Discussion about this post

Commenting has been turned off for this post
Wibbling's avatar

Bombinho, you are talking utter twaddle. Pointing out the logical flaws in your writing would be pointless as you insist on making them. You deny that paying subsidy for nothing and unreliable fuels is better than a consistent, known quantity.

You argue that wind is reliable, when it isn't. Worse, you argue it is cheap. It isn't. The facts prove you wrong. The energy 'market' in hte UK works at a very simple level like this - reliable, efficient conventional fuels are heavily taxed. That tax subsidises unreliable, inefficient unreliable energy, and the bill payer pays at both ends.

Base load exists and is a known quantity. Please, educate yourself.

You may fight, argue, rant, squeal but the simple truth is if wind were a money maker then it would not need subsidy. It does, therefore it isn't. It's a scam.

Stop arguing black is white. By all means, play pretend. Take the tariff you want, but there is only so long the lie can continue.

Expand full comment
Ani's avatar

Thank you for this great analysis! Gave my brain a bit of a workout - I found the bit about battery providers especially interesting - had never thought about that sort of profit angle to the wave of batteries required for renewable energy to work! I was wondering, more fundamentally, why do renewables need such generous subsidies to set up? And are these subsidies basically required forever? Or is there some feasible way that renewable power could stand on its own two feet at some point? Thank you very much for the analysis!

Expand full comment
100 more comments...

No posts