As he is reputed to do every Sunday while waiting for his
host to prepare luncheon, London’s occasional Mayor Alexander Boris de Pfeffel
Johnson has once more produced his weekly column for the Maily Telegraph – his generator of an annual £250k in “chicken feed” – on the subject of shale
gas, an energy source that he has embraced with the usual Bozza enthusiasm.
Cripes chaps, rumbled again!
Sadly, such has been his Messianic drive that Bozza has
sprinkled his copy liberally with a significant number of whoppers. As a
result, the requirement has arisen for someone to call him out on this, given
the Telegraph’s editorial staff will
not or cannot do their job properly and vet his column for accuracy. The first
Johnson howler concerns London’s newest skyscraper, The Shard.
“A new building like
the Shard needs four times as much juice as the entire town of Colchester”
he proclaims, to which I call bullshit. Renzo Piano, architect of The Shard, has
estimated that a town of 8,000 (the projected occupancy of the building)
would consume five times its energy. Colchester has a population of
over 104,000. Do the math. Bozza exaggerates by a factor of just 260. There’s a fail for you.
Never mind, perhaps he’s on firmer ground with wind power: “the total contribution of wind power is
still only about 0.4 per cent of Britain’s needs”. Sadly,
wrong again: it’s around 4% at quiet periods, and has recently managed over
10% on more than one occasion. So Bozza is out by at least a factor of ten, and
as much as 25. So what about shale gas fracking in the USA?
“There have been
125,000 fracks in the US, and not a single complaint to the Environmental
Protection Agency” he tells, so perhaps he can explain the EPA’s continuing
investigations into complaints over the water supplies in the state of Arkansas
(see HERE,
HERE
and HERE
for example). The EPA does not investigate without somebody prompting them.
But Bozza does have a very valid concern about energy
security: “We are therefore increasingly
and humiliatingly dependent on Vladimir Putin’s gas or on the atomic power of
the French state”. Two things here. The Anglo-French interconnector works
both ways, and the place we get all that gas is
the state of Qatar, which when I last looked was not under the control of
Vladimir Putin.
And what about jobs? “The
extraction process alone would generate tens of thousands of jobs”. Not
according the Quadrilla, who put the
figure at 5,600. So that’s another wild exaggeration, then. Some time ago I
called Boris Johnson an “Upmarket Littlejohn”, and it seems I was dead right:
he just can’t be bothered doing any research, and says whatever is needed to
back up his argument.
That isn’t good enough, except for the Telegraph. No surprise there,
then.
In Australia they're investigating high levels of methane above fracking sites. The potent greenhouse gas could be leaking from infra-structure or from the ground, but if fracking causes the leakage then all the suggestions that shale gas will be a greener alternative to coal until we are fully sustainable is wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt's also interesting to speculate who's had Boris's ear this week. He quite often marches in step with George Osborne, who's obviously got someone powerful in the pro-fossil-fuel/anti-green lobby pulling his strings.
ReplyDelete"He quite often marches in step with George Osborne, who's obviously got someone powerful in the pro-fossil-fuel/anti-green lobby pulling his strings."
ReplyDeleteProbably through his father-in-law, Lord Howell. Howell isn't the sharpest knife in the box and I can see no good reason why he was a Minister in his mid-70s, except perhaps to keep a seat warm for the anti-green lobbysist in the first couple of years of the coalition government.
Guano
I'd heard that Boris made the Shard-Colchester comparison at the CBI conference a few weeks ago, but it didn't get much coverage. That the Telegraph print shows that either their subs are terrible (surely someone would have questioned it?) or Boris is allowed to say what we wants without contradiction. By my calculation, he's out by a factor of 250 - and if new buildings are using less power than old ones, then that's actually an argument against fracking.
ReplyDeleteI borrowed a couple of your links (with acknowledgement, thanks) to write about it here http://www.nickbarlow.com/blog/?p=2318