WE’VE just had Storm Dave and the next one could be Eddie. Do either of those names fill you with dread? Do they tell of lashing rain and howling gales? Dave is the chap you call in to mend the back gate. Isn’t Eddie that bloke in the chippie?
Was Depression Dave so unusual it had to be christened? The UK is about halfway between equator and pole where weather systems are very active and mostly come at us from the Atlantic. The frequency of Dave-type depressions (low pressure and bad weather) is the result of our latitude and position on the edge of an ocean. We’ve always had them, some much fiercer than Dave.
The ‘Great Storm’ of 1703, for instance, and another ‘Great Storm’ in 1987. Plus the 100 or more smaller versions we have every year. They used to come and go without much comment. There were a couple in 1986 named after the hurricanes that originally started them off. The one in August 1979 became the ‘Fastnet Disaster’ storm; the event of January 25, 1990, was of course the Burns Day storm.
It was in 2015 that climatologists noticed we were not paying attention. We were stupidly worrying more about the cost of living, immigration and the possibility of a referendum about leaving the EU. There was too much going on to bother about climate change.
Their idea, you must admit, was faultless: they would promote all the more exuberant weather events into a ‘storm’ category, and (this is the really brilliant part) they would give each a name. Think of it. A forecast of ‘very windy weather with heavy rain’, which is how it used to be described, might go almost unnoticed in these times of monomaniacal turbine-people.
But if we are warned of the imminent arrival of a ‘storm’ – Chandra, Isha, Darragh, Babet or whatever – then, reasoned the meteorologists, we will be afraid and stay indoors to avoid the flying tiles and trampolines. There’s another clever bit here, because you cannot help but deduce that with all these storms lately the weather must be getting worse and it’s all to do with global warming. To get the message across, other European weather organisations have their own naming system, which is why there was a Storm Goretti early in January.
However, and with weather and climate there’s always a ‘however’, recent observations ‘show no clear trend in wind or windstorms’, says the man in the Met Office. They also admit that a storm ‘doesn’t have an official meteorological definition . . . [but] is commonly used to describe a deep and active area of low pressure with associated strong winds and precipitation’. We’ve always had them; they’ve just made them sound more dangerous.
The thought might have occurred to you that all this windy weather must be ideal for the Net Zero tribe and their 12,000 turbines, onshore and offshore. In theory they could produce 32 Gigawatts (GW) which would often be sufficient for the whole of the UK. (Gigawatts are a way of measuring electrical power. One GW is equal to 1,000,000,000 watts. If your nearest approach to a watt is by way of your 1,500-watt toaster, made in China, just concentrate on the figures and ignore the units.)
The output of all those turbines during some of those storms comes nowhere near that total we need. The maximum generated is around 23 GW, when the UK actually needs 30-35 GW rising to 40-45 during winter evening peak times. At times of very light winds the contribution of all 12,000 can fall to between one and two GW. Didn’t anyone tell Mr Miliband that the wind does not always blow?
The Government is still in the grip of the Net Zero delusion, confidently telling us that by 2030 at least 95 per cent of electricity will come from ‘clean’ power sources. Those sources will presumably be wind, sun, biomass (wood pellet burning), hydro (water power), battery backup and nuclear. The remaining 5 per cent could either be from Europe or from gas, possibly by then imported.
Doubling the number of turbines and solar farms will not help on a winter evening when the very light wind is hardly enough even to start the blades turning, the sun has set early, and biomass and hydro can only contribute 5 per cent of what is needed. The answer is nuclear, maybe.
The only existing nuclear plant which will still be working by 2030 is Sizewell B (1.2 GW) but Hinkley Point C will hopefully be generating 3.2 GW by then. Nothing else will be available until at least the mid-2030s (more about the UK’s complex and possibly optimistic nuclear plans another time).
If Hinkley C starts up as forecast, in December 2030 the two power plants will give us around 10 per cent of the early evening peak demand. Add 5 per cent bio and hydro plus only a little from the turbines during periods of light winds, then ask yourselves where will the remainder be found?
Gas, of course. Gas from Norway’s North Sea rigs, gas from the USA’s fracking, gas imported as LNG, gas from wherever we can buy it. Hugely expensive gas.
