I keep my Gridwatch app at the ready to capture looming blackout situations (so easy on my Samsung, just wave the side of the hand across the screen to take a “photo”). At 10am this morning UK demand stood at 44.74 GW (slightly higher than NESO’s supposed winter max of 44.4), wind was at 7%, solar zero.
They say the wind is going to fall later today and my local forecast is for -7°C at 5pm. Could this be it?!
This illustrates perfectly the point that I have made several times. The use of renewables will always require ongoing duplicative capital investments in gas/nuclear for backup when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. That alone explains why renewables can never deliver reduced household energy bills.
But on top of that (and of course The Guardian entirely misses the point) because these duplicate investments ARE only backups, it means that then they are needed to supply power the prices, of necessity, will be much higher to offset the idle time and make the investment viable. Otherwise, why would anyone undertake such investments?
Sadly, it’s the same everywhere, shutting down low cost baseload power plants and replacing them with moonbeams and unicorn farts, and tripling consumer electricity bills. It’s happening all over Europe, in the US and in Canada.
A careful look at the chart from the Daily Mail article will show that, over the last 3 years or so, the increase in wind and solar has been mostly offset by the decline in nuclear generation. The total amount of clean energy generation shows very little change, the decline in gas and coal use has been replaced mostly by an increase in imports.
Relying on imports when neighbouring countries are also relying on wind and solar is not "security of supply"
Besides that they rely on dirty biomass burning to supply the reliable part of their scam - I mean plan, which they officially declare to be "carbon neutral". Whereas the EIA puts biomass power at 1400 gms/kwh vs 1100 gms/kwh for bituminous coal, in conventional coal burners. Why not just officially declare gas to be "carbon neutral" and then they can really brag about how green they are.
The point is that wind and solar deliver next to nothing at night when there is little or no wind and so there is absolutely no point at all in building more capacity. That's just about the end of the story.
On a point of detail, talking about clean energy is unhelpful because it implies that CO2, the breath of life, is a pollutant.
That is the foundational lie that drives the alarmist scam and the net zero Ponzi and casual references to clean energy help to perpetuate it.
Milliband is an easy target. He's a very left wing politician, he can't manage a bacon sandwich, he became leader of the Labour party through union machinations that permanently alienated his more capable brother. And there's the Ed Stone. But he's not an idiot. Why then will he not see what is plain to everybody?
Unless 'everybody' is all those people he's not friends with, has no interest in, and who don't go to those fashionable north London dinner parties. About 68m people at last count.
Thank you David! I'm not the first today to ask the first question on my list:
1) Are those now in charge agents of a hostile foreign power?
2) If so, which?
2) If not, how can we tell the difference?
I'm afraid only blackouts and a crisis will wake folk up. There will be many lies told, but we can hope the truth will emerge - power lines shorted by bullshit.
They are all minions of the Central Bank Cartel that pretty much runs the Western World, based in Basel, Switzerland. And they are the original Club of Rome Malthusian, Misanthropes, basically hate humanity, ascribe to some Doomer, DeGrowth, Deindustrialization cult code. And are trying to complete a century old dream of theirs of World Government, a neo-feudal, centralized, top-down oligarchy. And a scarcity economy is an important part of their strategy.
"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest"
Paul Warburg, the International Banker testifying to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1950
Depopulation: "I Hope It Can Occur In a Civil Manner"
"The World can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion"
" I know in one way or another it's going to come back down so I don't hope to avoid that, I hope that it can occur in a civil way "
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto determination practiced in past centuries.”
David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991
“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
David Rockefeller, Club of Rome, Sept. 23, 1994
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will.
If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
from David Rockefeller’s autobiography ‘Memoirs’
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) president Philip Mountbatten who stated in a 1981 interview with People magazine:
“Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed—not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they’ll do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily.”..."
" Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it. "
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
" The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet. "
Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
" Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. "
I agree that only blackouts will wake people up to the situation they are in. A near blackout doesn't matter because only a tiny fraction of the population will even know it happened. I just hope the blackouts happen somewhere other than where I live!
What really depresses me, living in Brasil, is knowing that our Lula government is going fast downhill into the green energy scam even when just looking at Germany, the UK, California and South Australia shows how bad things can get.
But at least those countries are developed countries, I hope their people will see the light soon, and they will correct course in time.
But here for us in Brazil, desperatelly in need of economic growth and productivity increases, this will be a fatal blow that I am not sure we will be able to recover from.
What Greg Jackson conveniently fails to mention on his tweet is what Demand Flexibility Service means in reality: Disconnect consumers to reduce demand. Kind of a "voluntary" blackout.
The two generators that provided backup at the last minute were apparently not available for use, for whatever reason, during the day. So they were actually paid a fortune to respond to the shortage that they had contributed to in the first place. Just bad luckfor us and good luck for them, or something more sinister we will never know! It might have been better to turn down their vastly over-priced offer and let Ed Miliband see what happens when a lack wind and solar coincides with high demand, as it will many times in the future. Meanwhile we in Wales are being told we need Bute Energy to cover the countryside in turbines and concrete because we need more wind for cheap electricity. You couldn't make it up!!
This whole situation quite certainly tempts certain generating stations to be unavailable when it is most convenient to them, and suddenly be ready to produce when they get offered a nice amount of money. Doesn’t seem like a far fetched hypothesis to me…
Oh dear, 46.8GW peak demand when they were only anticipating 44.4. That's quite a difference. I wonder why. Maybe all those hotels across the country hosting residents who are not used to our chilly British weather should be put on mandatory Agile Octopus smart tariffs and told that the government will only pay for off-peak usage.
What does Greg Jackson expect? NESO is saying to the gas operators, "No, we don't want your dirty power, we don't want your dirty power, we don't... oops, we need your power, we're desperate, how much money do you want?".
It would, of course, be much cheaper to let the gas operators run at a substantial output 24/7 but that would involve being heretical towards our new religion.
I was saying long before the election that the new Labour government would only last until the first blackout. We may soon find out if I was right.
Yes. Power generation stations are capital intensive endeavours, you have to amortize the costs and give a return to investors. The variable costs are dwarfed by the fixed costs.
Someones doesn't even need to understand the physics of power generation and distribution to see it, this is economics 101
May I send you my own recent analysis of what is required if an all-alternative energy option is achieved WITHOUT having carbon fuel backup? Things can end up MUCH worse than this, and COSTS will be quite high, whether or whether not there is a large scale carbon backup. With too little storage backup, there will be huge problems and costs such as described here, and with suitable storage backup, the capital costs are huge. I have numbers. I am NOT a paid subscriber. May I still submit? William T. Lynch PhD
To Dr. Lynch -- Dr. Lynch - are you aware that Nikola Tesla invented and US Patented his "Electric Generator" / US 511, 916 / Jan. 2nd 1884, which included the "resonating tank circuit" and resonance".
He then invented and US Patented his "System For Transmission For Electric Energy" / US 645,576 / Mar. 20th. 1900 -- which has been the "receiver" circuit found in every AM or FM radio manufactured since 1900.
Any "resonating tank circuit always electronically develops three operating conditions
It:
1.) always internally develops it's:
--- "...absolute maximum power level..." - while
2.) always "electrically reducing" the input power level "connected to it" - to it's
--- "...absolute minimum power level.
3.) the "internally developed absolute maximum power level" to "connected absolute minimum power level" ratio -- is:
--- always "more than '1' " - with "1" signifying "unity" -- without breaking / bending / or even getting close to any Laws of Physics - because it never increases or exceeds it's absolute maximum power level.
In the 1850s - Classic Physics Academia stated their blanket position that:
--- "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power..." - which was correct for the time - based on the information available and the fact that everything at that time was powered either by "steam power" or by "real" horsepower.
They got the "substance" of their position correct".
But Tesla's two US Patented inventions (listed above) invalidated the "blanket nature" of their statement - because although it is still true for all "physical" power supplies cannot produce more output power than input power:
--- a power supply using a "resonating tank circuit as it's electric power supply:
--- can supply full power a load at it's full output power level:
--- while the input power level connected to the resonating tank circuit - is always reduced.
Again -- this does not break the originally stated Physics Law as stated.
If you get a copy of the college-level textbook "...Electricity One-Seven..."/ edited by Mr. Harry Mileaf / copyrighted in 1966 / written from the "atomic viewpoint", i.e., what an atom is and what the electron's part is in "electricity" -- you will find a 55 page chapter on "resonance" - with 5 pages exclusively covering the fact that both parallel resonant and series resonant circuits always reduce the input to the parallel circuit, and always develops a higher output voltage level.
With nothing other than the facts meant -- it's 2025 instead of 1894 and 1897 when the "electron" was discovered by British Physicist J. J. Thomson - which eviscerated the ancient Greek History based "Conventional ' Current-Flow' Theory".
To David Turver -- is there a reason why you refuse to take seriously the Tesla based / fully developed / US Patented and available POD MOD -- which Sec. Milliband / PM Starmer / Exchequer Reeves / and Mission Control Head Stark - all turned down - because "they knew better".
The actual reason is "totally financial".
The privately owned (which could have been "people of the UK" through financing that could have been made available through GB Energy) / "long term leased / solid-state POD MOD" installed at" each site - "taking it off the grid" / at a universal rate of: --- $0.10 per hour - $72 per 30 day month per unit / "where needed" / as much as is needed" / "for as long as is needed:
--- would "dry-up" the electric power markets for all of the existing UK based / 2 tier "for profit" electric power developers and sellers.
The technology is already in Europe -being requested to apply for funding by EC President Ursula von der Leyen this last March.
This makes the UK -- a customer for imported units - instead of being a manufacturer for internal installation and use - and for export.
No one in the UK seems to be interested in fixing the problem - just "talking about it".
No way the MOD POD can compete with the Rossi E-Cat. Give it up. Rossi will build an E-Cat powered monster truck that will roll over your little operation and crush it into rubble:
"....Leonardo Corporation introduced the NGU Power Cell at a public demonstration on September 27th, 2024 at Latina Italy where an E-Cat-powered electric vehicle with a normal range of 75 km on a single charge, drove for over 6 hours for a distance of 201 km. During this time the state of charge of the battery increased from 62 per cent to 83 per cent. Video of this event can be seen at https://youtube.com/@ecatthenewfire..."
Just to put the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" hoax claimed to be already happening into perspective, multiple independent data sets show that the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.1°C since the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1850.
That's 1.1°C in 175 years, give or take, that's 0.00628571428°C per year, go check it if you don't believe me.
The average difference in temperature between London and Manchester - about 200 miles further North due to the more Northerly latitude of Manchester - throughout the year is approximately 1.8 deg C, over half a degree C greater than the total warming estimated to have taken place since 1850.
Worse than that, they deliberately cherry picked a global temperature low point at the end of the last natural cooling cycle, which easily accounts for all the temperature increase. They could have picked one of the several warm cycles that have occurred in the past 2000yrs which would have put us still in the negative for temperature rise.
I keep my Gridwatch app at the ready to capture looming blackout situations (so easy on my Samsung, just wave the side of the hand across the screen to take a “photo”). At 10am this morning UK demand stood at 44.74 GW (slightly higher than NESO’s supposed winter max of 44.4), wind was at 7%, solar zero.
They say the wind is going to fall later today and my local forecast is for -7°C at 5pm. Could this be it?!
Maybe. Enact showing 0% LOLP though. Maybe they've persuaded some big users to turn down or turn off their operations.
https://enact.lcp.energy/
This illustrates perfectly the point that I have made several times. The use of renewables will always require ongoing duplicative capital investments in gas/nuclear for backup when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. That alone explains why renewables can never deliver reduced household energy bills.
But on top of that (and of course The Guardian entirely misses the point) because these duplicate investments ARE only backups, it means that then they are needed to supply power the prices, of necessity, will be much higher to offset the idle time and make the investment viable. Otherwise, why would anyone undertake such investments?
Sadly, it’s the same everywhere, shutting down low cost baseload power plants and replacing them with moonbeams and unicorn farts, and tripling consumer electricity bills. It’s happening all over Europe, in the US and in Canada.
"It's all about the wind droughts, stupid!"
Its just a shame that the meteorologists didn't warn us and the policy planners didn't check.
https://www.flickerpower.com/images/The_endless_wind_drought_crippling_renewables___The_Spectator_Australia.pdf
Consequently trillions have been spent worldwide to get more expensive and less reliable energy with massive damage to the planet.
I don't expect the mainstream media to pick this up but I am surprised that conservative journalists and commentators have not told people about it.
A careful look at the chart from the Daily Mail article will show that, over the last 3 years or so, the increase in wind and solar has been mostly offset by the decline in nuclear generation. The total amount of clean energy generation shows very little change, the decline in gas and coal use has been replaced mostly by an increase in imports.
Relying on imports when neighbouring countries are also relying on wind and solar is not "security of supply"
Besides that they rely on dirty biomass burning to supply the reliable part of their scam - I mean plan, which they officially declare to be "carbon neutral". Whereas the EIA puts biomass power at 1400 gms/kwh vs 1100 gms/kwh for bituminous coal, in conventional coal burners. Why not just officially declare gas to be "carbon neutral" and then they can really brag about how green they are.
The point is that wind and solar deliver next to nothing at night when there is little or no wind and so there is absolutely no point at all in building more capacity. That's just about the end of the story.
On a point of detail, talking about clean energy is unhelpful because it implies that CO2, the breath of life, is a pollutant.
That is the foundational lie that drives the alarmist scam and the net zero Ponzi and casual references to clean energy help to perpetuate it.
Milliband is an easy target. He's a very left wing politician, he can't manage a bacon sandwich, he became leader of the Labour party through union machinations that permanently alienated his more capable brother. And there's the Ed Stone. But he's not an idiot. Why then will he not see what is plain to everybody?
Unless 'everybody' is all those people he's not friends with, has no interest in, and who don't go to those fashionable north London dinner parties. About 68m people at last count.
Thank you David! I'm not the first today to ask the first question on my list:
1) Are those now in charge agents of a hostile foreign power?
2) If so, which?
2) If not, how can we tell the difference?
I'm afraid only blackouts and a crisis will wake folk up. There will be many lies told, but we can hope the truth will emerge - power lines shorted by bullshit.
They are all minions of the Central Bank Cartel that pretty much runs the Western World, based in Basel, Switzerland. And they are the original Club of Rome Malthusian, Misanthropes, basically hate humanity, ascribe to some Doomer, DeGrowth, Deindustrialization cult code. And are trying to complete a century old dream of theirs of World Government, a neo-feudal, centralized, top-down oligarchy. And a scarcity economy is an important part of their strategy.
"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest"
Paul Warburg, the International Banker testifying to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1950
Depopulation: "I Hope It Can Occur In a Civil Manner"
"The World can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion"
" I know in one way or another it's going to come back down so I don't hope to avoid that, I hope that it can occur in a civil way "
(i.e. Plandemic and deadly forced vaccines):
Club of Rome former director Dennis Meadows
https://rumble.com/v14uz0z-depopulation-i-hope-it-can-occur-in-a-civil-manner-club-of-romes-dennis-mea.html
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto determination practiced in past centuries.”
David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991
“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
David Rockefeller, Club of Rome, Sept. 23, 1994
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will.
If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
from David Rockefeller’s autobiography ‘Memoirs’
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) president Philip Mountbatten who stated in a 1981 interview with People magazine:
“Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed—not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they’ll do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily.”..."
" Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it. "
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
" The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet. "
Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
" Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. "
Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
I agree that only blackouts will wake people up to the situation they are in. A near blackout doesn't matter because only a tiny fraction of the population will even know it happened. I just hope the blackouts happen somewhere other than where I live!
What really depresses me, living in Brasil, is knowing that our Lula government is going fast downhill into the green energy scam even when just looking at Germany, the UK, California and South Australia shows how bad things can get.
But at least those countries are developed countries, I hope their people will see the light soon, and they will correct course in time.
But here for us in Brazil, desperatelly in need of economic growth and productivity increases, this will be a fatal blow that I am not sure we will be able to recover from.
What Greg Jackson conveniently fails to mention on his tweet is what Demand Flexibility Service means in reality: Disconnect consumers to reduce demand. Kind of a "voluntary" blackout.
Demand Flexibility is another name for Electricity rationing.
That's the word I was looking for! thank you!
The two generators that provided backup at the last minute were apparently not available for use, for whatever reason, during the day. So they were actually paid a fortune to respond to the shortage that they had contributed to in the first place. Just bad luckfor us and good luck for them, or something more sinister we will never know! It might have been better to turn down their vastly over-priced offer and let Ed Miliband see what happens when a lack wind and solar coincides with high demand, as it will many times in the future. Meanwhile we in Wales are being told we need Bute Energy to cover the countryside in turbines and concrete because we need more wind for cheap electricity. You couldn't make it up!!
This whole situation quite certainly tempts certain generating stations to be unavailable when it is most convenient to them, and suddenly be ready to produce when they get offered a nice amount of money. Doesn’t seem like a far fetched hypothesis to me…
Oh dear, 46.8GW peak demand when they were only anticipating 44.4. That's quite a difference. I wonder why. Maybe all those hotels across the country hosting residents who are not used to our chilly British weather should be put on mandatory Agile Octopus smart tariffs and told that the government will only pay for off-peak usage.
What does Greg Jackson expect? NESO is saying to the gas operators, "No, we don't want your dirty power, we don't want your dirty power, we don't... oops, we need your power, we're desperate, how much money do you want?".
It would, of course, be much cheaper to let the gas operators run at a substantial output 24/7 but that would involve being heretical towards our new religion.
I was saying long before the election that the new Labour government would only last until the first blackout. We may soon find out if I was right.
Yes. Power generation stations are capital intensive endeavours, you have to amortize the costs and give a return to investors. The variable costs are dwarfed by the fixed costs.
Someones doesn't even need to understand the physics of power generation and distribution to see it, this is economics 101
May I send you my own recent analysis of what is required if an all-alternative energy option is achieved WITHOUT having carbon fuel backup? Things can end up MUCH worse than this, and COSTS will be quite high, whether or whether not there is a large scale carbon backup. With too little storage backup, there will be huge problems and costs such as described here, and with suitable storage backup, the capital costs are huge. I have numbers. I am NOT a paid subscriber. May I still submit? William T. Lynch PhD
To Dr. Lynch -- Dr. Lynch - are you aware that Nikola Tesla invented and US Patented his "Electric Generator" / US 511, 916 / Jan. 2nd 1884, which included the "resonating tank circuit" and resonance".
He then invented and US Patented his "System For Transmission For Electric Energy" / US 645,576 / Mar. 20th. 1900 -- which has been the "receiver" circuit found in every AM or FM radio manufactured since 1900.
Any "resonating tank circuit always electronically develops three operating conditions
It:
1.) always internally develops it's:
--- "...absolute maximum power level..." - while
2.) always "electrically reducing" the input power level "connected to it" - to it's
--- "...absolute minimum power level.
3.) the "internally developed absolute maximum power level" to "connected absolute minimum power level" ratio -- is:
--- always "more than '1' " - with "1" signifying "unity" -- without breaking / bending / or even getting close to any Laws of Physics - because it never increases or exceeds it's absolute maximum power level.
In the 1850s - Classic Physics Academia stated their blanket position that:
--- "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power..." - which was correct for the time - based on the information available and the fact that everything at that time was powered either by "steam power" or by "real" horsepower.
They got the "substance" of their position correct".
But Tesla's two US Patented inventions (listed above) invalidated the "blanket nature" of their statement - because although it is still true for all "physical" power supplies cannot produce more output power than input power:
--- a power supply using a "resonating tank circuit as it's electric power supply:
--- can supply full power a load at it's full output power level:
--- while the input power level connected to the resonating tank circuit - is always reduced.
Again -- this does not break the originally stated Physics Law as stated.
If you get a copy of the college-level textbook "...Electricity One-Seven..."/ edited by Mr. Harry Mileaf / copyrighted in 1966 / written from the "atomic viewpoint", i.e., what an atom is and what the electron's part is in "electricity" -- you will find a 55 page chapter on "resonance" - with 5 pages exclusively covering the fact that both parallel resonant and series resonant circuits always reduce the input to the parallel circuit, and always develops a higher output voltage level.
With nothing other than the facts meant -- it's 2025 instead of 1894 and 1897 when the "electron" was discovered by British Physicist J. J. Thomson - which eviscerated the ancient Greek History based "Conventional ' Current-Flow' Theory".
By all means, send me a DM with a link. You may recall I had a go at costing the RS report from 2023:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/lcoe-cost-wind-solar-renewables-plus-hydrogen?utm_source=publication-search
To David Turver -- is there a reason why you refuse to take seriously the Tesla based / fully developed / US Patented and available POD MOD -- which Sec. Milliband / PM Starmer / Exchequer Reeves / and Mission Control Head Stark - all turned down - because "they knew better".
The actual reason is "totally financial".
The privately owned (which could have been "people of the UK" through financing that could have been made available through GB Energy) / "long term leased / solid-state POD MOD" installed at" each site - "taking it off the grid" / at a universal rate of: --- $0.10 per hour - $72 per 30 day month per unit / "where needed" / as much as is needed" / "for as long as is needed:
--- would "dry-up" the electric power markets for all of the existing UK based / 2 tier "for profit" electric power developers and sellers.
The technology is already in Europe -being requested to apply for funding by EC President Ursula von der Leyen this last March.
This makes the UK -- a customer for imported units - instead of being a manufacturer for internal installation and use - and for export.
No one in the UK seems to be interested in fixing the problem - just "talking about it".
No way the MOD POD can compete with the Rossi E-Cat. Give it up. Rossi will build an E-Cat powered monster truck that will roll over your little operation and crush it into rubble:
"....Leonardo Corporation introduced the NGU Power Cell at a public demonstration on September 27th, 2024 at Latina Italy where an E-Cat-powered electric vehicle with a normal range of 75 km on a single charge, drove for over 6 hours for a distance of 201 km. During this time the state of charge of the battery increased from 62 per cent to 83 per cent. Video of this event can be seen at https://youtube.com/@ecatthenewfire..."
£4,000/MWh, or 40p/kWh and similarly others In the article
The p/kWh is 10x that
Yes, sorry. Prices went so high it's easy to get the decimal point in the wrong place. Corrected now.
Yes - £4/kWh
An absolute bargain!
Brilliant article about the madness going on behind the scenes of the power grid👍👍
Just to put the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" hoax claimed to be already happening into perspective, multiple independent data sets show that the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.1°C since the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1850.
That's 1.1°C in 175 years, give or take, that's 0.00628571428°C per year, go check it if you don't believe me.
The average difference in temperature between London and Manchester - about 200 miles further North due to the more Northerly latitude of Manchester - throughout the year is approximately 1.8 deg C, over half a degree C greater than the total warming estimated to have taken place since 1850.
Go figure!
Worse than that, they deliberately cherry picked a global temperature low point at the end of the last natural cooling cycle, which easily accounts for all the temperature increase. They could have picked one of the several warm cycles that have occurred in the past 2000yrs which would have put us still in the negative for temperature rise.