The Trouble with Heat Pumps Part 1

Domestic heat pumps are being heavily promoted by energy companies and the Green lobby as an efficient way to cut carbon emissions while simultaneously reducing  consumer energy bills. 

But do the figures really stack up? In fact is either of the above claim true? Or are the promoted advantages of heat pumps based more on wishful thinking than reality?

There is so much hype going on around Heat Pumps it is difficult to separate the facts from propaganda. But as this topic has been bugging me for some time I thought I would have a go and maybe puncture a few of the propaganda bubbles and economies-of-truth surrounding heat pumps. 

So here goes.

There are two main types of domestic heat pumps. Ground source heat pumps (GSHP) and air source heat pumps.  (ASHP). 

The first two posts will deal with GSHP’s then I’ll cover ASHP’s and in a final post I’ll look at the often stated aim of nationally replacing domestic gas heating with heat pumps. I'll show what I think are some extremely serious financial and electrical issues society will have to deal with if a mass adoption of heat pumps were to be seriously attempted.

Ground Source Heat Pumps. (GSHP)

By any measure, for a normal family installing or updating  their domestic heating with a GSHP, it will be an enormously expensive operation. In addition to the basic installation costs there are also other significant costs that are, if not hidden, quite obfuscated.

The Energy Saving Trust estimated the cost of installing a GSHP in a typical family home at between £14,000 to £19,000. (HERE)

Selectra (HERE) give a slightly higher but more detailed cost break-down

Notice from the above Selectra chart, a bore-hole system (which intuitively feels like the less costly of the two techniques) actually involves over twice the ground work cost of a horizontal system.

So the cheapest GSHP system will involve installing an underground pipe network under your garden. This means your home has to fit the following criteria:  

    • You have a garden (which will be trashed and need relaying)

    • It is accessible for heavy machinery

    • It is on a sufficiently pliable bedrock/soil

    • Your garden is big enough.

With regard to garden size The Ground Source Heat Pump Association (HERE) claim the following:

“As a general guide, for a newly built 3-bedroomed house of around 120 m with a heat loss of around 6kW, two trenches of 30-40 metres in length would typically be required.”

Note “with a heat loss of 6KW”. I assume it equates to the output from the heat pump required to maintain a modern 3 bed house at around 20degC. 

That’s a tiny heating system! Maybe suitable for a new build conforming to all the latest building regulations regarding insulation but hardly likely to be adequate for existing housing stock.

I’d suggest the vast majority of the current UK housing stock would have a lot of difficulty maintaining warmth all year round with a mere 6KW and two forty meter trenches.

EverGreen Energy (HERE) suggest as a rule of thumb you need a garden size of:

"..roughly twice the total floor area of your home from every storey.

The Centre for Alternative Energy (CAT) (HERE) suggests you need 10m of “slinky coil” per KW and that a typical 8KW heat pump requires 400 sqm (20m x 20m). According to the CAT you need 5 meters between the trenches. 

I suspect that both the EverGreen estimate and the CAT estimate assume unrealistically thermally efficient housing. But never mind. We will run with it anyway.

So, how big are typical houses in the UK? Savilles (HERE) tell us what the average floor area per house type is. So using the “twice floor area of your house” rule of thumb we can get a rough idea how big a garden you need for installing a GSHP into each type of house.

Typical Detached House:

• Floor area 152 sqm. 
• GSHP area (twice house floor area) 304 sqm.
• Minimum required garden size: 18m x 18m or 57ft x 57ft

Typical semi-detached house:

• Floor area 93 sqm. 
• GSHP area (twice house floor area) 186 sqm.
• Minimum required garden size: 14m x 14m or 45ft x 45ft

Typical Terraced house:

• Floor area 83 sqm. 
• GSHP area (twice house floor area) 166 sqm.
• Minimum required garden size: 13m x 13m or 42ft x 42ft

What percentage of the UK homes have gardens that big? 

In  fact from (HERE) 1 in 8 UK homes have no garden at all! Of those who have a garden, the median garden size (i.e. the size where half are bigger and half are smaller) is 188 sqm. Which suggests that houses whose garden (if they have one and including front and back) would be big enough is about one third of the total number of UK homes.

Of those with big enough gardens most will be homes owned by the more well-off in society. Especially in London and the South. Notice the NONE of the above fulfil the CAT requirement of 400 sqm for an 8KW heat pump.

If you then assume that only one space (front or back garden) could be practically used for the piping, I would suspect you would eliminate all bar 10% of homes. Of those, almost all will be older and more expensive properties.

So what about bore holes? 

Look at the Selectra table (above) that gives ground work costs. Notice that vertical ground work costs are at least double (with most approaching three times) the cost for horizontal systems. So while there would be less stress on garden area when installing a vertical system, there would be considerably more stress on the bank account. 

Also notice that nasty little reality check paragraph underneath the Selectra table. It details some (not all) of the building work that is excluded from the price estimates.

Water temperature

GSHPs can only efficiently heat water to around 40 degC rather than the typical 65 -70 degC of a gas system.  In just about all domestic scenarios GSHPs are less capable than condensing gas boilers. 

As a result of the low output water temperature you need to install (recommended by most) underfloor heating with your GSHP. Alternatively you could significantly increase the size of all your radiators.

Either way you trash your house. 

To cap it off most companies selling these systems also highly recommend you upgrade your homes thermal insulation as well (assuming that is that there is anything left in the bank account to pay for it)

From installation issues alone I would suggest that GSHP’s are wholly inappropriate for most properties in the UK. There will be exceptions. But they will be exactly that: Exceptions. Not the rule.

Lets not forget, all I have covered at this stage is the impracticality for installing GSHPs in most UK properties. 

I haven’t covered the practicalities in actually running the things yet. (that's in the next post). 

There is also the potential impact on the electricity grid if the proposed scenario of GSHPs and ASHPs replacing gas boilers ever came to pass. ( last post in this series)

The next post (on the problems with the day-to-day running of GSHPs) is HERE

Trump, Biden and Penalty Shoot-outs

Imagine the next presidential election in the USA was reduced to a single penalty kick at a soccer match.

The Democratic party are on the penalty spot lining up to take the penalty. 

In front of them lies a big wide open goal. 

The only defence is a bad tempered geriatric goalkeeper with Attention Deficit Disorder.

Everyone thinks it’s going to be a walk over. 

But, in some weird sense of fair-play the Democratic party has selected an even older geriatric to take the penalty kick. Worse still, the penalty kicker has (policy wise) been known in the past to kick the ball in the wrong direction.

Will he score? Will he in fact even manage to kick the ball? Or will his flailing leg miss the ball completely so he falls flat on his face?

Or maybe the ball will just dribble forward and stop short – just like the previous penalty kicker did.

But at least Biden isn’t the entitlement candidate. Everyone hates entitlement. As Bidens predecessor found out.

But at 77 (81 after one term) it hardly bodes well for USA (let alone the world) that this contest will be won by someone (either Republican or Democrat)  considerably the wrong side of “three score years and ten”.

Of course Biden is only there because the rest of the sane division of the Democratic party baulked at the possibility of suffering the same humiliation that was meted out to Clinton. Nobody wanted the job - except the loonies, and even then, their prime candidate was even older than Biden. 

Why didn’t anyone want the job? 

Because Trump (bad tempered geriatric and sometimes just plainly bizarre) was driving a booming economy. 

The job as Democratic Presidential candidate had the word LOSER written all over it. 

But somebody had to do it. So old Joe Biden stepped up to the plate to be the sacrificial offering to democracy. To that extent we should say good for him. At least he wasn’t a coward like the rest.

Then along came Covid-19. Trump, ambushed by “events” appears out of his depth.  

Today Trump is on the back foot. That big open goal is even bigger and now slightly downhill from the penalty spot.

But still, the Democratic party seems obsessed with some strange concept of giving the Republicans a chance. It has insisted on an all female short list for the Vice President role. 

The short list for this role is (to say the least) very important. With the President nominee at the end of his natural life there is a significant possibility that the deputy president will in fact become the President before the next four years is out. Excluding half of the potential candidates because they have the “wrong” reproductive organs seems hardly rational. We are not filling a quota here! But never mind.

There are people on this Democratic party short list who are clearly worthy of the position (IMHO this lady particularly) and undoubtedly they would have been there irrespective of their sex. But some of the candidates are so fashionably woke and divorced from the electorate (like Clinton was) that they could actively inhibit the penalty shot.

So in my humble opinion, the success or failure of the Democrats challenge to Trump will succeed or fail NOT on the quality of the geriatric presidential contenders but on the character and credibility of their running mates.

I reckon if the democrats choose Tammy Duckworth, (War hero, competent and popular) then they’ll win. Probably hands down. But if they choose one of the entitlement “woke” candidates on the short list - they’ll get hammered.

Anyway, that’s the view of a remote and distant Englishman. You may well ask: Why the hell is an Englishman commenting on an American election anyway? 

I’m actually tempted to agree with you. Why the hell am I? 

First of all I loved the image of Trump and Biden engaged in a penalty shoot-out. 

But I really decided to post it because the world is in the shit. 

The USA (like it or not - as you will) is the only country in the world capable of turning it around. So everyone must take an interest.

So for my American buddies: Let me remind you that the next president of the USA is going to be in their late seventies. De-facto. That’s Zimmer* frame territory.

So when you make your decision, fully check out the quality and integrity of the Vice Presidential candidate.

Factoring that into your decision would appear to be a very good idea.

* Zimmer Frame (UK)  = Walking frame (USA) . Thanks to Lee Alley for the translation!

 

Time to say Goodbye (again)

Well, That goodbye didn't last long did it? Tonight I felt the urge to post again. So logically the rest of this particular post is now irrelevant. 

Hey Ho.

So, it is time to say goodbye again. Maybe for a while. Maybe forever.

Frankly I am now just getting irritated with the continual dream-world fantasies of the energy-illiterate. I have had enough of them. Their solutions are based on ignorance and are reinforced by gross stupidity. I really cannot be bothered addressing their delusions anymore.

Then we have (at the time of writing) the Corona Virus lock-down. Of all things this has perhaps been the most vivid example of MSM bias and fear-mongering. Couple that to the obscene political jockeying and it is enough to put anyone off.

So these days I never seem to get the inclination to write a post.

I thought I would put up this one last post to signal that BilloTheWisp and his sub-ego (the one that actually does the writing) will take a break. Maybe I'll be back. Maybe not.

The existing posts will be left here. Some folk still read them! Hopefully they find them useful. After all, nothing has got better about the wind energy farce has it?

My Twitter activity will also reduce and may stop completely. This is because I have become increasingly appalled at the censorship and partisan bias that has come to define corporate social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook.

So, to all my mates wherever you are, keep fighting the good fight, especially for a sane energy policy.

To to all my derided and abused compatriots in the fight for UK self determination remember this:

Even with the spite, hatred and corporate fear mongering that has been channelled against you, just remember who won the Brexit vote.

You did! 😀

Self determination and Democracy are never cheap.

Do a tour of the Normandy graveyards if you ever doubt that.

Keep the Faith.

Farewell!

Comparing Covid-19 Deaths UK and Italy.

Today I heard Keir Starmer making political capital out of the rising death toll in the UK. He is not alone. He has been joined by many in the MSM in telling us (glee barely concealed) that the  UK death toll from CV-19 exceeds that of Italy.

This is not a contest. But it irritated me enough to make me look into the numbers myself.

The data/sources and my reasoning are below for each country. Mostly this is based on discrepancies between total death count this year and the rolling 5 year average.

The main takeaways from this post as as follows:

• It appears the deaths in Italy from CV-19 are being massively under-reported. The under-reporting is almost by a factor of two. It also appears that no attempt has been made to rectify this problem to-date. So I believe that today (6th May) Italian CV-19 deaths are still heavily under-reported.

• CV-19 deaths in the UK were originally under-reported as they failed to take into account care-homes and the community. I understand this was corrected in late April. The date range in this article pre-dates this change so I have compensated for care home deaths and community deaths and included them along with hospital deaths. 

As of today (imho) I reckon the numbers stack up more-or-less correctly for the UK. But not for Italy.

I fail to see how the MSM (let alone the Leader of the Opposition) cannot know this.

Incidentally (post posting update!) Reuters newsagency report HERE more-or-less concurs with my figures. In fact (hurts to say!) they beat me to it by a couple of days.

Italy

I am relying on most of the figures for Italy from this BBC ARTICLE. (Yes. The MSM's own data!)

Here the BBC states that from 20th February through to “end of March” (I assume that is and includes 31st March) Italy suffered 90,946 deaths from all causes.

All causes is CV-19, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, accidents and everything else.

The rolling five year average for all-cause deaths during the same period in Italy is 65,592.

Which gives an excess death count of 25,534 (from 20th February up to & including 31st March) this year.

So how many deaths were actually flagged up as being caused by CV-19 during this period?

Sadly the BBC leave that bit out. (And why did they do that I wonder.)

From https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/  we get this graph:

Incidentally this concurs with the Statista graph HERE:

The number of deaths recorded from CV-19 during 20th February to 31st March in Italy was 12,428

This is less than half the total excess deaths recorded from all causes.

As the Italian health service was at times overwhelmed, it is likely that some of these extra 25,000 mortalities were from causes other than CV-19 (Heart attacks/strokes etc) that went unattended.

But it would seem highly likely that only a small proportion of  these extra 25,000 deaths were from non CV-19 causes.

I would suggest that the excess deaths from non-covid-19 causes would be about at maximum 15%. That would give us an excess death count caused by Covid-19 of about 21,250 over the period 20th February through to 31st March in Italy. Not 12,428 as reported.

So it would look like the Italian death count for Covid-19 from 20th February through to the end of March is under-reported by around 9000 to 10,000.

So do these missing 10,000 deaths get added later on?

That looks impossible. Look at the curve on the worldodometer graph. While a few deaths will always be reported late there is simply no room to accommodate 10,000 pre 31st March deaths in another later time period without significantly changing the graph shape.

In fact the graph shape suggests that this counting scheme used up to 31st March is still in place.

If that is so then the real death toll from Covid-19 in Italy up to today (6th May) is more like 40,000 – 50,000.

UK.

The BBC article unfortunately does not give hard dates for the UK period of “6 weeks” but states that it started from the first UK CV-19 virus death. This death occurred on the 28th February. Six weeks later is 10th April.

(Incidentally this is two days longer than the equivalent Italian period - but never mind)

The BBC informs us that the total number of deaths from all causes during this period was 89,735. The rolling five year average for total deaths during this calender period is 72,812. Which gives us an excess death total of 16,923.

The NHS total of CV-19 deaths (NOT the full total) up to 10 April is given in the graph below as 10,760. (from HERE)

So at this point we are left with 6,000 excess deaths unaccounted for.

This weekly summary from the ONS for deaths during week ending 17th April (HERE) indicates that up to week 16, 77.4% of deaths from CV-19 occurred in hospital. Which would mean that 22.6% occurred in care-homes and the community.

Although the statement is first reported in the PDF for week 16 (17th April) rather than week 15 (10th April) it would seem reasonable that the percentage death by location would be very similar on a weekly basis.

So if 10,760 deaths from CV-19 occurred in hospitals up to 10th April it militates that the real death count from CV-19 (including care homes and the community as well as hospitals)  was 13901.

Which now leaves an excess of just over 3000 unaccounted for.

Although the NHS has not been overwhelmed (unlike the Italian health service was) it has delayed/cancelled/postponed procedures.

People were originally encouraged not to go to hospital. Consequently people were either frightened of catching CV-19 or simply did not wish to burden the NHS further with their CV-19 unrelated problems. Hospital attendances fell off a cliff. Some died as a result.

If (like Italy) we assume 15% excess deaths are due to extra heart attacks/stroke deaths we get down to 915 unaccounted deaths over this 6 week period.

This is small enough to get lost in the noise of rolling 5 years averages. But even if you assume they actually were unreported Covid-19 deaths then that would give an under-reporting in the UK of a mere 6% compared to Italy’s under reporting of 70 – 100%.

Then finally we come to population size and density. The UK has a 10% larger population than Italy. UK population density is 30% higher than that of Italy.

So I think it would be reasonable to say that the deaths from CV-19 per capita in Italy are twice as high as those in the UK.

But this is not a contest.

This is a tragedy.

Maybe Mr Starmer should keep that in mind next time he goes to make political capital out of the misery of his countrymen and women.

Insects and a new Silent Spring

There is a hidden on-going man-made environmental catastrophe taking place today.  It rarely gets mentioned. If does get mentioned the cause is deliberately misrepresented. Mostly though, it is ignored. Swept under the carpet. In the hope that nobody will notice.

This calamity directly leads to the destruction of 1.2 trillion flying insects each year in Germany alone. A calamity that could lead to a massive and potentially irreversible decline in agriculture and wildlife.

The 1.2 trillion lost flying insects is a tiny part of the overall German insect population. But it is most certainly not insignificant. By comparison it equates to about one third of the entire migrating insect population in southern England.

The crucial aspect of these 1.2 trillion insect losses are that they are flying and migrating insects. They are mostly at the adult stage and are going to breed. Predatory losses among insect larvae and young adults are usually well in excess of 90%.  Trivialising the loss of these 1.2 trillion adult insects by comparing their number to the overall insect count (as some do) is foolish.

If you impact the relatively small numbers that actually reach the breeding stage, you will potentially cause a population collapse. Not only in the insects themselves, but later within the insect predators. The main insect predators are birds and other arthropods (mainly spiders) so don't be surprised when they start disappearing too.

This annual loss has been happening over a decadel time-scale. This catastrophe works a little like compound interest in reverse. Initially the effect is small. But the predators continue to eat. Until that is, they themselves are unable to find enough food. So as each year goes by, the effect builds on itself.

Today in some parts of Germany the flying insect population has collapsed by 75%. Where there is one flying insect today, in 2000 there were four.

When you have a situation like this you expect to see a smoking gun.  Some change that has been made within this short timescale. A change that correlates with the decline. Something that already has a track record in causing insect death. Then surely it would be sensible to highlight it as the potential cause.

You only ever miss seeing such a murder weapon if it is being hidden from you. Or alternatively, your cognitive dissonance insists that one of your cherished icons could never cause such wanton destruction.

Both of these options seem to be in play today.

It is true not all of the insect population decline may be caused by this single but lethal mechanism. But there seems little doubt that it makes all other possibilities (aka Climate Change, insecticides, wet weather, traffic) pale by comparison. Here’s a table of possibilities and their calculated impact. Notice the big bar labelled “Unknown”. So big in fact that it has its own scale.

So it looks like our smoking gun is "Unknown". But what has arrived since 1990? Further more what is known to destroy insects en-masse? In fact what is known to destroy insects in such numbers that the insect DNA residue smeared over its surfaces can inhibit its operation? What has grown in number as the insect population has declined?

So before I announce the murderous methodology of this wanton  man-made destruction let me first link you to two peer reviewed scientific papers both published in prominent and respected scientific journals. As well as that I'll first link in a Nature article from 2001. All the graphs/images on this post are taken from the peer reviewed papers.

Why am I doing this first?

Because what I am about to tell you will possibly cause you a great deal distress. I don't want you to discard this this information simply because it seriously challenges your world view. Here they are: (notice the oldest dates back to 2001 – this has been known about for a long time – and covered up)

• Corten (2001) - Insects can halve wind-turbine power
• Hallman et al (2017) - More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas
• Trieb (2018) - Interference of Flying Insects and Wind Parks (original link - broken?)
• Trieb (2018) - Interference of Flying Insects and Wind Parks (new link - download)
•  
• (NEW! 2022) Diet analysis of bats killed at wind turbines suggests large-scale losses of trophic interactions

So, the titles of the papers possibly tipped you off regarding the mechanism that is destroying wildlife on such a grand scale. But if you missed it, the smoking gun appears to be:

The wind turbine.

Or rather the 30,000 wind turbines that scar the face of German countryside. This is what they do:

The murderous effect of wind turbines on insect populations has been known about for at least twenty years. Nothing has been done. In fact the problem has been obfuscated, ignored and otherwise covered up by the wind industry.

I first blogged about it nearly seven years ago HERE . But back then I had no idea how bad the problem was.

But it gets worse.

It appears the greatest danger wind turbines present to insect populations is when the wind is low and the turbines are in effect idling. They will be producing little or nothing except the slaughter of billions of insects a day.

So why are they turning? Why have they not been braked?

Vanity.

The wind turbine lobby love to pretend that wind turbines are producing energy even in low winds. What they do not tell you is that the amount produced in low wind is so pitifully small it might as well not be generated at all. It is most certainly not worth decimating the worlds insect populations on which the whole eco-structure of the world depends.

An immediate imperative to mitigate this evolving insect cataclysm is for wind turbines to be stopped when the wind speed is low. This needs to be done NOW.

Then we really need to take a long hard look at these fashionable yet massively counter-productive and sub-optimal  “green” energy mechanisms.

This insect murdering wind turbine calamity could (and possibly already has) cause irreversible damage to both the larger environment along with agriculture and biodiversity.

Please read the papers (especially the one by Trieb) They may be dry but they are vital if we are going to recover from this calamity

On a personal note I would like to say that I don’t scare easily. I generally view end-of-the-world or cataclysmic viewpoints with disdain.

But I find Trieb's paper alarming. What makes it so alarming is that it is a worthy, peer reviewed and momentous paper. There is no hidden agenda. No half-truths. No obfuscations. In fact I could well imagine that Trieb has taken an enormous amount of flak from vested interests already.

Yet Treib's paper is not only being ignored it is being stonewalled and denied without any form of valid refutation.

To use a phase: We need to listen to the science. Then we need to discard the wishful thinking.

Particularly we urgently need to listen to THIS science and listen to it whether we like it or not. There is no excuse to ignore this.

In low winds these fatuous fashion statements must be stopped from turning.

We must stop this evolving insect catastrophe.

Before it is too late.

An Inconvenient Ruminant

The inconvenient ruminant in question is the North American Bison, colloquially known as an American Buffalo.

An American Bison [wikipedia: Jack Dykinga]

The American Buffalo is a potent symbol in the USA and Canada. They have been called Buffalos since the very first European settlers arrived in the mid 1600’s and generally that is what they are known as today.

In fact there are two different subspecies of American Buffalo. The Plains Bison and the Wood Bison. Both are large animals with the Woods Bison being among the biggest of bovine animals in the world and certainly the biggest land animal in the Americas

The American Bison is undoubtedly a magnificent wild beast. But as a species they presents a bit of a problem for Vegan and other Climate Change fanatics like Extinction Rebellion. These are the people who are seeking to reduce/ban/outlaw meat eating on some half-baked delusion that disavowing meat and substituting (say) Mung beans will save the planet.

Let me tell you (with help from the history of the American Bison) why they are wrong.

But first let us just review what exactly the argument against meat production is, and why it is actually deeply flawed even without bringing the American Bison into the argument.

The general attack on the livestock industry these days centres around Climate Change and a blinkered mindset that somehow has convinced itself that animal husbandry is a "bad thing"

The main thrust of the Vegan/Extinction Rebellion argument is that domestic ruminants (mainly cattle) emit large quantities of methane. Methane is a known greenhouse warming gas with an immediate impact. Initially this impact is many times the forcing impact of an equivalent amount of Carbon Dioxide.

So you would think that the more cattle you had then the worse it would be. Over a decadel time-scale (ten years or so) and to an limited extent, that is true.

But Methane is a volatile gas and quickly breaks down in the atmosphere. It decays away exponentially. Within 18 months of a release half is gone. Within 12 years the amount left is immeasurable.

So if your ruminant herd size is stable then the warming effect from the methane release from this herd is stable. If you increase the herd size then it is true the methane release increases. But the warming effect from this increase stabilises within ten years. The net result is that for all countries with more or less stable ruminant herd sizes the contribution to global warming is already factored in. Further warming from these stable herds will be nil. Zilch. Nada.

If you want some proof of this then try this post on the British Veterinary Associations website HERE. But better still refer to the actual paper from Oxford University (IPCC researchers none the less) HERE.

Remember though. We haven’t got to the inconvenient history of the American Bison yet.

American Bisons come from countries (the USA and Canada) that the average Vegan zealot would regard as the arch-criminals of meat eating Methane production.

The USA has between 60 and 80 million cattle, all farting and burping (mostly burping) out their Methane like there was no tomorrow. But, as shown by Oxford University, if the herd size is stable, all that warming from Methane is already factored in.

This is not a gaseous Armageddon in the making. But it gets even more interesting. In fact on an historical timescale there is a reasonable chance that total ruminant emissions, (including the millions of domestic cows) may well be lower now than it was 400 years ago.

How come?  It comes down to a (real) man-made ecological disaster that befel the American Bison in the 19th century.

American Bisons or Buffaloes (call them what you will) were nearly hunted to extinction from around 1830 through to 1880.

By 1880 there were less than 1000 American Buffalos left. Luckily, even in those dark days there were people who recognised the importance in preserving these magnificent beasts.

The American Plains Buffalo was rescued from the brink of extinction. The Woods Buffalo though was feared to be extinct for over 70 years.

Then by sheer luck a herd of 200 were found in a remote part Northern Alberta in Canada in 1957.

Today in total there are about 500,000 American Buffalos in existence. Their recovery from the brink of extinction is an epic tale and something we should all be proud of. Just as we should be truly appalled how they got to the point of extinction in the first place.

So what? You may ask. How does this relate to methane release?

One simple figure should tip you off.

Remember those 500,000 American Buffalos that exist today?

Well, that number is probably less than one per cent of the estimated herd size back in 1700.

Back in 1700 the American Buffalo herd size has been estimated at being between a low of 30 million and up to 75 million. There is even a possibility it topped 100 million. A total herd population of 60 million seems to be the consensus estimate. The herds of Buffalo once stretched from down in Miami right up to Alaska.

The net result of the hunting carnage in the 19th century is that today the methane emissions from the domestic American cattle herd is largely offset and maybe completely offset by that from the slaughtered (and now missing) 60 million American Bison.

So cattle ranching in the USA and Canada has in reality only brought ruminant methane release back up to around that in pre-settlement days.

Nobody suggests that the wanton slaughter of 60 million American Bison in the 19th century was a “good thing”. Far from it.

But it does mean that today the scare stories surrounding methane release from domestic cattle in the USA and Canada are at best over-blown.

At worst they are a myth.
------
Notes:

There is quite a good Wikipedia piece on the American Bison HERE

More information on methane release by Bison and other wild ruminants can be found in This Article

What looks like an interesting book (only skimmed it so far) from the 1890’s titled:

The Extermination of the American Bison 
by William T. Hornaday

Hornaday was the Superintendent of the U.S. National Zoological Park. It looks like he was one of the heroes who saved the day as far as the American Bison was concerned.

His book is available for free from the Gutenberg project on THIS LINK.

Domestic Electricity Prices & Wind Turbine Subsidies

Nearly nine years ago I wrote a blog post analysing the consumer electricity price differences between European countries. This was based on the table below which came from  THIS SITE.

The original post is HERE.

European Electricity Prices in 2011

The data was sobering. Especially with how the price appeared to track the level of installed wind power within the country.

I intended to update this on a regular basis but for some reason the website stopped making the data available. Eventually  I gave up trying and forgot about it.

By chance (as it is the year end) I was looking at the stats for this blog. I noticed that the old post on European electricity prices (now nearly nine years old) was still getting a fair amount of traffic.

So yesterday I went back onto the The European Energy Portal just in case they had any links to up-to-date data. The good news is that they have restarted providing the data. So now I can at least (after a delay of eight and a half years) update the original.

The readings today, after nearly nine years of rampant and virtually unconstrained development of industrial wind turbines and other RE make for even more sober analysis than before.

Here’s the new table of European electricity prices.

European Electricity Prices 2019

You will notice that the relative price between countries is virtually unchanged. Denmark still hosts the most expensive household electricity. Germany is again a close second. Sweden is today marginally cheaper than France but both have undergone significant price increases. Especially France which has politically disavowed its clean cheap and effective nuclear power in favour of yet more wind turbines.

Bulgaria still has the cheapest electricity in Europe with a virtually unchanged price. Interestingly Austria has also maintained its 2011 price.

Many European countries though have suffered large real-value increases in the price of their electricity. Often well above inflation.

The UK is a case in point. The is a period of eight years between the original post and the updated table. The price (in Euros) over this time went up from 15c to over 22c. That’s a rise of over 7c or a rise of about 50% unadjusted for inflation.

FROM HERE price inflation in the UK since 2011 to 2019 was 21%. So the rise in electricity prices in the UK over this eight year period has on average been at more than double the annual rate of inflation.

So why is this?

Maybe gas prices have gone up? (gas accounts for about one half of UK electricity generation)

No.

The gas spot price is actually cheaper today than it was in 2011, and by a considerable margin.

Is nuclear adding to the cost?

No.

In fact what nuclear there is left is now more efficient and cost effective than ever. Today nuclear power offers the cheapest electricity on the UK market.

Coal as a major UK electricity generating fuel is no more. It is a bit part player. Besides, the coal price (like the gas price) is considerably lower today than in 2011.

But there is a large new added cost since 2011 and that cost is associated with Renewable Energy.

There’s been lots of smoke and mirrors about how “cheap” wind power and solar have become but you only have to dig a little way into data to show the truth.

As the years have gone on the amount of subsidy to wind turbines you provide from your electricity bill has steadily gone up.

It is the old “boiling frog” approach to implementing a considerable price hike over time.

Disguised by the natural fluctuation of the market due to fuel price changes the price of electricity has been slowly and carefully ratcheted up over many years.

Today for every five pounds you spend on your consumer electricity bill, one pound is allocated to what is known as “Environmental and social costs”.

According to OfGem:
[quote]
These are the costs of government programmes to save energy, reduce emissions and encourage take up of renewable energy. 
[unquote]

Of that 20%, the Lions share is used provide subsidy payments to Wind turbine operators and and solar PV owners. Mostly it goes on wind turbines.

The vast majority of these subsidy payments are made through what are known as ROC certificates. This is a subsidy scheme that is now obsolete but will still impact your bill for the next 20 or so years.

The RO scheme has been replaced by an even more duplicitous (and still lucrative) scheme called Contracts for Difference. But as of today ROC payments form the majority of wind turbine subsidy.

In other words the majority of the 20% added to your bill as “Environmental and Social Costs” is the amount you pay to subsidise wind turbines and to a lesser extent solar PV.

Paltry amounts out of this 20% go to improving home insulation or to providing remote locations with electricity.

So, you may be surprised to find that your annual electricity bill shows far less of an increase than  this boiling frog price hike suggests.

This is because people now use less electricity than in 2011.

Why?

Because today we have more efficient appliances, particularly electric light bulbs, but white goods are much better too.

So just think:

All that money you spent on LED bulbs and eco-friendly washing machines has been used not to reduce your electricity bill, but to line the pockets of the big companies running wind turbines. 

And it will continue to be used in the same way for the foreseeable future.

Today for every MWh of electricity produced the generating company must provide 0.484 ROC certificates. The value of a ROC certificate in 2020 has been set at £48.78 per ROC. This cost is passed directly through to the customer.

A typical consumer uses 3.7MWh electricity per year. Maybe you use more. Maybe less.

So work it out yourself how much you are subsidising wind turbines by.

I don’t think you will be amused.

2020 - The World just Gets Better! (So Suck it up Doomsters)

Tired of watching petulant children mouthing dogma to odious supine politicians?

Bored by ridiculous attention-seeking teenagers blubbering on about how somebody “stole their future”?

Do you get sickened by watching loathsome sociopaths as they lie and connive to trick naive youngsters into following their death cult?

Well, lighten up peeps! None of that crap is going on here!

This post is in fact a small antidote. It is in essence two fingers (one if your are American) waved at the fear-mongers and cult builders.

More to the point it is also built on the thing cultists and fear-mongers hate the most: Facts.

This post is about (you guessed it!) how things are getting better.

And Better.

AND BETTER!

And by better I don’t just mean the extra five cans of beer I found in the back of the cupboard yesterday.

I mean r-e-a-l-l-y better.

Better in how far fewer people are dying from extreme weather events.

Better in how far fewer people are living in dirt poverty.

Or even how people are simply not dying! (Well, OK. Everyone dies. Its just now they die age 70 not 35.)

So suck it up doomsters.

Whimper your way through the following examples. Wring your grubby little hands. Have a little tantrum like a two year in a supermarket. Bleat and moan like the sheep you are.

Your fetid, rancid scare-mongering will not hold. The only person who deserves to suffer from your self indulgent paranoia is yourself.

The world gets relentlessly better. The new year is unlikely to break the trend.

This is just a small selection of global improvements. Try reading Factfulness by the late great Hans Rosling if you fancy some more.

Extreme Weather Events

Do some people die from extreme weather events?
Sadly yes.

Are more people dying from extreme weather events?
No.

In fact the number of people losing their lives from extreme weather events is now lower than at any time in the last 100 years.

That somewhat ruins the hysterical rhetoric we get pummelled with on a daily basis doesn't it?

Poverty

Want to know how mass starvation and poverty is doing on a global scale?

Lets look at the number of people surviving on two dollars a day or less.

These poor souls sleep on dirt floors. They are illiterate. They die from ridiculous diseases like measles and flu. They are usually malnourished. Their lives are short, dull and brutal.

Because they are poor they have large families in the hope that one or two of their children might survive to their teens. By the way, don’t forget. This is how the sociopaths and their cults want it to stay.

If we carry on as we are then we are we can eliminate this desperate poverty in thirty years.

But only if we carry on as we are. 

We must lock out the psycho cult leaders and their gullible soldiers who seek to derail global progress.

Average Life Expectancy

Finally lets look at worldwide average life expectancy. Currently it stands at 72 . (Yes 72. That is not a misprint)

While the sociopaths witter on about how too many children are being born, the main growth in the worlds population is fuelled by people living longer. In other words people are having better lives.

Further population increase is NOT caused by an increase in births. The number of individuals between the ages of 0 to 15 has has remained roughly constant now for almost twenty years!

Yes. The worlds population is growing. It will peak at about 11 Billion in 60 years. So we know where we stand! We can plan ahead.

Stupid tearful teenagers mouthing the false dogma of their cult masters about population runaway and mass starvation should be treated like any other stupid and ill-informed teenager. They need correction. Even if they suffer cognitive dissonance on having their black nightmares thwarted.

Hopefully one day, they will escape the malign influence of their cult and gain a little more life experience. Then perhaps their world view will be more rational.

So, things are looking good.

Very good in fact.

But there are clouds on the horizon. Yet those clouds are only a threat if we decide to steer towards them.

We have to address the pathetic politically motivated nonsense being spewed out to service hidden agendas. Like all propaganda the nonsense is wrapped in morsels of truth. Usually to make it more scary.

Top of the list within these morsels of truth is Global Warming. Or Climate Change. Or the Climate Emergency. Or Climate Chaos. Or Climate Crisis. Or whatever else it gets morphed to to enhance its ability to scare gullible children.

Yes! The planet is warming. One of the aspects of this warming is sea level rise. Today the cultists and their sycophants are using future sea level rise as a primary weapon in their quest to spread fear and turn back global progress.

But sea level rise does NOT mean humanity is doomed anymore than a rising world population means humanity is doomed. Unless that is you are an avid follower of one of the nutcases running a cult scam like Extinction Rebellion.

So is this sea level rise because of human Carbon Dioxide emissions? Well, probably some of it is.

But so what?

Let’s make the unlikely assumption that ALL of the global warming from the last 150 years has been caused solely by human emissions.

Would you throw away the last 150 years of progress in order to prevent the global warming that has occurred in that period?

Would you rather leave billions living (and dying) in dirt poverty?

Would you throw away all the progress in medicine, science and engineering?

Would you rather have it that almost the whole of humanity was dirt poor rather than today where most of humanity is NOT dirt poor?

Take the average Bangladeshi. The population of Bangladesh has risen four-fold since 1950. Their life span is now about 70. In the 1950’s it was 35. The average Bangladeshi family have 2.4 children whereas forty years ago it was six.

Today Bangladesh feeds itself. Bangladesh does not suffer the crippling famines of the past. Neither does it succumb to dreadful and easily prevented epidemics.

Bangladesh is healthier, richer, and better educated than it has ever been before. It's population is stabilising. Child mortality is at an all time low.

All that because Bangladesh has embraced modern science, medicine and engineering and rejected Luddite paranoia, superstition and fear.

Meanwhile, since 1950 the world sea level has risen about 17cms. (7 inches)

Go and ask the average Bangladeshi what he/she would regard as more important aspect of the last 70 years in Bangladesh.

Was it sea level rise?
Or was it the improvement of the human condition?

We can continue to improve things and adapt to change. Or we can throw it away.

We can indulge in a panic laced pursuit of a dark self fulfilling prophesy. Or we can continue on a path that is driven by cheap plentiful energy and has been shown to improve humanity worldwide.

Sure. Let’s address Global Warming. As well as other problems like pollution. But let us do it rationally.

Let’s ensure its done to enhance humanity.

Not to diminish it.

Prostitution, Lynyrd Skynryd and Santa

So you thought you’d get away with parking your arse in front of the TV while drinking Baileys out of a pint mug over Christmas did you?

Well I have some news for you Sunshine. And that news involves reading and listening. Here’s a selection of stuff that needs your serious attention over the Christmas.

It includes a short list of books that’ll get your brain-cells rattling over the Christmas break. Most are available in some form of electronic format as well as standard regurgitated dead tree format. They range in price from nothing to about a tenner.

All of these these books had a dramatic affect on my perception of what was really going on in the world. So be warned you may (like me) experience Cognitive Dissonance. (Don’t know what Cognitive Dissonance is? There’s a book on that below too!)

For the ultra lazy (yes I know – that’s most of you) there’s also a couple of really fantastic YouTube Ted Talk videos too. And to cap it all 25 minutes of the live version of Rattlesnake Shake by Peter Greens Fleetwood Mac rounded off by another great Youtube video with Lynyrd Skynryd and  Free Bird from 1977.

Make sure you crank the volume up for Rattlesnake Shake and Free Bird. It is illegal to listen to them quietly.

Merry Xmas.
Love and Kisses.
Billothewisp.

Books that Need Reading

Factfulness

YOU MUST READ THIS BOOK. No ifs. No buts. No excuses. If you want to know exactly why the liars and cheats who keep telling us that we are all about to die are wrong - this is it.

A book that will not only enlighten you to what is really going on in the world but will provide you with suitable ammunition to shoot down the doom-sters when they witter on about how Armagedon is just round the corner.

Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air

The loss of Dr David MacKay was a body blow to the world. But his legacy of "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air" lives on. Depending on what format you want the price ranges from absolutely nothing to about a fifteen quid. Even if you cant read it right now why not download a free copy for future reference? The free pdf version is HERE

Freakanomics

Oh My God! This book just blew me away. Its nearly fifteen years old now but it is guaranteed to challenge your pre-conceptions on a range of issues. You know - when did you ever consider the following:

"Why do Drug Dealers still live with their Mums?"
Or
"Where have all the Criminals gone?".

Super Freakanomics.

As for Freakanomics - just more-so.
Like:

“How is a Prostitute like a Dept Store Santa?
And:
"Why should suicide bombers buy life insurance?"

Separate Ways

I didn’t read this until twelve years ago. It changed the way I looked at the EU. Admittedly I was getting a little twitchy about the railroading of the Treaty of Lisbon through Parliament even then, but I was to all intents and purposes a EU-Phile, a Remainer (Ugh! - there I’ve said it).

This book, written by the late Peter Shore changed my opinion. It's now only available second hand and is currently eye-wateringly expensive. But cheap copies do come up for a couple of quid now and again..

How to have Impossible Conversations

I’m only half way through this but it is changing the way I address discussions with people with differing views. It come recommended by a star list of  ultra bright and argumentative bastards like Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and Marc Andreessen

It is really enlightening. If you want to win people over rather than just win the argument this is the book to read. It a book about how to make converts not just beat your enemies.

When Prophesy Fails.

So what does Cognitive Dissonance mean and why is it important. Here is Lean Festingers masterpiece from the 1950’s where he followed a Flying Saucer cult to find out what would happen when their prophesy of Global Catastrophe failed to materialise.

Read this and you will understand why the UK Labour party is lurching further left after taking the recent election beating. You'll see why Al Gores failed prophesy that the North Pole would be ice free by 2012 simply made cults like Extinction Rebellion double down on their doomstering.

YouTube Videos that must be seen

Don't Panic!

This is so good! It is an entertaining ride through the basics of the book "Factfulness". It is funny informative and downright ideal for watching on Christmas afternoon after having a few noggins. Just Watch it!

The Mysterious Workings of the Adolescent Brain.

Reaching your wits end? Teenager children driving your mad? Here's why.

Music to Die For

RattleSnake Shake.

Recorded nearly 50 years ago this is the live version of "RattleSnake Shake" by Fleetwood Mac.

BE WARNED:
This is NOT the Fleetwood Mac of West Coast music post 1974. This is the Fleetwood Mac of Peter Green (known to Guitar affectionados as the "the Green God").

It's raw.
Bloody even.

If this does not make your hair stand on end then you are already dead.

Sadly it's music only - no video but it'll still wring you out like an old dishcloth.

Free Bird

Lynyrd Skynryd live in 1977. Savor the atmosphere and the sheer power of this rendition. Then marvel at the rows of pretty girls (who are all now in their late 50s early 60's).

Utterly and completely magnificent.



Merry Christmas.

Homage to the Mighty Redcar

If anywhere in the UK had just reason to grasp at Corbyn’s cynical fantasies in the 2019 General Election it is Redcar.

Redcar is a steel town in the North East of the UK. To say it has been treated shabbily for the last thirty years by successive governments would be the understatement of the century.

Even so, as the magic grandpa found out, the good people of the North East don’t do fairy tales. A set of bribes presented like a stream of cuddly toys on a Generation game conveyor belt did not impress them.

Redcar has had a lot to put up with. Taken for granted by the Labour party and ignored by the Tories it was in many ways politically abandoned and forgotten.

The most crushing abandonment came in 2015. The steel works bereft of any government support, and owned by a foreign steel maker was closed.

Why was there no government support?

The EU rules on state aid prevented it. Which was “convenient” as the government was less than keen anyway.

Even then, it is highly likely that the foreign owner (SSI Steel) had only bought the plant in 2011 to close it down.

Competitors rarely buy plant to run it in competition to themselves. They buy it to first asset strip it then close it. They eliminate a competitor and steal the competitors order book and intellectual property to boot.

For the buyer it is a win-win. Everybody else loses.

Just look at the Kraft takeover of Cadburys, or the BMW takeover of Rover Group if you don’t believe me.

Abandoned by the Tories, ignored by the EU and despised by Labour the good people of Redcar took their revenge in 2016 and voted 70/30 to leave the EU. The shock still resonates through the metropolitan elite to this day.

Then after three years of obfuscation, sabotage and down-right betrayal the anti-brexit parliamentarian elite were forced (against their will) to confront the electorate.

The Redcar electorate put their country first. They voted out the EU appeasing Labour MP and replaced her with a new face. An MP that has said he will put Brexit first and Redcar too.

Jacob Young the new Tory MP.
A man who needs to show he means business in supporting Redcar.

The people of Redcar have placed their trust in Jacob Young ….. and also in Boris Johnson.

They wait patiently for that trust to be honoured and repaid.

In my humble opinion they deserve to reap the rewards of putting democracy above petty personal interest.

So what should the Tories and Jacob Young do now?

Here’s an idea.

The steel plant was mothballed four years ago. Whether it's production capability is still viable I do not know, but lets assume it, or part of it, is still viable.

Imagine the symbolic significance to the people of Redcar (and the rest of the country too), if on the 1st February (after we have left the EU) Boris Johnson stated his intention to rebuild the steel making capabilities of Redcar.

The people of Redcar deserve more than just a few quid spent on random infrastructure. They deserve to have their industry restored.

A modest investment of a few hundred million quid would not only re-invigorate UK heavy engineering in the North East but would signal an intention that the UK would no longer allow foreign governments or foreign industries to dictate how our people are treated.

The people of Redcar deserve better. In fact they deserve more than better.

Because of them we have our country back.

Now they deserve their steelworks back too.

Why Vote in a Safe Seat?

Let’s say you are in a constituency where the sitting MP has a humongous majority. Maybe a majority that is far, far bigger than all the votes for all of the other candidates combined. Like (say) Tottenham.

You have to ask yourself: What is the point in voting?

If you vote for the sitting MP your extra vote when added to the mountain they already have will make no difference. If you vote for any of the other candidates, you stand no chance whatsoever of changing the MP.

Even in a marginal seat a General Election constituency contest has only once been decided by a majority of one and that was back in 1910. As for a draw that has also only ever happened once, back in 1886.

The net result is is that on a personal level the physical and financial gain from participating in a vote, especially in a safe seat, is nil.

On this we have to hang the question: On an individual basis, what IS the point of voting?

The inescapable answer is that on a purely individualistic and selfish  basis there is no point whatsoever.

But voting is not about the individual. Voting is above all else an altruistic act. It is selfless. It has no tangible reward. It results in a group decision where the wisdom of crowds prevails.

(which leads me into a book recommendation – a must read – "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki)

Even so, walking half a mile on a cold and rainy day to vote in an election where the outcome in your constituency is a forgone conclusion does test that altruism somewhat.

There is though a singular advantage in voting in a safe seat constituency. Especially if you are a little disillusioned with either the sitting MP or the main ( but distant) contenders.

You can safely experiment.

You can vote for someone else. You can vote for somebody or some party that takes your fancy. They don’t even have to have a fully formed policy base.

If it tickled you fancy you could vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party without consequence.

But rather than the Monster Raving Loony Party (who I am sure have a set of policies almost as good as any of the main partys anyway), why not use your vote to support a smaller party?

Why not vote for a  party that is possibly struggling to get some notice?

Or maybe you would like to lend your support to a party that will achieve considerable electoral support across the country, but will, thanks to the inequities of out voting system gain no seats.

In either of these cases your vote does have some tangible effect.

For a small party like (say) the SDP it can provide vital visibility. With enough votes, even though they stand no hope of winning the seat, they’ll gain vital exposure. It may well stop them being quite so ignored by the media. Maybe they’ll start cropping up on the MSM Radar more often. This could give them vital publicity to fight future more winnable elections either locally or nationally.

For a larger party like (say) the Brexit Party a vote for them in an unwinnable seat is a vote of support. A vote that will be tallied up nationally. It will show with the millions of others across the country the inequities and plain damn unfairness of our electoral system.

So, as long as you regard altruism as a virtuous ideal, a vote in a safe seat is not a wasted vote.

You can, if you like, add it to the mountain for the current MP. Or vote for one of the traditional partys.

Or you can be adventurous.

Even a vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party is better than no vote at all!

The SDP: 2019 Thirsk and Malton

Time for another amateur analysis of one of the seats being contested by the SDP in the forthcoming General Election. Here is a look at a Conservative safe seat that is being contested by a brave SDP candidate by the name of Michael Taylor.

Thirsk & Malton is a Tory stronghold in North Yorkshire. In the last election they took 60% of the vote. In the EU referendum the constituency voted 56% to leave the EU. This constituency will not change hands in December 2019.

Interestingly Mike Taylor (SDP) is the only candidate that has supported Brexit from the outset. The sitting MP (Kevin Hollinrake) was (in 2016) a supporter of Remain. Today it looks like Kevin Hollinrake is really a somewhat reluctant Brexiteer.

I would suggest Kevin Hollinrake supports Johnson out of party loyalty rather than due to any “road to Damascus” conversion. In fact he voiced opposition to Johnsons “do or die” ideal of leaving the EU on October 31st.

I would suggest that the sitting MP is in all intents and purposes still a Remainer at heart. I would suspect that although he may tow the party line after the election, he will potentially be a thorn in the side of those negotiating the future Trading relationship with the EU.

There is no UKIP or Brexit Party Candidate. The rump 2017 UKIP vote (1500 voters) has to be looking for a home. They did not go to the Conservatives or Labour in 2017 so where else is there for them to go in 2019 other than to a true Brexit supporting party like the SDP?

In 2015 the UKIP vote was almost as big as Labour's. In 2015 UKIP took just under 8000 votes. It looks like between 2015 and 2017 the UKIP vote shed 2000 voters to Labour and 4500 to the Conservatives.

So there should be a considerable number of discontented Leave voting Labour supporters who have given up on Corbyn’s debacle of a Brexit policy. They may well be looking for a new home, especially for one with strong traditional Labour roots.

It could well be that these leave voters just won’t vote Tory ever. Especially for one who was a Remainer. So this may well be fertile territory.

As for the disgruntled leavers in that mountain of Conservative voters, there is the opportunity to tweak the sitting MPs tail by voting for the SDP. There is no chance of letting in Labour (or anyone else) by the back door. A protest vote to support a real Brexiteer may well just make their day.

So lets say the whole of the ex-UKIP vote and perhaps another 2000 voters apiece from both the Conservative and Labour partys are volatile. They will consider voting for a true Brexiteer in the election. That is 12,000 volatile voters.

Resources are of course limited. But with a bit of luck and fortuitous canvassing then maybe 1000 can be pulled into the SDP camp which would be brilliant. But a vote in the few hundreds would still be a publicity victory.

So here are my crap ideas on what to promote to entice voters to vote SDP.

They are probably rubbish but maybe one or two will hit the spot.

1. It is a armour plated safe Tory seat. Emphasise to the electorate that there is no chance for another party to win in this seat other than the Tories. Whatever you vote and whether you like it or not, the MP is secure.
2. Your vote still matters. It will not change the MP but it will potentially set the trend for the future. It allows you to register support for leaving the EU without voting Tory. It will make the Tory MP just that little bit less complacent.
3. Big up the democracy aspect. Why not show support for an honest but small party? Your vote will not change the MP! Neither will it imperil Brexit. But it may have a big effect on the way others view the issues you are concerned with.
4. Attack Labour on their hideous record on bigotry and antisemitism. The MP cannot be changed by voting Labour. So wouldn’t it be worthwhile registering your disapproval of this antisemitic ugliness by voting SDP and depriving Labour of your vote?
5. You won’t change the MP whatever you vote but you can register your displeasure with the Metropolitan elite especially the anti-democrats that want to cancel Brexit and work against it.
6. Do you think Corbyn is “safe”? When they total up the votes at the end, which pile will yours be in? Pro Corbyn? Pro Remainer Tory? Or pro democracy?
7. We (quite rightly) have laws to protect 16 year olds from sexual and financial predators. Do you think giving votes to 16 year olds and opening them up to political predators is a good idea? The Labour party supports votes for 16 year olds! Will you vote for that? Or vote SDP so showing your disapproval of hard-line "woke" Labour policy
8. You do know the sitting Tory MP supported remain in 2016 don’t you? He won’t be replaced in this election but you can keep him inline by voting for the only candidate that supported Brexit from the outset. The SDP candidate.
9. Do you think UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP. But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when otherwise it will be ignored.

The SDP: 2019 Tottenham

You just have to admire people who are willing to put themselves through hell to stand  in no-hope seats. Of those seats Tottenham is potentially the most difficult. 

The SDP candidate in this case is Andrew Bence. So whatever party you support Andrew Bence deserves our most wholehearted respect.

If you wanted to define a safe seat, then Tottenham has to be a primary contender. The sitting MP (David Lammy) took 80% of the votes in 2017 on a 68% turnout. Or to put it another way David Lammy got well over 4 times the votes than of all the other candidates combined.

In the 2016 EU referendum 76% of the Tottenham vote in the referendum was for Remain.

So Tottenham is both a Labour and a Remainer Citadel.

Nobody is going to be elected here except for David Lammy. The only candidate in the election other than David Lammy who is even likely to save their deposit is the Conservative candidate. The Conservatives in 2017 came a distant second with 11% of the vote.

This is by definition going to be a difficult seat for anyone other than Labour to get votes in.

Even so, the Leave vote in the 2016 EU referendum was about 18,000. Due to the virtual non-existence of UKIP around 13,000 of those 18,000 voters must have voted for Lammy in the 2017 General Election.

The Brexit Party is also fielding a candidate. So unfortunately any of those 13000 Labour leave voters disgruntled enough to look for another party is going to have three to choose from.

Perhaps it would be best for the SDP candidate to emphasise the Social Democratic nature of the SDP and it’s Labour origins. Then distance themselves from both the Conservatives and the Brexit Party. Present the SDP as the socially responsible party for leavers to vote for.

Lammy is a senior politician and as such is perhaps (as most senior politicians are) somewhat of an occasional visitor to his patch. If there are any local issues that have been left to fester, then cultivating a protest vote about these ignored issues might get some mileage. Local social issues, especially those that might be also ignored by the Conservative candidate due to party policy would be well worth exploring.

I have looked at how other minor partys have fared in the past in this seat. I think a result in the low hundreds will be a good result. Anything over 400 will be a milestone. A 1000 would be groundbreaking.

So what would be the best way of promoting the SDP in this seat? Here’s seven suggestions.

They may range from worthwhile to totally irrelevant in this seat. I don’t know. They are just suggestions.

1. Tottenham is an armour plated safe Labour seat. Emphasise to the electorate that there is no chance for another party to win in this seat other than Labour. So if they feel disgruntled with current Labour policy or the MP they can safely register a protest vote.
2. Your SDP vote will not change the MP but it will potentially set the trend for the future. It allows you to register support for leaving the EU without voting Tory. It will make the current MP just that little bit less complacent.
3. Big up the democracy aspect. Why not show support for an honest but small party? Your vote will not change the MP! But it may have a big effect on the way others view the issues you are concerned with.
4. Do you want to use your vote to support a party now strongly associated with anti-Semitism like the Labour Party? As you won’t change the MP wouldn’t it be worthwhile registering your disapproval of this ugliness by voting SDP? It might help to make them sit up and take notice.
5. You won’t change the MP whatever you vote but you can register your displeasure with the Metropolitan elite especially the anti-democrats that want to cancel Brexit.
6. The Torys can never hope to achieve anything here. The Brexit party is unlikely to survive another two years. Wouldn’t it be worthwhile building up a viable alternative voice to Labour in Tottenham? Even if its just to keep the Labour MP on his toes and reduce the endemic complacency that comes with a safe seat.
7. Do you think UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP. But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when otherwise it will be ignored.
8. Local issues. Bring up local issues. Especially those that have been allowed to run out of control without much/any input from the sitting MP.

The SDP: 2019 Havant

The SDP are standing a candidate in the Havant Constituency in Hampshire in the 2019 General Election.

Here's my take on what they might achieve, where the potential SDP voters will come from and how many of them there are. Of course, this is just my opinion but I think it adds up.

In my humble opinion this is one of the best prospects for a decent vote share for the SDP in all of the 20 seats being contested by them.

Havant is an impregnable Tory seat and always has been. In the last election the sitting Tory MP (Alan Mak) garnered almost 60% of the vote. His majority alone was bigger than the vote share achieved by the Labour Party. This seat will not change hands.

There is no UKIP and (more importantly) no Brexit party candidate. The SDP candidate is in fact the sole Brexiteer. Alan Mak campaigned in 2016 to remain. This should be a strong lever to prize off disgruntled Brexiteers from the mountainous Tory vote.

Alan Maks majority amounts to a full 34% of the votes cast. So all voters should realise that Alan Mak will not be replaced whatever they vote. Voters can safely express their displeasure at his remainerism.

Voters can diminish Mak's vote share by voting for the only candidate that supported Brexit from the start - the SDP candidate. They can do this without fear of letting in the Labour Party by the back door.

The SDP candidate in this election is Alan Black.

Here is the candidate list and 2017 general Election result

In 2015 UKIP gained a considerable vote share with 9000 votes. When they collapsed in 2017 about about 4000 of their votes went to the Tories and about 3000 went to Labour. There remained a rump of about 2000 UKIP votes in 2017.

Interestingly there was an independent candidate in 2017. She gained nearly a 1000 votes. It appears her campaign centred around over-development in the area which could be another good lever to gain votes. (more research required)

Explaining to voters that this seat will not change hands is crucial.

There is a rump of 2000 UKIP votes with nowhere to go other than the SDP. 

There is the 3000 that migrated to the Labour party that must also be desperately looking for somewhere to go. 

The 4000 UKIP votes that went to the Tories will also feel queasy if they are enlightened to the fact that Alan Mak actually campaigned for Remain in 2016 even though he had previously described himself as a Euro-Sceptic. 

For these Tory voters, finding a real Brexiteer (SDP) candidate while being shown that Alan Maks majority is so huge that there is no possibility of inadvertantly letting in a Labour or LibDem will be an eye-opener.

Besides the ex-ukippers, the Labour vote is up for squeezing anyway. They have in essence abandoned their leave supporting Labour voters. Add to that the nastiness about anti-semitism and I reckon theres about 2-3000 Labour votes other than the 3000 ex-ukippers up for grabs.

Add in the 1000 votes that went to the lady independent and there is a lot to play for here.

I reckon that in total there is possibly up to 12000 volatile votes that are maybe looking for a new home. Most of those will be abandoned or mislead leave voters who would like to punish either the Tories or Labour.

The Tory voters will all will fear a Labour government. Reassuring them that voting SDP cannot let in the Labour candidate by the back door is paramount.

The reverse is true for the Labour voters.

Telling them the truth that whatever they vote they will not change the MP will mean they can register their disapproval with Corbyn and his (less than) merry men.

So what would be the best way of promoting the SDP in this seat? Here’s my ten arguments.

They may be rubbish but they may just get you to generate better ones!

1. It is a armour plated safe Tory seat. Emphasise to the electorate that there is no chance for another party to win in this seat other than the Tories. So by voting for party other than the Tories you will not be damaging Brexit. Whatever you vote and whether you like it or not, the MP is secure.
2. Your vote matters. It will not change the MP but it will potentially set the trend for the future. It allows you to register support for leaving the EU without voting Tory. It will make the Tory MP just that little bit less complacent.
3. Does the MP pay enough attention to local issues (like over-development?) register your disapproval of local over-development by voting SDP, a party that puts local people first and greedy developers at the back.
4. Big up the democracy aspect. Why not show support for an honest but small party? Your vote will not change the MP! Neither will it imperil Brexit. But it may have a big effect on the way others view the issues you are concerned with.
5. Do you want to use your vote to support a party now strongly associated with anti-Semitism like the Labour Party? As you won’t change the MP wouldn’t it be worthwhile registering your disapproval of this ugliness by voting SDP and depriving Labour of your vote?
6. You won’t change the MP whatever you vote but you can register your displeasure with the Metropolitan elite especially the anti-democrats that want to cancel Brexit. Vote SDP!
7. Do you think Corbyn is “safe”? When they total up the votes at the end, which pile will yours be in? Pro Corbyn? Pro Tory? Or pro democracy?
8. We (quite rightly) have laws to protect 16 year olds from sexual and financial predators. Do you think giving votes to 16 year olds and opening them up to political predators is a good idea? The Labour party supports votes for 16 year olds! Will you vote for that? Or vote SDP so showing your disapproval of hard-line Labour policy
9. You do know the sitting Tory MP campaigned to remain in 2016 don’t you? He won’t be replaced in this election but you can keep him inline by voting for the only candidate that supported Brexit from the outset. The SDP candidate.
10. Do you think UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP. But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when otherwise it will be ignored.