Thursday, May 23, 2024

Just Stop Oil eco-zealots may be forced to pay compensation to the people whose lives they make a misery

Just Stop Oil will be forced to pay compensation under new plans being drawn up by Dowing Street to combat its protest mayhem.

The group, along with other eco-clowns, will have to pay people whose lives their antics disrupt under the commissioned review into political violence and disruption.

Those who can prove they endured loss, distress or suffering from an illegal protest would be entitled by law to reimbursement.

The Telegraph reported that the plans are supported in principle by Downing Street and are due to be announced on Tuesday.

Led out by Lord Walney, the independent Government adviser, the plans are intended to bring sanctions upon protesters who hold up ambulances, stop or delay employees from getting to work, and losing businesses money.

It may also extend to students being prevented from getting to classes or getting their degrees, like with the recent pro-Palestinian protests at universities.

The review will set out more than 40 recommendations for dealing with disruption.

The Telegraph reported that the review will recommend the Home Office and Ministry of Justice to come up with a legal framework for compensation.

A Home Office source told the newspaper that if JSO organises a major roadblock and someone cannot get to work or miss a hospital appointment, there would be a framework where they could 'more easily sue the organisation'.


It’s About To Get COLDER And CO2 Levels May Drop To Dangerously Unproductive Levels

On a Tom Nelson Podcast, Professor David Dilley discussed his perspective on global warming and the importance of understanding Earth’s natural climate cycles.

He emphasised that the current global warming cycle is the first time instrument data has been available and that there have been multiple global warming and cooling cycles throughout Earth’s history.

“Global warming will be dead by 2030,” he said.

Prof. Dilley is a meteorologist, climatologist, palaeoclimatologist and a former NOAA National Weather Service Meteorologist. He is the founder and CEO of Global Weather Oscillations (“GWO”), a company heavily involved in researching and developing technology for predicting natural climate and weather cycles.

He has 54 years of experience ranging from the Air Force to NOAA National Weather Service and GWO. As the senior research scientist and forecaster for GWO, Prof. Dilley developed ClimatePulse Technology based on geomagnetic cycles of the earth, moon and sun, and how these cycles align with historical, present-day and future climate and weather cycles.


We Are Fast Approaching The ‘Green Energy Wall’

The “Wall” consists of some combination of real-world obstacles, part cost and part physics, that will inevitably end the quest for emissions-free “net zero” electricity generation well before the goal of zero emissions is reached

I first identified the approaching Wall in this post in December 2021 and remarked that it was “gradually coming into focus” in this follow-up post in November 2023.

Anyone paying attention and capable of doing basic arithmetic knows that we are approaching this Wall, with some jurisdictions much faster than others. (New York has voluntarily put itself in the front ranks.).

What we don’t know is how the hitting of the Wall will manifest itself:

Widespread and frequent blackouts? Regular, enforced load-shedding brownouts? Tripling or quadrupling of electricity prices? A political uprising as people realize that they have been duped by scammers claiming that an energy transition would be easy and cheap?

Or perhaps it will be all of the above.

Meanwhile, the years pass slowly. The impossibility of the situation we are digging into becomes more and more obvious, but so far there is no obvious crisis. Will it arrive in another year, or two? Or maybe five?

Consider New York. Multiple statutes and regulations commit us to energy transition mandates that simply will not be met.

Among the fantasies are two major statutes passed in 2019, one for New York State (Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act), and the other for the City (Local Law 97); and vehicle emissions standards adopted in 2022 by New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation.

Start with those vehicle emissions standards. In 2022 the DEC adopted for New York the standards and requirements outlined in the California Air Resources Board’s “Advanced Clean Cars II” regulation.

California’s regulations call for minimum percentages of vehicles sold to be “zero emissions” starting with the 2026 model year, and then rapidly scaling up to 100 percent “zero emissions” by the 2035 model year.

Here is a chart from CARB of the percentages of vehicles sold, by model year, that are supposed to be “zero emissions.”

EVs are not the only things that qualify as “zero emissions” (e.g., hydrogen vehicles qualify), but EVs are the only things that qualify and also exist in meaningful numbers. The 2026 model year begins around September 2025 — that is, about 16 months away.

What is the current percent of vehicles sold in New York that are “zero emissions”? A piece on March 6, 2024, in the New York Times puts the percentage of electric vehicles sold in the New York “metropolitan area” in 2023 at less than 10 percent.

The article does not give a figure for New York State as a whole, but undoubtedly the figure for the state — including rural upstate areas — is far less than the percentage in the City and suburbs.

Meanwhile, many sources report that EV sales have suddenly declined sharply in the first quarter of 2024. (I can’t find statistics on that broken down by state.).

But even if EV sales in New York State continued to increase in the first months of this year, are they really going to somehow get to 35 percent of all sales within a little more than a year? And then to 43 percent after just one more year, and then 51 percent after one more year, and so on to 100 percent by 2035?

This is completely ridiculous.

Equally ridiculous is the mandate in the CLCPA for 70% of electricity generation from “renewables” by 2030. The people in charge of implementing this mandate are completely incompetent and have no idea what they are doing.

After the passage of the Act in 2019, the first significant step [taken] in 2020 and 2021 was to close the two zero-emissions nuclear reactors at Indian Point that provided about 25 percent of New York City’s electricity, and replace them with two brand-new natural gas plants, thus substantially increasing emissions.

So to date, the progress toward the so-called 70 x 30 goal has been negative.


Green/Left surrenders: Eraring, Australia's largest coal-fired powerplant to remain open in order to prevent shortages and blackouts

That wonderful coal! Very hard to replace

The life of Australia's largest coal-fired power station will be extended for at least two years in order to prevent power shortages and blackouts in NSW.

Origin Energy has been in talks with the NSW government about extending the life of the Eraring power station after a review warned the scheduled August 2025 retirement could result in electricity shortfalls and price hikes, leaving a 25 per cent gap in NSW's power requirements.

In a statement on Thursday, the state government described the agreement as 'temporary and targeted' in order to guarantee a minimum supply of electricity until the new expected closure date.

'A temporary extension of Eraring will provide time to deliver the renewable energy, storage and network infrastructure projects required to replace the power station,' it said.

The NSW government and Origin have agreed to an underwriting arrangement under which the state will not make any up-front payments to the energy company to operate Eraring.

Instead, Origin will need to decide by March 31 in 2025 and 2026 whether it wishes to opt in to the underwriting arrangement for the following financial year and share up to $40million per year of any profits it earns from the facility.

If the power station operates at a loss, Origin will be able to claim no more than 80 per cent of the sum from the state government.

Those claims will be capped at $225million each year, if the company does opt in.

Environmental groups and progressive think-tanks have long railed against Eraring receiving any lifeline.

'To keep Eraring open beyond its closure date will make the national job of decarbonising our energy grid all that much harder,' Australian Conservation Foundation climate policy adviser Annika Reynolds said.

Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen in March said delaying Eraring's retirement would not imperil Australia's 2030 emissions reduction target.

Eraring was privatised under the former coalition government in a 2013 deal that resulted in Origin being paid $75 million to take over the ageing asset.

NSW Energy Minister Penny Sharpe emphasised today's decision was a 'temporary and targeted agreement' to ensure reliability, however she said the state was still prioritising a transition to green energy.

'NSW is stepping up the transition to cheap, clean, reliable renewable energy. But to keep the lights on and prices down, we need to make sure new renewable infrastructure and storage capacity is online before coal-fired generators reach the end of their life,' she said.

'This temporary and targeted agreement will provide financial support only if it's needed, and only for as long as needed, during an orderly exit of coal-fired power.

'This is a proactive and sensible step to ensure a plan is in place, if needed, to avoid electricity outages and rising power prices.'

The government has stressed Thursday's announcement would protect NSW taxpayers.

'This agreement gets the balance right. It means the clean energy transition can continue without exposing families and businesses to extreme bill shocks during a severe cost-of-living crisis,' said NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey.

'Taxpayers are well-protected. We won't be handing over a $3 billion cheque to Origin as some said we would. Instead, this agreement incentivises Origin to only use the underwrite if there is a sudden change in market conditions.

'Had Eraring remained in public ownership, an agreement like this would not have been necessary.'




No comments: