Jo Abbess

The Catalysis of Hydrocarbons

Renewable Gasoline

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/05/fulcrum-20130528.html#more

http://www.infratechnology.com/technology/

http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/2013/joule-extends-solar-co2-conversion-platform-produce-renewable-gasoline-and-jet-fuel

They Think It’s Not All Over

[ Image Credit : Lakeview Gusher : TotallyTopTen.com ]

So, the EIA say that the world has 10 years of shale oil resources which are technically recoverable. Woo hoo. We’ll pass over the question of why the American Department of Energy are guiding global energy policy, and why this glowing pronouncement looks just like the mass propaganda exercise for shale gas assessments that kicked off a few years ago, and move swiftly on to the numbers.

No, actually, not straight on to the numbers. It shouldn’t take a genius to work out the public relations strategy for promoting increasingly dirtier fossil fuels. First, they got us accustomed to the idea of shale gas, and claimed without much evidence, that it was as “clean” as Natural Gas, and far, far cleaner than coal. Data that challenges this myth continues to be collected. Meanwhile, now we are habituated to accepting without reason the risks of subsurface and ground water reservoir destruction by hydraulic fracturing, we should be pliable enough to accept the next step up – oil shale oil fracking. And then the sales team can move on to warm us up to cruddier unconventionals, like bitumen exhumed from tar sands, and mining unstable sub-sea clathrates. Why do the oil and gas companies of the world and their trusted allies in the government energy departments so desperately want us to believe in the saving power of shale oil and gas ? Why is it necessary for them to pursue such an environmentally threatening course of product development ? Can it be that the leaders of the developed world and their industry experts recognise, but don’t want to admit to, Peak Oil, and its twin wraith, Peak Natural Gas, that will shadow it by about 10 to 15 years ? A little local context – UK oil production is falling like a stone – over the whole North Sea area. Various efforts have been made to stimulate new investment in exploration and discovery. The overall plan for the UK Continental Shelf has included opening up prospects via licence to smaller players in the hope of getting them to bet the farm, and if they come up trumps, permitted the larger oil and gas companies to snaffle up the small fry. But really, the flow of Brent crude oil is getting more expensive to guarantee. And it’s not just the North Sea – the inverse pyramid of the global oil futures market is teeteringly wobbly, even though Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) are now included in petroleum oil production figures. Cue panic stations at the Coalition (Oilition) Government offices – frantic rustling of review papers ahoy. To help them believe it’s not all over, riding into view from the stables of Propaganda Central, come the Six Horsemen of Unconventional Fossil Fuels : Tar Sands, Shale Gas, Shale Oil (Oil Shale Oil), Underground Coal Gasification, Coalbed Methane and Methane Hydrates. Shiny, happy projections of technically recoverable unconventional (night)mares are always lumped together, like we are able to suddenly open up the ground and it starts pouring out hydrocarbon goodies at industrial scale volumes. But no. All fossil fuel development is gradual – especially at the start of going after a particular resource. In the past, sometimes things started gushing or venting, but those days are gone. And any kind of natural pump out of the lithosphere is entirely absent for unconventional fossil fuels – it all takes energy and equipment to extract. And so we can expect trickles, not floods. So, will this prevent field depletion in any region ? No. It’s not going to put off Peak Oil and Peak Natural Gas – it literally cannot be mined fast enough. Even if there are 10 years of current oil production volumes that can be exploited via mining oil shale, it will come in dribs and drabs, maybe over the course of 50 to 100 years. It might prolong the Peak Oil plateau by a year or so – that’s barely a ripple. Unconventional gas might be more useful, but even this cannot delay the inevitable. For example, despite the USA shale gas “miracle”, as the country continues to pour resources and effort into industrialising public lands, American Peak Natural Gas is still likely to be only 5 years, or possibly scraping 10 years, behind Global Peak Natural Gas which will bite at approximately 2030 or 2035-ish. I suspect this is why EIA charts of future gas production never go out beyond 2045 or so :- Ask a mathematician to model growth in unconventional fossil fuels compared to the anticipated and actual decline in “traditional” fossil fuels, and ask if unconventionals will compensate. They will not. The practice for oil and gas companies is to try to maintain shareholder confidence by making sure they have a minimum of 10 years of what is known as Reserves-to-Production ratio or R/P. By showing they have at least a decade of discovered resources, they can sell their business as a viable investment. Announcing that the world has 10 years of shale oil it can exploit sounds like a healthy R/P, but in actual fact, there is no way this can be recovered in that time window. The very way that this story has been packaged suggests that we are being encouraged to believe that the fossil fuel industry are a healthy economic sector. Yet it is so facile to debunk that perspective. People, it’s time to divest your portfolios of oil and gas concerns. If they have to start selling us the wonders of bitumen and kerogen, the closing curtain cannot be far away from dropping. They think it’s not all over, but it so clearly must be.

The Trouble With Tar

The bother with bitumen is that it’s as far from being a liquid as it is possible for a mixed bag of hydrocarbons to get without it being solid, flaky coal. If crude petroleum oil is a cup of tea with a tablespoonful of sugar syrup stirred into it, heavy oil can be like burnt toffee charred and stuck to the bottom of the pan, making the whole place stink of fence weatherisation paint. A couple of decades ago, thick oil deposits were ruled out as uneconomic to mine, but as petroleum oil prices have risen, tar and bitumen are now back on the driller’s menu. The oil and gas industry claim that advances in technology have made these resources viable to exploit, and to some extent this must be right. However the rising prices for liquid transport fuels over the last decade is probably the main motivation for going after these dirty “unconventional” fossil fuels. It certainly seems to be the key stimulus for a new flurry of activity in this area. [ Image Credit : Amjad Ali Shah ] The world’s dense oil resources finally rose above controversy to make it into BP’s annual energy review in the BP’s 2010 Statistical Review (the data for 2009). Note the difference with the previous year :- [ Image Credit : BP ] [ Image Credit : BP ] This difference in the Reserves to Production ratio (R/P) between the years is noted as being “due to an increase in Venezuelan official reserves”, and the data taken from the OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin, which includes “proven reserves of the Magna Reserve Project in the Orinoco Belt” :- http://www.expertguides.com/default.asp?Page=9&GuideID=238&Ed=132 At a meeting held by the Institute of Chemical Engineers (IChemE) held at the Institute of Physics (IoP) two days ago in London, called “Catalysis and Chemical Engineering 2013″, I chatted with a research scientist about the methods for extracting oil from seams of “tar”. Our conversation had its focus on a poster on the boards, summarising a paper that I think is this :- “Optimization of the CAPRI Process for Heavy Oil Upgrading: Effect of Hydrogen and Guard Bed” by Abarasi Hart, Amjad Shah, Gary Leeke, Malcolm Greaves and Joseph Wood, of the Universities of Birmingham and Bath, published in the journal Industrial and Engineering Chemical Research, 24 April 2013, DOI: 10.1021/ie400661x ( Other work previously : http://opus.bath.ac.uk/24298/, http://opus.bath.ac.uk/27784/,http://opus.bath.ac.uk/1063/, http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE-136870-PA, http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/E057977/1, http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/03/hashemi-20130325.html ) The basic idea is to lay a pipe at the bottom of the seam of oil, then burn the edge of the seam, causing the oil to melt somewhat, pass into the pipe and get catalysed into a lighter oil, and then pumped out :- Of course, burning oil underground has potential issues. Nothing is ever as neat as the scholarly diagrams. The idea of packing the pipe with catalyst, rather than trying to run the catalyst through with the oil, shows some potential. It might be cheaper and more energy efficient to do this, rather than using electricity to heat the oil to make it flow. I mean, if you are going to use electricity to deliver liquid transport fuels, you might as well have electric drive transport vehicles instead. http://www.intecsea.com/publications/technical-publications/148-direct-electrical-heating-of-flowlines-guide-to-uses-and-benefits “Direct Electrical Heating of Flowlines – Guide to Uses and Benefits : Publish Date: 1/24/2012 : Author: Rebecca Fisher Roth : Conference: OTC Brazil (OTC-22631-PP) : Abstract: Direct Electrical Heating (DEH) of flowlines is a flow assurance technology that enables development of fields with heavy oil and fields in arctic regions, fields with long subsea tiebacks, and marginally profitable offshore fields. By allowing for operation in conditions outside of the hydrate region and/or above the wax appearance temperature, DEH opens up areas of development not otherwise considered viable by production companies and can significantly reduce CAPEX and OPEX for already-viable fields.” http://www.wartsila.com/file/Wartsila/en/1278532493326a1267106724867-Wartsila-O-V-DEH.pdf I wonder about the energy balance of the mining of heavy oils – how much energy needs to be used to mine these hydrocarbons ? And what of the risks – such as permanent underground fires, toxic surface “tailing ponds” from further refining, or major strata collapse ? Wouldn’t it just be easier, cleaner and cheaper to make energy on the surface of the Earth from realtime sunshine, instead of underground fossil sunshine ? [ Image Credit : BP ] http://www.controlrisks.com/Oversized%20assets/LATAM_oil_and_gas_whitepaper_2013_10.pdf

Renewable Gas : Heterogeneous Catalysis

I had a most interesting afternoon, today, Tuesday 4th June 2013 at the Institute of Physics (IoP), attending a meeting organised by the Institute of Chemical Engineers (IChemE).

Entitled “Catalysis and Chemical Engineering“, it was a series of research briefings from a wide range of academic and corporate scientists, outlining the contributions that chemical reaction catalysts make to industry and the energy sector.

Catalysts are what I call “Nature’s little helpers”, substances that aid and abet chemical reactions, without being used up themselves completely in the process. The perfect catalyst is one that doesn’t degrade over time, either by taking part in chemical reactions, or getting damaged or changed by assisting chemical reactions.

The perfect catalyst is also something that can be easily mixed with the substances used for the chemical reaction (the reactants or reagents), and also easily separated from the substances that are produced by the chemical reaction (the products).

Matter is found in four main phases, or states : solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Catalysts that are a different phase from the substances used in the chemical reaction are usually easier to separate. This is called heterogeneous catalysis, for example, where the reactants/reagents are gases or liquids, and the catalyst is a solid.

What has this got to do with Renewable Gas ? Well, several examples from the research presentations today make this point. There were several posters on the boards, outlining pieces of research. One of these caught my eye – on the photocatalysis of water, basically using sunlight and a catalyst to produce energy gas fuels from water. When tiny amounts of silver was added to the catalyst, the experimental reactor was producing more carbon monoxide gas than other gases, and without silver doping, it was producing more hydrogen gas than other gases. I asked K. Li of the University College London (UCL) Chemical Engineering group if he could send me a copy of the paper when it gets published. (Note: my apologies for not noting the spelling of his first name.)

Producing Renewable Hydrogen in industrial volumes is a very important part of the Renewable Gas story. The hydrogen is a valuable gas fuel in its own right, and it will also assist in carbon-rich gas recycling, and improving the energy density of mixed gas fuel feedstocks used in combustion for electricity generation, such as those gas resources with low levels of methane. Renewable Hydrogen production is also going to be very valuable for Renewable Refinery – making transport vehicle fuel oils (“Renewable Diesel”) and hydrocarbons (“Renewable Gasoline”) and other substances that are now made from petrochemicals, which could therefore be scarce in future.

A presentation by Adam Lee, soon to be of the University of Warwick, but still technically with the University of Cardiff was another green energy insight. He spoke about “Green Chemistry“, refining a wide range of industrial and energy chemicals using biomass as the feedstock.

I spoke with Panagiota Pimenidou at the University of Ulster about the simplicity and thermally balanced operation of chemical looping reformation of biomass – basically a neat trick to produce useful gas fuels from bioenergy feedstocks without using high temperature gasification.

During one of the tea breaks, an industry professional, who shall remain nameless, theorised that BP, Shell and ExxonMobil have probably already worked out how to run a Renewable Gas economy, but are keeping it all under their hats until we stop believing in the exploitation of fossil fuels, especially since fossil fuels these days are deeper and dirtier than ever.

Carbon Bubble : Unburnable Assets

[ Image Credit : anonymous ]

Yet again, the fossil fuel companies think they can get away with uncommented public relations in my London neighbourhood. Previously, it was BP, touting its green credentials in selling biofuels, at the train station, ahead of the Olympic Games. For some reason, after I made some scathing remarks about it, the advertisement disappeared, and there was a white blank board there for weeks.

This time, it’s Esso, and they probably think they have more spine, as they’ve taken multiple billboard spots. In fact, the place is saturated with this advertisement. And my answer is – yes, fuel economy is important to me – that’s why I don’t have a car. And if this district is anything to go by, Esso must be pouring money into this advertising campaign, and so my question is : why ? Why aren’t they pouring this money into biofuels research ? Answer : because that’s not working. So, why aren’t they putting this public relations money into renewable gas fuels instead, sustainable above-surface gas fuels that can be used in compressed gas cars or fuel cell vehicles ? Are Esso retreating into their “core business” like BP, and Shell, concentrating on petroleum oil and Natural Gas, and thereby exposing all their shareholders to the risk of an implosion of the Carbon Bubble ? Or another Deepwater Horizon, Macondo-style blowout ? Meanwhile, the movement for portfolio investors to divest from fossil fuel assets continues apace…

Renewable Gas : Research Parameters

“So what do you do ?” is a question I quite frequently have to answer, as I meet a lot of new people, in a lot of new audiences and settings, on a regular basis, as an integral part of my personal process of discovery.

My internal autocue answer has modified, evolved, over the years, but currently sounds a lot like this, “I have a couple of part-time jobs, office administration, really. I do a spot of weblogging in my spare time. But I’m also doing some research into the potential for Renewable Gas.” I then pause for roughly two seconds. “Renewable Gas ?” comes back the question.

“Yes,” I affirm in the positive, “Industrial-scale chemistry to produce gas fuels not dug up out of the ground. It is useful to plug the gaps in Renewable Electricity when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.”

It’s not exactly an elevator pitch – I’m not really selling anything except a slight shift in the paradigm here. Renewable Energy. Renewable Electricity. Renewable Gas. Power and gas. Gas and power. It’s logical to want both to be as renewable and sustainable and as low carbon as possible.

Wait another two seconds. “…What, you mean, like Biogas ?” comes the question. “Well, yes, and also high volumes of non-biological gas that’s produced above the ground instead of from fossil fuels.”

The introductory chat normally fades after this exchange, as my respondent usually doesn’t have the necessary knowledge architecture to be able to make any sense of what my words represent. I think it’s fair to say I don’t win many chummy friends paradigm-bumping in this way, and some probably think I’m off the deep end psychologically, but hey, evolutionaries don’t ever have it easy.

And I also find that it’s not easy to find a place in the hierarchy of established learning for my particular “research problem”. Which school could I possibly join ? Which research council would adopt me ?

The first barrier to academic inclusion is that my research interest is clearly motivated by my concern about the risks of Climate Change – the degradation in the Earth’s life support systems from pumping unnaturally high volumes of carbon dioxide into the air – and Peak Fossil Fuels – the risks to humanity from a failure to grow subsurface energy production.

My research is therefore “applied” research, according to the OECD definition (OECD, 2002). It’s not motivated simply by the desire to know new things – it is not “pure” research – it has an end game in mind. My research is being done in order to answer a practical problem – how to decarbonise gaseous, gas phase, energy fuel production.

The second barrier to the ivory tower world that I have is that I do not have a technological contribution to make with this research. I am not inventing a chemical process that can “revolutionise” low carbon energy production. (I don’t believe in “revolutions” anyway. Nothing good ever happens by violent overthrow.) My research is not at the workbench end of engineering, so I am not going to work amongst a team of industrial technicians, so I am not going to produce a patent for clean energy that could save the world (or the economy).

My research is more about observing and reporting the advances of others, and how these pieces add up to a journey of significant change in the energy sector. I want to join the dots from studies at the leading edge of research, showing how this demonstrates widespread aspiration for clean energy, and document instances of new energy technology, systems and infrastructure. I want to witness to the internal motivation of thousands of people working with the goal of clean energy across a very wide range of disciplines.

This is positively positive; positivity, but it’s not positivism – it’s not pure, basic research. This piece of research could well influence people and events – it’s certainly already influencing me. It’s not hands-off neutral science. It interacts with its subjects. It intentionally intervenes.

Since I don’t have an actual physical contribution or product to offer, and since I fully expect it to “interfere” with current dogma and political realities, what I am doing will be hard to acknowledge.

This is not a PhD. But it is still a piece of philosophy, the love of wisdom that comes from the acquisition of knowledge.

I have been clear for some time about what I should be studying. Call it “internal drive” if you like. The aim is to support the development of universal renewable energy as a response to the risks of climate change and peak fossil fuel energy production. That makes me automatically biased. I view my research subject through the prism of hope. But I would contend that this is a perfectly valid belief, as I already know some of what is possible. I’m not starting from a foundational blank slate – many Renewable Gas processes are already in use throughout industry and the energy sector. The fascinating part is watching these functions coalesce into a coherent alternative to the mining of fossil fuels. For the internal industry energy production conversation is changing its track, its tune.

For a while now, “alternative” energy has been a minor vibration, a harmonic, accentuating the fossil fuel melody. As soon as the mid-noughties economic difficulties began to bite, greenwash activities were ditched, as oil and gas companies resorted to their core business. But the “green shoots” of green energy are still there, and every now and then, it is possible to see them poking up above the oilspill-desecrated soil. My role is to count blades and project bushes. Therefore my research is interpretivist or constructivist, although it is documenting positivist engineering progress. That’s quite hard for me to agree with, even though I reasoned it myself. I can still resist being labelled “post-positivist”, though, because I’m still interpreting reality not relativisms.

So now, on from research paradigm to research methodologies. I was trained to be an experimentalist scientist, so this is a departure for me. In this case, I am not going to seek to make a physical contribution to the field by being actively involved as an engineer in a research programme, partly because from what I’ve read so far, most of the potential is already documented and scoped.

I am going to use sociological methods, combining observation and rapportage, to and from various organisations through various media. Since I am involved in the narrative through my interactions with others, and I influence the outcomes of my research, this is partly auto-narrative, autoethnographic, ethnographic. An apt form for the research documentation is a weblog, as it is a longitudinal study, so discrete reports at time intervals are appropriate. Social media will be useful for joining the research to a potential audience, and Twitter has the kind of immediacy I prefer.

My observation will therefore be akin to journalism – engineering journalism, where the term “engineering” covers both technological and sociological aspects of change. A kind of energy futures “travelogue”, an observer of an emerging reality.

My research methods will include reading the science and interacting with engineers. I hope to do a study trip (or two) as a way of embedding myself into the new energy sector, with the explicit intention of ensuring I am not purely a commentator-observer. My research documentation will include a slow collation of my sources and references – a literature review that evolves over time.

My personal contribution will be slight, but hopefully set archaic and inefficient proposals for energy development based on “traditional” answers (such as nuclear power, “unconventional” fossil fuel production and Carbon Capture and Storage for coal) in high relief.

My research choices as they currently stand :-

1. I do not think I want to join an academic group.

2. I do not think I want to work for an energy engineering company.

3. I do not want to claim a discovery in an experimental sense. Indeed, I do not need to, as I am documenting discoveries and experiments.

4. I want to be clear about my bias towards promoting 100% renewable energy, as a desirable ambition, in response to the risks posed by climate change and peak fossil fuel production.

5. I need to admit that my research may influence outcomes, and so is applied rather than basic (Roll-Hansen, 2009).

References

OECD, 2002. “Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development”, Frascati Manual :-
http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/free/9202081e.pdf

Roll-Hansen, 2009. “Why the distinction between basic (theoretical) and applied (practical) research is important in the politics of science”, Nils Roll-Hansen, Centre for the Philosophy of Natural and Social Science Contingency and Dissent in Science, Technical Report 04/09 :-
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/projects/CoreResearchProjects/ContingencyDissentInScience/DP/DPRoll-HansenOnline0409.pdf

Renewable Gas : Elemental Fuels

It could be said that Climate Change science is an extreme sport – sojourns of several months in Antarctica to drill ancient ice pack, say, or collecting slices of deep sea and lake sediments. Recently, a Chinese team has taken three ice cores from Mount Everest, and a joint European and Japansese expedition have gone pond dipping in the Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean to try to better understand the global carbon cycle.

Geophysicists are clearly a hardy bunch, and persistent. Recently there has been a number of breakthroughs into extremely old water, such as a Siberian lake formed by a crater millions of years ago and covered by ice, and water perhaps billions of years old circulating in a Canadian copper mine, an environment that may be older than the development of the earliest lifeforms. A brief article in New Scientist magazine intrigued me – the description of the water which they are studying for signs of microbial activity – “it is packed with hydrogen and methane – chemicals that microbes love to eat [...] perfect for life.” It seems that science has still to uncover the full family of microbes and what they consume and what they produce. Many microbes manufacture hydrogen and methane, and some eat. The migration of microbial life into all parts of the Earth’s crust, including their reach to the bottom of the oceans, was responsible for altering atmospheric chemistry, which enabled the development of oxygen-breathing multicellular lifeforms to evolve. And yet methane and hydrogen have remained vital. These are some of the most energy-packed molecules and some of the most basic. I started to reflect. What struck me was the simplicity and universality of the early chemistry of Earth life, and how these elemental fuels that are good for micro-organisms are also good for humans too. Methane is the major constitutent of Natural Gas. As one of the most common products of bacterial decomposition of ancient biomass, it is present in deposits of most fossil fuels, including coal seams. Most of this “Natural Methane” in the form of Natural Gas energy fuel produced today comes from fields where it is associated with petroleum oil. Natural Hydrogen is much less common, but research is showing that there could be significant resources in some places. Hydrogen is also a key component in some forms of biogas production – using the decomposing power of microbes to source environmentally clean fuel from harvested plant matter on the surface of the Earth. Methane and hydrogen are involved in a range of chemistry. Chemical reactions with methane and hydrogen are relatively easy to reverse, because of their molecular simplicity. This makes them highly suited as energy vectors for storage, and the energy they give off when burned in oxygen makes them valuable for human industry, for domestic heating and in the power sector. Although methane is widely used in energy systems, hydrogen has not been up until now, although there has been talk of a “Hydrogen Economy” eventually supplanting the use of hydrocarbon fuels. This is unlikely to come about in the very near future, although a transition away from fossil fuels is likely to be mediated through the use of Renewable Hydrogen from sustainable, aboveground resources. Why is hydrogen so important ? Because hydrogen chemistry can be used to recycle carbon gas – both carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, making it a genuine possibility that one day carbon dioxide will be a vital component of energy systems, not a waste gas from combustion. The most efficient way to use the energy in fossil fuels and biomass is to gasify them for use in combustion, and the common products of this “syngas” or synthesised, synthesis or synthetic gas are hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Convincing hydrogen and carbon-rich gas to become methane packs the chemical energy into a small space and easier and safer to store than hydrogen on its own. Burning methane in oxygen produces carbon dioxide, which, can be coaxed to combine with hydrogen to make more gas fuel. So there we have it – Renewable Gas : methane, hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Using spare Renewable Electricity from our future abundance of solar and wind farms we can make useful gas fuels that can be stored to burn on demand when the air is calm and the sun is not shining. Renewable Gas can cover for the intermittency and variability of other forms of Renewable Energy. To develop Renewable Gas will take some investment, but it will not be an extreme sport like mining ever-more-inaccessible unconventional fossil fuels like shale gas, tar sands and deepwater Natural Gas.

Enter, Blinky, Radioactive Fish

http://rt.com/news/radiation-fish-fukushima-japan-385/
“17 March 2013 : Record radiation found in fish near Fukushima nuclear plant”

Life imitating art mocking life.

Marcott : Like Never Before

We have changed the Earth. We are changing the Earth. The rate of change is phenomenal. The question is – will this tip the Earth system into an entirely new state, and will this be permanent ?

Treasure every piece of ice, every cap, peak, glacier. We could be leaving the “icehouse world” forever.

http://www.intechopen.com/books/climate-change-geophysical-foundations-and-ecological-effects/the-paleocene-eocene-thermal-maximum-feedbacks-between-climate-change-and-biogeochemical-cycles

Energy Change : Germany’s Energiewende #1

I recently attended an event entitled “The Energiewende: A close look at Germany’s renewable energy revolution”. This was hosted by PRASEG, the Associate UK Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group, and supported by the German Embassy, and held at the Boothroyd Room of Portcullis House, Westminster, 6th March 2013 between 2pm and 4pm.

The main speakers were Rainer Baake, State Secretary at the Federal Environment Ministry in Germany between 1998 and 2005, and Andreas Kramer, Director and CEO of the Ecologic Institute in Berlin – a well-regarded think tank. Alan Whitehead MP also gave comments, and Simon Hughes MP also attended and shared some points.

Tom Heap, the well-known Radio 4 presenter, was on hand to chair.

What follows is not verbatim, but is transcribed from scribbled notes.

[Tom Heap] “Germany is a live pilot experiment [in transitioning out of fossil fuels to renewable energy]. That’s not meant to be patronising. [Whilst recording a programme there before Christmas I was] hearing comments from right-of-centre government I wouldn’t hear in the UK. On wind turbines, German and British conservatives are poles apart. There wind power is not seen as an imposition. We heard “our energy, our village”. The technologies are similar, but the politics are different…”

[Rainer Baake] “In Germany, energy policy holds past and future challenges. In June 2011, we ended a long and very controversial debate on energy policy. We ended up with very ambitious goals. The almost unanimous vote was historical. It was almost impossible to believe. We had always had a very diverse debate since Chernobyl [the catastrophic nuclear power accident in Ukraine in 1986 that necessitated the total evacuation of the city of Pripyat and the surrounding districts]. With the major change in government in 2008, with a Green and Social Democrat [SPD http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/where-do-they-stand-a-quick-guide-to-germany-s-political-parties-a-651388.html ] majority, we got Phase 1, then the Renewable Energy Act (EEG, Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz http://www.bmu.de/en/service/publications/downloads/details/artikel/renewable-energy-sources-act-eeg-2009/) – which was also controversial at that time.”

“[We] created the Feed-In Tariff [FIT] – an incredible success story. Over roughly ten years, the Renewable Energy share stands at 25% of power generation as of today. And of that 25%, 50% of that is in the hands of private people and farmers. This is why it has received political support. The owners of the windmills, biomass generators [...] are not only producers, they are also voters. At the start, there was opposition from Conservatives [German conservative right-of-centre politicians - CDU http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/where-do-they-stand-a-quick-guide-to-germany-s-political-parties-a-651388.html], but companies in their own constituencies said, “We can earn money with this” [...] Renewable Energy receives very wide support. This is very different from nuclear power.”

“The Conservatives and Liberals [German free market neoliberal politicians - FDP http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/where-do-they-stand-a-quick-guide-to-germany-s-political-parties-a-651388.html ] promised that after the 2009 elections if the coalition won there would be lifetime extensions [on existing nuclear reactors - allowing them to continue operating after their originally designed safe lives]. But they didn’t have a plan ready. They made [announcements] in December 2010 [extending reactor lives out to 2045 http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/IT-German_plant_life_extension_law_passed-2911107.html ] but this was against the public [opinion]. It only lasted for a few weeks, because Fukushima happened [ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-14/germany-suspends-plan-to-extend-life-of-nuclear-power-plants-merkel-says.html ]. Our Government realised what it meant for their own policy. They were able to explain Chernobyl [the meltdown accident at Pripyat in the Ukraine in 1986] as Communist [regime] mismanagement, but the meltdown of three reactors at Fukushima, in a technologically advance country…the Government immediately changed position, and it led to a very big [wide] consensus. In June 2011, the opposition and the Government [decided for] Renewable Energy.”

“In the original [Energiewende] plan of 2000, phaseout of nuclear was to be by 2022, and in the next decades, the fossil generators would convert to Renewable Energy. When created the FIT in 2000 – all Renewable Energy [technologies] had the same starting line [the same levels of subsidy]. The FIT is not a permanent subsidy – it helps these technologies to be introduced to markets. The winners are clearly wind power and solar power – others maybe [remain] too expensive. Biomass is now reaching a sustainability limit [not enough feedstocks for expansion]. It is not going to be posssible to increase biomass or hydropower much over today. Geothermal energy – never came up. Wind and solar power prices decreased dramatically. We have enough of that. The features – have to deal with [...] weather-dependent and solar power is not flexible to demand. Second – also very variable. Very capital-intensive [for investment phase] but marginal costs [of operation] are negligible. One you’ve invested, put all the money you need on the table, there are no costs over the following decades.”

“These features [of Renewable Energies] mean it is going to be a complete change in energy systems over the next decades. 25% of demand – happened much faster than anticipated in 2000. The first 25% is one story. The next 25% is another story. 25% is easy to integrate. Very robust. The next 25% – as you can imagine – 50% of the system – this is the real challenge of the Energiewende – synchronising production of solar and wind with demand of customers. How to balance demand and supply ? How to minimise the costs [of that] – [reduce] in a free European Union energy market ? There’s the technology – and on the other hand, the market. On the technology side need much more flexible supply. With FIT [...] Baseload is not a word that describes supply – it describes demand. With marginal costs of zero, they [utilising power from renewable energies] come first – they are pushing traditional fossil fuels out of baseload. The operating hours of traditional baseload generators are decreasing. [We will need] not only adjustments to demand, but also the variable sources. Ten years ahead we will not have any baseload. We will still need 6,000 hours a year generators. They’re there – that’s gas. [We also need] a market design to enable [this].”

“Second – we need [new/larger] transmission lines. That’s something that really needs to happen. The bigger [wider] the area you connect, the bigger [better, more even] the balance. Not only talking about Germany – also Denmark, the Netherlands, Scandinavia – the better we’re connected, the better to balance. [The history of] the market in almost all countries – generators [power stations] were built under state regulation on the basis of monopolies. After the deregulation in the 1990s, the [power sector changed to work] on the basis of least operating costs. [The power was supplied] always by those generators of least operation cost – makes sense. All these have marginal costs – that is, fuel. When you introduce lots of Renewable Energy with a marginal cost of zero, the prices on the wholesale market have come down significantly, from 95 to 50 Euro per MWh. This has been caused not only by Renewable Energy – but it has been mainly Renewable Energy – pushing out the more expensive generators.”

“This creates a problem, as you need backup capacity – when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. There have been arguments/debates about the capacity market we need – an intelligent system – not very expensive – to make sure to backup when wind and solar are not available. We also need a system to support the Energiewende over the next decades. FIT was good for 15 years, but answers of the past are not necessarily correct for the future. It is always argued very strongly that for Germany this is not to renationalise energy policy. This Energiewende is much less costly if we do it with our neighbours. It’s too controversial at the European Union [EU] – but [we are/having] encouraging discussions with neighbouring countries – to the benefit of everybody – to put into reality the EU energy market. We need flexibility of generators, but also flexibility of demand side. [We have asked the German] States [Länder] – are you able to shift your peak [demand] by six hours – a real part of the solution. [We need to] move away from switch [on] and forget. [To those detractors of the Energiewende] if look at the opposition [views] there is no reasonable balance of money in and out. One day we will be using all our renewable electricity generation – for example, using electricity for transport, but for now [we need to export].”

…TO BE CONTINUED

Renewable Gas : An Introduction

I always enjoy seeing the light come on in somebody’s mind, or hearing the bells starting to chime, as I start to ramble on about the potential for decarbonising the gas supply.

It happened again today, and this time, my correspondent took eager notes. I met a fresh new researcher for the Green Party in the UK – one Bryn Kewley – at the PRASEG event on Germany’s energy transition out of fossil fuels – the “Energiewende”. At first, I covered the usual ground – yes, many people are exploiting Biogas, and upgrading it to Biomethane to inject into the gas grid. Natural Gas is something like 75% to 85% methane, don’t you know ? They’re all fairly small projects at present, but it could scale up and replace several percent of the gas supplied. And then there’s Renewable Hydrogen. One of the speakers mentioned “Power to Gas” :- [...] [Question from ARUP] “…your views on the role of gas in Germany ? Gas contracts – do they need to change with respect to Russia ?” [Answer from German Energiewende presenter] “Gas has a role to play [as backup for renewables]. It needs to be interim [a bridge, a transition]. German business is quite happy with the relationship with Russia. If we’re going to have 80% renewable generation of electricity by 2050, what will be the 20% ? Russia believes that 20% will be in gas. Others, [flexible] lignite [generation]. I believe that by 2050, 100% renewable electricity is possible – the gas you will have will be biogenic [Biogas, Biomethane] – or synthesised by excess wind – Power to Gas. You can store gas for a long time – there’s a 30% cost in [energy] conversion – but this is achievable in the margins…” [...] I explained the two parts of Power to Gas to the young researcher after the seminar was over. First of all, the production of Renewable Hydrogen – hydrogen produced using methods that use no biological components. And then the methanation of Renewable Hydrogen to make Renewable Methane. And for methanation, you need carbon-rich gases. The young man started to do internal calculations – leaps of thought. His brain almost audibly hummed. “And where do you get this carbon-rich gas from ?” he asked, “from Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) ?” “From Carbon Capture and (Re)Utilisation (CCU)”, I explained. I told him that ITM Power, together with a number of other industry players were looking at the prospects of injecting Renewable Hydrogen into the gas grid, which in addition to injected Biomethane, could total 10% to 15% of the gas supply – more if Renewable Methane were included. This would not be a small number. Again, I could almost hear the young man’s mind whirring. Gas, we agreed, is the answer to backing up Renewable Electricity whilst capacity is being developed. And therefore, the decarbonisation of the gas supply is a useful goal. [ NOTE : Of course, if carbon-rich gas feedstocks resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels are used in the methanation of Renewable Hydrogen, this would not create truly Renewable Methane. However, if a good proportion of "Power to Gas" gas is used in electricity generation, and the carbon-rich exhaust gases from that recycled, then eventually, the methane end product becomes more renewable. ]

Tom Heap Looks Mystified

The (Associate) Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Energy Group (PRASEG) held a wonderfully low-key seminar on Germany’s “Energiewende“, or energy transition, this afternoon in the Boothroyd Room at Portcullis House in Westminster. The main speakers included Rainer Baake, a former Secretary of State for the German Federal Environment Ministry.

Tom Heap, the main presenter of Radio 4′s “flagship environment programme” “Costing the Earth” was on hand to chair the session, and ask provocative questions. During the question time after the main speakers had outlined the progress and future of Germany’s energy transition, Tom Heap posed the nagging question about carbon emissions. The story goes, according to the likes of George Monbiot and Mark Lynas, that since Germany has decided to do away with their nuclear power generation capacity, that the country will be using more coal in future to generate electricity. [Tom Heap] “…Is more coal [lignite] being burned because of the nuclear power phase out [in Germany] ?” [Andreas Kramer] “There has been a small uptick. First, coal is dirt cheap, and the European Emissions Trading Scheme [carbon] rights are dirt cheap. The second reason is that [we have made a decision to abandon nuclear power] in the middle of the changeover from coal [to renewable energy, as we have to close the plants under the European] Large Combustion Plant Directive [LCPD] – so there will be a window of slightly higher capacity of coal plant [to cope with the phase out of nuclear power] until the coal plant is retired. Coal use is projected to go down. [Rainer Baake] “We have a Cap and Trade system for carbon dioxide emissions in the European Union. Whatever we do emissions of carbon dioxide will always be capped. The price [of emissions rights] only determines what is happening where. There will always be a balance between gas and coal, depending on the price. The answer to the problem is – decrease the cap, then you will see less emissions. Nothing we do with the Energiewende… No one is investing in new coal and lignite plants…” At this point Tom Heap began to look rather bemused, confused, perhaps a touch mystified. He started to look towards the ceiling in a rather vacant, media way. [Rainer Baake] “…[The current surge in the use of coal is owing to] decisions made in 2005, 2006. Nobody is investing [now] in lignite or coal. This is a very serious problem because of backup capacity [to back up new renewable electricity generation]…” Huh ? Well, it takes time to finance and commission a new coal-fired power station. So there you have it – another myth busted. Nuclear power phase out in Germany is not going to lead to permanently higher coal-burning for power generation.

Natural Gas in the UK

The contribution of coal-fired power generation to the UK’s domestic electrical energy supply appears to have increased recently, according to the December 2012 “Energy Trends” released by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. This is most likely due to coal plants using up their remaining allotted operational hours until they need to retire.

It could also be due to a quirk of the international markets – coal availability has increased because of gas glut conditions in the USA leading to higher coal exports. Combatting the use of coal in power generation is a global struggle that still needs to be won, but in the UK, it is planned that low carbon generation will begin to gain ascendance. The transition to lower carbon energy in Britain relies on getting the Natural Gas strategy right. With the imminent closure of coal-fired power plant, the probable decommissioning of several nuclear reactors, and the small tranche of overall supply coming from renewable resources, Natural Gas needs to be providing a greater overall percentage of electricity in the grid. But an increasing amount of this will be imported, since indigenous production is dropping, and this is putting the UK’s economy at risk of high prices and gas scarcity. Demand for electricity for the most part changes by a few percentage points a year, but the overall trend is to creep upwards (see Chart 4, here). People have made changes to their lighting power consumption, but this has been compensated for by an increase in power used by “gadgets” (see Chart 4, here). There is not much that can be done to suppress power consumption. Since power generation must increasingly coming from renewable resources and Natural Gas combustion, this implies strong competition between the demand for gas for heating and the demand gas for electricity. Electricity generation is key to the economy, so the power sector will win any competition for gas supplies. If competition for Natural Gas is strong, and since we don’t have much national gas storage, we can expect higher seasonal imports and therefore, higher prices. It is clear that improving building insulation across the board is critical in avoiding energy insecurity. I shall be checking the winter heat demand figures assiduously from now on, to determine if the Green Deal and related measures are working. If they don’t, the UK is in for heightened energy security risks, higher carbon emissions, and possibly much higher energy prices. The Green Deal simply has to work.

New Nuclear : Credibility Strained

As rumours and genuine information leak from central sources about the policy instruments and fiscal measures that will be signed into the United Kingdom’s Energy Bill, the subsidy support likely to be made available to new nuclear power is really straining credibility from my point of view. I am even more on the “incredulous” end of the spectrum of faith in the UK Government’s Energy Policy than I ever was before.

The national demand for electrical power is pretty constant, with annual variations of only a few percent. It was therefore easy to project that there could be a “power cliff” when supply would be curtailed from coal-fired generation under European legislation :- https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change/series/energy-trends http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21501878 http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/feb/19/ofgem-higher-household-energy-bills http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9878281/Ofgem-boss-warns-of-higher-energy-prices-in-supply-roller-coaster.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9878281/Ofgem-boss-warns-of-higher-energy-prices-in-supply-roller-coaster.html http://metro.co.uk/2013/02/19/consumers-face-higher-energy-bills-as-the-uk-becomes-more-reliant-on-gas-imports-3503130/ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/decc-statement-on-alistair-buchanan-s-comments-on-energy-security-and-rising-gas-prices The pat answer to how we should “Keep the Lights On” has been to wave the new nuclear fission reactor card. Look ! Shiny new toys. Keep us in power for yonks ! And hidden a little behind this fan of aces and jokers, a get-out-of-jail free card from the Coal monopoly – Carbon Capture and Storage or CCS. Buy into this, and we could have hundreds more years of clean power from coal, by pumping nasty carbon dioxide under the sea bed. Now, here’s where the answers are just plain wrong : new nuclear power cannot be brought into the National Grid before the early 2020s at the very earliest. And options for CCS are still in the balance, being weighed and vetted, and very unlikely to clean up much of the black stuff until well past 2025. When put through my best onboard guesstimiser, I came up with the above little graph in answer to the question : how soon can the UK build new power generation ? Since our “energy cliff” is likely to be in one of the winters of 2015 or 2016, and we’re not sure other countries we import from will have spare capacity, we have little option but to increase Natural Gas-fired power generation and go hell-for-leather with the wind and solar power deployment. So no – it’s of no use promising to pay the new nuclear reactor bearer the sum of 40 or more years of subsidy in the form of guaranteed price for power under the scheme known as Contracts for Difference – they still won’t be delivering anything to cope with the “power drain” of the next few years. If this is written into the Electricity Market Reform, we could justifiably say this would destroy competition, and destroy any market, too, and be “central planning” by any other name – this level of subsidy is not exactly “technology-neutral” ! http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/19/edf-40-year-contract-nuclear-plant http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9879257/Government-drawing-up-ludicrous-40-year-contracts-to-persuade-power-companies-to-go-nuclear.html And offering the so-called Capacity Mechanism – a kind of top-up payment to keep old nuclear reactors running, warts and all – when really they should be decommissioned as they are reaching the end of their safe lives, is not a good option, in my book. Offering the Capacity Mechanism to those who build new gas-fired power plant does make sense, however. If offshore wind power continues with its current trajectory and hits the big time in the next few years, and people want the cheap wind power instead of the gas, and the gas stations will be feeling they can’t run all the time, then the Capacity Mechanism will be vital to make sure the gas plant does get built to back up the wind power, and stays available to use on cold, still nights in February. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/66039/7103-energy-bill-capacity-market-impact-assessment.pdf http://gastopowerjournal.com/regulationapolicy/item/1405-eurelectric-discards-eu-wide-capacity-mechanism-as-premature http://www.eaem.co.uk/news/doubts-gas-strategy-will-lead-new-plants Oh, people may complain about the idea of new “unabated” gas power plants, and insist they should be fitted with carbon capture, but new gas plants won’t run all the time in future, because renewable electricity generation will be cheaper, so forcing gas plant owners to pay for CCS seems like overkill to me. And, anyway, we will be decarbonising the gas supply, as we develop supplies of Renewable Gas. I say forget the nuclear option – build the gas !

Gas Strategy “Dangerous Gamble”

I had a most refreshing evening at Portcullis House in Westminster this evening – apart from the fact that the Macmillan Room was overheated, so you couldn’t possibly deduce that energy conservation is intended to be part of the UK Government’s strategy, making an example with the public sector.

Tonight was the launch of the Greenpeace and WWF-UK report “A Study into the Economics of Gas and Offshore Wind“, which was commissioned from Cambridge Econometrics.

Professor Paul Ekins got up to speak and actually had the gall to declare the Government’s “Gas Strategy” to be a “dangerous gamble”. It was at this point that I took heart again – there are still some sane, rational people in the “national energy conversation”, even though Ekins did admit that he wasn’t sure that the “Gas Strategy” was an actual thing. Oh, but it is. All eighty pages of it.

Today was not the first time Professor Paul Ekins called out the Government on this, apparently, although I didn’t have a recollection of seeing the the mention in New Scientist before today.

Other highlights of the evening were provided by Laura Sandys MP naming her political opposition Alan Whitehead MP as the leader of a “parliamentary roadshow” on Energy and Climate Change, and questioning the use of the term “energy efficiency”. “It’s energy waste, guys”, she corrected and said we should be using that term instead of the “effete word efficiency”, and encouraged the energy waste prevention industry to get the rest of us engaged with their products.

A chap from Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) – I think it might have been Kevin MacLean – got up during questions from the floor, and almost begged for a long-term framework – a plan for renewable energy – a “binding framework” to encourage investment and “get costs down”.

It was pointed out during the evening, that, logically enough, that policy is important to energy futures, “if you have more certainty, you get more investment”. And there was encouragement to get Government Departments to think about this more. Yes, some subsidies and other forms of support are going to be needed to get the renewable energy revolution kickstarted, but “if [we] get benefits – isn’t that a price worth paying ?” The benefits outlined included potential for some small growth in the economy, around about 0.8% GDP, but good prospects for high value employment in depressed coastal towns where much of the offshore wind industry will host engineers, both for construction and ongoing operations and maintenance.

Laura Sandys MP was ashamed to say that she may no longer be able to claim she has the two largest offshore wind farms in her constituency – as progress is being made elsewhere.

Sarah Merrick from Vestas, the wind power engineering firm, emphasised that the economics of wind power stacks up and that it’s important to communicate this – despite the current dismissive media agenda – where she said it is important to defend the industry against certain media claims.

Lord Alan Haworth brought up the inevitable question of renewable energy intermittency – “days of dead calm and dark nights”. He raised the statistic that weather systems in Europe can cover 1,500 kilometres, so if wind power is down in the UK, it’s going to be down elsewhere in the EU electricity networks – the countries we have interconnectors with. What he didn’t elaborate on was this – just as the UK is beefing (and I don’t mean “up to 100% horsing about”) up its connections with the European electricity networks, so too, Europe as a whole is beginning to reach out with its networks to satellite countries. What that could mean is that even if wind-powered electrons in the UK take a dive, electrons could still appear in the power network from very far afield, and shunt power to the UK.

The speaker from the Crown Estate said that it was “sensible” to push for a good quantity of wind power – and that the report was a compelling argument. He regretted that it could not be guaranteed that the wind power-ed economy would necessarily have more of its supply chain in the UK – as various bodies have to comply with EU trade rules – but that there was a commitment in one part of the industry to 50% indigenous resourcing and employment (if I noted that down correctly).

Long-term policy clarity was espoused. Disappointment was expressed in the Coalition Government’s flip-flop about gas – emphasising the development of gas-powered electricity generation at the expense of projecting high levels of renewables (65%, says the report, is perfectly feasible) – and that it gave mixed messages – which weren’t helping investment decisions. Sarah Merrick repeated the E.On line that UK electricity should be “balanced by gas, not based on gas”, although she didn’t explain that they weren’t necessarily talking about wind power being the mainstay of new generation capacity.

It was generally agreed that David Cameron should lead and adopt the EU 2030 renewable energy targets – to enable billions of new confidence in the UK energy sector.

Not having a strong lead on renewable energy and energy waste reduction would be an “abdication of responsibility on the part of the policy-creating machine”. And, “even if shale gas does materialise”, it would not provide much stimulus.

The National Energy Conversation

Niall was busy tippy-tap-typing away on his fancy Apploid, and I was feeling abject enough to eat marshmallows and watch an entire box set of old TV.

I was considering the futility of trying to convince anyone of anything. I have always strived not to be a “person of influence” because I don’t want to manipulate people. I try to talk sense in every personal exchange, but I really don’t like extensive public relations. Evangelism can lead to broken relationships; proselytising can shut one out of consensus-forming.

Why should I bother to try to “campaign” about energy futures ? There’s nobody ready to take my call, or at least, nobody who has an actual key-turning role. Why should I respond to the political positioning of this U-Turn Coalition Government – they propose ridiculous, unworkable, divisive, sometimes illegal measures and wait for the population to shout them down on Twitter. It’s all very angry. That’s not a very positive way forward. What does anybody need a public mandate for, when logical reasoning should suffice ?

I paused. From the other side of the room, I brought the heavy green book and dropped it from a height of nine centimetres so that it thumped on the occasional table (which, incidentally, turned out to be lighter than the book).

“Look at this !”, I demanded, after Niall had recomposed himself, “the final work of a man who is now deceased. An opus of clear thinking. Such a weight, and yet it hasn’t changed a thing ! What do you have to do to convince people of common sense ?”

Niall was perturbed and asked about the book. I turned the chit chat back to the question of the pointlessness of communication. “What’s the point ? Seriously, what’s the point of trying to engage in the national energy conversation ? Those making the decisions have a whole nest of defence systems designed to keep out alternative views. Ministers never stay longer than ten minutes in a stakeholder meeting. And when you phone the Department of Energy and Climate Change, to ask if you can observe a forum where policy is discussed, they suggest you read Hansard’s record of parliamentary debates.”

I was on a roll. “It’s patently obvious that nuclear power is sunk, and yet they’re continuing with the insane decision to massively subsidise it. To. The. Hilt. A number of major industry players have pulled out, and now the rumour mill is abuzz with the notion that the Chinese might enter the deal that EdF is trying to put together. The Chinese ! They’ll only take part if the stupid British promise gazillions of cash. Like they only took part in the Kyoto and Montreal Protocols for a lot of niche chemical abatement. They’re not seriously going to want to invest in dumb UK nuclear projects without the promise of serious lolly.”

Sander entered the room. I apologised for being a bit loud. He wanted to find out what the deal was. I explained the essential policy jigsaw of the Electricity Market Reform. When I explained the Contracts for Difference (CfD, now CfD FiT) concept, Niall pointed out I didn’t mention that the Government could claw back cash if electricity market prices went above the “strike price”. I said, “Honestly, how could they get the money back ? What would be the mechanism to pay down the difference ? The electricity market is complex enough already. There’s no way they could administer this. And anyway, the strike price is likely to be set so high, the market will never bust through that level, or there will be extensive market rigging.”

In the European electricity market context, the British Electricity Market Reform is almost completely anomalous. It’s going to lock British power customers into long-term high prices. It’s going to interfere with cross-border power network projects that are so necessary for energy security in the region. It’s going to upset plans to optimise generation. And all to support way-dead nuclear power.

“Can they not see this ? Twenty-five years ago was an unprecedented nuclear power accident. It was “never again” stuff, but nothing improved. And then in 2011 was another major nuclear power accident. It’s just shown that nobody can promise it won’t happen again. It was just a matter of statistics and time. Nuclear power is going to keep ruining economies. Nobody wants to underwrite it, neither against accidents, poor operational efficiency, patching design flaws nor overruns on construction. The European Union is demanding costly safety upgrades and Electricite de France is begging the United Kingdom for subsidies – ostensibly for new nuclear reactors, but actually it will end up being used for operations and maintenance of creaking, cracking old reactors across the UK and France. Why should the British power bill payer be forced to do this ?”

Sander’s comment was, “Well, what is the purpose of life, anyway ? Humans are not programmed for survival. To solve this problem we need to change human DNA.”

[ Some names may have been changed in order to shield their identities. ]

A Report from Tasmania

During the worst of the austral summer in Tasmania at the start of 2013, an Austrian friend of mine was travelling through the region, and sent back the following report. “We arrived in Tassie [Tasmania] on the 6th of January 2013. When I looked outside the window of the plane I saw many burning fields and a lot of black smoke was in the air.”

“We picked up our luggage and went to the car rental counter. Actually we were lucky to catch the last rental car, as most of the cars were stuck in the Peninsula at Port Arthur and people couldn’t drive them back as all roads were blocked already. There were over 40 bush-fires in the area and most of the people have been evacuated either by sailboats and ships, as the whole island (Peninsula) Dunally was on fire. We drove directly up to the northern part of Tasmania away from the bush-fires. On the radio we heard many additional fire-warnings and had to take another highway in order to reach the Cradle Mountain National Park. The air was filled with smoke and the smell was terrible. As we arrived in the National Park all of a sudden it started to rain and didn’t stop for the rest of the day. The next day also…rain, rain, rain. 250km south of Tassie bush-fires and here we are and felt like we were swept away by the strong winds and rainfalls in the middle of Tassie. It has been also really cold. Strange feeling to experience such a different weather-condition within only one day.” Video which describes it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qxz9x7HYIHo Arnie speaking German in front of students in Vienna on the 31st of January: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AyEjgs-Bc0 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-89_de.htm?locale=en http://www.r20vienna.org/ “Let’s keep in touch. We have to step out of the comfort zone into the smoking zone in order to reach people for the “truth” about climate change. ”

16 More Years

http://www.skepticalscience.com/arg_Globale-Erwaermung-in-den-letzten-16-Jahren.htm

New Scientist : Divide, Rule

Once in a while, I read something in the New Scientist magazine that makes me consider whether I should cancel my subscription, as an act of activism. However, doing this would not achieve anything in terms of change or correction, nor would it be an effective signal to anyone, as my words and actions carry so little significance.

I cannot imagine the editorial staff at New Scientist being overcome with shame and remorse by hearing my admonition, but it really needs to be given : they have indulged in the worst display of “divide and rule” I have read in a long time.

The editorial of 30th January 2013, in addition to an Opinion piece from RealClearScience.com, invents two pigeonholes of allegiance, and attempts to squeeze everyone into one of them. Then it dismisses one group and pleads for everyone to join the other. This is psychological manipulation of the worst sort.

So what is the faultline that New Scientist claims we need to be on the right, correct, safe side of ? Science. And then it goes on to define what science is, and what unscientific is, by listing various technologies.

So, apparently, since I reject a blanket approval on all genetic engineering, I can automatically be labelled politically as a “liberal”, and also told I am being unscientific. Great. There I was, asking everybody to trust the evidence base, and not to get confused between technology and science, and now it seems I am being accused of being anti-science.

So, for the record, here is my take on the issue. Technology is not the same as science. For example, it is perfectly possible to manufacture medicines by chemical processes that, when tested, show an ability to treat illness and poor symptoms. And then, when the medicine is used by the general population, it is perfectly possible for the chemistry to cause unintended side-effects that were not detected (or reported) in the trials.

I am grateful my mother refused to take an anti-nausea medicine when she was pregnant with me, because otherwise I could have suffered congenital defects from Thalidomide administration. Thalidomide was a technology. Not a science. Science was the research process that determined that medication with Thalidomide was causing congenital defects.

According to the Opinion piece, I am in the camp of “good” people because I accept Climate Change science. But then, I can also be definitely categorised as “liberal” or “progressive”, and also “anti-science”, because I disagree with the notion of the safety, productivity and acceptability of the genetic engineering of food crops.

And further, according to this Opinion piece, I must be committing a “sin against science” because I have ethical aversion to unregulated stem cell research – peoples’ religious and spiritual sensitivites about the use of human embryos need to be respected in a righteous community, I believe.

According to this Opinion piece, “Progressives, not conservatives, are the ones most likely to replace scientific research with unscientific ideology.” This is Orwellian, psychopathic nonsense if you consider the reality of the actions of political forces in the United States of America : including the changing of the law to enforce unscientific education and the “conservative” Republican efforts to trim the science budgets of the Federal administration.

Labels are just words, and they can be played with. As an example, I consider myself a conservative with a lowercase “c” : I believe in the conservation of environmental wealth; the conservation of energy resources, water, forests; the conservation of human civilisation; the conservation of the rights of the vulnerable; the conservation of social budgets through tax revenue-gathering; the conservation of public utilities and health; the conservation of the tradition of dialogue in public space; and the conservation of freedom of thought and speech. I don’t think I’m being “socially authoritarian” because I believe in equality, access, justice, education, self-advancement, health and safety, biosecurity, ethical science and the precautionary principle – these things are of the finest “liberal” intellectual tradition.

For somebody to be labelled as “anti-scientific” because they have concerns about certain technologies, or disagree with the efficacy of certain policies, is surely divisive, and possibly falls into the category of hate speech. This “Libertarian” misuse of free speech is irresponsible, as it unscientifically brands people as right or wrong based on a personal judgement, without researching the full spectrum of social and political thought on science and technology.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729023.000-challenge-unscientific-thinking-whatever-its-source.html

Editorial
Challenge unscientific thinking, whatever its source
30 January 2013
Magazine issue 2902

Science may lean to the left, but that’s no reason to give progressives who reject it a “free pass”

IF SCIENCE could vote, who would it vote for? Ask scientists, and a clear answer comes back: science leans to the left.

A 2009 survey conducted by Pew Research in the US found that 52 per cent of scientists identified themselves as liberal, and slightly more believed the scientific community as a whole leaned that way. The corresponding figures for conservatism? Just 9 per cent and 2 per cent respectively.
http://people-press.org/http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

This association between science and left-leaning politics can only have been reinforced by the disdain with which vocal right-wing politicians, particularly in the US, have treated scientific evidence in recent years. That contrasts with the Obama administration’s endorsement of it – although words always come more readily than actions (see “How Obama will deliver his climate promise”).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729024.300-how-obama-will-deliver-his-climate-promise.html

Certainly, some conservatives conspicuously reject those parts of science that clash with their world views – notably evolution, climate change and stem cell research. But this doesn’t mean those on the left are automatically and unimpeachably pro-science. In “Lefty nonsense: When progressives wage war on reason”, Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell put forward their view that unscientific causes and concerns are just as rife among progressives as conservatives. Conservatives may sometimes be blinkered by their enthusiasm for what they see as moral rectitude, but progressives can be overcome by “back to nature” sentiments on, say, food or the environment.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729026.200-lefty-nonsense-when-progressives-wage-war-on-reason.html

Berezow and Campbell further claim that progressives who endorse unscientific ideas get a “free pass” from the scientific community. The suspicion must be that this is because scientists themselves lean towards the left, as does the media that covers them. (Both friends and critics of New Scientist tell us we lean in that direction.)

Is there any substance to that suspicion? We should go to every possible length to ensure there isn’t. Unreason of any hue is dangerous; any suggestion of bias only makes it harder to overcome. Science and liberalism are natural allies, but only in the literal sense of liberalism as the pursuit of freedom. That means freedom of thought, freedom of speech and, above all, freedom from ideology – wherever on the political spectrum it comes from.

From issue 2902 of New Scientist magazine, page 3.

=====

COMMENT

=====

Science Is Not Opinion

Wed Jan 30 19:18:36 GMT 2013 by Eric Kvaalen

“IF SCIENCE could vote, who would it vote for? Ask scientists, and a clear answer comes back: science leans to the left.”

No. Scientists lean to the left. Science itself does not address questions of moral values.

“Science and liberalism are natural allies, but only in the literal sense of liberalism as the pursuit of freedom.”

Science has nothing to say about whether the pursuit of freedom is good or bad.

===

Out Of Your Own Mouths

Thu Jan 31 07:10:04 GMT 2013 by Sandy Henderson

The editorial , whilst striving for balance, betrays it’s inclinations when it names what some call “left” as progressive. Nor is it unbiased to claim that liberalism is necessarily left biased ( socialistic ). Liberty venerates freedom, but not without responsibility, otherwise that would be licence.

It would be of interest to know what percentage of scientists poled would class themselves as self employed. I suspect that most are employees, and with that comes some baggage. When you have to bear the full costs of your mistakes yourself it alters your perceptions and you are more acutely aware of double standards in others.

Besides which scientists are not science, just as farmers are not farming. Success and failure in either depends on results, not the political persuasion of those employed.

Whether science has anything to say , or not, about politics, really depends on how dependable research is into human behaviour and how deniable these results will be by those who have an interest in so doing

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729026.200-lefty-nonsense-when-progressives-wage-war-on-reason.html

Opinion
Lefty nonsense: When progressives wage war on reason

30 January 2013 by Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell
Magazine issue 2902
Comment and Analysis and US national issues

Conservatives rightly get a bad rap for anti-science policies. But progressives can be just as bad, say Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell

Editorial: “Challenge unscientific thinking, whatever its source”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729023.000-challenge-unscientific-thinking-whatever-its-source.html

IN 2007, fresh off an election victory in both chambers of Congress, the Democratic party set out to fulfil its campaign promise to make the US more sustainable – starting with the building they had just gained control of.

With their “Green the Capitol” initiative, the Democrats planned to make the building a model of sustainability and an example to us all. They replaced light bulbs and bathroom fixtures, but perhaps most significantly, they took the step of greening the congressional cafeteria. Cost was no object. Good thing, too.

The problem, as they saw it, was an excessive reliance on environmentally wasteful styrofoam containers and plastic utensils. And so they issued a decree: from now on, the cafeteria would use biodegradable containers and utensils.

They claimed science was on their side: the utensils could be composted, and would thus be better for the environment. The result was a miracle of sustainability, at least according to internal reports, which claimed to have kept 650 tonnes of waste out of landfill between 2007 and 2010.

The only problem was that the “green” replacements were worse for the environment. The spoons melted in soup, so people had to use more than one to get through lunch. The knives could barely cut butter without breaking. And instead of composting easily, they had to be processed in a special pulper and then driven to Maryland in giant trucks.

In 2010 an independent analysis found that the saving was equivalent to removing a single car from the road – at a cost of $475,000 per year. Wary of disappointing their environmentally concerned supporters, Democrats waited until the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives in 2011 – and then suggested that the programme be killed. Republicans duly instructed the cafeteria to revert to using utensils and containers that actually worked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/27/AR2011022703905.html

Deposed Democrat speaker Nancy Pelosi saw an opportunity, and took it: “GOP brings back Styrofoam & ends composting – House will send 535 more tons to landfills,” she tweeted.

Did progressives call her to account? No, but they should have. According to the Democrats’ own figures their programme only saved about 200 tonnes of waste per year. Where did Pelosi get 535 tonnes from?

This anecdote is both illuminating and chilling: if an environmental story is being told about people on the right of the political spectrum, anything goes. But if progressives play fast and loose with the facts, they are given a free ride.

Conservatives’ sins against science – objections to stem cell research, denial of climate science, opposition to evolution and the rest – are widely reported and well known. But conservatives don’t have a monopoly on unscientific policies. Progressives are just as bad, if not worse. Their ideology is riddled with anti-scientific feel-good fallacies designed to win hearts, not minds. Just like biodegradeable spoons, their policies often crumble in the face of reality and leave behind a big mess. Worse, anyone who questions them is condemned as anti-science.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327202.700-review-unscientific-america-by-chris-mooney-and-sheril-kirshenbaum.html

We have all heard about the Republican war on science; we want to draw attention to the progressive war on reason.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725165.100-us-science-under-political-siege.html

We recognise that the term “progressive” is potentially troublesome, so let us lay our cards on the table. In the US, “progressive” and “liberal” are often used interchangeably. But the two should not be confused.

Liberalism, as defined by John Locke, means the pursuit of liberty. By that definition progressives are not liberal. Though they claim common cause with liberals (and most of them are Democrats because very few progressives are Republican), today’s progressive movement is actually socially authoritarian.

Unlike conservative authoritarians, however, they are not concerned with banning “immoral” things like sex, drugs and rock and roll. They instead seek dominion over issues such as food, the environment and education. And they claim that their policies are based on science, even when they are not.

For example, progressive activists have championed the anti-vaccine movement, confusing parents and causing a public health disaster. They have campaigned against animal research even when it remains necessary, in some cases committing violence against scientists. Instead of embracing technological progress, such as genetically modified crops, progressives have spread fear and misinformation. They have waged war against academics who question their ideology, and they are opposed to sensible reforms in science education.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726401.500-why-vaccines-are-hard-to-swallow.html

We do not want not to demonise all progressives. Some are genuinely pro-science. We recognise the huge value some progressive ideas have had, and that vilifying an entire philosophy based on the actions of its radical ideologues would be unfair.

But we do want to demonise the lunatic fringe. We contend that there is a disturbing and largely unreported trend among influential progressive activists who misinterpret, misrepresent and abuse science to advance their ideological and political agendas.

Of all of today’s political philosophies, progressivism stands as the most pressing problem for science. Progressives, not conservatives, are the ones most likely to replace scientific research with unscientific ideology.

Conservatives who endorse unscientific ideas are blasted by the scientific community, yet progressives who do the same get a free pass. It is important the problem be recognised, and that free pass revoked.

This article appeared in print under the headline “Science left out”

Alex Berezow is editor of RealClearScience.com

Hank Campbell is founder of Science 2.0. Berezow and Campbell are authors of Science Left Behind: Feel-good fallacies and the rise of the anti-scientific left (PublicAffairs, 2012)
http://www.science20.com/
http://scienceleftbehind.com/

From issue 2902 of New Scientist magazine, page 24-25.

=====

COMMENTS

=====

Quo Vadis?

Wed Jan 30 21:08:53 GMT 2013 by Eric Kvaalen

“We recognise the huge value some progressive ideas have had, and that vilifying an entire philosophy based on the actions of its radical ideologues would be unfair.”

So what is that philosophy? The word “progressive” seems to imply getting rid of what we had in the past — traditional moral values, religion — basically the opposite of “conservative”.

=====

Energy Futures : Elemental Fuel

Over the buffet table at the UK Hydrogen Fuel Cell Association meeting in Westminster last evening, I shared a vision of the future of energy with a representative of the Carbon Trust.

“It’s just amazing to think that the future of our energy is going to be not only renewable, but essentially electrons and protons – as we liberate protons to make hydrogen gas. We are going to be using the basic building blocks of the universe for power and gas.”

“You can’t really get more simple than that – or greener.”

“Forget messing about with complex hydrocarbons or uranium…”

“…or naphtha…”

Making fuel gas from seawater…we’re not exactly going to run out of that.

Energy Bill : Hydrogen Ready ?

Forget capturing carbon, the key test of the usefulness of the United Kingdom’s upcoming Energy Bill will be whether it’s designed to be “hydrogen ready”.

It is almost certain that there will be a second “dash for gas” – that Britain will sanction and possibly underwrite a new fleet of gas-fired power stations. Those who wield modelling software are insistent that this will break the carbon bank – that new “unabated” gas plants will prevent the UK reducing its greenhouse gas emissions.

The proposed solution technology – to be fitted to both coal-fired and gas-fired power plants, is known as Carbon Capture and Storage or CCS.

The British Labour Party are pushing for the Energy Bill to enshrine CCS on all new gas-fired power plants after 2020, in order to meet the carbon targets set out in the 2008 Climate Change Act.

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2239904/labour-challenges-coalition-to-decarbonise-energy-bill?WT.rss_f=&WT.rss_a=Labour+challenges+coalition+to+decarbonise+Energy+Bill&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Twitterfeed&utm_campaign=BusinessGreen
http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2013/1359479253.19

Although I have met a number of people who believe that widespread CCS is not only desirable, but viable, the carbon capture capability of Britain has not yet been proven – particularly whether CCS can be made marketable, as it is likely to be costly.

CCS is just a way to make carbon dioxide “disappear” – in most designs by pumping it underground. It is a caveat – it permits the energy industry to plan to continue to burn fossil fuels. It is not entirely clear if it can ever be secure or cheap enough to meet the UK’s plans. Just one leak from a carbon dioxide storage cavern, and the whole programme would be rendered irrelevant.

However, even if CCS becomes law, there is another clause that should be inserted into the Energy Bill, and I was discussing this with some industry players at Portcullis House, Westminster yesterday evening.

If European plans for low carbon, renewable gas production take off, what will matter for new gas-fired power plants is if they are flexible enough to combust a range of gases with varying chemical composition and energy density.

Deploying suitable flexible gas turbines is likely to happen – but for another reason. The UK is rapidly advancing with the capacity and supply of wind power, and solar power. Like Germany, pretty soon there will be so much spare, unused wind and solar power, that it will be sensible to consider using it, rather than shedding the load, particularly at night.

An excellent way to make use of spare and “stranded” wind and solar power, and balance the power grid at the same time, is to make gas when people don’t need power, and burn gas when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. Gas can back up variability in wind and solar power. But for gas-fired power plants to be able to “follow” wind and solar power and fill in the generation gaps, the power stations need to be highly flexible – something that new gas turbines can provide.

From now on, as an increasing amount of the gas the nation burns for backup will need to be Renewable Gas, a range of green gas streams that include Renewable Hydrogen, the new gas power plants that are built must utilise flexible gas turbines.

Of note – there are several plans for Carbon Capture and Storage on power plants that use a gasification technique to separate the carbon from the fuel before burning it – and the end result is gas that is high in hydrogen. This “incidental” production of hydrogen could become a useful addition to the country’s Renewable Gas stocks.

A Question of Resilience

Again, the evil and greedy oil, gas and mining companies have proved their wickedness by manipulating public opinion, by directly financing conspiracy theorists who deny climate change science. The irony is tangibly acidic. The paranoid have actually been duped by a genuine conspiracy. They have drunk the Kool Aid; they have believed the lies; they have continued to communicate doubt. They think they are challenging corruption in high places, but what they are really doing is reinforcing apathy in the face of genuine risk.

The questions posed so unrelentingly by the climate change deniers have sewn a patchwork tapestry of disinformation, which continues to poison genuine dialogue and is undermining political progress. We cannot take these people with us into constructive engagement, and ask them to help us forge a broad consensus. It is as if they exist in a parallel universe. Some of us will continue to attempt to conduct dialogue, but will end up wasting our time. The documentation by the media is faulty, and perpetuates the success of the denier strategy of divide and rule.

But hold on a minute. There are problems with the stance of climate change denial, but what about the positioning of climate change activists ? Let’s try that first paragraph one more time :-

[ Again, the "evil" and "greedy" oil, gas and mining companies have proved their "wickedness" by manipulating public opinion, by directly financing conspiracy theorists who deny climate change science. The irony is tangibly acidic. The paranoid have actually been duped by a genuine conspiracy. They have drunk the Kool Aid; they have believed the lies; they have continued to communicate doubt. They think they are challenging corruption in high places, but what they are really doing is reinforcing apathy in the face of genuine risk. ]

By casting the fossil fuel and mining corporations as wrongly motivated, by using negative emotive labels, the dominant narrative of political activists has failed, once again, to move us all forward. These kinds of revelations about underhand corporate public relations activities are by now unsurprising. The news cannot shock, although it may disgust. Yet, since nothing is offered to counter-balance or correct the inappropriate behaviour of the “fossil fuellers”, they win the game they invented, the game they wrote the rules for. Protesting at a petrol station achieves nothing of any note, not even when there’s a camera-friendly polar bear. We hear the message of pain, but there is no ointment. There is a disconnect between the gruesome discovery and any way out of this mess. The revelation of intent of the carbon dinosaurs, the recounting of the anti-democratic activities, does not result in change.

Environmental pollution is a “victimless” crime – no matter how much we sympathise or empathise with the plight of poisoned floating fish, dying bees, asthmatic kids, or cancer-laden people. Fines and taxes cannot rectify the scourge of environmental pollution, because there is no ultimate accountability. Regulation cannot be enforced. The misbehaviour just carries on, because there is systemic momentum. There is no legal redress (“due process” in Americanese) for those who are suffering the worsening effects of climate change, and there is no treaty that can be made to curb greenhouse gas emissions that anybody can be bound to by international sanctions.

And so when we hear the same old story – that the energy industry is propagandising – we cannot respond. We don’t know what we can do. We are paralysed. This narrative is so tired, it snores.

Truth may have been a victim, but the energy industry are also vulnerable – they are acting in self-defence mode. Let’s take the big vista in : there is stress in the global production of fossil fuel energy, and all routes to an easy fix, even if it’s only a short-term fix, are choked.

So let’s ask the question – why do the energy companies deceive ? Do they think they are being deceptive ? Why do fossil fuel miners seek to massage public opinion ? This is a question of resilience, of Darwinian survival – seeking advantage by altering policy by tampering with public assent. They believe in their product, they construct their mission – they are protecting their future profits, they’re making a living. They’re humans in human organisations. They’re not “evil”, “greedy” or “lying” – as a rule. There are no demons here, nor can we convincingly summon them.

Look at the activist game plan – we announce the deliberate actions of the fossil fuel companies to influence the political mandate. But these scandals are only ever voiced, never acted upon. They cannot be acted upon because those who care have no power, no agency, to correct or prevent the outcomes. And those who should care, do not care, because they themselves have rationalised the misdemeanours of the fossil fuellers. They too have drunk from the goblet of doubt. Amongst English-speaking politicians, I detect a good number who consider climate change to be a matter for wait-and-see rather than urgent measures. Besides those who continue to downplay the seriousness of climate change.

Look also at the difference between the covert nature of the support for climate change deniers, and the open public relations activities of the fossil fuel and mining companies. They speak in the right way for their audiences. That’s smart.

In time, the end of the fossil fuel age will become apparent, certain vague shapes on the horizon will come out of the blur and into sharp focus. But in the meantime, the carbon dinosaurs are taking action to secure market share, maintain the value of their stock, prop up the value of their shareholders’ assets. The action plan for survival of the oil, gas, coal and mining operations now includes the promotion of extreme energy – so-called unconventional fossil fuels, the once-dismissed lower quality resources such as tight gas, shale gas, shale oil and coalbed methane (coal seam methane). Why are the energy industry trying to gild the rotten lily ? Is the support for unconventional fossil fuels a move for certain countries, such as the United States of America, to develop more indigenous sources of energy – more homegrown energy to make them independent of foreign influence ? This could be the main factor – most of the public relations for shale gas, for example, seems to come from USA.

The answer could come by responding to another question. Could it be that the production of petroleum oil has in fact peaked – that decline has set in for good ? Could it be that the Saudis are not “turning off the taps” to force market prices, because in actual fact the taps are being turned off for them, by natural well depletion ? The Arab Spring is a marvellous distraction – the economic sanctions and military and democratic upheaval are excellent explanations for the plateau in global oil production.

It seems possible from what I have looked at that Peak Oil is a reality, that decline in the volumes of produced petroleum is inevitable. The fossil fuel producers, the international corporations who have their shareholders and stock prices to maintain, have been pushing the narrative that the exploitation of unconventional fossil fuels can replace lost conventional production. They have been painting a picture of the horn of plenty – a cornucopia of unconventional fossil fuels far exceeding conventional resources. To please their investors, the fossil fuel companies are lying about the future.

Sure, brute force and some new technology are opening up “unconventionals” but this will not herald the “golden age” of shale gas or oils from shale. Shale gas fields deplete rapidly, and tar sands production is hugely polluting and likely to be unsustainable in several ways because of that. There might be huge reserves – but who knows how quickly heavy oils can be produced ? And how much energy input is required to create output energy from other low grade fossil strata ? It is simply not possible to be certain that the volumes of unconventional fossil fuel production can match the decline in conventionals.

The facts of the matter need admitting – there is no expansion of sweet crude oil production possible. There’s no more crude – there’s only crud. And slow crud, at that.

Peak Oil is a geological fact, not a market artefact. The production levels of crude and condensate may not recover, even if military-backed diplomacy wins the day for the energy industry in the Middle East and North Africa.

Peak Oil has implications for resilience of the whole global economy – the conversion of social and trade systems to use new forms of energy will take some considerable time – and their integrity is at risk if Peak Oil cannot be navigated smoothly. Peak Oil is dangerous – it seems useful to deny it as long as possible.

It’s pretty clear that we’ve been handed lots of unreliable sops over the years. The energy industry promised us that biofuels could replace gasoline and diesel – but the realisation of this dream has been blocked at every turn by inconvenient failings. The energy industry has, to my mind, been deploying duds in order to build in a delay while they attempt to research and develop genuine alternatives to conventional fossil fuels – but they are failing. The dominant narrative of success is at risk – will all of this continue to hold together ? Can people continue to believe in the security of energy systems – the stability of trade and economic wealth creation ? Oh yes, people raise concerns – for example about disruption in the Middle East and North Africa, and then propose “solutions” – regime change, military support for opposition forces, non-invasive invasions. But overall, despite these all too evident skirmishes, the impression of resilience is left intact. The problem is being framed as one of “edge issues” – not systemic. It’s not clear how long they can keep up with this game.

The facade is cracking. The mask is slipping. BP and Centrica in a bout of hyper-realism have said that the development of shale gas in the UK will not be a “game changer”. It may be that their core reasoning is to drag down the market value of Cuadrilla, maybe in order to purchase it. But anyway, they have defied the American energy industry public relations – hurrah ! Shale gas is not the milk of a honey-worded mother goddess after all – but what’s their alternative story ? That previously under-developed gas in Iran and Iraq will be secured ? And what about petroleum ? Will the public relations bubble about that be punctured too ? Telling people about Peak Oil – how useful is that ? They won’t do it because it has to be kept unbelievable and unbelieved in order to save face and keep global order. Academics talk about Peak Oil, but it is not just a dry, technical question confined to ivory towers. Attention is diverted, but the issue remains. Looking at it doesn’t solve it, so we are encouraged not to look at it.

So, why do the energy industry purposely set out to manipulate public opinion ? Well, the reason for their open advertising strategy is clear – to convince investors, governments, customers, that all is well in oil and gas – that there is a “gas glut” – that the world is still awash in petroleum and Natural Gas – that the future will be even more providential than the past – that the only way is up. All the projections of the oil and gas industry and the national, regional and international agencies are that energy demand will continue to rise – the underlying impression you are intended to be left with is that, therefore, global energy supply will also continue to rise. Business has never been better, and it can only get more profitable. We will need to turn to unconventional resources, but hey, there’s so much of the stuff, we’ll be swimming in it.

But what is the purpose of the covert “public relations” of the energy industry ? Why do they seek to put out deception via secretly-funded groups ? When the truth emerges, as it always does in the end, the anger and indignation of the climate change activists is guaranteed. And angry and indignant activists can easily be ignored. So, the purpose in funding climate change deniers is to emotionally manipulate climate change activists – rattle their cages, shake their prison bars. Let them rail – it keeps the greens busy, too occupied with their emotional disturbance. By looking at these infractions in depth are we being distracted from the bigger picture ? Can we make any change in global governance by bringing energy industry deception to light ?

Even as commentators peddle conspiracy theories about the science and politics of a warming planet, the “leader of the free world” is inaugurated into a second term and announces action on climate change. Although progressives around the world applaud this, I’m not sure what concrete action the President and his elite colleague team of rich, mostly white, middle-aged men can take. I am listening to the heartbeat of the conversation, and my take away is this : by announcing action on climate change, Barack Obama is declaring war on the sovereignty of the oil and gas producing nations of the Middle East and North Africa.

You see, the Middle East and North Africa are awash in Natural Gas. Untapped Natural Gas. The seismic surveys are complete. The secret services have de-stabilised democracy in a number of countries now, and this “soft power” will assist in constructing a new narrative – that unruliness in the Middle East and North Africa is preventing progress – that the unstable countries are withholding Natural Gas from the world – the fossil fuel that can replace petroleum oil in vehicles when chemically processed, the fossil fuel that has half the carbon emissions of coal when generating electricity. Resources of Natural Gas need “protecting”, securing, “liberating”, to save the world’s economy from collapse.

Obama stands up and declares “war” on climate change. And all I hear is a klaxon alarm for military assault on Iran.

But even then, if the world turns to previously untapped Natural Gas, I believe this is only a short-term answer to Peak Oil. Because waiting in the wings, about ten years behind, is Peak Natural Gas. And there is no answer to Peak Natural Gas, unless it includes a genuine revolution in energy production away from what lies beneath. And that threatens the sustenance of the oil and gas industry.

No wonder, then, that those who fund climate change denial – who stand to profit from access to untapped fossil fuels, secured by military aggresssion in the Middle East and North Africa – also fund opposition to renewable energy. The full details of this are still emerging. Will we continue to express horror and distaste when the strategy becomes more transparent ? Will that achieve anything ? Or will we focus on ways to bring about the only possible future – a fossil-fuel-free energy economy ? This will always take more action than words, but messaging will remain key. The central message is one that will sound strange to most people, but it needs to be said : fossil fuels will not continue to sustain the global economy : all will change.

Funnily enough, that is exactly the summary of the statements from the World Economic Forum in Davos – only the world’s administration are still not admitting to Peak Fossil Fuels. Instead, they are using climate change as the rationale for purposeful decarbonisation.

Well, whichever way it comes, let’s welcome it – as long as it comes soon. It’s not just the survival of individual oil and gas companies that is at stake – the whole global economy is at risk from Peak Fossil Fuels – and climate change. I use the word “economy”, because that is the word used by MBAs. What I mean is, the whole of human civilisation and life on Earth is at risk from Peak Fossil Fuels and climate change. Unconventional fossil fuels are the most polluting answer to any question, and expansion of their use will undoubtedly set off “climate bombs“.

Don’t get me wrong – Natural Gas is a good bridge to the future, but it is only a transition fuel, not a destination. Please, can we not have war against Iran. Please let’s have some peaceful trade instead. And some public admissions of the seriousness of both Peak Fossil Fuels and climate change by all the key players in governance and energy.

How is your Australia ?

[ PLEASE NOTE : This post is not written by JOABBESS.COM, but by a contact in Australia, who was recently asked if they could send an update of the situation there, and contributed this piece. ]

John and Jono: Resistance to coal in heat-afflicted Australia
By Miriam Pepper, 24/1/13

It was predicted to be a hot summer in eastern Australia, with a return to dry El Nino conditions after two back-to-back wet La Nina years. And hot it has been indeed. Temperature records have tumbled across the country – including the hottest day, the longest heatwave, and the hottest four month period.

With heavy fuel loads heightening fire risks, bushfires have blazed across Tasmania, Victoria, NSW, South Australia and Queensland. The fires have wreaked devastation on communities, with homes, farmland and forest destroyed. Thankfully few human lives have been lost (unlike the Black Saturday bushfires of 2009), though many non-human neighbours were not so fortunate. Some 110,000 hectares burned and 130 houses were lost in the Tasmanian bushfires earlier this month, and fires still rage in Gippsland Victoria where over 60,000 hectares have burned so far. And we are only just over halfway through summer.

On January 12, the Australian Government-established Climate Commission released a short report entitled “Off the charts: Extreme Australian Summer heat”. The document concluded that:

“The length, extent and severity of this heatwave are unprecedented in the measurement record. Although Australia has always had heatwaves, hot days and bushfires, climate change has increased the risk of more intense heatwaves and extreme hot days, as well as exacerbated bushfire conditions. Scientists have concluded that climate change is making extreme hot days, heatwaves and bushfire weather worse.”

The Australian continent is one of climate change’s frontlines, and also a major source of its primary cause – fossil fuels.

While the mercury soared and the fires roared, a young translator from Newcastle called Jonathan Moylan issued a fake press release claiming that the ANZ bank, which is bankrolling a massive new coal project at Maules Creek in north western NSW, had withdrawn its loan. Whitehaven Coal’s share price plummeted temporarily before the hoax was uncovered, making national news.

This action did not come out of the blue, neither for Moylan personally nor for the various communities and groups that have for years been confronting (and been confronted by) the rapid expansion of coal and coal seam gas mining at sites across Australia.

The scale of fossil fuel expansion in Australia is astonishing. Already the world’s biggest coal exporter, planned mine expansion could see Australia double its output. The world’s largest coal port of Newcastle NSW has already doubled its capacity in the last 15 years and may now double it again. Mega-mines that are on the cards in the Galilee Basin in central Queensland would quintuple ship movements across the Great Barrier Reef, to 10,000 coal ships per year. If the proposed Galilee Basin mines were fully developed today, the annual carbon dioxide emissions caused by burning their coal alone would exceed those of the United Kingdom or of Canada. The implications of such unfettered expansion locally for farmland, forests, human health and aquatic life as well as globally for the climate are severe.

I have twice had the privilege of participating in a Christian affinity group with Moylan at coal protests. And at around the time of his ANZ stunt, John the Baptist’s ministry and the baptism of Jesus in the gospel of Luke were on the lectionary. For me, there have been some striking parallels between John and Jonathan (Jono).

John the Baptist lived in the wilderness. Jono the Activist has been camping for some time in Leard State Forest near Maules Creek, at a Front Line Action on Coal mine blockade.

John got himself locked up by criticising the behavior of Herod, the then ruler of Galilee (in what is now northern Israel). For making the announcement that ANZ should have made, Jono could now face a potential 10-year jail sentence or a fine of up to $500,000.

When followers suggested that John the Baptist might be the Messiah, he pointed away from himself and towards the Christ that was yet to come. When the spotlight has been shone onto Moylan, by the media and activists alike, he has repeatedly deflected the attention away from himself and towards the resistance of the Maules Creek community to the project and towards the impacts if the project goes ahead – the loss of farmland and critically endangered forest, the drawdown and potential contamination of the aquifer, the coal dust, the impacts on the global climate. And indeed, the way that Moylan has conducted himself in media interviews has I believe resulted in exposure about the Maules Creek project itself (which is currently under review by the federal Environment Minister) as well as some mainstream discussion about broader issues such as responding to the urgency of climate change, government planning laws and the rights of communities, and ethical investment.

In an opinion piece published today, Jono Moylan finishes by urging us to act:

“We are living in a dream world if we think that politicians and the business world are going to sort out the problem of coal expansion on their own. History shows us that when power relations are unevenly matched, change always comes from below. Every right we have has come from ordinary people doing extraordinary things and the time to act is rapidly running out.”

Whatever our age, ability or infirmity we can all play a part in such change from below.

Links

Climate Commission: http://climatecommission.gov.au
Frontline Action on Coal: http://frontlineaction.wordpress.com
Maules Creek Community Council: http://maulescreek.org
“Potential jailing not as scary as threat of Maules Creek mine”, opinion piece by Jonathan Moylan, 24/1/13: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/potential-jailing-not-as-scary-as-threat-of-maules-creek-mine-20130123-2d78s.html
Greenpeace climate change campaigns: http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/what-we-do/climate/
Australian Religious Response to Climate Change: http://www.arrcc.org.au
Uniting Earthweb: http://www.unitingearthweb.org.au

A Referendum for Energy

As I dodged the perfunctory little spots of snow yesterday, on my way down to Highbury and Islington underground train station, I passed a man who appeared to have jerky muscle control attempting to punch numbers on the keypad of a cash machine in the wall. He was missing, but he was grinning. A personal joke, perhaps. The only way he could get his money out of the bank to buy a pint of milk and a sliced loaf for his tea was to accurately tap his PIN number. But he wasn’t certain his body would let him. I threw him an enquiring glance, but he seemed too involved in trying to get control of his arms and legs to think of accepting help.

This, I felt, was a metaphor for the state of energy policy and planning in the United Kingdom – everybody in the industry and public sector has focus, but nobody appears to have much in the way of overall control – or even, sometimes, direction. I attended two meetings today setting out to address very different parts of the energy agenda : the social provision of energy services to the fuel-poor, and the impact that administrative devolution may have on reaching Britain’s Renewable Energy targets.

At St Luke’s Centre in Central Street in Islington, I heard from the SHINE team on the progress they are making in providing integrated social interventions to improve the quality of life for those who suffer fuel poverty in winter, where they need to spend more than 10% of their income on energy, and are vulnerable to extreme temperatures in both summer heatwaves and winter cold snaps. The Seasonal Health Interventions Network was winning a Community Footprint award from the National Energy Action charity for success in their ability to reach at-risk people through referrals for a basket of social needs, including fuel poverty. It was pointed out that people who struggle to pay energy bills are more likely to suffer a range of poverty problems, and that by linking up the social services and other agencies, one referral could lead to multiple problem-solving.

In an economy that is suffering signs of contraction, and with austerity measures being imposed, and increasing unemployment, it is clear that social services are being stretched, and yet need is still great, and statutory responsibility for handling poverty is still mostly a publicly-funded matter. By offering a “one-stop shop”, SHINE is able to offer people a range of energy conservation and efficiency services alongside fire safety and benefits checks and other help to make sure those in need are protected at home and get what they are entitled to. With 1 in 5 households meeting the fuel poverty criteria, there is clearly a lot of work to do. Hackney and Islington feel that the SHINE model could be useful to other London Boroughs, particularly as the Local Authority borders are porous.

We had a presentation on the Cold Weather Plan from Carl Petrokovsky working for the Department of Health, explaining how national action on cold weather planning is being organised, using Met Office weather forecasts to generate appropriate alert levels, in a similar way to heatwave alerts in summer – warnings that I understand could become much more important in future owing to the possible range of outcomes from climate change.

By way of some explanation – more global warming could mean significant warming for the UK. More UK warming could mean longer and, or, more frequent heated periods in summer weather, perhaps with higher temperatures. More UK warming could also mean more disturbances in an effect known as “blocking” where weather systems lock into place, in any season, potentially pinning the UK under a very hot or very cold mass of air for weeks on end. In addition, more UK warming could mean more precipitation – which would mean more rain in summer and more snow in winter.

Essentially, extremes in weather are public health issues, and particularly in winter, more people are likely to suffer hospitalisation from the extreme cold, or falls, or poor air quality from boiler fumes – and maybe end up in residential care. Much of this expensive change of life is preventable, as are many of the excess winter deaths due to cold. The risks of increasing severity in adverse conditions due to climate change are appropriately dealt with by addressing the waste of energy at home – targeting social goals can in effect contribute to meeting wider adaptational goals in overall energy consumption.

If the UK were to be treated as a single system, and the exports and imports of the most significant value analysed, the increasing net import of energy – the yawning gap in the balance of trade – would be seen in its true light – the country is becoming impoverished. Domestic, indigenously produced sources of energy urgently need to be developed. Policy instruments and measured designed to reinvigorate oil and gas exploration in the North Sea and over the whole UKCS – UK Continental Shelf – are not showing signs of improving production significantly. European-level policy on biofuels did not revolutionise European agriculture as regards energy cropping – although it did contribute to decimating Indonesian and Malaysian rainforest. The obvious logical end point of this kind of thought process is that we need vast amounts of new Renewable Energy to retain a functioning economy, given global financial, and therefore, trade capacity, weakness.

Many groups, both with the remit for public service and private enterprise oppose the deployment of wind and solar power, and even energy conservation measures such as building wall cladding. Commentators with access to major media platforms spread disinformation about the ability of Renewable Energy technologies to add value. In England, in particular, debates rage, and many hurdles are encountered. Yet within the United Kingdom as a whole, there are real indicators of progressive change, particularly in Scotland and Wales.

I picked up the threads of some of these advances by attending a PRASEG meeting on “Delivering Renewable Energy Under Devolution”, held at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in Westminster, London; a tour to back up the launch of a new academic report that analyses performance of the devolved administrations and their counterpart in the English Government in Westminster. The conclusions pointed to something that I think could be very useful – if Scotland takes the referendum decision for independence, and continues to show strong leadership and business and community engagement in Renewable Energy deployment, the original UK Renewable Energy targets could be surpassed.

I ended the afternoon exchanging some perceptions with an academic from Northern Ireland. We shared that Eire and Northern Ireland could become virtually energy-independent – what with the Renewable Electricity it is possible to generate on the West Coast, and the Renewable Gas it is possible to produce from the island’s grass (amongst other things). We also discussed the tendency of England to suck energy out of its neighbour territories. I suggested that England had appropriated Scottish hydrocarbon resources, literally draining the Scottish North Sea dry of fossil fuels in exchange for token payments to the Western Isles, and suchlike. If Scotland leads on Renewable Energy and becomes independent, I suggested, the country could finally make back the wealth it lost to England. We also shared our views about the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland being asked to wire all their new Renewable Electricity to England, an announcement that has been waiting to happen for some time. England could also bleed Wales of green power with the same lines being installed to import green juice from across the Irish Sea.

I doubt that politics will completely nix progress on Renewable Energy deployment – the economics are rapidly becoming clear that clean, green power and gas are essential for the future. However, I would suggest we could expect some turbulence in the political sphere, as the English have to learn the hard way that they have a responsibility to rapidly increase their production of low carbon energy.

Asking the English if they want to break ties with the European Union, as David Cameron has suggested with this week’s news on a Referendum, is the most unworkable idea, I think. England, and in fact, all the individual countries of the United Kingdom, need close participation in Europe, to join in with the development of new European energy networks, in order to overcome the risks of economic collapse. It may happen that Scotland, and perhaps Wales, even, separate themselves from any increasing English isolation and join the great pan-Europe energy projects in their own right. Their economies may stabilise and improve, while the fortunes of England may tumble, as those with decision-making powers, crony influence and web logs in the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail, resist the net benefits of the low carbon energy revolution.

[ Many thanks to Simon and all at the Unity Kitchen at St Luke's Centre, and the handsomely reviving Unity Latte, and a big hi to all the lunching ladies and gents with whom I shared opinions on the chunkiness of the soup of the day and the correct identification of the vegetables in it. ]

Other Snapshots of Yesterday #1 : Approached by short woman with a notebook in Parliament Square, pointing out to me a handwritten list that included the line “Big Ben”. I pointed at the clock tower and started to explain. The titchy tourist apologised for non-comprehension by saying, “French”, so then I explained the feature attraction to her in French, which I think quite surprised her. We are all European.

Other Snapshots of Yesterday #2 : Spoke with an Austrian academic by the fire for coffee at IMechE, One Birdcage Walk, about the odd attitudes as regards gun ownership in the United States, and the American tendency to collective, cohort behaviour. I suggested that this tendency could be useful, as the levels of progressive political thinking, for instance about drone warfare, could put an end to the practice. When aerial bombardment was first conducted, it should have been challenged in law at that point. We are all Europeans.

Other Snapshots of Yesterday #3 : Met a very creative Belgian from Gent, living in London. We are all European.

Other Snapshots of Yesterday #4 : We Europeans, we are all so civilised. We think that we need to heat venues for meetings, so that people feel comfortable. Levels of comfort are different for different people, but the lack of informed agreement means that the default setting for temperature always ends up being too high. The St Luke’s Centre meeting room was at roughly 23.5 degrees C when I arrived, and roughly 25 degrees C with all the visitors in the room. I shared with a co-attendee that my personal maximum operating temperature is around 19 degrees C. She thought that was fine for night-time. The IMechE venue on the 2nd floor was roughly 19 – 20 degrees C, but the basement was roughly 24 degrees C. Since one degree Celsius of temperature reduction can knock about 10% of the winter heating bill, why are public meetings about energy not more conscious of adjusting their surroundings ?

Boris’ Entirely Accurate Assessment

Image Credit : jgspics

It’s lucky for Londoners that we have a Mayor of the intellectual stature of Boris Johnson. Not only is he a fashion icon, a promotor of safe cycling, and a total sex god, especially dangling from high wires at Olympic Stadia wearing a rumpled suit, but he’s also a sheer genius on science. He’s as learned as the best taxi chauffeur in the City’s Square Mile, and not only that, he’s studied Earth Sciences in depth, and has so much wisdom from his knowledge, that he feels justified in challenging an entire pantheon of climatologists.

Here he is writing philanthropically, no doubt, for our general edification, in the Daily Telegraph online, “…I am sitting here staring through the window at the flowerpot and the bashed-up barbecue, and I am starting to think this series of winters is not a coincidence. The snow on the flowerpot, since I have been staring, has got about an inch thicker. The barbecue is all but invisible. By my calculations, this is now the fifth year in a row that we have had an unusual amount of snow; and by unusual I mean snow of a kind that I don’t remember from my childhood: snow that comes one day, and then sticks around for a couple of days, followed by more. I remember snow that used to come and settle for just long enough for a single decent snowball fight before turning to slush; I don’t remember winters like this. Two days ago I was cycling through Trafalgar Square and saw icicles on the traffic lights; and though I am sure plenty of readers will say I am just unobservant, I don’t think I have seen that before. I am all for theories about climate change, and would not for a moment dispute the wisdom or good intentions of the vast majority of scientists. But I am also an empiricist; and I observe that something appears to be up with our winter weather, and to call it “warming” is obviously to strain the language…” I must defer to the man – his memory is incredibly accurate, and the conclusions based on his impressions entirely valid. It cannot be true that in the winter of 1967-1968, for example, when he was a little brat, that snow was so deep and so treacherous in parts of London that cars could not drive up slopes steeper than about 25 degrees; and that the snow lasted for several weeks and caused major infrastructure disruption, especially when there was a second phase of snowfall. It cannot be true that winters in the UK in the late 1970s and early 1980s were really quite bad, because Boris cannot recall them, despite being nearly aged 50, unless of course, he grew up in another, more tropical part of the world. As his claim to be an “empiricist” is backed up by his winter recollections, we can trust what he says about Piers Corbyn, obviously. Piers Corbyn, alone among his generation, perhaps, is reported by BoJo to believe that “global temperature depends not on concentrations of CO2 but on the mood of our celestial orb.” And he has a fascinating, entirely convincing explanation for recent hard winters, “When the Sun has plenty of sunspots, he bathes the Earth in abundant rays. When the solar acne diminishes, it seems that the Earth gets colder. No one contests that when the planet palpably cooled from 1645 to 1715 – the Maunder minimum, which saw the freezing of the Thames – there was a diminution of solar activity. The same point is made about the so-called Dalton minimum, from 1790 to 1830. And it is the view of Piers Corbyn that we are now seeing exactly the same phenomenon today.” It’s all so simple, really, and we have to thank Piers Corbyn, shake his hand warmly, and thump him on the back to express our deep gratitude for explaining that history is repeating itself, all over again. Nothing, of course, has changed in the Earth’s atmosphere, so its composition couldn’t be accentuating the Greenhouse Effect, whereby minute amounts of Greenhouse Gases keep the surface of the planet above the 18 or 19 degrees Celsius below freezing point it would be otherwise. So of course, just as he is right about solar activity being the primary driver of global temperatures today, just as it was clearly the only significant driver in the past, Piers Corbyn must be entirely correct about his predictions of future cooling, especially because he’s being quoted by Borish Johnson, on the website of a very well-read newspaper, no less, “We are in for a prolonged cold period. Indeed, we could have 30 years of general cooling.” The Daily Telegraph have hit on a superb way of guaranteeing web hits. The strategy of setting a cool cat amongst the warming pigeons is even acknowledged by Mr Johnson himself, “all those scientists and environmentalists who will go wild with indignation on the publication of this article”. But it appears that despite this clownish, jokey, provocative stance, Boris might actually believe there is something in Piers Corbyn’s analysis : “I am speaking only as a layman [a "layman" with a platform in a national newspaper, which pay him to write this stuff] who observes that there is plenty of snow in our winters these days, and who wonders whether it might be time for government [just a "layman" with some old university pals in the Cabinet] to start taking seriously the possibility – however remote – that Corbyn is right. If he is, that will have big implications for agriculture, tourism, transport, aviation policy and the economy as a whole.” BoJo then dives off the psychological deep-end, “Of course it still seems a bit nuts to talk of the encroachment of a mini ice age. But it doesn’t seem as nuts as it did five years ago [oh yes, it does]. I look at the snowy waste outside, and I have an open mind.” Open minded ? About things that have been established as reality ? I suppose we should stay open minded about the entire field of Chemistry or Physics, then ? Or how about the Theory of Gravity ? Was Boris being open minded about gravity when he took to the harness and wire during London 2012 ? Am I giving “oxygen” to the madness of the global warming deniers by writing about this truly ill-informed opinion from Boris Johnson ? The media are already giving more than enough oxygen to people in high office with quaint, outdated views. Should I be silent as major newspapers continue to pour forth ineptitude ? Am I “scoring an own goal” by pointing out his piece is a travesty of the scientific facts ? No, I am pointing out that his article contains invalid scientific opinion. When I first read this piece, I thought it was a parody, but now I’m not so sure. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to skew the confidence of other people – confidence in the main body of science, and the decades of patient work by people with thousands of data sets of measurements from the natural world, not just poor memories of winters past.