And again, we find morons in the newspapers

It is a bold philosophy but a mistaken one. For a start, this new dash for gas is predicated on the notion that gas prices will be maintained at their current modest level or possibly even an cheaper one for decades. The notion is fallacious. In fact, most financial forecasts indicate that the price of gas from suppliers such as Qatar will rise in coming years as global demand outstrips planetary supplies.

We\’re at the very beginning of the shale gas revolution. And people are clinging to forecasts which ignore that very revolution. Tossers.

Thus the chancellor, in his desire to provide cheap power in the short term, threatens to shackle the nation to an extremely expensive power source in the long term. By contrast, reliance on renewable power offers us independence on the issue of energy.

What fucking independence you ignorant, ignorant, morons?

The UK has just closed the last two aluminium refineries as a result of trying to cut back on carbon emissions. You need aluminium refineries to make the blades for those sodding windmills. What independence? Or solar cells: there is not one single factory in the UK that makes the silicon to make solar cells. The nearest one that I know of is in Freiberg in Saxony. What fucking independence? There is precisely none, not a scrap, a tit, jottle or iota, of production of the indium, germanium or gallium necessary to dope those solar cells with anywhere in the UK. There aren\’t any plants that actually produce them either, even from imported components. We don\’t mine the copper to connect them to the grid (nor even the aluminium, see above, for long distance power lines)….what friggin\’ independence is this that you speak of?

A market in renewable technologies is developing across the globe as China, India and many other nations attempt to build low-carbon economies and look to the west to buy infrastructure. Britain is well placed to create the necessary industries that can provide the world with wave and tide power plants and carbon storage technology. There is money in clean energy, in short, and the government urgently needs to accept this fact.

And while you celebrate this phantasmal idea of economic independence you\’re basing it on the idea that every other fucker in the world won\’t be independent but will buy the kit from us? The kit that we don\’t, and in fact cannot, make?

Seriously, who let these morons near a keyboard?

42 comments on “And again, we find morons in the newspapers

  1. What is it about shale gas that sends everyone nuts?
    It turns Putin into a raging greenie.
    Strategists worry that increasing US energy independence will lead to disengagement from the Middle East.
    And everyone else confuses cost and price to advance whatever other loopy scheme they previously thought of.
    Maybe it’s something in the water.

  2. “There is money in clean energy,”

    I assume they’re saying it’s a profitable industry rather than stating the obvious that it’s a cash bonanza for wealthy subsidy troughers…

    “and the government urgently needs to accept this fact.”

    Why? Just let the market decide. If ‘clean’ energy is indeed profitable it won’t need government subsidy. Right?

  3. Remember that eco-freak leaders are evil (the followers are mainly just stupid but no less dangerous for that) . They want to destroy technological society, albeit with the fantasy that they and their fellow “progressives” will still be an elite, jetting around the world as they oversee any of us peasants who are still alive.

  4. I was talkingto someone yesterday about wind turbines, and mentioned the problem (and environmental cost) of aluminium for the blades.

    He said they aren’t aluminium, they’re fibreglass, and they’re made on the Isle of Wight.

    He’s an ex Royal Navy engineer, so hardly ignorant nor rampant leftie. Is he right?

    Tim adds: Big ones are Al. That’s why the makers of the alloys for those blades are asking me for scandium. Because Al Sc is a better alloy than Al alone.

  5. A Google search for “wind turbine blades Isle of Wight” explains that one. They only make blades for micro-turbines.

  6. Vestas did close their wind turbine factory on the Isle of Wight in 2009, but they are planning a new facility in Kent.

  7. Richard/SadButMadLad
    And fibreglass aka GRP (Glass Reinforced Plastic) is less of a problem than aluminium? The plastic part is a polyester resin mixed with a catalyst and accelerator. I seem to recall that kit car builders used acetone as a solvent.

    None of the above are particularly environmentally friendly, I reckon the Isle of Wight will be a better place without both the blade manufacturer and any installed windmills.

  8. Tim, 100% agree with you – many ideas from the Greens appear to be a rehash of Tony Benn’s ‘Siege economy’ from the 1970s. On an alternative note, try not to get too worked up – I count 15 expletives of varying forcefulness thus far this morning and no articles on anything from @RichardJMurphy yet! – concerned for your blood pressure!

  9. Here’s a story.
    The Greeks, who’ve got no money left, have suspended payments to the solar power suppliers.
    The suppliers threaten to turn off the lights unless their subsidies are paid.
    And yet the Greek lights are still on!
    Anyone know more about this?

  10. And of course, as you’ve pointed out before, Tim, renewable energy isn’t cheap, or it wouldn’t need the subsidy, would it?

  11. …..In fact, most financial forecasts indicate that the price of gas from suppliers such as Qatar will rise in coming years as global demand outstrips planetary supplies……

    Leave Shale aside for a second. Read anything about the LNG projects in Canada, The USA & Australia. The biggest worry for developers is that their competitors will sign up all the customers first. Mozambique has found enough gas to transform its economy, but they are worried that they will be too late.

    Expensive…. my arse

  12. BIF @ 1
    “What is it about shale gas that sends everyone nuts?”

    I find myself, as a vague greenie and a believer in global warming, agreeing with a Worstall commentator. Gas is greener than coal, and is the best back up to greenie things like wind. Shale gas could (if all goes well) mean that Poland, Germany and the Baltics get less fucked around by Russia.

    You can tax it if you want. So yes, what is the problem?

  13. BIF @ 1
    “What is it about shale gas that sends everyone nuts?”

    Simply, it might go a huge way to dealing with CO2 emissions, oil dependance etc..

    Seeing as most of the hard core greenies aren’t interested in solutions, rather than using the “problem” to reshapre society to their desires, well you can see how a potential solution would frustrate their plans, and hence they lose their minds…

  14. “In fact, most financial forecasts indicate that the price of gas from suppliers such as Qatar will rise in coming years as global demand outstrips planetary supplies.”

    Qatar and other similar states are predicted to use more and more of their natural gas production locally, so that part’s true. In the absence of new sources, gas prices would rise. Clearly, though, this ‘dash for gas’ is about new supplies.

    I can’t believe that they’re actually that stupid – if they were, they’d have to wear elastic-waisted trousers, velcro-fastening shoes, and have corks on their forks when eating so that they don’t hurt themselves.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqMc9B7uDV8&t=35s

  15. The US domestic wholesale gas market is fucked. Prices have fallen so far that few gas plays are now likely to be economic and they are even talking of shutting in production. Which will be shale, because these have the lowest flow rates and the highest maintainance.
    It’ll come back, don’t worry.
    Meanwhile, the rig market is leveraged to the gas price and E&P is going to be a bloodbath.
    If we had any sense we’d be hiring rigs and setting up crews in Montpelier, Pays de Gex and Blackpool to drill what we’ve got.
    Get it while it’s cheap!
    But we’re not. We’re nuts.
    As exhibit A of nuts: François Hollande has declared that 35,000 successfully completed shale wells in the US do not provide any evidence of the safety of fracking.

  16. blokeinfrance – “What is it about shale gas that sends everyone nuts? …. Maybe it’s something in the water.”

    Dunno. But it has made Matt Damon take Arab oil money to make his anti-fracking film.

  17. My favourite bullshit assertation about wind and solar power is that it takes energy generation away from corporations and democratises it.

    Who the fuck do you think makes solar panels and wind turbines then, you subcretins? They aren’t shat out by unicorns.

  18. blokeinfrance @19

    Dead right. Now is the moment. In the UK, the establishment is blind or prejudiced but purely for political reasons (or are they really that pig ignorant?).

    One of the many arguments (all strawmen in reality) is that we don’t have the gear. It’s small scale (for the energy industry) and transport is no problem.

    Seems we have shale gas in the Basque Country. All the greenies have gone wild but they have achieved their aim. Slow down exploration, kill expectations, up costs, regulate out of existence.

    When you want to socially engineer, anything goes. And if a few oldies die ‘cos they can’t afford to keep warm? A small price to pay.

  19. The only country in the world to significantly cut its CO2 emissions in recent years has been the USA. The switch from coal to natural gas has been behind it. Shale gas is the biggest nightmare for Greenies (Reddies) who see their hope of destroying capitalism, using the environment as an excuse, being undermined by clever people in the oil sector. If the shale revolution spreads, the green / red revolution dies an early death.

  20. blokeinfrance: sorry, I don’t follow your argument. If gas is cheap now and getting cheaper, isn’t this the worst time to start producing it? Surely we should leave it in the ground until prices start going up.

  21. PaulB
    Gas is cheap in US because of shale.
    It certainly isn’t cheap here, have you noticed?
    GdFSuez wanted a 6% price hike, they got 2% more. (French lefties interfering in the market again, sigh.)

  22. Ah, fair enough, I haven’t been concentrating. Still, leaving fossil fuels in the ground for the time being can’t be a major mistake; there’ll be the whole of the rest of human history to extract them in.

  23. Tell you what PaulB, I won’t make you using fossil fuels against your will, if you won’t stop me from using them against my will. Deal?

  24. “…. leaving fossil fuels in the ground for the time being can’t be a major mistake; there’ll be the whole of the rest of human history to extract them in.2″

    Except you need a level of technological capability to do so. At our current ‘back to the stone age’ rate of de-teching, how long’s that going to be there for? A society that’s basing its energy needs on windmills is going to be building same out of wood with hand-tools in a very short time.

  25. @PaulB: so you want to ban me from using shale gas, and force me to use more expensive ‘renewables’ then? Or am I free to get as much shale gas as I can out of the ground, just as you are free to put up as many solar panels and wind turbines as you like in your back garden?

  26. Jim, I don’t want to ban you from using shale gas. I do want to point out that relative to what I hope will be the remaining duration of human civilization we have a very finite supply of fossil fuels, so it’s not prudent to use them as quickly as possible.

  27. “we have a very finite supply of fossil fuels” No we don’t. Fossil fuel supplies are not finite in any meaningful economic sense.

  28. Just to add another ha’porth to this increasingly acrimonious debate…
    (Why is it?)
    Everyone thinks that gas is a world commodity. In fact it’s quite hard to transport and the political bullshit is even worse than laying the pipe. That’s why US and EU prices have decoupled so spectacularly.
    It’s also why shale will continue to be fairly marginal for many years. We’re locked into long term deals for Russian gas.
    That said, shale will become a reference price for any future negotiation, and the pipeline cost of the Blackpool shale will be trivial: a pipe to the Morecambe Bay landfall and you’re straight into the grid.
    Currently progress on various schemes to pipe gas from ex USSR are not making any progress. Crossing ten countries all wanting a royalty is no laughing matter. But the real reason is uncertainty on whether we need the gas or not. Only rolling brown outs will force us to choose between enriching European capitalists or Central Asian dictators.

  29. ” we have a very finite supply of fossil fuels, so it’s not prudent to use them as quickly as possible.”

    Bullshit. There’s enough energy sources on earth to keep us going for thousands of years (if you include things like uranium and thorium) so we might as well use all the fossil fuels we need, if its the easiest option. Beyond that there’s a massive flaming orb in the sky that, given a thousand years of technological advance, will provide us with all the energy we require, until it blows up and destroys the solar system entirely.

    Or would you prefer we all went back to the Stone Age and lived in caves, while saving up all those lovely energy reserves for a rainy day?

    @BiF: why is it an acrimonious debate?

    Because I’m fed up of cunts telling me that I can’t do this, or I’ve got to pay more for that, all because they have given up on organised religion and taken up with green sky fairies.

  30. Jim: as I said, there is a distinctly finite supply of fossil fuels, which uranium and thorium are not.

    I’d like us to conduct affairs on this planet on the basis that we intend to be here for a long time – say for another billion years until the sun gets too big. I’m all in favour of technological fixes to resource problems, but let’s find the fixes before we rely on them.

    I’m fed up with people who assume they’re entitled to a vastly disproportionate share of finite resources. I’m sure there are compromises available somewhere between a stone-age lifestyle and a heated patio.

  31. Ah, compromises. What sort of compromise is one side saying do this or we put you in prison?

    Like I said, I won’t stick a gun in your face and make you have a patio heater, if you (or the State on your behalf) won’t stick one in mine if I want to use fossil fuels to my hearts content.

  32. I don’t recall threatening to put you in prison.

    I do recall being rude the last time you advanced the would-be argument in your second paragraph. How about I won’t make you crap in your living room if you let me defecate there to my heart’s content?

  33. Don’t be stupid, the only way the State enforces its rules is via prison and (ultimately) guns. So if your ‘compromise’ involves me getting stuck in prison if I don’t agree to it, it hardly a compromise is it? A compromise involves both parties voluntarily agreeing to a solution, not one unilaterally deciding and getting someone more powerful to enforce their decision.

    And your second paragraph is very enlightening. You are equating me doing my own thing (using fossil fuels) with defecating in your living room, ie my actions are affecting you. Thats the nub of the AGW issue isn’t it? You are convinced of your rightness, and therefore have no qualms in controlling other peoples actions because you ‘know’ they are affecting you and therefore are feel perfectly entitled to tell perfect strangers what they can and can’t do.

    Well I don’t buy it. AGW is a crock of sh*t and I will oppose its proponents without fail. Fortunately for me reality is on my side and you are going to look very stupid when it gets colder in the next few decades. Don’t come asking for any of my fossil fuels though, you can survive on your wind turbines (when the wind blows).

  34. You know, I very politely didn’t mention AGW. But since you raise the subject, I will take note that you are opposed to the laws of physics.

    Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws

  35. Opposed to the laws of physics? Quite the contrary, my opposition to AGW is entirely fact based. It is the proponents of catastrophic AGW (and its the catastrophic bit thats important) that are the ones making a leap of faith. The earth has existed quite happily for billions of years, man has existed for a few hundred thousand years and has only had a few decades to apparently destroy that which has survived for all those millenia before. The earth has survived extremes of climate far in excess of anything we could imagine, so if it were constantly teetering on the edge of destruction, it would have fallen over a long time before now. To imagine that humans are so important that they alone can destroy something so ancient is arrogance in the extreme.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>