Due to the general economic slowdown oil is no longer in such demand right now. This had resulted in a drop in the price of crude oil. Now OPEC want to restrict supply in the hope of driving prices back up.
Now I am not generally in favour of what the Green’s are. Their science often seems dubious, their policies ill thought out. Their motives anti progress, anti people. To the point where the mere fact that they may endorse something is enough to raise suspicions about it.
Never-the-less I do sometimes involuntarily find myself marching in parallel with them. Their dislike of oil is one of those occasions. Needless to say I am not demonising 4 wheel drive vehicles and their drivers, wanting to impose punitive taxation on air travel, or want to see Tata forced to stop selling cheap cars in India.
Still it would be nice to wean the world off carbon fuels. This is difficult as there is a massive existing technology and infrastructure. It is not like starting out from scratch.
The thing is, a standard car/truck, preferably made with a stainless steel engine parts and exhaust could run almost unmodified on hydrogen gas, producing nothing but water in the way of emissions. Zero Pollution.
Now Hydrogen can be ticklish stuff, but so can petrol. Surely it can not be beyond the wit of the worlds engineers to come up with a relatively 'safe' (as safe as petrol) means of storage, if only a really tough tank/bottle.
If it could be accomplished it would be an easy win in so many areas and has the potential to grant energy self sufficiency.
With sufficient power it would be possible to crack hydrogen from water.
So then, lots of power… atomic power stations anyone? Follow the French lead?
That would certainly cut green house emissions, but having power to spare is probably not sufficiently hair shirt for the Greens. Obviously not hair shirts for them personally, just the rest of us who would get to live in mud huts and die before 45.
Showing posts with label Electricity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Electricity. Show all posts
Monday, 3 November 2008
Thursday, 15 May 2008
Lies, damned lies, and - Government Inflation Figures
Inflation has been much in the news recently. It will probably feature frequently enough it the months and years to come. It is of course an official government measure despite it’s (probably intending to) sounding like it could be done by Which. The Consumer Price Index (CPI), Apparently annual inflation – the Government’s target measure – was up from 2.5% in March to 3.0% in April.
Not all that much one might imagine. And what is inflation anyway? Inflation is rising prices and costs. Anything that puts up a cost, such as an increase in road tax, or the cost of electricity, or the cost of your mortgage. Effectively it means your money is worth slightly less. You can also get the reverse.
So an accurate measure of inflation really tells you something about what is going on in the economy. The only trouble is the government figures are effectively a lie.
In almost standard New-Labour operating rules the measure and the target have become all important. Reality seems to come a poor second. They are basically fiddling the figures, like they do with ‘A’ level passes and it seems, almost everything else.
The official measure of inflation depends on what particular prices and costs are being officially kept track of. If they aren’t being measured then they don’t contribute to official inflation figures. If you only kept track of the price of video recorders and Ladas for instance inflation would probably be pretty low, maybe falling.
The real inflation experienced by us all in our daily lives bears little resemblance to what the New-Labour amusingly attempt to claim are accurate figures. I expect they will have arguments marshalled to justify why they leave some things out and measure others, probably almost as good as those Gordon Brown used to deny the promised referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
As disposable incomes become squeezed, people are increasingly forced to limit their spending to essentials like food, energy, housing. These are the things going up the most steeply. As our spending shifts more towards “non-discretionary” items and services our experience of inflation also get worse. If you spend a larger portion of your income on energy bills, for example, you will then also experience a much higher rate of inflation.
The index is also biased towards relatively cheaper goods like clothing, CD players, etc. rather than more expensive services like transport and childcare.
Who cares how much a new flat screen TV costs when they can put the purchase off, you have to buy groceries and have the energy to cook them. You may not be able to avoid paying for child care if you want to work. You need petrol to get to work. The rate of inflation as experienced by many households in the UK is probably multiple times more than the official figure.
Probably the CPI's worst omission is that it doesn’t factor in domestic costs like council tax and mortgage interest. There will not be many people who’s council tax has not risen well over inflation over the past 10 years.
Oh – and if you try to save for a rainy day inflation slowly (or maybe not so slowly) eats into your savings.
At just 2% it will reduce the value of £5,000 put away to £4,712 after just 3 years and that's with inflation of 2%. Imagine what's happening to your savings if your personal inflation rate is running at 5%, or even 10%. If the return you are getting on your money is less than the inflation you experience you might as well spend it all now because it will have less buying power later.
Not all that much one might imagine. And what is inflation anyway? Inflation is rising prices and costs. Anything that puts up a cost, such as an increase in road tax, or the cost of electricity, or the cost of your mortgage. Effectively it means your money is worth slightly less. You can also get the reverse.
So an accurate measure of inflation really tells you something about what is going on in the economy. The only trouble is the government figures are effectively a lie.
In almost standard New-Labour operating rules the measure and the target have become all important. Reality seems to come a poor second. They are basically fiddling the figures, like they do with ‘A’ level passes and it seems, almost everything else.
The official measure of inflation depends on what particular prices and costs are being officially kept track of. If they aren’t being measured then they don’t contribute to official inflation figures. If you only kept track of the price of video recorders and Ladas for instance inflation would probably be pretty low, maybe falling.
The real inflation experienced by us all in our daily lives bears little resemblance to what the New-Labour amusingly attempt to claim are accurate figures. I expect they will have arguments marshalled to justify why they leave some things out and measure others, probably almost as good as those Gordon Brown used to deny the promised referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
As disposable incomes become squeezed, people are increasingly forced to limit their spending to essentials like food, energy, housing. These are the things going up the most steeply. As our spending shifts more towards “non-discretionary” items and services our experience of inflation also get worse. If you spend a larger portion of your income on energy bills, for example, you will then also experience a much higher rate of inflation.
The index is also biased towards relatively cheaper goods like clothing, CD players, etc. rather than more expensive services like transport and childcare.
Who cares how much a new flat screen TV costs when they can put the purchase off, you have to buy groceries and have the energy to cook them. You may not be able to avoid paying for child care if you want to work. You need petrol to get to work. The rate of inflation as experienced by many households in the UK is probably multiple times more than the official figure.
Probably the CPI's worst omission is that it doesn’t factor in domestic costs like council tax and mortgage interest. There will not be many people who’s council tax has not risen well over inflation over the past 10 years.
Oh – and if you try to save for a rainy day inflation slowly (or maybe not so slowly) eats into your savings.
At just 2% it will reduce the value of £5,000 put away to £4,712 after just 3 years and that's with inflation of 2%. Imagine what's happening to your savings if your personal inflation rate is running at 5%, or even 10%. If the return you are getting on your money is less than the inflation you experience you might as well spend it all now because it will have less buying power later.
Friday, 11 January 2008
UK Government Gives the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations.
I have been mean to Gordon Brown and New-Labour of late, highlighting bad stuff – but finally, something that makes sense! The Government are to give the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations.
I suggested that if they were actually serious about reducing carbon emissions they should stop playing around, get serious - and commit to a comprehensive nuclear generation program. It seems they have done just that and I applaud them for it.
Now they should estimate what it will take to cover all the countries power needs and cover it by at least half as much again.
Hopefully the state will interfere as little as possible, apart from encouraging it and setting up a sensible framework for it to operate within that does not stifle.
In the future we should be looking to encourage the development of technologies that can power cars and air travel with hydrogen that could be cracked from seawater by Nuclear, or renewable power.
If James Lovelock supports it then the environ-Mental-ists should ease up with their anti lobbying and consider how much cake they can keep if they want to eat it too.
Unfortunately Government is a bit like that advert where they joke that there is a clever/dumb balance and for every clever thing there has to be a corresponding opposite.
So I am now waiting for them to balance things up with something stupid ;-)
Of course if that were really true we would be seeing much more clever things happening to balance up all the stupid things they have done already ;-)
I suggested that if they were actually serious about reducing carbon emissions they should stop playing around, get serious - and commit to a comprehensive nuclear generation program. It seems they have done just that and I applaud them for it.
Now they should estimate what it will take to cover all the countries power needs and cover it by at least half as much again.
Hopefully the state will interfere as little as possible, apart from encouraging it and setting up a sensible framework for it to operate within that does not stifle.
In the future we should be looking to encourage the development of technologies that can power cars and air travel with hydrogen that could be cracked from seawater by Nuclear, or renewable power.
If James Lovelock supports it then the environ-Mental-ists should ease up with their anti lobbying and consider how much cake they can keep if they want to eat it too.
Unfortunately Government is a bit like that advert where they joke that there is a clever/dumb balance and for every clever thing there has to be a corresponding opposite.
So I am now waiting for them to balance things up with something stupid ;-)
Of course if that were really true we would be seeing much more clever things happening to balance up all the stupid things they have done already ;-)
Tuesday, 20 November 2007
UK Premier’s tough talking ‘War on Carbon Emissions’
Will climate change be Brown’s bid for world fame (or at least infamy)? His ‘War on Carbon Emissions’ to Blair’s ‘War on Terror’.He is talking tough on carbon emissions. Legislation already in the planning stage sets the difficult target of cutting the UK's emissions by 60% by 2050.
Typical New Labour response to anything - more legislation than you can shake a stick at.
Not something Gordon will ever have to actually worry about the political chickens coming home to roost over though, as he is unlikely to still be in office then.
But that’s not tough enough for tough old Brown. He is apparently thinking of going even further, possibly even doubling of the targets to produce renewable energy by 2020. Again hopefully he will not be in office by then.
Renewable energy is OK, as far as it goes.
If Brown is actually serious about reducing carbon emissions he will stop playing around, get serious - and commit to a comprehensive nuclear generation program.
Monday, 29 October 2007
New Labour's Benn Barking up wrong tree
Nu-Lab’s Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, son of Anthony starey eyed Wedgewood Benn is planning to put forward what he describes as a ‘tougher, more effective and more transparent bill to help tackle climate change’.
There is much talk of various environ-mentalist measures that will probably do the economy no good and will probably involve stealth taxes.
Yet again Nu-Lab unerringly gallop off in the direction of controls, regulation, social engineering and punitive taxation.
Assuming that climate change is in fact down to Manmade CO2 rather than say variation in solar output. If the Governemnet are really serious about reducing CO2 emissions then they should be encouraging the building of new generation nuclear power plants. It is estimated that, in total in 2003, the UK produced 786 million tonnes of carbon emissions.
If all of the UK’s power needs were taken care of by nuclear, wind, tide, etc. then this could be reduced to close to nothing
In the future we should be looking to encourage the development of technologies that can power cars and air travel with hydrogen.
But touching on the subject of things nuclear – Remember the threat of the nuclear winter? Or the depression of global temperatures, as a result of major volcanic events?
Just a thought, but if climate change is indeed a threat, down to CO2 or not, maybe someone should be looking into the possibility of duplicating the effect of a nuclear winter on a non toxic controllable scale?
There is much talk of various environ-mentalist measures that will probably do the economy no good and will probably involve stealth taxes.
Yet again Nu-Lab unerringly gallop off in the direction of controls, regulation, social engineering and punitive taxation.
Assuming that climate change is in fact down to Manmade CO2 rather than say variation in solar output. If the Governemnet are really serious about reducing CO2 emissions then they should be encouraging the building of new generation nuclear power plants. It is estimated that, in total in 2003, the UK produced 786 million tonnes of carbon emissions.
If all of the UK’s power needs were taken care of by nuclear, wind, tide, etc. then this could be reduced to close to nothing
In the future we should be looking to encourage the development of technologies that can power cars and air travel with hydrogen.
But touching on the subject of things nuclear – Remember the threat of the nuclear winter? Or the depression of global temperatures, as a result of major volcanic events?
Just a thought, but if climate change is indeed a threat, down to CO2 or not, maybe someone should be looking into the possibility of duplicating the effect of a nuclear winter on a non toxic controllable scale?
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Nuclear Power, Good for the Economy, Good for the environment, Good for the UK
So if everyone is so concerned about reducing the UK’s carbon footprint - then how come close to half of the UK’s Nuclear power stations are out of action on the run up to winter? Apparently a lack of funding...
Nuclear power stations are capable of producing realistic amounts of electricity, unlike many other so-called renewable energy sources, moreover if more were built we could not only make a serious dent in out carbon footprint we could reduce our exposure to gas supply problems and the impact of Gazprom’s muscle flexing.
France, known for looking out for their own interests, get 79% of their electricity from Nuclear energy, they have 59 plants. They don’t seem to have much problem keeping them running either. We by comparison have a pathetic 16 plants that produce (when they are working) around 18% of our power.
If UK greens/environ-mentalists had spent less time bleating about nuclear power in the 80s and 90s then they might not have shot themselves in the foot over carbon emissions.
The French have a realistic attitude to nuclear power. The French launched a properly funded, comprehensive nuclear program, after the 1973 ‘oil shock’, when OPEC toyed with the west by ramping up oil prices, sensibly vowing never again to be dependent on the whim of others for power. Unlike the UK, in France, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular.
Even James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis) thinks that nuclear power is the only real green solution to reducing carbon emissions.
It makes sense for economic reasons, as we wouldn’t have to cripple the economy to save a ha’penny’s worth of power here and there and spend billions changing our housing stock.
It makes sense, because it would protect us from much of the impact of oil and gas price fluctuation and scarcity.
It makes sense, from the point of view of the environment, massively reduced carbon emissions and avoiding the threat of mercury pollution posed by low energy bulbs.
It took the French around 15 years. The UK could do the same. If anyone is worried about where to store the waste, we have some very deep ex-coal mines that would do nicely.
Nuclear power stations are capable of producing realistic amounts of electricity, unlike many other so-called renewable energy sources, moreover if more were built we could not only make a serious dent in out carbon footprint we could reduce our exposure to gas supply problems and the impact of Gazprom’s muscle flexing.
France, known for looking out for their own interests, get 79% of their electricity from Nuclear energy, they have 59 plants. They don’t seem to have much problem keeping them running either. We by comparison have a pathetic 16 plants that produce (when they are working) around 18% of our power.
If UK greens/environ-mentalists had spent less time bleating about nuclear power in the 80s and 90s then they might not have shot themselves in the foot over carbon emissions.
The French have a realistic attitude to nuclear power. The French launched a properly funded, comprehensive nuclear program, after the 1973 ‘oil shock’, when OPEC toyed with the west by ramping up oil prices, sensibly vowing never again to be dependent on the whim of others for power. Unlike the UK, in France, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular.
Even James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis) thinks that nuclear power is the only real green solution to reducing carbon emissions.
It makes sense for economic reasons, as we wouldn’t have to cripple the economy to save a ha’penny’s worth of power here and there and spend billions changing our housing stock.
It makes sense, because it would protect us from much of the impact of oil and gas price fluctuation and scarcity.
It makes sense, from the point of view of the environment, massively reduced carbon emissions and avoiding the threat of mercury pollution posed by low energy bulbs.
It took the French around 15 years. The UK could do the same. If anyone is worried about where to store the waste, we have some very deep ex-coal mines that would do nicely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)