Hmm, this is interesting

The world’s energy infrastructure is at risk from the extreme weather expected to result from climate change, a group of prominent energy companies has warned.

Energy systems, including fossil fuel power stations, distribution grids, and the networks that reach to people’s homes, are all at risk from effects such as flooding, severe storms and sea level rises, according to a new report from the World Energy Council, which brings together energy companies, academics and public sector agencies.

And how much more at risk are windmills and solar panels?

11 thoughts on “Hmm, this is interesting”

  1. So that’s risk from “extreme weather events” that even the IPCC says show no evidence of increased frequency or intensity?

    Let me guess: this group of individuals and organisations, inspired by benevolence and concern for the future of humanity, would like more taxpayers’ money to be paid to them to study said “risks” and/or construct their negative NPV technology that only “market failure” is holding back.

    Forgive me if I’m not convinced!

  2. Funny how the Grauniad approves of blatant rent-seeking if it’s coated in a layer of green. Or “social justice” or any of the other things that get them damp.

  3. Seems like some classic Grauniad rubbush. The risks are mainly to kit such as overhead lines and substations rather than to “fossil fuel” plants.

    Personally I’d think the real problem will be for wind farms. By definition they’re built in very windy places, either at the tops of mountains (requiring lengthy overhead lines) or on the coast (more effected by heavy seas).

  4. But there is no increase in extreme weather and currently there is no global warming. Go to the data.

    The risks are the same as always and all our investment is directed at mitigating CO2 (which is a whole other question and the answers are not what are being thrown at us everyday) rather than the real risks from extreme weather events which have always been with us and for which we are not preparing because we ‘think’ the danger is another.

  5. @David Moore

    especially when you refuse to use offshore oil & gas experience (tainted) and keep reinventing wheels….

    As to catastrophic sea level rise …. having measured that professionally for over 30 years – they are spouting utter garbage. It’s just a con – look at UK Environment Agency Thames TE2100 project = loads of scary bollocks – > but absolutely NO numbers. The weasels have failed to publish any numbers to justify the scale of the ££££££ work being handed out to their chums ….. simply stinks.

  6. Meh. It is a trade body that is just lobbying the world’s governments. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  7. What got Fukushima was the tsunami of course. But they can’t pin that on climate change, so it gets ignored.

  8. “What got Fukushima was the tsunami of course. But they can’t pin that on climate change, so it gets ignored.”

    Of course they can, and tried to – as if several mm more of sea level over what happens naturally makes any difference to a 6m tsunami……………..

    But when you don’t understand numbers, the world is your oyster for such claims.

  9. I seem to have noticed an uptick in climate hysteria of late.

    There must be a jet-setting politicos’ junket – err, I mean, summit – coming up.

Leave a Reply

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