Tag Archives: energy security

Settled Science?

Posted on by

First of all there is no such thing as ‘settled science.’ The scientific method calls for constant questioning and re-evaluating. Second, if something is declared settled science, you can be sure that someone with a potential financial gain is promoting it (sorry for my cynicism).

On Sunday, WattsUpWithThat reported that the idea of net zero carbon is based on insufficient date. Wow. We are crippling some of the world’s major economies based on insufficient data.

The article quotes and article from The Telegraph posted on Saturday:

Britain’s climate watchdog has privately admitted that a number of its key net zero recommendations may have relied on insufficient data, it has been claimed.

Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent Royal Society study on future energy supply, said that the Climate Change Committee only “looked at a single year” of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero.

“They have conceded privately that that was a mistake,” Sir Chris said in a presentation seen by this newspaper. In contrast, the Royal Society review examined 37 years worth of weather data.

Last week Sir Chris, an emeritus professor and former director of energy research at Oxford University, said that the remarks to which he was referring were made by Chris Stark, the Climate Change Committee’s chief executive. He said: “Might be best to say that Chris Stark conceded that my comment that the CCC relied on modelling that only uses a single year of weather data … is ‘an entirely valid criticism’.”

The CCC said that Sir Chris’s comments, in a presentation given in a personal capacity in October, following the publication of his review, related solely to a particular report it published last year on how to deliver “a reliable decarbonised power system”.

The article at WattsUpWithThat concludes:

It is now clear that Parliament authorised Net Zero without any proper assessment, whether financial or energy, and the whole Net Zero legislation must now be suspended until a full independent assessment is carried out.

In addition, the whole of the CC should now be disbanded. Unfortunately it is still required by law, but it should now be staffed by truly independent members, with a remit to prioritise energy security and cost/benefit goals. The ideological pursuit of Net Zero must not override the wellbeing of the British public, put its energy security at risk or make the public worse off.

But the current and past members of the CCC who have overseen this attempt to bamboozle and defraud the public must be held to account, and excluded from any further influence over the country’s energy policy, or indeed on any issue of public policy.

So why are we even thinking about doing some of the things we are doing to bring down carbon?

A New Definition Of Security

Posted on by

On Saturday, Just the News posted an article about a recent statement made by Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.

The article reports:

Praising Biden’s historic green energy funding and 100% clean electricity goal by 2035, Granholm said “With all this electrification, we could slash our net crude oil imports by almost 60%, and that strengthens energy security.”

Granholm, who appeared with Vice President Kamala Harris also said Harris “has been amazing inside the White House as the champion for clean energy.” 

One of the most common critiques of Biden’s green agenda is that it has thus far achieved the opposite of energy security. Regulators claimed in May that more than 66% of the country is vulnerable to summer blackouts because of “new environmental rules” cracking down on fossil fuels. 

The regulators explained that the government is causing a spike in energy demand at a pace faster than renewables can match.

I don’t have a problem with cutting crude oil imports–if we open up American drilling and regain energy independence, we can be a net exporter of oil again. The world economy is based on oil. It is the commodity that fuels our manufacturing, our transportation, enables trade, and makes the lives of people who live in countries with ample energy much more pleasant. A number of European countries have switched away from green energy because they discovered that it could not meet the energy needs of their population.

The article also notes:

Center for Industrial Progress President and founder Alex Epstein wrote that “Joe Biden’s escalating bans on domestic fossil fuel production, combined with mandates of unreliable solar and wind overwhelmingly produced by unreliable China, are an existential threat to our energy security and therefore our national security.”

This isn’t the first time Granholm has made this claim. In April, she also stated of her trip to Japan that Biden’s green agenda will “address how the acceleration of the clean energy transition will help strengthen global energy security.”

Green energy is the modern equivalent of the perpetual motion machine. It’s a great idea, but I suspect that it will always remain just slightly out of reach.