The 2024 Rendezvous

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

One of the latest scientific papers [ which of course most of the MSM will ignore ,] shows that human produced CO2 has no measureable effect on the climate .https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/08/...trols-climate/

The paper is an interesting read - but it is worth noting the conclusion when referring to it in a discussion about Climate Change and Human Carbon Emissions.

'Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect?
Do these findings, by suggesting a minimal human impact on the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon, contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Are human carbon emissions independent from other forms of pollution, such as emissions of fine particles and nitrogen oxides, which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment?
These questions are not posed at all in the paper and certainly are not studied in it. Therefore, they cannot be answered on a scientific basis within the paper’s confined scope but require further research.'

[grantp]

If the UK was serious about an Energy policy AND supporting home-grown technology competency, it might be welcoming the grudging support that Nuclear is gaining from at least a few of the more realistic Green supporters.
It could therefore look to Rolls Royce and its decades of experience in small reactors and push forward with a test development or two.

So what has the Government - or rather the Civil Service that runs the country irrespective of which political philosophy is on top of the political climbing frame of the moment - done to progress such a prospect?

As far as I can tell, almost nothing except mention some possible consideration at some point, probably using any supplier except Rolls Royce (for reasons that have yet to become clear and maybe never will.)

So, no evidence of a plan and certainly no evidence of support for businesses originating in the country they claim to govern.

What have I missed?

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by grantp

If the UK was serious about an Energy policy AND supporting home-grown technology competency, it might be welcoming the grudging support that Nuclear is gaining from at least a few of the more realistic Green supporters.
It could therefore look to Rolls Royce and its decades of experience in small reactors and push forward with a test development or two.

So what has the Government - or rather the Civil Service that runs the country irrespective of which political philosophy is on top of the political climbing frame of the moment - done to progress such a prospect?

As far as I can tell, almost nothing except mention some possible consideration at some point, probably using any supplier except Rolls Royce (for reasons that have yet to become clear and maybe never will.)

So, no evidence of a plan and certainly no evidence of support for businesses originating in the country they claim to govern.

What have I missed?

Perhaps you might have missed the fact that we are having to import possibly over 10% of our energy because the Government / Civil Service are a bunch of useless idiots , [ or just following instructions from the UN IPCC.]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...tations-close/

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

Perhaps you might have missed the fact that we are having to import possibly over 10% of our energy because the Government / Civil Service are a bunch of useless idiots , [ or just following instructions from the UN IPCC.]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...tations-close/

True - although that is pushing up the cleanliness of the energy being used in the UK. Less than 1% of the imported energy comes from carbon-based sources.

[Peter Mallett]

In answer to Richard, renewables do provide power, no doubt. But they don't provide reliable power hence the constant need for back up gas and nuclear energy. As to the point concerning the efficacy of renewables, it seems strange that we don't wish to see the correlation between the increase in renewables worldwide and the increase in CO2. Could it be that the mining, construction work and production of windfarms and the necessary minerals, is adding to the production of Co2?

Frankly the entire scheme is extremely depressing. We humans have walked into what can only be described as a dystopian nightmare!

FWIW, solar panels on roofs are fine, taking up valuable land for solar panel farms is quite frankly, ridiculous. And of course there are no farms in Saudi and other Middle Eastern countries so sticking solar panels there would work for most of the time but only in daylight.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The paper is an interesting read - but it is worth noting the conclusion when referring to it in a discussion about Climate Change and Human Carbon Emissions.

'Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect?
Do these findings, by suggesting a minimal human impact on the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon, contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Are human carbon emissions independent from other forms of pollution, such as emissions of fine particles and nitrogen oxides, which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment?
These questions are not posed at all in the paper and certainly are not studied in it. Therefore, they cannot be answered on a scientific basis within the paper’s confined scope but require further research.'

The beauty of the relatively recent construct called Climate Science, for those wishing to engage with it and use it as a career path and more, is that it IS and will remain completely untestable in any current lifetime and, most probably, forever.

The untestability is aided by the complexity of the climate system. A system so complex that there is little chance of being able to understand it fully. It seems to be a system highly influenced by very small changes. Many, many very small changes. Or, at least, small as measured by human sensitivity.

Much of the current effort and focus was kicked off by the Hockey Stick graph in the late 1990s.

Oddly, for a scientific endeavour, the graph seems to be a bit of a mix of extremely difficult-to-calibrate measures, bound together and processed by some forecasting algorithms that, no matter what vaguely related time series data one feeds them with, produce a "Hockey Stick blade" result of increasing values as its prediction for the next 25 years of the time series.

That means that, if one removed 25 years worth of the original data series and ran the analysis the result would be an upwards pointing Hockey Stick blade as the estimate for a future where the results were already known and where not as per the Stick result.

In effect the program could not accurately predict even close to the real numbers that were available for calibration. That's about the nearest they could ever come to a somewhat scientific test of the code.

Perhaps they tried that test but if they did it has never received much attention so far as I can recall. People are still writing about the work today.

On that foundation Net Zero, a slogan rather than a practical concept, has been based.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

True - although that is pushing up the cleanliness of the energy being used in the UK. Less than 1% of the imported energy comes from carbon-based sources.

So how does that work out with Drax . On of the biggest power stations in the UK . Runs on wood pellets , cut down in America , shipped across the Atlantic then across this country .Classed as renewable energy therefore gets very large subsidies, but actually overall produces far more CO2 than coal fired power stations .
How could that be explained as not part of the whole Climate fraud .

[grantp]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

True - although that is pushing up the cleanliness of the energy being used in the UK. Less than 1% of the imported energy comes from carbon-based sources.

How many of the Solar Panels and Wind turbines and their associated infrastructure come from Carbon Free sources?

Why is it that, so far as I have seen, all UK electricity supply vendors claim that all of their electricity is 100% renewable.

Surely, if that is the case, then not even 1% of the imported energy can be from carbon sources?

Or is that part of the supply separated from the rest and sent to specific consumers who wish to accept it?

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by grantp

The beauty of the relatively recent construct called Climate Science, for those wishing to engage with it and use it as a career path and more, is that it IS and will remain completely untestable in any current lifetime and, most probably, forever.

The untestability is aided by the complexity of the climate system. A system so complex that there is little chance of being able to understand it fully. It seems to be a system highly influenced by very small changes. Many, many very small changes. Or, at least, small as measured by human sensitivity.

Much of the current effort and focus was kicked off by the Hockey Stick graph in the late 1990s.

Oddly, for a scientific endeavour, the graph seems to be a bit of a mix of extremely difficult-to-calibrate measures, bound together and processed by some forecasting algorithms that, no matter what vaguely related time series data one feeds them with, produce a "Hockey Stick blade" result of increasing values as its prediction for the next 25 years of the time series.

That means that, if one removed 25 years worth of the original data series and ran the analysis the result would be an upwards pointing Hockey Stick blade as the estimate for a future where the results were already known and where not as per the Stick result.

In effect the program could not accurately predict even close to the real numbers that were available for calibration. That's about the nearest they could ever come to a somewhat scientific test of the code.

Perhaps they tried that test but if they did it has never received much attention so far as I can recall. People are still writing about the work today.

On that foundation Net Zero, a slogan rather than a practical concept, has been based.

The Hockey Stick graph was proved to be a total fraud , and the CLIMATEGATE E mails show how they changed a lot of facts to try to get what they wanted .
Here is an interesting list of over 60 Climate claims which have all been proved wrong .
https://notrickszone.com/2023/12/31/...s-are-rubbish/

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

So how does that work out with Drax . On of the biggest power stations in the UK . Runs on wood pellets , cut down in America , shipped across the Atlantic then across this country .Classed as renewable energy therefore gets very large subsidies, but actually overall produces far more CO2 than coal fired power stations .
How could that be explained as not part of the whole Climate fraud .

They buy Carbon Credits from elsewhere. That fixes everything.

For the past 2 winters HMG have been paying Uniper to keep Ratcliffe-on-Soar powerstation open for emergency use cover.

Lots of coal to be seen around the place - until recently. Last time I passed by, about a week ago, nearly all of it had gone. Presumably it has been shipped out by train the way it came in and sold on to whoever can make use of it. Probably China or India but could be anywhere. Let's hope the price has gone up so the taxpayer will not be on the hook for compensation for loss of value.

I think this time the owner, Uniper, is set on closing it down. There are plans for other developments on the site. They can make more from developing into something else than trying to create a new electricity generation facility at that location.

An incinerator is one scheme that has been mentioned.

The locals will not be happy ...

[Peter Mallett]

I worked on the desulpherization of Ratcliffe on Soar. The process turns the emissions into gypsum. Quite interesting. Coal trains in, gypsum trains out. That project was approx £250m back in 1992.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by grantp

They buy Carbon Credits from elsewhere. That fixes everything.

For the past 2 winters HMG have been paying Uniper to keep Ratcliffe-on-Soar powerstation open for emergency use cover.

Lots of coal to be seen around the place - until recently. Last time I passed by, about a week ago, nearly all of it had gone. Presumably it has been shipped out by train the way it came in and sold on to whoever can make use of it. Probably China or India but could be anywhere. Let's hope the price has gone up so the taxpayer will not be on the hook for compensation for loss of value.

I think this time the owner, Uniper, is set on closing it down. There are plans for other developments on the site. They can make more from developing into something else than trying to create a new electricity generation facility at that location.

An incinerator is one scheme that has been mentioned.

The locals will not be happy ...

I think you will find that Drax is given Carbon Credits as part of its £1.7 million per day subsidy .https://news.sky.com/story/power-gia...utral-12866031

The Carbon Credits scheme is a major part of the whole fraud around the world. .Forcing other companies to buy them has increased the price of lots of things as well as road fuels , which then put up the price of everything for everybody .

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

So how does that work out with Drax . On of the biggest power stations in the UK . Runs on wood pellets , cut down in America , shipped across the Atlantic then across this country .Classed as renewable energy therefore gets very large subsidies, but actually overall produces far more CO2 than coal fired power stations .
How could that be explained as not part of the whole Climate fraud .

How does Drax relate to the breakdown of sources for imports? I was pointing out that of the 10% import, less than 1% of the supply comes from carbon-based sources.

However, in the case of Drax, it is typically reported under 'other sources' if grouped, and under biomass if reported on separately.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

I think you will find that Drax is given Carbon Credits as part of its £1.7 million per day subsidy .https://news.sky.com/story/power-gia...utral-12866031

The Carbon Credits scheme is a major part of the whole fraud around the world. Forcing other companies to buy them has increased the price of lots of things as well as road fuels , which then put up the price of everything for everybody .

The imported pellets are, iirc, priced to include some sort of US Green credit for managed forests and other stuff. So it's indirect but then they get subsidy anyway.

It's a cracking scheme for anyone who finds themselves on the right side of the game. Win Win all round becuase "the taxpayer" is every one and everyone benefits in the long term to it's a victimless crime.

I suspect it is not so mach a price rise but a way to devalue the worth of people's labour - or rather what they can obtain from it.

One can then show everyone (eventually) that their pay is increasing and the value of any assets they may have is increasing and so they are richer and getting ever more rich as time passes.

Of course the reason everything must continue to be worth more and more since the costs associated with natural disasters have to keep increasing so that the Net Zero message has extra clout and the insurance industry has a reason to demand more money for their services, adding confirmation that we are all getting richer and richer.

[Mike Harte]

I believe, having read about it constantly in Private Eye who have been monitoring Drax, that Whitehall - both the civil service and the politicians - have just woken up to the realisation that Drax is far from producing green energy, in fact very far from it.

I think that negotiations on renewing their contract - if memory serves, it expires in 2027 - are pretty well stalled as Whitehall is only just now reluctant to continue with the heavy subsidisation.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I worked on the desulpherization of Ratcliffe on Soar. The process turns the emissions into gypsum. Quite interesting. Coal trains in, gypsum trains out. That project was approx £250m back in 1992.

Interesting.

The good old days when the rationale for such a development was that there was a plant just down the road could make use of the output.

Uniper also own farm land just across the road from the power plant which, I think, may have some sort of connection with that process.

Interestingly, now the station is finally closing, there seems to be a lot of activity on that field area so I'm wondering if they are starting preparation for the construction site by extracting as much useful stuff from the soil as they can before burying all the field area under construction plant.

I must do some more research.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by grantp

The imported pellets are, iirc, priced to include some sort of US Green credit for managed forests and other stuff. So it's indirect but then they get subsidy anyway.

It's a cracking scheme for anyone who finds themselves on the right side of the game. Win Win all round becuase "the taxpayer" is every one and everyone benefits in the long term to it's a victimless crime.

I suspect it is not so mach a price rise but a way to devalue the worth of people's labour - or rather what they can obtain from it.

One can then show everyone (eventually) that their pay is increasing and the value of any assets they may have is increasing and so they are richer and getting ever more rich as time passes.

Of course the reason everything must continue to be worth more and more since the costs associated with natural disasters have to keep increasing so that the Net Zero message has extra clout and the insurance industry has a reason to demand more money for their services, adding confirmation that we are all getting richer and richer.

In 2020 , I think , there was a very large increase in the cost of Carbon Credits under the ETS scheme.
That led to the almost total destruction of the UKs steel industry , put an increase in the cost of flying , and the main thing was a price rise in road fuels .The road fuels part hits everybody as it effects the price of everything in the shops and just about all services as well as driving costs .
This is now called " The Cost of Living Crisis ", and has led to widescale poverty . https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...o-spend-weekly

So it is only the select few who are getting richer .

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

In 2020 , I think , there was a very large increase in the cost of Carbon Credits under the ETS scheme.
That led to the almost total destruction of the UKs steel industry , put an increase in the cost of flying , and the main thing was a price rise in road fuels .The road fuels part hits everybody as it effects the price of everything in the shops and just about all services as well as driving costs .
This is now called " The Cost of Living Crisis ", and has led to widescale poverty . https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...o-spend-weekly

So it is only the select few who are getting richer .

Of course , I forgot to mention the huge increase in energy costs from the ETS changes

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

So it is only the select few who are getting richer .

Indeed. So that will be very obvious to the masses, eventually.

The distraction process is to find a way to make people think they are better off, even when not.

I am beginning to think that the Climate Change meme, setting a far distant point of failure possibly beyond the life expectancy of anyone alive today, will be eclipsed by whatever reality of unaffordability is really approaching.

For the sake of argument, if the basic price of all energy doubled in the next decade, what would be the global effect?

What if it trebled?

What would happen if Oil and Coal Just Stopped?

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by grantp

Indeed. So that will be very obvious to the masses, eventually.

The distraction process is to find a way to make people think they are better off, even when not.

I am beginning to think that the Climate Change meme, setting a far distant point of failure possibly beyond the life expectancy of anyone alive today, will be eclipsed by whatever reality of unaffordability is really approaching.

For the sake of argument, if the basic price of all energy doubled in the next decade, what would be the global effect?

What if it trebled?

What would happen if Oil and Coal Just Stopped?

Energy costs for businesses have gone up by huge amounts , [ 400% according to the FT ], and this link show what some of the effects are .
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b0a85a8197c961
But China would profit from it , which is one of the main aims .

And if coal and oil just stopped , so would the whole world , with the vast majority of people not surviving

[Lancsbreaker]

On a completely different tack, I was quite cheered this afternoon, sitting in my car beside one of the legendary night rally roads (Lythe Fell, the road from Slaidburn to Bentham in the Trough of Bowland) watching the 60 or motor cars participating in the Flying Scotsman Vintage rally. Oldest car 100 years old and going strong, youngest vehicle 3 years older then me, having been built in 1947........ all being driven over testing roads with enthusiasm.

[bauble]

Thank heavens Richard did not compute the Net Zero, effect upon the CARBON Emissions, and the consequences that will cause floods in the Sahara desert, and bush fires in Greenland, inevitable result of cars being driven for pleasure.

Well done Richard for introducing a modicum of interest back to the thread.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

On a completely different tack, I was quite cheered this afternoon, sitting in my car beside one of the legendary night rally roads (Lythe Fell, the road from Slaidburn to Bentham in the Trough of Bowland) watching the 60 or motor cars participating in the Flying Scotsman Vintage rally. Oldest car 100 years old and going strong, youngest vehicle 3 years older then me, having been built in 1947........ all being driven over testing roads with enthusiasm.

Splendid Richard.

Long may there be enough interested parties around for such events to continue.

I very much miss the rally events I visited back in the 00s.

The Robin Hood in Notts, for example.

And a couple of times in Wales at the wonderful Hafren complex.

The events for older cars somehow, if I knew about them, rarely matched my availability.

I look at the single location events and understand the economic attraction but, somehow, with the way they are set up and significant spectator restrictions, I find it challenging to enthuse about them if other activities are drawn to my attention.

[Derwent]

The HERO events attract people with serious amounts of money these days. At least £7k to enter the FS last weekend. I was at Bicester the day before and there were several crews collecting their hired vintage car for the events. HERO have perhaps 50 cars to be hired for their events. HERO is a multi millions pound business these days. They have certainly created a new market and a type of event that suits their clients.

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by Derwent

The HERO events attract people with serious amounts of money these days. At least £7k to enter the FS last weekend. I was at Bicester the day before and there were several crews collecting their hired vintage car for the events. HERO have perhaps 50 cars to be hired for their events. HERO is a multi millions pound business these days. They have certainly created a new market and a type of event that suits their clients.

Yes, prices do seem to have increased markedly, particularly if you aren't an earlybird entrant. I seem to remember that when I did Le Jog back in 2000 and 2002 the entry fee was £1500 / £1600 - I think last years (Le Jog is having a break this year) was £5K+