JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

UK to save world by burning 120 million trees a year and stuffing some under the North Sea

If it involves destroying trees, we know it’s a Green trying to save them:

Government’s plan to reach ‘net zero’ by 2050 by removing carbon from the atmosphere relies on BURNING the equivalent of 120 million trees a year just to ‘balance the books’, report claims

Raze Trees, Save Coal

DailyMail

The UK government‘s plan to reach ‘net zero’ by 2050 by removing carbon from the atmosphere relies on burning the equivalent of almost 120 million trees a year, a new report claims.

The government’s Net Zero Strategy, released in October 2021, aims to capture up to 58 million tonnes of CO2 from the burning of biomass and piping it under the North Sea.

But to create this much carbon, a whopping 32,534,939 tonnes of wood pellets would need to be burned every year, according to a report by The Telegraph — the equivalent of 119,834,572 trees.

The UK plan assumes trees are carbon neutral, though some of these forests are shipped from America, and probably not via sailing ships. Who can forget how in 2015 Drax, Britain’s biggest power station, received more than £450 million in subsidies for burning biomass, which was mostly American wood pellets. Who also can forget the remarkable coincidence that Chris Huhne, former UK parliamentarian who poured millions of UK tax money into biomass, later got a job directing a company called Zikka Biomass. He did spend time in jail, but that was for lying about speeding tickets.

To balance the UK carbon books some extra CO2 now has to be stuffed under the North Sea in a carbon capture project called BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage).  Not only will it be obscenely expensive, and serve no purpose, but no one will know until years later whether the carbon obediently stayed there.

Ponder that the Greens say that Net Zero will prevent forest fires, and so we arrive at a point where The Science apparently says we have to incinerate 120 million trees a year to stop forests burning. Witches never had it this easy.

The UK Government says that 120 million trees is not a number they can use in a screenplay or something like that:

Speaking to The Telegraph, a spokesman for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Beis) said that the plans are not final, and that they ‘do not recognise this characterisation’ of the number of trees being burnt.

Presumably the trees would not identify as “burnt” either.

9.7 out of 10 based on 82 ratings

268 comments to UK to save world by burning 120 million trees a year and stuffing some under the North Sea

  • #
    Peter+Qualey

    What can I say
    1 we lost the climate wars and enviromarxists prevailed by capturing the intellectually challenged and virtue signallers
    2 we are lead (I use the term loosely) by morons and rapacious profiteers
    3 for God’s sake Do Not Follow Our Example
    4 the only good news is that Bunter & co are TOAST in a little under 600 days

    370

    • #
    • #
      Maptram

      “we are lead (I use the term loosely) by morons and rapacious profiteers”

      A prime example is Australia’s energy minister. Yesterday, while he was talking about the current Eastern Australia electricity problems, he said the wind and sun don’t send us a bill.

      310

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        But M,
        They don’t need to send a bill to our pollies who just send them our money.
        Cheers
        Dave B

        70

      • #
        John+PAK

        Maptram, I guess I started watching the same segment on “our” ABC but I had to turn it off. The man is a complete [email protected]#$?. What hope is there for Australia ? Surely we should have an electrical engineer making these critical decisions.
        The upside is that one of our ageing coal units is surely about to break down and my son at Mt Piper, NSW, says we’ll then have rolling black-outs until a new unit is constructed. That could be five years. A lot changes in politics during that time-frame.

        10

    • #
      FrankH

      4 the only good news is that Bunter & co are TOAST in a little under 600 days

      The only problem with replacing “Bunter &co” is that the overwhelmingly most likely replacement is Starmer & co. The least worst part of that option is that Starmer & co might just be a touch more conservative.

      40

  • #
    John Hultquist

    I wonder if this can be explained to the Queen?

    I know I’m having trouble with it.

    150

    • #
      beowulf

      You need to explain it to the interfering King Charles and his eldest son, very very slowly using only monosyllabic words. You may even need to draw pictures. I’m sure they’ll be cheering this nonsense, after all we only have (insert number here) days to save the planet.

      280

    • #
      Ian

      “I wonder if this can be explained to the Queen?”

      I’m not sure of what it is that is causing you to wonder? Is it the burning of 120 million trees as is stated by the headline here? If so you should be aware that the headline here is not the same as that the Queen might read in the Daily Mail although her reading the Daily Mail is something that is extremely unlikely to happen.

      The headline in the Daily Mail is

      “Government’s plan to reach ‘net zero’ by 2050 by removing carbon from the atmosphere relies on BURNING the equivalent of 120 million trees a year just to ‘balance the books’, report claims”.

      The headline here is

      “UK to save world by burning 120 million trees a year and stuffing some under the North Sea”

      As is apparent the subtle difference in the two headlines gives the casual reader a completely different impression of what is planned.

      Far from fellng and burning 120 million trees to capture the CO2 emitted the plan is to use biomass in conjunction with other approaches. Biomass, as I’m sure you and the Queen are aware, is derived from many sources most of which are the residues left after using timber for a variety of purposes.

      You could, if you so wish, read the UK Government’s explanation of their plan but I do appreciate that time, amongst other reasons, often prevents visiting the source material. But perhaps you the Queen will be able to do so and can see how the hyperbole used by the media and other sources can distort reality.

      https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1033990/net-zero-strategy-beis.pdf

      033

      • #
        b.nice

        “the equivalent of 120 million trees a year”

        I wonder what that is in terms of coal.

        150

        • #
          Ian

          “the equivalent of 120 million trees a year”

          I wonder what that is in terms of coal.

          Who can possibly tell? Depends on size and type of tree and the local conditions.

          013

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        So Drax (in Yorkshire) won’t be importing wood chips from 200 year old forests in the USA?
        In order to generate electricity with only a 32-33% increase in CO2 emissions?

        190

        • #
          Ian

          “So Drax (in Yorkshire) won’t be importing wood chips from 200 year old forests in the USA?”

          Possibly not as Drax is currently importing from Estonia

          110

          • #
            another ian

            “n order to generate electricity with only a 32-33% increase in CO2 emissions??

            70

          • #
            R.B.

            They still import mostly from the USA. The little that they obtained from Estonia and Latvia is already blamed for a catastrophe by Green groups.

            Can you stop the childish stunt of not debating but pretending that the person doesn’t know better than you?

            170

            • #
              b.nice

              ” but pretending that the person doesn’t know better than you”

              That’s unfair.. his ego is all he has ! Be kinder 😉

              60

          • #
            b.nice

            “Drax is currently importing from Estonia”

            Yep, easier to pretend there is no environmental damage in Estonia.

            And no they still rape US for some 60% of their tree wood pellets.

            70

      • #
        R.B.

        Biomass is obtained from many sources, but most is from cutting down trees. Thinning of forest to allow some trees to grow bigger is the best you can claim for this, but green groups contest the company’s claims. The equivalent of 120 million trees will probably be many more, smaller trees.

        50

    • #

      The death of Prince Philip means the Queen is unrestrained from saying moronic bullshit about Climate Change. Prince Philip wrote to Christopher Booker to say that he had withdrawn from the WWF after it switched to relentless campaigning against global warming: https://the-pipeline.org/prince-philip/

      110

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Thank you, I always believed that the Duke of Edinburgh thought that those who believed in CAGW , including his idiot son, were fools.

        120

      • #
        watersider

        Phil The Greek (RIP),as us old sailors called him, also said he wished to return as a virus to decimate the ‘excess’world population.
        Strange that?

        00

  • #
    David Maddison

    With carbon capture and storage projects, I’ve never understood how their proponents think they can store the CO2 for all time without leakage.

    Plus compressing and pumping the gas requires a huge amount of energy.

    And does not anyone know about the consequence of a concentrated discharge of CO2 into the environment such as happened in the natural event of Lake Nyos disaster in Africa in 1986?

    340

    • #
      RicDre

      They should ship all of their CO2 to southern France so that it can be pumped under the Vergèze spring, then any leaks will just become part of the Perrier water bottled from that spring.

      300

      • #
        David Maddison

        That would be hilarious.

        And the Greens would think it was a wonderful idea, especially as they are large consumers of expensive mineral waters.

        191

        • #
          Saighdear

          aren’t they just – be it in lightweight Plastic or heavy glass bottles. We at home ( and do without when away for the day ) take a drink from the tap or cupped hands from the Hill burn. occasionally there is an outflow from the fields into a ditch with a clear fall out – just as good.
          Have heard of the old shepherd living high up in the hills and getting his water piped from a stream, only to find a dead Staggie or sheep soaking in the pool above it. Yorkshire’s Best was never the same thereafter!

          180

          • #
            Lawrie

            By the time the good folk of Adelaide get their drinking water from the lower end of the Murray River it is calculated that it has passed through 300 sets of kidneys. I suspect they don’t count native wildlife or the many cattle and sheep who urinate and defecate as they drink from a stream. It seems the latter is caused by the reaction to cool water and the sheer joy of having a good ****.

            160

            • #
              wal1957

              I remember fishing for trout as a kid. We all drank water from the stream.
              Occasionally after taking a drink you would look up to find cattle in the stream doing their business.
              Drinking water never tasted so damn good.

              120

              • #
                GlenM

                Trout,Rabbit with watercress and blackberry plus Rosehip and stinging nettles. Get a nice summer dinner in the high country of the Northern Tablelands.

                40

      • #

        Government policy could possibly cause Fizzy Seawater to revitalise Scarborough’s Spa Waters.

        70

    • #
      Murray Shaw

      Should’nt have to pump it, CO2 being the heaviest (major, if you can call 400ppm major) gas in the atmosphere, it settles out at ground level and then runs down to the sea much as water does.
      Nature made it this way so as the plants and trees could access it, so that they could do their job of synthesising it to provide the Oxygen that we need and sequestering the Carbon, adding growth to the trees and plants so that we have building materials and food.
      Ain’t Nature wonderfull!

      180

      • #
        Maptram

        Perhaps there is a difference between CO2 emitted at or near ground level and easily accessible to the plants, and the CO2 emitted a few kilometres in the atmosphere by all the elites (and anyone else who travels by air) while they fly round the world for all sorts of reasons.

        80

        • #
          Saighdear

          Isn’t Nature wonderful ( as a Smarmy Councillor turned around to address me at a local Meeting) . well Indeed Murray Shaw under still air condns, and as particles in a river settle out too. Any research been done on this ? Looks like a good Gravy train to link up. and Maptram, how long for the particles to land along with all the claptrap over contrails ?
          Huh, maybe that’s how folk at sea ( Rigs n Boats) get Covid, then , eh ?

          20

      • #
        MP

        Yeah, but nahh.

        10

      • #

        Not quite right Murray, heavier than air gases will disperse and mix quickly if in the open. LPG (propane 44 and butane 58 mole weight) is heavier than air but will disperse if you do the right thing. A plumber fixing a gas bottle supplying gas to the hot water heater got it wrong when relighting the heater and caused a big explosion which would have blinded him if he had not been wearing glasses. He did not follow the instructions on the heater for lighting it 1/ turn the gas off and make sure there is no gas smell 2/ Turn it to pilot a hold the knob down 3/ press the press the ignition button until it lights the pilot 4/ hold the pilot light knob down for 30 sec and then release knob. 5/ if pilot goes out start at 1/. The plumber (supposed to be gas qualified) did not do 1/ went to 2/ and then 3/ -bang it blew with top vent blown off and a flame into his face.
        With LPG, LNG and natural gas just take care to follow instructions. Mercaptans are added to gases so you can smell any leakage.
        CO2 is not a dangerous gas (does not burn and does cause heating in the atmosphere) and has been tolerated in Submarines to 30,000 ppm (3%)

        40

      • #
        David Maddison

        The following article is written from a warmist perspective but is interesting because it gives some background to atmospheric CO2 measurements which became known as the Keeling Curve.

        https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/2013/04/03/the-history-of-the-keeling-curve/

        20

    • #
      KP

      “Plus compressing and pumping the gas requires a huge amount of energy.”

      That’s what the electricity they generate from burning the trees is for…

      Why don’t they just dump the biomass at the bottom of the ocean if they are so keen on polluting the North Sea? I’m sure they will find out that CO2 is in saturation at that pressure and temperature, and it will all float to the surface and evaporate. They’re about to stick a spanner in the works of a nicely balanced CO2 equilibrium.

      30

  • #
    Jojodogfacedboy

    Our politicians in Canada never included the millions of acres.
    Must have forgotten they ever existed.
    https://www.blacklocks.ca/overlooked-36-million-acres/

    Now about those endangered species that are not been counted in as well.

    Getting out my abacus to start counting…10 trillion,200 thousand,100 hundred and 11…
    Oh coffee…oh no, I’d forgotten where I was…
    One, two, three…

    70

    • #
      Jojodogfacedboy

      Trees, you’ve really never tried going through the Canadian wilderness bush. It’s so dense and thick in a multitude of foliage and trees.
      Our forest fires can consume more trees in numbers than what we could ever manufacture.
      It’s so dense and self replicating.

      200

    • #
      Earl

      So their equation for return on federal planting projects is totally out given they wont have factored in the existing contribution of 36 million acres of carbon breathing trees. Hopefully when they go back to rework these figures they might also “discover” how during respiration trees (as with all plants) give off carbon and that with every leaf that drops and decays on the forest floor all the carbon it stores leaks out into the air.

      50

  • #

    There is a misconception here. All the trees involved have been personally inspected by green experts and all have already died.

    They are chopped down with axes and transported by donkey carts to the river where they are floated down to the port. They are loaded on board sailing ships and on arrival innthe uk green volunteers personally unload each tree then use beavers to reduce the logs to wood chips.

    The wood chips are transported in canoes to Drax where they are burnt. I understand the co2 is then piped into balloons and walked into the big caverns under the north sea.

    as can be seen this is a very green and very sound enterprise

    620

    • #
      James Murphy

      Dear sir,
      Are the axes made from metaL, if so, it’s unacceptable, they need to be from sustainable flint or chert sources… and if you decide that they need handles, they had better not be affixed with any animal products like leather or glue. Also unhappy at the thought of donkeys and beavers being exploited. Please reconsider, and use only white men as expendable labour.
      signed –
      A Green voter pretending to be an environmentalist

      370

      • #
        Earl

        Dear Sir,
        This is to confirm our verbal agreement regarding the selection, induction, training and ongoing mental support of the volunteers selected for the tree inspection phase requirements of this project. While the selection and induction fees are industry standard at GPB100 per candidate (whether selected or not) the training and ongoing support minimum costs equate to GPB25,000 per selected candidate. This cost covers transportation/housing to and at a purpose built simulation forestry site to ensure that candidates properly role play the job and are exposed to the actual emotional trauma of working with healthy trees while at the same time having to manage the knowledge of the tree’s pending fate. We envisage a candidate/psychologist ratio of 5-1 for this orientation/training stage which will improve to an ongoing 10-1 ratio post training. The candidate’s first 2 psychologist visits post-graduation are also included in this price. A full specification will be delivered to your office by the end of the week for inclusion in your submission to government for the necessary grants to cover this aspect of the initiative. We very much look forward to working with your company as a sub-contractor.

        160

    • #
      John B

      With the Greta seal of approval.

      40

  • #

    58 million tonnes of co2 is very trivial compared to the amount of co2 released each year by nature and man.

    181

  • #
    James Murphy

    According to the paper below, global wood pellet production in 2017 was about 31 million tonnes. the UK alone now wants to burn more than this… but where will it come from?

    “Analysis of wood pellet production in Latvia”: Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference “ECONOMIC SCIENCE FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT; No 51
    https://llufb.llu.lv/conference/economic_science_rural/2019/Latvia_ESRD_51_2019-168-176.pdf

    I haven’t looked for wood pellet production since 2017, or how much of that global supply is used by the UK, but perhaps we will need to be razing forests everywhere to meet UK demand?

    100

  • #

    Britain should get their pellets from Germany, whose climate alarmists who want to cut down centuries old forests to make room for windmills. I’m sure the Germans would give them good deal so they can spin the transactions as offsetting their own future emissions. Of course, some zero tolerance nutjob will worry about trainloads of ‘highly flammable’ wood pellets catching fire.

    220

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      About 3 years ago Russia was exporting 1.5 million tons of wood chips (or pellets?) into the EU. One million in bulk and the rest packed in plastic bags (obviously for houshold use). I haven’t seen any sign that these have been banned: has anyone?.

      00

    • #
      Gerry, England

      They will have to be quick because the locals have been felling trees for firewood for a number of years now since German domestic electricity is about the most expensive in the western world.

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    The Chicomms burn at least 11 million tonnes of coal per day.

    Each tonne of coal burned produces 2420kg of CO2.

    So Chicomms produce 26.6 million tonnes of CO2 per day from coal alone.

    I don’t have the figures handy but I believe the volume of liquid CO2 produced from the coal from which it was derived is at least twice the volume of the original coal.

    Where are they going to store that?

    Oh, that’s right. Chinese “carbon” doesn’t count.

    240

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Likely to be just under 13 million tonnes per day now if their expansion plans worked.
      China used 4,240 million tons of coal last year, and boosted local mining by 500 million tons. Since then it has re-opened coal mines and boosted imports (indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Russia). India used 716 million tons and plans to expand use to 1300 -1500 million tons by 2030.
      Australia used less than 130 million tons of coal for this last year.

      80

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      Liquid CO2?

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Europe’s forests were originally saved by the exploitation of coal instead of wood at the time of the Industrial Revolution.

    320

    • #
      Ronin

      All those wooden sailing ships took a toll on forests.

      130

      • #
        Earl

        Luckily the new potential drain from the funeral industry has been covid by cardboard coffins

        50

      • #
        Chad

        Ronin
        June 20, 2022 at 8:54 am · Reply
        All those wooden sailing ships took a toll on forests.

        …. that is why most of the UKs “New Forrest” area on the south coast, is actually just grasslands !
        The trees were all used to build the warships for Nelson and the old sailing cutters.

        60

  • #

    All that’s needed is that only burn very old wood – that has long since been replaced. We could call it coal. Please tell a greenie.

    180

  • #
    David Maddison

    They can chop down the remaining Brazilian rainforest for their wood.

    It’s win-win.

    The Brazilians:

    1) Need the foreign exchange.
    2) Need the land to grow sugar cane to produce “green” ethanol as a gasoline substitute.
    3) Greens won’t complain because it’s “saving the planet”.
    4) They can also use the land to grow insects, the animal protein substitute the Elites want non-Elites to eat.

    Europe:

    5) Needs the wood to burn because “coal bad”.

    130

  • #
    Rafe+Champion

    Years ago I gave up hoping we had reached peak stupid. This takes us a bit closer:)

    450

    • #
      David Maddison

      Whenever I think they’ve reached peak stupid, they do something to prove that we’re not nearly there yet.

      260

      • #
        Ronin

        They (the green loons) see peak stupidity as a challenge, a chance to raise the bar a little.

        150

        • #
          b.nice

          Its sort of like a pole vault competition. !

          The stupidity bar is way up there… be they are sure they can do even better.

          120

          • #

            Gas comes from the North Sea, Carbon goes to the North Sea, Oil comes from the North Sea, Coal goes to Newcastle, Wood goes to Yorkshire, Electricity comes from Drax, A-tishoo! A-tishoo!, We all fall down the cooling tower.

            50

    • #
      b.nice

      Give an inch.. and they take a mile…(in terms of stupidity). !

      They can manage to go further.. ALWAYS !

      80

    • #
      Honk R Smith

      A dangerous amount of sequestered stupid is being released.
      We must act now.
      I think we only have five years left.

      120

      • #
        Honk R Smith

        Academia and government brain mass is precipitously declining.
        Children born today will never know math.

        90

    • #
      Vlad the Impaler

      As I’ve posted several times, one Dr. Einstein said:

      “Only two things are infinite: the Universe, and human stupidity; and I am not certain of the former.”

      We cannot reach peak stupid; we can only approach it asymptotically.

      Vlad

      110

    • #
      Annie

      No chance…stupidity is infinite.

      130

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    No comment needed; it’s all covered in this great post.

    It’s 2022 and we’ve reached the apex of civilization and can just sit back and look at the panorama on the horizon: there it is, Peak Stupidity.

    170

    • #
      ColA

      No Keith, I agree with Rafe, we are not even close.

      I can see Albo trying to convince Aussies “We MUST convert our Coal Stations for wood pallets to save the planet!”

      150

      • #
        OldOzzie

        Already being done‘You can’t jump off the pier’: Alinta CEO on power reforms

        “We’re now in 2022. What can possibly be constructed on scale to replace 60 per cent of the current energy supply in Victoria in three years?” said Mr Dimery.

        “If it’s out there … show me, tell me how you’re going to do it. Otherwise we’re gambling with energy reliability, energy security and energy pricing to consumers, and I don’t think that’s a wise bet.

        “You can’t just jump off the pier with this stuff, you’ve got to ease your way into it.”

        Mr Dimery was speaking just ahead of departing for Europe, where he will hold talks as part of Alinta’s investigations into switching Loy Yang B to run on biomass, rather than brown coal.

        He could not provide details of the plans due to confidentiality arrangements, but said government support would be needed to set up the supply chain for the biomass fuel.

        “The big issue to solve really will be supply chain: that would require government support. There’s no way we’d be able to economically establish a supply chain just for Loy Yang B in the Australian context.” he said.

        “But we’re happy to spend the money upfront to explore and investigate, and if there’s merit in it, then we would propose to work with both the state and federal government to move forward on a solution.”

        He said if the move to shift Loy Yang B to biomass was successful it would mean the generator could potentially bid in auctions for new low-emissions capacity if that system was introduced.

        60

        • #
          OldOzzie

          So you have a brown coal supply sitting next to your power plant

          (ie – The Fantastically Strange Origin of Most Coal on Earth – Instead, trunks and branches would fall on top of each other, and the weight of all that heavy wood would eventually compress those trees into peat and then, over time, into coal.)

          and you are going to move to biomass which you have to import from overseas and There’s no way we’d be able to economically establish a supply chain just for Loy Yang B in the Australian context.”

          Australia. with Coal/Oil/Gas/Uranium, the Dumbest Country in the World

          300

          • #
            David Maddison

            It would be a bizarre situation if or when freshly cut trees are burned in Loy Yang B when it is literally built on top of a 70m/200ft (approx.) thick deposit of old trees in the form of lignite.

            You can even see the remains of old trees in this 1948 video about another power station in the area.

            https://youtu.be/eWXFnVT5Wj0

            60

            • #

              Says it all David

              This 1948 video should be sufficient to expose forever the deceit and stupidity of asserting that biomass is a sustainable, carbon friendly fuel when it is nothing more than the start of the a natural process that produces all coal on earth. I learned that in 1948 when I was in grade 8. Nothing’s changed except for human stupidity.

              50

          • #
            KP

            ” There’s no way we’d be able to economically establish a supply chain just for Loy Yang B in the Australian context.”

            Just another scam to get his hands in the taxpayer’s pockets. It could be RNA vaccines or electric cars, anything will do if you can convince some power-hungry politician you can make him richer with your scheme.

            If it doesn’t stack up economically in the private sector, it shouldn’t be touched!

            30

        • #
          Ronin

          Aren’t they already burning wood, old brown wood.

          90

  • #
    Penguinite

    Well, that’s one way to prevent forest fires! Burn trees in an incinerator as “Bio Mass”. Just another Government misinformation tactic.

    190

    • #
      Annie

      Combine it with proper fire hazard reduction in the forests and use that biomass in the power generators!

      10

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    The majority of biomass sourced from the UK comes from biogenic wastes and residue resources (eg in the transport sector, where wastes and residues already account for more than two thirds of the stocks used to produce renewable fuel supplies). Such wastes are expected to continue to play a key role moving forward.

    Stocks can be expected to grow in the short term, as initiatives such as mandatory obligations on local councils to collect food waste are introduced. In the longer term, however, waste supplies may reduce as a consequence of wider waste reduction efforts.

    This is where the ‘ on burning the equivalent of almost 120 million trees’ is designed to mislead, as neither the daily Mail or the telegraph actually quote the real sources of the biomass which is to be used as fuel.

    Devil is in the detail, as always

    227

  • #
    Sambar

    I am reasonably certain I heard our minister for energy, Chris Bowen, also claim that part of the Australian solution is “biomass”. I wondered where that would come from given the rules on native timber utilisation. Plantation timbers cannot even supply the building requirements for this country, so rape and pillage somewhere else I guess.

    160

    • #
      David Maddison

      One of the Australian “energy” companies was talking about using “biomass”, i.e. trees, sourced from somewhere in Europe and was in “confidential negotations” (Eastern Europe but I’d say more likely Ukraine or Russia), to burn in their power stations.

      We could also chop down NZ or PNG forests to burn them here…

      140

    • #
      Ronin

      I have some lawn clippings I could donate.

      130

    • #
      b.nice

      At the moment, basic building timber is becoming hard to get.

      Where do they think they will get all this wood to burn.

      ..maybe Haiti ?

      100

    • #
      ozfred

      I wonder when the “green politicians” will note the amount of biomass that is required to be burned “in place” following the harvest of a blue gum plantation….
      At the very least the bigger pieces would make hard wood inputs to local wood heaters….
      Given proximity of such plantations to urban (delicate atmosphere) centers.

      50

    • #
      James Murphy

      Burning rubbish at high temperatures in specifically designed cogeneration plants – as is done in some parts of the world, has been frowned upon by the Greens, with the usual scare campaigns being run… yet “biomass” is ok?

      I’d prefer waste be burned like this, and some use made from it, rather than go straight to landfill, but obviously I’m an environmental vandal…

      60

  • #
    Neville

    Peak stupid seems to be a revolving door and every day we see another example pop out of the woodwork.
    Don’t forget that the UK emits about 1% of global Human emissions of co2 and Aussies about 0.1% more than the UK.
    Oh the horror of it all, yet China, India and other developing countries are currently building hundreds of new Coal power stns and will continue to do so for a very long time.
    So how many more peak stupids will we see in the coming decades and will it ever end? Your guess is as good as mine.

    130

  • #
    Jack01

    The “Net zero” ideology is such extreme hypocrisy – the concept of “decarbonizing the economy” is the stupidest term every invented. It’s all a smokescreen for their real agenda to destroy the West.

    They want to “save the forests” but have to burn countless trees.

    They want to “stop mining” yet have to mine virtually every morsel of lithium, cobalt, and Neodymium from this planet to attempt to get their grid battery, electric car and wind targets. Imagine the complete destruction of huge areas of land required to actually mine this much, not to mention the highly toxic, energy intensive and slave labour dependent extraction process.

    They want to “save the ecosystems” yet have to clear unspeakable amounts of land to shove their beloved windmills and solar panels and batteries.

    Every single thing they are doing to get to “net zero” will completely annihilate the earth.

    200

  • #
    OldOzzie

    AFR Web Page this morning

    – Tension over energy crisis plan as ESB backs coal and gas back-up

    The Energy Security Board warns that Victoria in particular faces “renewable drought” blackouts without a well-functioning “capacity mechanism”.

    – Capacity mechanism will speed up net zero transition: ESB chairwoman

    – The AFR View: Capacity mechanism must avoid another energy crisis

    – Energy aid package for business on crisis agenda

    – NSW Santos gas project has been waiting eight years

    – New tripwire for power politics

    80

  • #
    Zane

    Energy policy is now decided by the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland.

    90

  • #
    OldOzzie

    HOW REALITY INTRUDES

    Headline from January: Germany Shuts down half of it’s 6 remaining Nuclear Plants

    Headline today:

    In a U-turn for a leader of the environmentalist Green Party, which has campaigned to reduce fossil-fuel use, Mr. Habeck said the government would empower utility companies to extend the use of coal-fired power plants.

    This would ensure that Germany has an alternative source of energy but would further delay the country’s efforts to slash carbon emissions.

    “This is bitter,” Mr. Habeck said of the need to rely on coal. “But in this situation, it is necessary to reduce gas consumption. Gas stores must be full by winter. That has the highest priority.”

    Coming sooner or later to the United States I expect.

    Gee—if only there was a way the United States might help supply Europe with more natural gas. Maybe some new pipelines to the east coast?

    80

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Mining Firms’ Cautious Spending Threatens Shift to Green Energy

    Rio Tinto, BHP and other big miners are giving priority to investor payouts instead of funding for new projects

    Metals prices are up, but mining companies aren’t spending. Their restraint could keep supplies tight and magnify shortages of raw materials such as copper and zinc that are critical for the transition away from fossil fuels.

    Project spending by 10 large mining companies, including Rio Tinto PLC, RIO -5.14% BHP Group Ltd. and Glencore PLC, GLNCY -1.05% is expected to stay at roughly $40 billion this year and next year, according to figures compiled by Bank of America Corp. That would put capital expenditures well below a 2012 peak close to $80 billion, the bank’s figures show.

    Much like the oil industry, mining companies are responding to pressure from investors to give priority to dividends and share buybacks, rather than heavy spending. A recent push to limit the sector’s environmental damage also pinched spending.

    The low expenditures set the stage for the recent rally in copper and iron ore, the main ingredient in steel. Both materials are up more than 40% in the past two years, driving up costs for solar panels, wind turbines and batteries. The trend threatens to hamper the shift to renewables, which is driving rising demand for these metals.

    Producers have taken some steps to increase the supply of specialty materials such as lithium and cobalt that are crucial ingredients in batteries, but not enough to fill expected shortages.

    Despite seeing some of their highest profits in a decade, many mining executives are cautious because of rising costs for fuel and equipment, higher interest rates and challenges developing deposits in emerging markets that are seeking a greater share of industry earnings.

    100

  • #
    Ronin

    The inmates really are ruling the asylum.

    90

  • #
    Tarquin+Wombat-Carruthers

    For several decades we have been subjected to endless propaganda based on climate computer models of dubious merit, from whose “results” politicians of all hues commit us to wind and solar “solutions”. Thus we have sent billions of dollars to China for the purchase of their wind turbines and solar panels, yet we now face power outages despite that commitment. Imagine if we had instead invested some, or all, of that in high-efficiency low-emissions coal-fired power, thus keeping our money in-country; gas, which we have in abundance; or nuclear. We’d still have some assets available for schools, hospitals and infrastructure. Ah, but we are meeting our sacred commitment to the Kyoto and Paris agreements, despite being one of the few nations to do so, while much bigger emitters claim developing nation status. Meanwhile, we concern ourselves with more-important matters – preferred pronouns, the emerging kindergarten and primary school drag queen industry, $25 million flag poles and other follies. Where are our plans for the disposal of life-expired wind turbines, solar panels, and the batteries for their energy storage, along with the batteries of electric-powered vehicles, whose combined toxicity dwarfs the CO2 issue? Many of these are ready for disposal now, and their numbers will be increasing rapidly in coming years. Is Matt Canavan the only politician with any awareness?

    170

    • #
      David Maddison

      I agree but I question the use of the term “high-efficiency low-emissions coal-fired power”.

      “Emissions”, as in CO2, are of no consequence. The use of that term just reinforces the false narrative that CO2 is the problem.

      The only reason one should use supercritical and ultra-supercritical coal plant is because it results in lower fuel costs.

      160

      • #
        b.nice

        They do help reduce some of the real pollutants, though. !

        Particularly when used with the proper filters etc.

        All for efficiency.. but judging something on CO2 emission is just ignorance.

        Increased atmospheric CO2 is only beneficial to the planet, there is no down side.

        110

    • #
      Ronin

      As a nation, we seem to be blindly stumbling towards a mirage on the far horizon, unsure of where we’re going or how to get there.
      We need a pause on the question of CO2, global warming predictions are predicated on computer simulations known as ‘models’, notoriously unreliable, eerily similar to the preferred method of carbon fuel replacement.

      60

      • #
        Zane

        It’s all about placating inner-city soy lattecino sipping greens with purple hair. Because, you see, if we didn’t close our old-fashioned coal generators and replace them with Chinese wind turbines they might throw a hissy fit and maybe march from Fitzroy St to parliament and wave some banners or set fire to their dreadlocks or something. And that would be on the 6pm news and the government would be embarrassed.

        130

    • #
      Ross

      You mentioned Matt Canavan. I’m still not fully convinced on this bloke. At the moment he’s the everywhere man. Making lots of statements about the importance of coal and doing lots of “I told you so”. Yet, when he was in government he was relatively silent. He made some occasional comments about coal etc but just enough not to get him disciplined or kicked out of the LNP. Last week he even tweeted in support of Malcolm Turnbull who apparently stated back in 2017 that Australia should build a HELE coal fired generator. He doesn’t appear to have the courage of George Christensen or even Craig Kelly. But, he is a politician after all, so maybe I am expecting too much.

      81

  • #
    David Maddison

    I doubt there is any “waste” biomass anywhere.

    If it has a use, capitalism will ensure it is not wasted.

    So biomass has to come at the expense of something else. E.g. waste food might be fed to animals or made into fertiliser for plants. Today, even landfill sites are capped to capture the methane produced by decomposition. Even small branches and sawdust from timber processing are used for products or burned for fuel to power the sawmill.

    So, the biomass will come from competition for existing utilisation, or, it means chopping down forests.

    “Biomass” is the new politically correct name for forest trees burned in power stations.

    If the biomass will not come from forests, then where will it come from that is not already utilised?

    71

    • #
      b.nice

      Greenies even fight against the cutting down of plantation timbers.. just because.. (unless to make way for wind turdines)

      .. how is anyone meant to grow timber to replace what is used in this ludicrous, pointless project.

      70

    • #
      Ronin

      The EU, World Bank and the CCP have a mechanism whereby they lend $$$$ for poor countries infrastructure, you know, a dam here, a highway there.
      Then after a while when said poor country defaults on repayments because of corruption and overspending, the lender requires them to sign over tracts of forestry, fishing rights, minerals etc, there’s your ‘new’ supply of firewood.

      70

  • #

    Sick, stupid or evil. Some decision makers must know that carbon dioxide has no significant warming effect in atmosphere. Warming from 1974 to 2016 was the most recent warming phase of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) – nothing to do with carbon dioxide or humans trying to stay warm. A cooling phase of AMO started and it will cool until c.a. 2040 whether we burn coal (wood or oil) or not.

    131

  • #
    Chris

    I’m not exactly sure what carbon capture means. But if they stuff carbon into an anaerobic environment they will produce methane. It has been recently discovered that fjords produce one third again of the amount of methane that the oceans produce.

    30

    • #
      Ross

      Carbon capture is the impossible idea of stuffing a gas back down the small hole it used to live in, when it was a rock and before it met O2 and grew threefold in weight and 2,100 times in volume. Calculating the expansion of coal to CO2: 1 tonne of Coal generates 2.8 tonnes of CO2. 1 tonne coal fills 0.74m3. 1 tonne of CO2 fills 556m3. Therefore, 1 tonne of coal expands from 0.74 to 1560m3. or about 2100 times. Most of what is being sequestered is oxygen, not carbon.

      60

      • #
        Chris

        Thank you Ross for those figures. That was along the lines that I was thinking but it made no sense , so I presumed I was missing something . Nothing much has made sense
        lately.

        20

    • #
      Robber

      Nature already has a very efficient system for “carbon capture” – plants.

      70

  • #
    David Maddison

    If you want to know how propaganda works, look at the stock Getty Images of the Loy Yang B power station.

    https://www.gettyimages.com.au/photos/loy-yang-power-station

    Nearly all of them feature water condensation from the cooling towers but the average ignorant person thinks it’s pollution.

    A couple of photos show a whiff of smoke from the smoke stacks but this visible smoke typically only occurs at start-up.

    71

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s a chart that most of us probably haven’t seen before and it’s the relative change in co2 per per capita per country or the world etc since 1800.
    I’ve selected a few countries in the EU and also the EU 28. But China’s relative change is the stand out and also the poorer countries etc.
    And today China’s co2 emissions per capita are higher than the EU and much higher than the UK or France.
    On this chart Australia’s co2 per capita ( relative change) is just a straight line on the bottom of the chart.
    Just hold your mouse on the country in question on the right to highlight that country’s trend over time.

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&stackMode=relative&country=OWID_WRL~USA~GBR~CHN~IND~AUS~European+Union+%2828%29~DEU~Upper-middle-income+countries~Low-income+countries~Lower-middle-income+countries

    70

    • #

      Great graph Neville, thanks. Note that Land-Use-Change is not included though. That’s deforestation and reforestation — It’s the largest source of emissions reduction in Australia and per capita, ours have reduced by an astonishing 46% or something like that since 1990.

      If CO2 matters, and the point of this is to “help the environment” why are trees not taken seriously? Why is land use change so easily excluded…

      Obviously, it doesn’t fit the narrative. Doesn’t help renewable companies get subsidies and doesn’t help the bankers sell carbon credits.

      100

  • #
    Philip

    When I went and did a Natural Resources degree in 1990 the idea they taught us was that coal saved the whales and trees. Science seems to have changed and now we burn trees to save the coal. I wonder if whales will ever be considered neutral carbon ?

    All of us students back then were blossoming greenies, wanting to hear that this global warming stuff we’d heard a thing or two about was serious stuff, yet a geology lecture explained by mathematics of sinks and sources and some very large numbers as to how our theory was a load of simplistic nonsense. He gave his talk in 15 minutes at the start of a lecture in response to some chatter he heard in the front row, nothing serious enough that he’d offer crucial lecture time too.

    I’d like to return to those classrooms now and see what they say.

    140

    • #
      Ross

      Some of the best climate realists are geologists. Bob Carter being one of the best.

      100

    • #

      Sure, coal saved he whales and the trees which is great. It doesn’t mean that we owe coal something nor does it mean that not using coal will imperil trees or whales or anything.

      213

      • #
        b.nice

        Not using coal will imperil the whole of society.

        You know, that thing you refuse to be part of. !

        And yes, the whole of modern society owns it origins and continued survival to coal and gas.

        You would have to be incredibly naive and chronically uninformed if you didn’t realise that.

        … but that’s you!

        70

      • #
        MP

        You save animals by eating them, worked with cattle, sheep, chickens, tried, tested and proven. The Japanese saved the whale!

        41

  • #
    b.nice

    OT a bit.. Message from Origin Energy

    https://i.ibb.co/V9R73NF/Electricity-increase.jpg

    Expected. 🙁

    60

  • #
    Ross

    In terms of carbon capture and sequestration here would be the simple fix for our coal generators. Lets just build big pipes protruding out of the top of the smokestacks down into the ground. Paint them white with a big CO2 symbol in green and a larger arrow pointing down into the ground. Probably just as effective as installing CO2 scrubbers and pumps, but way more persuasive because of the visual aspect. Bit like a face mask for power generators.

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    CO2 produced by power stations is already sequested.

    It goes back into the carbon cycle and gets turned into plant material, some of which then gets converted into animals. Some of the animals are very tasty and we eat them.

    90

  • #
    MP

    Are we there yet, yeah I think we are.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUzMVRfqgjs

    You will love this Peter, more top down control. PCA (personal carbon allowance, how high can you jump.

    70

  • #
    Zane

    Well, EnergyAustralia for one has released their new electricity rates to apply from 10 June 2022 in a letter to their Victorian customers, including yours truly.

    And their rates stay exactly the same as before: a daily supply charge of $1.291796 (gotta love the six decimal places) and a peak usage charge of $0.2239996 per kWh.

    A further discount of 6% is applied to the total bill under the Balance plan, because of being the generous souls they are.

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    Never say to a Leftist “how stupid can you get”.

    They see it as a challenge.

    100

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    Basing our future energy requirements the ‘renewables’ of wind, sunshine, carbon sequestration and other fanciful notions is the view of the elites and globalists through rose coloured glasses. Their scientifically untenable policies wilfully ignore the fact that the affordability and reliability of these grandiose schemes is making the supply of energy a luxury item which the poor cannot afford and which most of us struggle to keep up with and exacerbated by the ever increasing cost of energy due to the knock-on effect of rising costs of energy to industry.

    50

  • #
    Ross+P

    Neil Oliver in his latest video comment refers to a recent IPCC report saying the world has not warmed in the latest 15 years. Obviously no MSM coveragae or comment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkt78vsNMtM

    80

    • #
      MP

      “We are being groomed, not for going green but for going without.”

      50

    • #

      They called it the pause until the pause was censored by the media. Others called it a peak. A Global Warming Hale Magnetic Cycle to 1996, followed by a Paused Hale Magnetic Cycle ending in 2019, followed by a Cooling Hale Magnetic Cycle. Hale Magnetic Cycles shorter than 22 years cause Global warming, Hale Magnetic Cycles longer than 22 years cause Global Cooling. Short Hale Magnetic Solar Cycles have higher Solar Magnetic activity due to the increase in the speed of plasma within the Sun.

      Stupid people think man made carbon dioxide causes the climate to change. But I post intelligent articles about how Venus (with millions of times more carbon dioxide than man made emissions) is used to prove that its molar mass, not its carbon dioxide, determines the atmospheric temperature on Venus: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/05/02/ned-nikolov-karl-zeller-exact-calculations-of-climate-sensitivities-reveal-the-true-cause-of-recent-warming/

      80

      • #
        Ross

        Been a big fan of Ned Nikolov for years. Also has very good scientific commentary on health subjects.

        40

    • #
      David Maddison

      Very good. But it’s got to the point that the Left Elites don’t even care if these truths are known by the few rational thinkers left, because they know that a vast majority of the masses neither understand or care.

      80

  • #
    David Maddison

    Apologies if off-topic but some rare good news.

    A candidate from the pro-freedom United Australia Party was just declared elected to the Federal Senate.

    His name is Ralph Babet.

    120

  • #
    ozfred

    What will the Australian green influencers do when the EU declares lithium a metal dangerous to human health?

    100

  • #
    DLK

    the ‘new carbon economy’, if i have understood it correctly,
    involves paying people to do pointless things for ridiculous amounts of money.

    110

    • #
      David Maddison

      Yes, the Elites get richer and the lower and middle classes get poorer.

      And it’s going to get FAR worse as you can see if you look at the Leftist agenda.

      With fully or substantially digital financial transactions giving traceability and trackability of everything including “luxury” foods like meat sugared foods, and anything regarded as non-essential. We know for certain that insect consumption is on the agenda for non-Elites. Transport fuels such as gasoline and diesel will be rationed, banned or rendered unaffordable by high taxes. Personal mobility will thus be restricted. There will be even higher levels of censorship and greater cooperation between social media and the Green-Industrial complex. And there will be much more.

      70

    • #
      another ian

      DLK

      “involves paying people to do pointless things for ridiculous amounts of money.”

      I saw that described the other day as “more stationary objects”

      40

  • #
    Ian

    Jo was it really necessary to leave equivalent out of your headline? Was it in error or was it deliberate so as to generate a “such hypocrisy by climate activists” response from the climate sceptics here?

    114

    • #

      I think you fond the answer.

      211

      • #
        b.nice

        “the answer.”

        Whatever gee’s little mind thinks it is.

        Ignore the fact that it all comes from trees.. that’s a good little boy !

        111

        • #

          If the UK government can seriously say they don’t recognize the characterization of 120 million trees then I can leave out “equivalent”. After all, it’ might well be 200 million little trees mightn’t it? When is a tree a tree? I’m being conservative.

          The UK government calls Wood fired Power stations “Biomass Generators”. Every thought about how that hides that Britain has gone back to chopping down trees to keep warm?

          191

          • #
            Ian

            “If the UK government can seriously say they don’t recognize the characterization of 120 million trees then I can leave out “equivalent”.

            “The UK government calls Wood fired Power stations “Biomass Generators”. Every thought about how that hides that Britain has gone back to chopping down trees to keep warm?

            Jeez I’d never have thought you’d hide behind the “Well he said d it first’ approach.

            So what? Do you have to follow suit? Ever heard of Tu Quoque?

            212

            • #
              b.nice

              You still haven’t answered how many trees is equivalent to 120 million trees.

              Still the ever-petty non-comments from you.

              Ever thought ?

              91

              • #
                Ian

                “You still haven’t answered how many trees is equivalent to 120 million trees.”

                What an incredibly stupid comment.. How many trees is equivalent to 120 million trees.

                Let me guess. I think it may well be 120 million trees you nong, to use one of your favourite epithets.

                02

              • #
                b.nice

                Thank you .. now stop you insipid “equivalence” nonsense, mindless drone.

                Makes you look incredibly stupid.

                20

        • #
          another ian

          Gee! Eh?

          “I think you fond the answer”

          “Definition of fond of

          1: having a liking for or love of (someone or something) : doing (something) a lot

          I’m fond of skiing.
          She grew quite fond of him.

          2: doing (something) a lot

          She’s fond of asking silly questions.”

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fond%20of

          71

    • #
      b.nice

      “equivalent “

      You mean coal ? What other fuel do you think they mean ?

      You know its all biomess from trees.. so what your quarrel.

      … or just more petty attempt at distraction ?

      90

      • #
        Ian

        The headlines in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph included the word equivalent so why did JoNova leave it out? To magnify the impact?

        012

        • #
          b.nice

          So answer the question..

          How many trees are equivalent to 120 million trees?

          Don’t be so petty and vapid. Or is that all you have left?

          81

          • #
            another ian

            SWAG answer – a bloody lot

            51

          • #
            Ian

            This is your second comment asking how many trees are equivalent to 120 million trees Can you not work it out for yourself. How many trees do you think are equivalent to 120 million trees? Have a guess why don’t you.

            You seem unable to digest even the most simple of statements such as this one from the Telegraph which is in the article. It states

            But to create this much carbon, a whopping 32,534,939 tonnes of wood pellets would need to be burned every year, according to a report by The Telegraph — the equivalent of 119,834,572 trees.

            It is tonnes of wood pellets not trees that are equivalent to 120 million trees.

            10

            • #
              b.nice

              Its a response to your silly “equivalence” hand-waving.

              Yes, 120 million trees is equivalent to the wood from 120 million trees.

              Glad you have finally figured it out.

              Now, go back to your self-preening !

              10

              • #
                Ian

                In 43.2.1.1 you said

                “So answer the question..

                “How many trees are equivalent to 120 million trees?”

                No mention of any wood there is there?

                To cover up your stupid stuff up you change to

                Yes, 120 million trees is equivalent to the wood from 120 million trees.

                But that s not the answer to the question you originally asked is it?

                So don’t try to weasel out by putting in the word wood and so changing your initial inane question

                00

  • #
    Grogery

    This could start a massive bitch-fight among greenies torn between whether to chain themselves to trees or not.

    50

  • #
    crakar24

    Has this already been mentioned? This will test the Labor/green/teal alliance

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-20/capacity-mechanism/101166480

    60

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I would suggest ending subsidies for wind and buying the lowest bid price first (and not increasing it).
      The games to get on the list when the bid price has nothing to do with what it costs, nor the expectation that they will be paid the highest price, and the reduced bid because a subsidy will go to some, would be replaced by realistic prices.
      No need to add subsidies on top of other subsidies.
      After all if renewables are really the cheapest they can’t lose.

      50

    • #
      el+gordo

      It must be alright if the Greens are against it.

      ‘Greens leader Adam Bandt said any scheme that served to keep coal and gas-fired generators running longer could not be supported.

      “Paying them to stay in the system longer is only going to prolong the problems, and also prolong the transition to renewables,” Mr Bandt said.

      60

  • #
    Gerard

    Recent studies show that burning trees results in more CO2 release than does burning coal.

    80

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Efficiency, efficiency. Black coal burns hotter than brown coal which burns hotter than peat. All due to the water content, so drying brown coal (or squeezing the water out**) makes it almost as good as (low grade) black coal. Peat has to be dried before it burns; I have a strong recollection of a hillside burning in Shetland, saw the smoke on the horizon when leaving Lerwick in the morning
      (9 a.m.) and driving into Scalloway (west coast after 3 p.m.) to find the fire still burning up the steep slope (about 2 thirds). It had been deliberately set (and approval given as the right to ‘collect peat’ is/was enforced). The hot air (& smoke) was blown up over the peat above the fire drying it enough to keep the fire on-going, but never getting out of control.

      **Banned in Victoriastan.

      90

    • #
      Honk R Smith

      I think the green argument is that trees are recently ‘sequestered’ carbon. Whereas coal carbon is past its’ use by date.
      (Remember the Earth of 1850 is the ideal, you need only watch BBC TV dramas to know this.)

      It’s one of their well thought out views of physics, chemistry and history.
      Like, ‘you can charge your EV overnight with your solar panel’.
      Or, ‘my vaccine only works if you’re vaccinated’.
      (Don’t forget to sanitize your groceries.)
      Or, ‘we will be safe when the glaciers are advancing’.
      Or, ‘slavery was invented by the Confederacy’.
      Or, the most recent and most scientific, ‘men get pregnant too’.

      80

  • #
    Scernus

    Carbon footprint of processing tree, shipping wood chips, processing CO2 output for storage = ????
    versus
    Carbon footprint of digging up aged biomass and processing output for storage = a whole lot less plus you still have trees to soak up CO2

    70

  • #
    b.nice

    At least Germany hasn’t gone down the biomess path

    Sensibly, BACK TO COAL

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/19/german-green-party-announces-a-return-to-coal/

    90

  • #
    Philip

    Been a while since there has been any wind in NSW

    50

  • #
    David Maddison

    All the governments of Western countries are now of a Leftist orientation and fully committed to a policy of energy starvation of the civilian population.

    In more rational times this would be regarded as a violation of human rights and even an act of war of the government against the people.

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    I think this whole “biomass” suffers the same delusion as wind and solar, that is, that the “fuel” is “free”.

    As I pointed out above, there is not likely to be any biomass that is otherwise unused. Virtually no biomass currently goes to waste, it all has a use. So if they burn trees or anything else in power stations, there will be a deficiency in an existing use. Plus the use of biomass depletes the soil which has to be improved with artificial fertiliser or appropriate crop rotation.

    And I again ask: where is there an example of a place where wind, solar or now biomass sourced power has resulted in lower consumer electricity bills?

    40

  • #
    David Maddison

    https://bylinetimes.com/2020/10/01/uk-drax-power-station-pillages-californian-forests/

    UK Power Station Pillages North Carolina Forests

    Stuart Spray
    1 October 2020

    According to research conducted by Biofuel Watch, 65% of the wood burned at Drax comes directly from the forests of America’s south-east. Wood pellets are produced at three mills owned by Drax and seven owned by Enviva, the world’s largest producer of wood pellets.

    The trees are cut down, turned into pellets and then shipped to the UK. Thirty-five thousand tonnes, roughly 800,000 trees, are delivered every day to the power station in North Yorkshire by train from ports in Liverpool, Hull and Immingham.

    SEE LINK FOR REST

    80

  • #
    crakar24

    Climate change causes droughts and lamina causes floods filling out damns that would otherwise now be empty, thus in turn shutting down snowy hydro.

    The actions if decades of poor policy is now bearing fruit

    30

  • #
    OldOzzie

    RENEWABLES ARE GOING NOWHERE

    The fundamental problem with wind and solar power is that they don’t work. Both generate electricity less than half the time, and this isn’t a question of improving technology, it is inherent in obsolete systems that depend on the weather. As a result, the ballyhooed “green revolution” has fizzled. The Germans, formerly committed to a “green” makeover, are starting to face reality, even if their politicians aren’t quite there yet:

    A paltry two percentage points increase in an entire decade: In 2020, only 12.6 percent of global energy demand was met by renewable energies. In 2009, the figure was 10.6 percent. This is the conclusion drawn by the think tank REN21 in a report presented by energy experts on Wednesday.

    According to the report, progress is being made in the expansion of power plants that produce renewable electricity, i.e. solar plants, wind turbines, hydroelectric power plants – but fossil capacities are not being reduced. Instead, energy demand continues to grow, eating up the renewables successes.

    A two percent increase in a decade, despite trillions of dollars invested, is hardly a “success.” Die Welt has more:

    The fact that the share of renewable energy is not growing is bad enough from a climate protection perspective. It is also sobering that the 12.6 percent share of eco-energy is largely attributable to the burning of biomass, i.e., to a type of energy generation that is the subject of much environmental criticism.

    “Biomass” is a joke. It largely consists of shipping millions of tons of low-quality trees from the American South to Europe, where they are burned. A great medieval technology.

    The second-largest share, 3.9 percent, comes from hydroelectric plants – such as large dams – which are also highly controversial among environmentalists. In the REN21 report, solar and wind power, which are the focus of attention in Germany, together with geothermal energy, are estimated to account for only 2.8 percent of global energy production and are subcategorized under ‘other’.

    After decades of hype and trillions in wasted ratepayer and taxpayer dollars, wind and solar can’t satisfy three percent of the world’s energy needs. Nor can they prevent the blackouts that are inexorably making they way toward our communities.

    80

  • #
    Hanrahan

    Hey Jo! Time for a new unthreaded. There are a few items of interest.

    Yours, Hanrahan.

    30

  • #
    KP

    Ah, stop worrying you lot! Our esteemed past-Chief Scientist has said all we need is pump storage and whole lot more solar and wind.

    The biggest load of crap I’ve read for a while, it makes me cringe to think he’s a “scientist”. The article that was linked on here a day or two back about how impossible it is to run a country on pump storage completely blew his ideas out of the water. No sites with enough head, no sites with enough area for top dams, & no sites with area for bottom dams.. Then he’s into hydrogen, so I figure he’s got a dollar each way somewhere in there.

    He’s just pissed that the Govt didn’t do exactly as he wanted them to in the Finkel Review..

    Like solar and wind, just not gonna work! We’re number one in the world for solar and its just screwing up the market.

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/this-energy-revolution-is-hard-really-hard-but-it-s-doable-20220619-p5aut4.html

    30

  • #
    Philip

    Electricity retail prices have not just gone up, how about a 400% increase ? I just received new rates notice from my supplier and off peak has gone from 11c to 45c. In fact there is no off peak, its the same a shoulder rate and peak has gone from 27 to 57c. That is an enormous rise.

    50

  • #
    Philip

    Relax folks, as economic crisis hits, Matt Keane our favourite green, has it all under control with some leftist style massive spending on, wait for it ……. childcare, just when you need it. Hurrah hurrah.

    IT was a very clever tactic to infiltrate centre right parties with green soft socialists and no one even noticed.

    50

  • #
    UK-Weather Lass

    Unfortunately the UK, like many other nations in the west, has nobody with a clue what to do anywhere near government, politicians, or even their ‘expert’ advisers. We are literally standing on natural gas of such sufficiency to provide energy for many, many decades and not just to the UK. But fracking is in the naughty corner and for no other reason than it makes the virtuous feel so much better about themselves (and of course the most virtuous are the ones who can invest in wind and solar with guaranteed returns, afford EVs, heat pumps, and several holidays abroad, all of which have absolutely no hope of helping to save a planet that really is not in any difficulty at all by any account).

    The madcap schemes continue only because anybody who might actually help to solve our energy problems has either been cancelled, threatened with being cancelled, or is already doing time in a local shock treatment centre (otherwise known as an asylum). It’s fair to say we are a long way up the creek and the argument in the sinking boat still goes on about what we could use as a paddle because no one can see the bloody paddle right under their feet …

    60

  • #
    DLK

    my plan – from some years ago – to launch the trees into outer space,
    is clearly FAR superior

    40

  • #
    CHRIS

    Science is no longer a part of Climate Change (or whatever you want to call it)… it is totally political, led by a bunch of ignorant politicians (Bowen etc etc etc). I’m just waiting for the teal/green camp to come up with another madcap idea like the Poms. Better still…let the intellectually challenged ferals of Blockade Australia start tree-hugging, and thus save their burning.

    30