16 Comments
Jul 13, 2023Liked by David Turver

Excellent analysis. As you say, National Grid seem to be living in fantasy land and this is bound to end in disaster.

Paul Homewood of the NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat blog has already posted on the madness of National Grid’s FES 2023, see https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/07/10/fes-2023-the-emperor-still-has-no-clothes/.

I mention Paul’s post because I have just noticed an awakening in some of his commenters. For many years most of them (and myself until recently) have taken the view that our politicians are “technically challenged” and can be educated to see sense. In this post, several of them have realised that this approach is futile because the looming Net Zero energy infrastructure disaster is deliberate policy. For example see https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/07/10/fes-2023-the-emperor-still-has-no-clothes/#comment-254876 and the two comments above it.

The best way to debunk Net Zero is to expose it as deliberate policy to deindustrialise and depopulate the Western world. Our politicians are acting as puppets to their globalist overlords and paymasters. In the words of the Club of Rome “The real enemy, then, is humanity itself”.

Expand full comment
Jul 13, 2023Liked by David Turver

This paper seems to endorse my daily Telegraph paper that points out that before any country gets into a large scale wind and solar power it needs to have a storage technology that is large-scale and low cost. No such technology appears to exist at the moment. Until it does, wind and solar power are pointless.

http://www.bryanleyland.co.nz/newspaper-articles.html "Cheap storage" (amended for New Zealand

Expand full comment

David, you have done an excellent job in highlighting many of the ludicrous inconsistencies and desperate "hail Mary" nonsense in the FES and output from other disingenuous climate scam fools.

As you imply, their fantasies rely on 4 main myths:

1. Technology which doesn't exist.

2. Ridiculous & unachievable efficiency gains due to idealised (fantasy) HP COP & BEV gains. Most people will not have a HP or BEV in any foreseeable timeframe.

3. DSM/R based on customer incentives & imaginary "Smart Grids" with LMP markets - ridiculous for multiple reasons, including:

a. DSM/R inherently requires that peak power prices are exorbitant - for "motivation".

b. The IT systems to support smart grids & LMP are not even on the distant horizon.

c. If & when the demand curve is manipulated to match supply, there will be no "off-peak", so prices will rise.

d. Energy users are not the puppets of the tyrannical lunatics of the ESO & the CCC.

4. That the UK posseses the programme management skills to achieve a fraction of the work required.

The huge issue I have with these idiots is that none of their fantasies are even plausible scenarios, much less any kind of concrete plan - far less any *costed* plan. But they present their lies to politicians & the public as "achievable and net cost saving".

They're nothing but criminal charlatans.

Expand full comment

I think it’s a mistake to characterize demand side response as energy rationing. Really it’s just allowing energy users to participate in the same flexibility market as generators and predates renewables eg economy 7.

You would still want DSR in a high nuclear scenario. Higher load factor is good for the economics of nuclear so you want DSR to encourage people to charge EVs up overnight on low prices. And assuming in high nuclear scenario you would still want some gas peakers so if if it’s cheaper to pay people to turn down than turn down than turn on gas generation then why not have a market for that?

Expand full comment
deletedAug 8, 2023Liked by David Turver
Comment deleted
Expand full comment