Energy: What we should be doing post-Brexit

Posted: April 25, 2017 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Roger Helmer MEP enlarges on current UKIP energy policy

Roger Helmer MEP

The EU has long been committed to “the fight against global warming”.  In this context it has created a series of measures, most of which increase energy costs for industry and for households.  The result has been to force millions of UK households into fuel poverty, and to drive energy-intensive industries off-shore.  Industries which have borne the brunt of these policies have included steel, aluminium, chemicals and fertilisers, petroleum refining, cement, glass and ceramics.

Plant closures are only part of the problem: we should also bear in mind potential new investment, which is driven offshore by these measures.  We are in fact exporting industries and jobs, while worsening our balance of payments as we import materials previously made in Europe.  And the real irony is that the production often goes to jurisdictions with lower environmental standards, so the result is an increase in global emissions.

Measures have included aggressive…

View original post 813 more words

  1. oldbrew says:

    RH: ‘On repeal of the European Communities Act (1972) HM Government should repeal the Climate Change Act as a priority number one for Energy Policy.’

    At the moment they can’t even change the target except on the advice of the Climate Change Committee.

    Consultation on order amending 2050 target or baseline year
    (1) Before laying before Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument containing an
    order under section 2 (order amending the 2050 target or the baseline year), the
    Secretary of State must—
    (a) obtain, and take into account, the advice of the Committee on Climate
    Change, and
    (b) take into account any representations made by the other national

  2. ivan says:

    If the repealed the Climate Change Act (2008) and all supporting legislation that would remove the CCC or at least make it a toothless tiger with nothing to chew on.

    That would lead the way to removing specialist treatment for the hyper expensive renewable energy and kick-start more industrial production. In fact all the UK energy woes stem from that Act.

  3. Any one need a solar production plant?


    Location: Irapuato, Mexico

  4. ren says:

    Radiation dose rates, seen in this NAIRAS model, increase with altitude and latitude and can vary from hour to hour. Rates for Nov. 14, 2012, 20:00-21:00 GMT are shown above. Warmer colors indicate higher amounts of radiation. Credit: NASA/NAIRAS

  5. ren says:

    Just above you, high-energy particles, called cosmic rays, are zooming in from outer space. These speedy particles crash wildly into molecules in the atmosphere, causing a chain reaction of particle decays. While we are largely protected from this radiation on the ground, up in the thin atmosphere of the stratosphere, these particles can affect humans and electronics alike.
    Launched in September 2015 near Fort Sumner, New Mexico, NASA’s Radiation Dosimetry Experiment, or RaD-X, used a giant helium-filled balloon to send instruments into the stratosphere to measure cosmic radiation coming from the sun and interstellar space. The results, presented in a special issue of the Space Weather Journal, showcase some of the first measurements of their kind at altitudes from 26,000 to over 120,000 feet above Earth.
    “The measurements, for the first time, were taken at seven different altitudes, where the physics of dosimetry is very different,” said Chris Mertens, principal investigator of the RaD-X mission at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. “By having the measurements at these seven altitudes we’re really able to test how well our models capture the physics of cosmic radiation.”
    Cosmic radiation is caused by high-energy particles that continually shower down from space. Most of these energetic particles come from outside the solar system, though the sun is an important source during solar storms.

    Read more at:

  6. tallbloke says:

    Peter Lilley, one of only a handful of sci-trained MP’s, who voted agains the CCA in 2008, is not seeking re-election. Shame.

    “With some sadness I have decided not to seek re-election for Hitchin and Harpenden.

    It has been an immense privilege over the last 34 years to represent the people of Hitchin and Harpenden and, before the boundary changes, the people of St Albans.

    It has been a particular pleasure to work with an association which has been so supportive. They have my gratitude for their unfailing support.

    As a result of their hard work, we have seen the Conservative vote, share of vote and majority increase in every general election – first in St Albans and then in Hitchin and Harpenden.

    Now we have in Theresa May an outstanding Prime Minister in whom I have great confidence.

    I profoundly hope she will be returned with a strong mandate to complete the process of leaving the EU and to seize the opportunities which regaining control of our laws, border, money and trade will give our country.

    She, and whoever the people of Hitchin and Harpenden elect to succeed me, will have my full support.”

  7. oldbrew says:

    Climate whingers corner…

    CCN: UK foreign office cut climate staff in half under Tory government
    Published on 26/04/2017

    Sounds painful – cruel even 😉

  8. suricat says:

    “Energy: What we should be doing post-Brexit”

    That’s easy Rog. Reduce the ‘carbon tax’ for energy production that pollutes less, and I don’t see CO2 as ‘a pollutant’!

    No! I see ‘other derivatives’ from the energy production by means of ‘carbon oxidation’ as mediators for pollution that may well alter weather systems and climate. NOX and particulates are but two that I name:

    The ‘oxides of nitrogen’ (NOX) that are generated at the high combustion temperatures employed by the (more ‘thermally’ efficient) ‘Diesel engine’ should be levied with the high tax rate that they should enjoy for the pollution level that they impose for/with/by NOX (and particulates where, or when, the ‘air/fuel ratio’ is ‘too rich’). ‘Filters’ to these systems can only remove ‘particulates’ from the environment, not the ‘nitrogenous “gas” element’.

    ‘Particulates’ are mediated by the ‘incomplete combustion’ of a ‘carbon fuel’. ‘IOW’ (In Other Words), ‘smoke’ from a ‘fire/combustion process’ and can mediate a ‘true’ ‘downwelling IR back radiation’ of sorts, but ‘particulates’, per se, are ‘solid bodies’ that don’t comply with the energy constraints that EM field energies comply with.

    How can this be reconciled?

    Best regards, Ray.

  9. suricat says:

    “James Delingpole: An energy policy for Theresa May”

    Well thanks for re-blogging/re-posting from my comment in “Energy: What we should be doing post-Brexit” (suricat says: April 27, 2017 at 1:03 am), but the response generated seems to be more ‘politically oriented’ than ‘science oriented’ IMHO James.

    You may want to refrain from ‘re-blogging/re-posting’ another individual/commenter ‘comment content’ unless you, fully understand the content of the comment (including the ‘science’), are aware of the intent of the ‘commenter’ and have the ‘permission’ of the ‘commenter’ by some means, or other, of communication.

    I ‘offer/give’ permission in this instance, but take care in the future. You should, at least, E-mail your ‘source’!

    This comment is repeated in both ‘blog posts’.