#LibLabCon leaders agree to destroy UK economy at #Greenblob’s request

Posted: February 14, 2015 by tallbloke in Energy, government, Incompetence, Politics, Shale gas
Tags: , ,

The BBC is trumpeting a joint statement by David Cameron, Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg which spells economic doom for the UK. If ever there was a good reason to vote on May 7th for the only party committed to scrapping wind farm subsidy and nonsense ‘climate targets’, this is it.


The three stooges write Britains economic suicide note.

The battle lines are drawn for me now. Energy policy is an important element in my campaign platform. Let’s take apart the statement’s key bullet points and assertions below the break.

“if [coal fired generation] is to continue, the emissions will need to be captured and stored in rock formations.”

This is a commitment to ‘Carbon Capture and Sequestration’, an incredibly inefficient and expensive process of taking harmless Carbon Dioxide out of power station flue gases and compressing it, transporting the liquid CO2 and injecting it down boreholes or old north sea oil wells. It means we will have to burn 30% MORE coal to get the same amount of energy onto the grid. This will of course make the electricity at least 30% more expensive at a stroke, and that’s not accounting for the considerable investment costs.

They pledge:

  • to seek a fair, strong, legally binding, global climate deal which limits temperature rises to below 2C

Hubris. They are merely displacing the emission of CO2 to countries which won’t impose such stupid and costly regulations on energy production, since our (remaining) energy intensive industrial businesses will move to stay competitive. This means no cut in UK CO2 emissions however large will change the global surface temperature by any measurable amount.

  • to work together, across party lines, to agree carbon budgets in accordance with the Climate Change Act

This means destroying our economy before 2030, since the CCA calls for staged targets reaching 20% of current emissions levels of the harmless and life-essential trace gas CO2 by 2050.

  • to accelerate the transition to a competitive, energy efficient low carbon economy and to end the use of unabated coal for power generation

This is an oxymoron. There is and can be no such thing as “a competitive, energy efficient low carbon economy”

So what lies behind this utter insanity?

The Green Party says the UK should be making much more urgent progress towards getting the country powered by renewables.

Labour leader Ed Miliband recently restated that tackling climate change “goes to the heart of” his beliefs. A Liberal Democrat source said tackling climate change was in the party’s DNA.

Greenpeace welcomed the new statement. Its director John Sauven said:

“This pledge marks a turning point in the collective effort to take Britain’s energy system out of the Victorian age and into the 21st century. Party leaders now need to set a clear expiry date on coal pollution, stop subsidies to coal plants, and start investing in the clean energy infrastructure this country really needs.”

What the Greenblob won’t say is that we rely on coal for a significant part of our reliable, non-intermittent energy supply and the the grid will collapse if we change the proportion between reliables and unreliables like wind and solar. If these same leaders do manage to start a war with Russia, and the kind of war-drums nonsense we were hearing on BBC question time last week makes it a distinct possibility, the Russians will turn off their gas export pipelines to Europe, which the EU relies on for 30% of its gas, then coal fired generation will be vital while we develop our shale gas resources.

I’m at a loss to understand why our spurious leaders are running these risks with our energy security, and I’ll leave it to Talkshop readers to offer their thoughts.


  1. Anything is possible says:

    I see a clinic full of cynics
    Who want to twist the peoples’ wrist
    They’re watching every move we make
    We’re all included on the list

    The lunatics have taken over the asylum
    The lunatics have taken over the asylum

    No nuclear the cowboy told us
    And who am i to disagree
    ’cause when the madman flips the switch
    The nuclear will go for me

    The lunatics have taken over the asylum
    The lunatics have taken over the asylum

    I’ve seen the faces of starvation
    But i just can not see the points
    ’cause there’s so much food here today
    That no one wants to take away

    The lunatics have taken over the asylum
    The lunatics have taken over the asylum
    The lunatics have taken over the asylum, take away my right to choose
    The lunatics have taken over the asylum, take away my point of view
    The lunatics have taken over the asylum
    The lunatics have taken over the asylum, take away my dignity,
    Take these things away from me
    The lunatics have taken over the asylum
    The lunatics have taken over the asylum, take away my family,
    Take away the right to speak
    The lunatics have taken over the asylum take away my point of view,
    Take away my right to choose

  2. Jaime says:

    They are just EU/UN puppets, all three. Europe and/or the UN pulls the strings and they bob up and down compliantly. They have no loyalty to the UK or its people whatsoever. They don’t give a stuff about our economy and prosperity in the long term. Treason I think you call it. In no possible sense, shape or form could it be construed as being ‘environmentally responsible’. They would be hanged at The Tower in days gone by.

  3. tchannon says:

    Good Rog, you picked it up.

  4. p.g.sharrow says:

    This is the end game begun by Tomas Moore to destroy the Nation State and the concept of free enterprise and replace it with Elite lead, World Socialism or Communism. For nearly 200 years the Elite educational establishments of the west have brainwashed their students on how only they could Save humanity from it’s self. For the good of the World and humanity they must be enslaved to the RULE of the enlightened few.
    Nearly all the “leaders” of the western world have been educated in the same schools to push the same agenda. They discredit and block all decent. Small wonder they all sound the same.

    They will FAIL, but first they must make things so bad that they will discredit themselves for all time! The people will turn them out and ignore their words when things get bad enough. The Internet is OUR tool to fan the discontent with information that counters the Great Lie. pg

  5. Doug Proctor says:

    CO2 sequestration in existing oilfields is an exciting way to take normal recovery rates (RF: recovery factors) from 10% in tight, 35% in high permeability, normally pressured zones to >65% while sidestepping water-, gas- or light-liquid (miscible) floods. CO2 is expensive, ironically; a “gas” well that has a high CO2 content is worth more for the CO2 than the gas – if it can get to the consumer.

    I’d look to the coal plants near tidewater that could increase coal consumption and put in a liquid CO2 production facility for pressurized storage and transport to the North Sea declining fields. They are declining because the solution gas pressure is down, not because there isn’t more oil there. Maybe DRAX will crank it up: lot of CO2 in all that wood coming from America.

    Always keep in mind the RF numbers. Wherever fields are in primary production, there will be about 5X as much oil still present and in absolutely certain places and conditions as has been produced to date. Standard secondary recovery schemes in tight formations only bring the RF up to 25% from 10%, and that is a terrific situation.

    There is a multiple of to-date gross consumed supplies of oil in currently known places. If government mandated CO2 capture ends in old oil fields, your energy stocks will rocket and Gasprom will be sidelined. But, guess what? You are going to be subsidizing that CO2 capture process. The argument will be, later, that the money comes back in improved oil and gas revenues. Only if the money stays in the Nation, of course …

    Speaking of dry gas: gas injection storage schemes that I know of in Western Canada include depleted oil pools. Here’s the ironic part: when taken out of storage, the injected gas brings up that remaining 90% oil it has mobilized. The liquids recovered pay for the whole operation.

    So someone pays for storage and retrieval, and you make money in the cycle. Sweet.

  6. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
    Breaking Election News: The three main political parties in the United Kingdom to offer public real inclusion in the decision making process when they get to choose colour of the #Greencrap dumped from above on them.

  7. A C Osborn says:

    Doug Proctor says:
    February 14, 2015 at 6:23 pm
    You would make Power 30% more expensive and use 30% more coal, kill a whole load more pensioners and poor people to get a bit more oil out of the ground so that Oil Companies can make more profit.
    Well thanks very much, I only have one thing to say to you and the second word is Off.

  8. woodsy42 says:

    Shame that CO2 can’t somehow be used to pump into fracking extraction wells instead of water and push the gas out – could solve two problems at once!

  9. tallbloke says:

    Woodsy: Mighty expensive way to push gas around.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Woodsy: the Japanese figured it out.

    ‘A Kyoto University research team developed a new basic technology to extract shale gas trapped deep underground by injecting carbon dioxide into shale bedrock instead of water.’


    The three stooges look nearly as daft as the real thing.

  11. A C Osborn says:

    Odd can’t see the story in the pappers though.

  12. tallbloke says:

    I’m sure ‘pappers’ is a typo…. isn’t it?

  13. Joe Public says:

    Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

    Go green, burn brown:-

  14. tallbloke says:

  15. Joe Public says:

    Hi Rog

    Saskatchewan’s Boundary Dam project is the first operational plant. But only 1 of its 5 boiler houses was updated for CCS. 110MW. It cost £730 million. (That’s the price to update + new boilers, not to build from new)

    Here’s it’s owners’ PR:


    The Grauniad had a puff piece on it:


    Please be a little more tolerant of our dear leaders’ ignorance of the massive drop in efficiency, for neither of the above links mention that relatively insignificant fact.

    You’d think that at least SaskPower’s “factsheet” would mention it, but no.


  16. tallbloke says:

    Joe: We need engineers like me in parliament, urgently.

  17. M Simon says:

    tallbloke says:
    February 14, 2015 at 11:03 pm
    If ever there was a good reason to vote on May 7th for the only party committed to scrapping wind farm subsidy and nonsense ‘climate targets’, this is it.

    For those of us not intimately familiar with the politics could you identify the only party?
    [edit by co-moderator, added quote, see later comment. answer, united kingdom independence party. –tim]

  18. BoyfromTottenham says:

    Hi from Oz. The Boundary Dam project IS selling its “sequestered” CO2 for fracking (as an alternative to cheap H2O!).

    Bloomie today (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-14/the-white-house-walks-away-from-clean-coal) says:

    “SaskPower opened the world’s first full-scale clean-coal plant last October, in Canada’s Saskatchewan province. Known as Boundary Dam, the plant cost $1.2 billion, $190 million of which came from the Canadian government. Its emissions travel down a pipeline rather than up a smokestack. But Boundary Dam enjoys one key advantage over FutureGen: Rather than simply burying its emissions, it sells the CO2 to an oil company, which injects the compressed gas into old wells to coax more oil to the surface—a process known as “enhanced oil recovery.” That turns the CO2 into a marketable byproduct, creating a steady revenue stream that offsets some of the costs of putting a lid on emissions.”

    Of course they don’t bother to tell us how much they sell the CO2 for, or what happens to it once it has been injected into the old well (does it just disappear? How convenient!). What a fabulous daisy-chained scam.

  19. M Simon says:

    OK. I missed:

    tallbloke says:
    February 14, 2015 at 11:03 pm
    [mod: done}

  20. oldbrew says:

    ‘There will be much happiness in UKIP circles today, with the announcement that Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg are to sign a joint declaration on climate change, a move which has been brokered by green NGOs.’

    ‘A better way of making their parties look as if they are completely out of touch and/or working to NGOs’ agendas is hard to imagine.’


  21. tallbloke says:

    I should have made this clearer:

    Vote UKIP for sane energy policy!

    🙂 🙂


  22. Kon Dealer says:

    It’s true. There is no cure for “Stupid”.

  23. Stephen Richards says:

    The Internet is OUR tool to fan the discontent with information that counters the Great Lie. pg

    Only while the governments allow it. Cameron, Oblarny and the EU are already preparing laws to control the net.

  24. Green Sand says:

    Series of letters in the Sunday Telegraph under the heading “Pursuit of renewable targets will leave energy in short supply”


    The lead letter ends with:

    ” …To add to our troubles, the French have advised Ofgem that by next winter they are unlikely to have spare nuclear capacity for Britain”

    New to me, anybody have any details?

  25. Joe Public says:

    Hi Greensand

    “New to me, anybody have any details?”

    Could it be that Germany has offered to pay more than we do, for it?

  26. oldbrew says:

    France has capped its nuclear power generation and is closing its oldest plant in 2016. The new Flamanville plant is due to go live in 2016.

    ‘It will also be limited to 50% of France’s total output by 2025. Nuclear currently accounts for almost 75% of the country’s electricity production, making closures of power reactors appear inevitable.’


    Wikipedia says Hollande’s party favours ‘closing the oldest 24 reactors by 2025’.
    The status of the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project is anyone’s guess.


  27. Paul says:

    ……..”First, there are
    increasing doubts about the theory of man-made climate change.”

    Epic fail right there. Instead of coming clean and talking about “doubts” UKIP should just go the whole hog and come out as deniers. But, unfortunately they refuse to do this for fear of being made to look foolish by mainstream twerps.
    It’s so easy to demolish any warmist argument but UKIP take the safe option by essentially what amounts to sitting on the fence.
    Useless. PS. Moderation is a bit slow today.

    [Reply] Sorry about that. Just back from celebrating my mum’s 80th birthday – Rog

  28. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    Climate Hysteria Is Bring Down the Western World

    Global Temperatures Have Risen Less than 1C temp in 160 years
    Well within natural variation.

    Climate Doomsday Predictions
    Proven False By Reality
    Climate Models Wrong:
    CO2 Up Temperatures Flat For 18+ Years

    Temperature Data Tampering
    To Make Past Cooler
    Present Warmer

  29. Harry Passfield says:

    Funny that. I don’t recall, in all the fifty years I’ve been voting, that I ever saw Greenpeace on the ballot, let alone in government/ So why the hell do I have to be ruled by their idiocracy now?
    So I have written to me MP to ask him. I like to waste time that way…

  30. Stephen Richards says:

    ” …To add to our troubles, the French have advised Ofgem that by next winter they are unlikely to have spare nuclear capacity for Britain”

    New to me, anybody have any details?

    The socialists, as a payment for green votes at the last election (the election that brought the biggest dickhead of all time to power), promised to close a number of nuclear power stations. They are starting at Fessingham on the eastern border and working their way south from there. They have promised to close 50% of all nuclear power by 2025 and replace it with wind turbines. Plus they want to put 7.000.000 power sockets at the side of the roads for electrics cars, which don’t, exist to be powered by electricity which will not be available.
    Now from that you will realise why large corporations are keen supporters of AGW. You see, they will make huge sums of money following the bandwagon and can jump off when it begins to fail.

    No penalty.

  31. tallbloke says:

    Paul: It’s so easy to demolish any warmist argument but UKIP take the safe option by essentially what amounts to sitting on the fence.

    The point is that we need to separate the climate debate (which has no resolution until nature performs the crucial experiment for us (2025 should do), from the energy debate which is biting us now.

    That’s why UKIP sticks to pointing out incontrovertible facts, rather than getting embroiled in arguments for which there’s too much uncertainty to be able to resolve anything definite.

  32. Stephen Richards says:

    tallbloke says:

    February 15, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    Good point Roger. It is a fool who crowds his message with guesses and conjecture. Your election in the UK is going to be the dirtiest ever. The EU will be pumping money by the back door in order to avoid a UKIP win of any kind.

    Stick to the proveable facts and you can’t go wrong starting with a broadcast tweet about C4 disgusting piece of shit.

  33. tallbloke says:

  34. oldbrew says:

    David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin are granted an exclusive audience with the Almighty and each is invited to ask one question.

    ‘Will Britain ever leave Europe?’ asks the Prime Minister.

    ‘Yes,’ says the Almighty. ‘But not in your lifetime.’ ‘Will we ever have peace in the Middle East,’ asks the Labour leader.

    ‘Yes,’ says the Almighty. ‘But not in your lifetime.’ ‘Will we ever see HS2 high-speed rail, a third runway at Heathrow and driverless cars on British roads?’ asks the Transport Secretary.

    ‘Yes,’ affirms the Almighty. ‘But not in my lifetime.’

    From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

  35. melbournian says:

    Well, a couple of cold winters could see these guys literally frozen in hell. If energy prices have to rise to the extent predicted and/or supplementary supply of energy isn’t forthcoming or too expensive, then it’s pennies to a pound that deathrates will go through the roof. Mr Farage would do well to save all the current data on death rates before they start to adjust it as well as the climate data.

  36. A C Osborn says:

    Roger can UKIP afford to pay for TV and MSM Adverts to put across the main Bullet Points of how much the UK has wasted on Renewables and how much power it has generated and how much cheaper it could have been using Gas or god forbid coal?

  37. Alexander K says:

    Hi from NZ.
    It is the tail end of Summer here, and the daily temperature reading reminds me again of why my wife and I decided we couldn’t afford to stay in the UK to enjoy our retirement – we don’t have to choose whether to spend our pension on food or on heating. Even in the depths of Winter we don’t need to spend much extra on heating our home here.. Also, our economy here is doing quite well (compared with that of the UK and the EU), petrol at the pumps is well under 1GBP per litre and our weekly grocery shop costs about the same as it did in London (usually from Tesco at Twickenham) three years ago.
    Our political Green Party has just about faded into (comic) irrelevance as the female co-leader is formerly a member of the Macgillicuddy Serious Party and acts accordingly, while the male Green co-leader, an Australian former Communist, has recently resigned his co-leading position, but your three stooges have confirmed for us that the lunatics in Blighty have taken over the asylum..
    What happened to the Great Britain our fathers and grandfathers fought and died for?

  38. oldbrew says:

    Channel 4 in trouble 😉

    ‘The director of a controversial spoof documentary on Nigel Farage and UKIP will be appearing in Southwark Crown Court on Friday of this week, charged with cheating the public revenue.’