Wednesday, July 22, 2009
WHAT SCOTLAND'S 42% CO2 CUT MEANS
The Scottish Parliament has unanimously voted to cut Scotland's CO2 release by 42% over the next 11 years. The killer on top of that is that they also intend to close our last 2 nuclear generators before that for Hunterston & shortly afterwards for Torness. How much does that total. Well here is our energy use:
Inconveniently the government haven't mentioned what units this is in but fortunately it doesn't much matter because it is proportions not total amounts we are concerned with.
Total use in Scotland is currently 290.51 of which 239.9 is CO2 producing. Cut that to by 42% & we have 139.14. Adding the current renewables, mostly hydro, we get a147.55 which is 50.79% left. Theoretically by using more gas & it could be raised marginally, at a non-marginal cost & we are promised vast numbers of windmills whose power production is minimal, intermittent & very expensive. Moreover we simply don't have the teams, barges & indeed production capacity to produce enough to have more than a token effect on this. We are also promised carbon capture power plants but they don't exist now & even if they did there is no way all our generators could be rebuilt by 2020.
A 50% reduction in power use compounded over 11 years is a 6% reduction each year. Britain already gets $6.14 of GNP per kwh of electricity ($NEK) putting us at the top of developed countries over 10 million (among undeveloped ones Mexico, Turkey, Algeria, Nigeria, Peru, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Angola, Burma, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka & Sudan are the only other ones who have worse (better to Luddites) ratios & of those only Nigeria, Angola, Burma & Sudan have the doubled ratio which Scotland would have to have if it is hoped our GNP won't collapse. All of these are poor, corupt, dictatorial, failed states, with endemic civil strife where electricity is largely confined to the capital city and whose GNPs are artificially inflated by oil. Good company eh?
Incidentally Scotland's energy exports total 1468.34 all of which will presumably be burned somewhere, just over 10 times what we are going to "save" by destroying our economy. If we sanely wanted to win the War Against Fire (assuming sanity enters into it) we could just leave 10% of it in the ground.
Inconveniently the government haven't mentioned what units this is in but fortunately it doesn't much matter because it is proportions not total amounts we are concerned with.Total use in Scotland is currently 290.51 of which 239.9 is CO2 producing. Cut that to by 42% & we have 139.14. Adding the current renewables, mostly hydro, we get a147.55 which is 50.79% left. Theoretically by using more gas & it could be raised marginally, at a non-marginal cost & we are promised vast numbers of windmills whose power production is minimal, intermittent & very expensive. Moreover we simply don't have the teams, barges & indeed production capacity to produce enough to have more than a token effect on this. We are also promised carbon capture power plants but they don't exist now & even if they did there is no way all our generators could be rebuilt by 2020.
A 50% reduction in power use compounded over 11 years is a 6% reduction each year. Britain already gets $6.14 of GNP per kwh of electricity ($NEK) putting us at the top of developed countries over 10 million (among undeveloped ones Mexico, Turkey, Algeria, Nigeria, Peru, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Angola, Burma, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka & Sudan are the only other ones who have worse (better to Luddites) ratios & of those only Nigeria, Angola, Burma & Sudan have the doubled ratio which Scotland would have to have if it is hoped our GNP won't collapse. All of these are poor, corupt, dictatorial, failed states, with endemic civil strife where electricity is largely confined to the capital city and whose GNPs are artificially inflated by oil. Good company eh?
Incidentally Scotland's energy exports total 1468.34 all of which will presumably be burned somewhere, just over 10 times what we are going to "save" by destroying our economy. If we sanely wanted to win the War Against Fire (assuming sanity enters into it) we could just leave 10% of it in the ground.
Labels: global warming, Scottish politics
Comments:
<< Home
All of these are poor, corupt, dictatorial, failed states, with endemic civil strife where electricity is largely confined to the capital city and whose GNPs are artificially inflated by oil. Good company eh?
In the case of Mexico the Mexicans themselves have decided they would rather have energy intensive lives instead of living in their native villages. The Mexicans walk across our southern desert, with many dieing of thirst or being killed by criminals in order to have more comfortable lives. The great tragedy of this is that their children are often given citizenship and then go on to vote for the leftist party out of a sense of ethnic identity.
What Mexicans are literally dieing to obtain the Scottish parliament wants to throw away.
In the case of Mexico the Mexicans themselves have decided they would rather have energy intensive lives instead of living in their native villages. The Mexicans walk across our southern desert, with many dieing of thirst or being killed by criminals in order to have more comfortable lives. The great tragedy of this is that their children are often given citizenship and then go on to vote for the leftist party out of a sense of ethnic identity.
What Mexicans are literally dieing to obtain the Scottish parliament wants to throw away.
# posted by 
: July 22, 2009
: July 22, 2009
True though Mexico's $NEK is just over 7, Britain's being just over 6.14, & is far from the status of the ones we supposed to be emulating
Seems you've failed to consider that Scotland might just achieve the same GNP/GDP using less power through greater efficiency.
# posted by : July 22, 2009
: July 22, 2009
Yeah, good idea guys, let's just carry on like everything's normal. Pretend it's not happening.
# posted by : July 22, 2009
: July 22, 2009
Well, Mexico's high $nek number may also be attibutable to the differences in regional development. The northern third of Mexico is almost an extension of the US, with a lot of factories from the US having relocated there. In addition the power grid there is interlinked with the US grids. At one time Mexico also used the us areas code system, allowing an American to call a Mexican as easily as he could call a Canadian or a fellow American. Central Mexico is more primitive, with the exception of the capital (20m people), Mexico city. A lot of state run factories used to be located in central Mexico as well, a lot of which were probably inefficient.
Southern Mexico is a giant Indian reservation, with multiple Indian languages, and rampant poverty. SM also has the threat of Indian rebellions.
Taken together, the northern part of Mexico probably has a $nek closer to the United States, with central and southern Mexico closer to Guatemala's $nek.
Really, the long term threat here in the States is that once enough of these Hispanics reach critical mass they will turn their new homes into the same shitholes they left.
Southern Mexico is a giant Indian reservation, with multiple Indian languages, and rampant poverty. SM also has the threat of Indian rebellions.
Taken together, the northern part of Mexico probably has a $nek closer to the United States, with central and southern Mexico closer to Guatemala's $nek.
Really, the long term threat here in the States is that once enough of these Hispanics reach critical mass they will turn their new homes into the same shitholes they left.
# posted by : July 22, 2009
: July 22, 2009
The point being that no country in the world, not even the worst 4 mentioned since their GNP is artificially pushed up by oil, have managed that. Perhaps you know hoe it could be done?
I once said that Mexico would be wise to build several nuclear power stations along its northern border & sell the stuff, at a good mark up, to California when the lights go out.
This is your own measure. Of exactly what? It is a crude division of GNP by electricity consumption to produce a figure which takes no account of population or what the economies compared produce. Your whole argument is meaningless.
# posted by : July 23, 2009
: July 23, 2009
What it measures is a crude division of GNP by electricity produced. That we have a worse (or better if you prefer) ratio than almost all sizeable countries & the ones that are worse than us are consitently poor &/or failed states, should tell you something.
I would prefer to see the lights go out in California. Cali currently imports one-third of its electricity since it will not allow the construction of power plants.
What is really bad is that Cali is supposed to have large offshore oil reserves that go untapped.
What is really bad is that Cali is supposed to have large offshore oil reserves that go untapped.
# posted by : July 23, 2009
: July 23, 2009
You may as well measure the number of orchids in the public parks. It is a useless number that indicates nothing.
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
Well I believe suicide is a basic human right & must hold the same for states so California has the right to drive themselves into bankruptcy this way. Obviously they don't have a right to a federal bail-out.
There are instances where, if you can't be a good example you can at least serve as an 'orrible warning.
There are instances where, if you can't be a good example you can at least serve as an 'orrible warning.
Neil, California has resources on par or exceeding Britain and yet must import its necessities. Between WW1 and 1970 Cali produced at various times cars, steel, warships, semiconductors, satellites, missiles and birthed the American computer industry. Now Cali produces Mexicans, environmentalists, and poverty.
In fact, the iron ore to feed the Kaiser steel mill in Cali was mined in the state, not imported.
The loss of California is amazing and heartbreaking at the same time.
In fact, the iron ore to feed the Kaiser steel mill in Cali was mined in the state, not imported.
The loss of California is amazing and heartbreaking at the same time.
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
It used to take generations for nations to rise & fall but because world economic growth & growth rates vary so much it now takes decades or even years.
Post a Comment
<< Home
