and proudly announcing that China manufactured the most wind turbines (true; for sale to developers in the West keen to make a quick buck, of course...)..
    It really is worth listening to - just so that you know how keen our politicians are to take our money and chuck it at the most crackpot so-called 'science' ever visited on the human race...

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 10:19pm on 10 Mar 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #94 Direct link to this marvellous interview posted at #76 for those who can't bear to visit Delingpole's site.

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 11:20pm on 10 Mar 2011, PragueImp wrote:

    Brunnen (93)
    That is just plain wrong! They do, and they have.

    Canadian (91)
    ''Any net CO2 reductions in your German scenario'' Yes!
    (92)
    The WINDIEST city?! I thought you would have picked up on the fact that the winiest places are not the best!
    ''ALL the little people''
    ????

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.