Bills haven't fallen because the 'Build back better' plan requires the destruction of the wealth and comfort of the Western population. Agenda 2030 is simply a front for the installation of neo-feudalism under the one world government rules based order. It's not as if the proponents haven't been stating it...
Kudos David, another great summary - echoes my comment on an earlier thread ‘ Reality is a great tutor - Couthino says more gas will help the transition to a renewable grid, no it wont, it will have to grow with it as 24/7/365 back up - 2 distinct generation networks on the same grid, all paid for through higher consumer bills - utter madness’
The Govt have been warned by energy sector insiders that power cuts are coming if they stay on the same renewables trajectory, particularly as older nuclear & gas power stations close, mid 20’s to late 30’s - DESNZ & Sunak now see the iceberg approaching the UK ship, but what about Labour? They’re still committed to full decarbonisation by 2030 - although reality will bring them to their senses too, it may be after irreparable damage has been done to our national grid and millions more plunged into fuel poverty and social tariffs due to the constantly increasing costs of a virtue signalling net zero renewable grid - There’s a reason no nation in the world has tried to go beyond 40% renewable penetration, because it won’t work without either unaffordable, unsourceable storage, or equivalent coal/gas/nuclear back up - physics and reality cannot be subverted by ideological green wet dreams, ever
David looking forward to your next drop as the scale of the increase on standing charges this quarter has not been picked up by the mainstream media. They've majored on the overall drop in the cap which has come from wholesale prices of course but masked how much additional cost is being added every quarter also you need look at the regional variations on standing charges which are extremely worrying for some consumers. In my area, South East, its going up over 20% or around £3/month ok not much in the grander scheme of things but with 2m consumers thast an extra 70m/year - what's that for?
UK energy consumption has fallen over recent years as high energy costs have forced more and more industry offshore. Next to go will be the Port Talbot blast furnaces and the Grangemouth oil refinery. The government then has the brass neck to boast at having reduced emissions by 50%, i.e. at having exported them abroad off our books. Global emissions then become even higher when we import the goods from abroad (not that it matters).
The reality is that Net Zero is going nowhere, slowly. The Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2023 (comes out every July) reveals (Page 4) that “In 2022, the share of [UK] primary energy consumption from fossil fuels increased to 78.5% from 78.1% in 2021”.
“It’s simple arithmetic to see that this kicks out all notions of Net Zero. At best it’s Net 50%. It’s like Canute commanding the tides to hold back, while gradually backing up the beach so that his feet only get half wet. It’s a climb down. But that’s what happens when laws of the land conflict with natural law. It’s the former that have to give way”.
The phenomenon of wind droughts, especially the extended "Dunkelflautes" in Europe, guarantee that wind and solar power will not work with current storage technology. How strange that the meteorologists never mentioned them!
All the states and nations going for net zero will eventually reach a tipping point where subsidised and mandates wind and solar will drive out coal and gas until there is a crisis whenever the wind is low overnight.
Germany and Britain have reached that point, they survive by importing power and deindustrialization.
I think someone has been reading my long letters to government.
(Sent to ALL 600 MPS.)
I was pointing out that we would need some 600 Dinorwigs for backup, if we get rid of gas generation. And never mind the huge cost, we don't have enough upland areas to place them in. The cost will be about £1.5 trillion - look at the cost overruns on the Snowy-2 pumped storage system.
I was pointing out that to use hydrogen as backup storage, would cost some £2.5 trillion. Apart from the novelty and naïveté of using hydrogen for storage. A major problem is the system is only 30% efficient. So much energy is lost, that the number of wind turbines would have to be increased by 30% to cover those losses.
The whole renewable escapade is a money-pit.
And none of those systems are made in the UK.
So we will go bankrupt.
.
However - who will invest in gas generation plants, when they can only operate 50% of the time? What supermarket is forced to to close 4 days a week? Wishy-Washy's new strategy will need yet more government subsidies.
As it happens, I responded to the consultation, explaining I as many answers as I could why the idea should be canned from the outset. I do not think I was the only one to suggest the idea should be abandoned, yet there is no mention whatever of such responses in the government summary of responses and their own next steps. Unsurprisingly, when asked if they would like more subsidies, the industry said "Yes please!"
Meanwhile the government announcement was full of mental contortions explained how more subsidy was going to lead to lower costs. Delusional.
Another big announcement that has received little attention, because almost nobody understands the consequences (at this stage including me since I have yet to find the detailed modelling behind it, although I have my suspicions) is the decision to implement zonal pricing in REMA. This will substantially lower the transparency of pricing by having 7 price regions, and is likely to lead to very substantial price differentials between oversupplied Northern Scotland and generation short Midlands and the South.
The claim is that it is going to save "up to £35bn by 2050", or a little over £1bn p.a. on average. I think it's models all the way down, with real world market behaviour and probably several other factors excluded.
Bills haven't fallen because the 'Build back better' plan requires the destruction of the wealth and comfort of the Western population. Agenda 2030 is simply a front for the installation of neo-feudalism under the one world government rules based order. It's not as if the proponents haven't been stating it...
Kudos David, another great summary - echoes my comment on an earlier thread ‘ Reality is a great tutor - Couthino says more gas will help the transition to a renewable grid, no it wont, it will have to grow with it as 24/7/365 back up - 2 distinct generation networks on the same grid, all paid for through higher consumer bills - utter madness’
The Govt have been warned by energy sector insiders that power cuts are coming if they stay on the same renewables trajectory, particularly as older nuclear & gas power stations close, mid 20’s to late 30’s - DESNZ & Sunak now see the iceberg approaching the UK ship, but what about Labour? They’re still committed to full decarbonisation by 2030 - although reality will bring them to their senses too, it may be after irreparable damage has been done to our national grid and millions more plunged into fuel poverty and social tariffs due to the constantly increasing costs of a virtue signalling net zero renewable grid - There’s a reason no nation in the world has tried to go beyond 40% renewable penetration, because it won’t work without either unaffordable, unsourceable storage, or equivalent coal/gas/nuclear back up - physics and reality cannot be subverted by ideological green wet dreams, ever
David looking forward to your next drop as the scale of the increase on standing charges this quarter has not been picked up by the mainstream media. They've majored on the overall drop in the cap which has come from wholesale prices of course but masked how much additional cost is being added every quarter also you need look at the regional variations on standing charges which are extremely worrying for some consumers. In my area, South East, its going up over 20% or around £3/month ok not much in the grander scheme of things but with 2m consumers thast an extra 70m/year - what's that for?
Is there any evidence that the Climate Change Committee supported Sunak’s announcement? I can’t see anything on the website
https://www.theccc.org.uk/
After all, we know who runs the UK’s energy policy and it’s not anyone in No. 10.
UK energy consumption has fallen over recent years as high energy costs have forced more and more industry offshore. Next to go will be the Port Talbot blast furnaces and the Grangemouth oil refinery. The government then has the brass neck to boast at having reduced emissions by 50%, i.e. at having exported them abroad off our books. Global emissions then become even higher when we import the goods from abroad (not that it matters).
The reality is that Net Zero is going nowhere, slowly. The Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2023 (comes out every July) reveals (Page 4) that “In 2022, the share of [UK] primary energy consumption from fossil fuels increased to 78.5% from 78.1% in 2021”.
The Daily Sceptic has a great article on Sunak’s “Canute moment” on gas: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/14/rishis-dash-for-gas-is-his-canute-moment/.
“It’s simple arithmetic to see that this kicks out all notions of Net Zero. At best it’s Net 50%. It’s like Canute commanding the tides to hold back, while gradually backing up the beach so that his feet only get half wet. It’s a climb down. But that’s what happens when laws of the land conflict with natural law. It’s the former that have to give way”.
Another happy development this week which will have SNP fanatics gnashing their teeth is that Vattenfall have announced the ditching of their wind-to-hydrogen trial project at the European Offshore Wind Development Centre off the coast of Aberdeen: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/03/14/vattenfall-ditches-offshore-wind-to-hydrogen-project/.
The phenomenon of wind droughts, especially the extended "Dunkelflautes" in Europe, guarantee that wind and solar power will not work with current storage technology. How strange that the meteorologists never mentioned them!
All the states and nations going for net zero will eventually reach a tipping point where subsidised and mandates wind and solar will drive out coal and gas until there is a crisis whenever the wind is low overnight.
Germany and Britain have reached that point, they survive by importing power and deindustrialization.
https://www.flickerpower.com/images/The_endless_wind_drought_crippling_renewables___The_Spectator_Australia.pdf
https://newcatallaxy.blog/2023/07/11/approaching-the-tipping-point/
I think someone has been reading my long letters to government.
(Sent to ALL 600 MPS.)
I was pointing out that we would need some 600 Dinorwigs for backup, if we get rid of gas generation. And never mind the huge cost, we don't have enough upland areas to place them in. The cost will be about £1.5 trillion - look at the cost overruns on the Snowy-2 pumped storage system.
I was pointing out that to use hydrogen as backup storage, would cost some £2.5 trillion. Apart from the novelty and naïveté of using hydrogen for storage. A major problem is the system is only 30% efficient. So much energy is lost, that the number of wind turbines would have to be increased by 30% to cover those losses.
The whole renewable escapade is a money-pit.
And none of those systems are made in the UK.
So we will go bankrupt.
.
However - who will invest in gas generation plants, when they can only operate 50% of the time? What supermarket is forced to to close 4 days a week? Wishy-Washy's new strategy will need yet more government subsidies.
So we go bankrupt anyway...
R
There were indeed a blizzard of announcements. One was for extra subsidies for offshore wind in AR7.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/introducing-a-contracts-for-difference-cfd-sustainable-industry-reward
As it happens, I responded to the consultation, explaining I as many answers as I could why the idea should be canned from the outset. I do not think I was the only one to suggest the idea should be abandoned, yet there is no mention whatever of such responses in the government summary of responses and their own next steps. Unsurprisingly, when asked if they would like more subsidies, the industry said "Yes please!"
Meanwhile the government announcement was full of mental contortions explained how more subsidy was going to lead to lower costs. Delusional.
Another big announcement that has received little attention, because almost nobody understands the consequences (at this stage including me since I have yet to find the detailed modelling behind it, although I have my suspicions) is the decision to implement zonal pricing in REMA. This will substantially lower the transparency of pricing by having 7 price regions, and is likely to lead to very substantial price differentials between oversupplied Northern Scotland and generation short Midlands and the South.
The claim is that it is going to save "up to £35bn by 2050", or a little over £1bn p.a. on average. I think it's models all the way down, with real world market behaviour and probably several other factors excluded.
Yorkshire Green is just the latest set of pylons and substations to be approved.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/energy-infrastructure-development-applications-decisions
A useful report from Argus
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2547151-uk-consults-on-zonal-power-pricing-cfd-reform
1. Earth is cooler w the atmos/WV/30% albedo not warmer.
YouTube: Greenhouse Effect Theory Goes Kerbluey
2. Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics use bad math and badder physics.
YouTube: Atmospheric Heat Balances That Don't
3. Kinetic heat transfer modes of contiguous atmos molecules render a BB surface model impossible.
Search: “Bruges group kerbluey”
GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.