How to lie with numbers Climate Change Committee version

Household energy bills will be about £600 higher per year by the end of the decade if the UK relies increasingly on gas, the government\’s climate advisers warned on Thursday.

But the Committee on Climate Change found that bills would only be £100 higher than today\’s average dual fuel bill of about £1,300, if the country concentrated on renewable power generation, such as wind power.

Entirely done and dusted then, eh?

Renewables will be cheaper than gas.

Their core assumption? The DECC one that gas prices will rise from where they are now. They take the DECC middle estimate.

What is the one thing that none of the DECC estimates take account of? Not even the low estimate?

Fracking for shale gas gets green light in UK

Ed Davey has lifted a suspension on the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, on the condition of strict seismic controls

That\’s right, they\’ve entirely, and deliberately, ignored the impact of shale gas. Which has, as we know, reduced the US price to what is it, one third of the current UK price?

Decc has been, entirely laughably, known to insist that all shale produced will be exported and thus not affect domestic prices.

They\’re all lying, absolutely and deliberately. Hang the fuckers, all of them.

18 thoughts on “How to lie with numbers Climate Change Committee version”

  1. The wider fraud of fabricating and tampering with climate date in order to sustain this racket has been reported the UK Serious Fraud Office several times since 2004 but they seem to be asleep, or perchance nobbled.

  2. If I was drilling for shale gas I’d be delighted to see a rising gas price.

    But I’d be mad to assume rising prices in my investment decisions.

    The DECC should have asked Cuadrilla & co about their price assumptions. My guess is that they are allowing for prices to fall to quite a low level.

  3. Is it also based on the 50% reduction in energy use assumption? I assumed it was just down to carbon levies when I heard the fiugure trotted out on Today, but should really have questioned the assumptions…

    Tim adds: I did check that in their report. And no, it’s not. Assumes constant use.

  4. A bunch of lying, manipulative scoundrels.

    How can anybody say what they say with a straight face. (Basically, because the question is political and not environmental).

    The only way shale gas will be more expensive is if we try to regulate it out of existence.

    It is quite clear that the dangers are less than the vast majority of extractive technologies. The environmental control in the States (whilst not perfect) shows this to be the case.

    How many coal miners die in China alone every year?
    Tar sands anybody?
    Ever been near a uranium mine?
    Oil fields in the former USSR?
    Subsidence near coal fields?
    Subsidies for renewables

    merely replacing coal-fired plants with gas would be a boon for fresh air breathers everywhere.

    No source is ideal, but shale is pretty close compared to some others.

    It brings down CO2 emissions (although that no longer floats my boat) and there is clearly masses of the stuff world-wide.

    This is really about stuffing the free-trade, democratic, wealth-creating western world. And for those on the other side of the fence, this leaves them without arguments.

    It’s a bummer, guys and gals, but get used to it.

    My kids are going to enjoy cheap, reliable and politically-influence free energy.

  5. It’s not even a like with like comparison! They are comparing bills in 2020 with renewables with bills in 2050 for Gas! A 30 year time difference! I am staggered.

    It would hilarious if people weren’t reporting it as fact.

    “The CCC has examined the potential impact on bills of different energy systems and predicts that subsidies to renewables and nuclear would put about £100 on household bills by 2020, but that by 2050 a gas-based electricity system might cost people as much as £600 extra.”

  6. “My kids are going to enjoy cheap, reliable and politically-influence free energy.”

    I prey you are right–but the lying eco-scum are still on the job. The war isn’t won yet.

  7. Since wind needs nearly 100% backup from gas, you would have thought this might make a difference to it’s costs 🙂

    Perhaps, in their world, fracked gas is only used as such?

  8. Don’t think they’ve ignored it Tim. From the Committee on Climate Change report:

    “The International Energy Agency’s projections for European gas prices in the 2020s suggest
    that these would be in line with DECC’s central scenario (i.e. slightly higher than currently
    and broadly flat from 2020, at around 70 p/therm) under a world with significant utilisation of unconventional (e.g. shale) gas resources”

    So they’d probably argue they ARE including shale gas. Thoughts on the IEA?

  9. Elsewhere the Guardian mentions tax breaks and subsidies for shale gas.

    WTF? I thought they would pay royalties.

  10. Even if Decc is right, which I doubt, I’m just wondering what the problem is, with a brand new industry, which can’t be off-shored, which exports 100% of itsoutput….?

  11. ….Thoughts on the IEA?….

    Don, the IEA tend to be very conservative. They will not include much European shale gas in their assumptions until we have some level of success over here.

    Another thing we all need to remember is that current US gas prices are unsustainably low. Most gas producers are not making money and are cutting back on drilling. So the long term price will be somewhere above that of today.

  12. Even if shale gas doesn’t take off, there is more than enough conventional gas around to avoid prices skyrocketing. I’m hearing of conventional fields being passed over due to the low prices, a shortage of gas – especially if floating LNG takes off – isn’t very likely even without shale.

  13. The US doesn’t have LNG export terminals. So its current gas prices are ridiculously low, as Serf highlights. The UK is massively integrated into the global gas economy.

    UK shale gas will be an industry that’s nice for the balance-of-payments, as Nick suggests, and if there’s ever another total war (without immediate nuclear annihilation) and we have to attempt self-sufficiency, it’ll be handy.

    But it will do absolutely nothing to cut gas prices. UK demand is so tiny compared to global gas production that a 28 Days Later style annihilation of the entire country would make little difference to global gas prices.

    Tim adds: Nor does the UK have export terminals. Has import ones, for sure. But they’re not easy things to turn around and use the other way. And there are significant costs to liquefaction. So gas in places which make LNG exports is usually significantly cheaper than the world price.

  14. Ah, good to see this being brought up. It has been bothering me.

    Just because we start producing our own gas again, doesn’t necessarily mean that our gas prices will drop, right ?

    The gas will still be sold at the “global price” regardless of whether we are a net exporter or not, because it is going to be traded like all commodities.

    The US and Canada can insulate themselves from the world market due to the size of their internal markets and so can become truly “self-cufficient”, but we in the UK are not so lucky and will still be buffetted on the seas of a volatile market.

    Or have I missed something ?

  15. Tim, why do you think UK shale, in 5+ years time, will have such a dramatic effect on European gas prices? What % of supply might it be?

    There is an argument that in an uncompetitive arena, like Eurogas, a new supplier might be a tipping point, but that’s pretty speculative.

    And how could DECC possibly factor it in before even a teaspoon has been extracted?

    If I was Cuadrilla, I would sell my gas to the highest bidder, effectively into the Eurogrid, no? It belongs to me, not DECC.

    I worship you, but don’t get your argument here at all.

    Also the proshale argument is in my view WEAKENED by making unrealistic claims about its effect on future UK energy prices. It’s just a natural resource, could be gold, that we should dig up because it’s there (safely, natch).

  16. Any one who believes this crap really needs a piece of two by four brought sharply across the back of the head Lets take away the subsidies for wind generation..oh i forget take that way and wind generation is not profitable is it!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *