Excellent analysis. Just two small extracts which our politicians ought to be able to take in, but won’t because their aim is the wreck our energy infrastructure:
“Far from wind being 9 times cheaper than gas, it [offshore wind] is in fact 3 times more expensive”
and
“Insane does not begin to describe it. Retail energy prices, already barely affordable for a large proportion of UK citizens, will become ever more expensive as the percentage of renewables grows …”
Thank you for a very interesting article, which I came to via your comments on David Turver's latest offering.
I have to say I almost stopped after the first three paragraphs as I feared it was going to continue as a rant, whereas things settled down and very serious and evidence-based observations were made, so I'm glad I continued.
I mention this, I hope politely, as I prefer to have my facts served without sauce and gravy, regardless of the author or which direction they're coming from, and however sincerely strong views are expressed. For what it's worth, I've become very tired of the mantra of the cheapness of wind and solar so I'm not expressing a partisan prejudice here.
I'll finish by thanking you again for your efforts which are much appreciated.
Your point about blunt upfront summaries is well made, but it's a conscious strategy on our part. Issues around climate and Net Zero are not discussed, anywhere, in a good faith, professional debate. We have many, many people who do nothing but lie outright, to push a neo-Marxist Malthusian agenda or to further a personal grift by selling snake oil.
Being polite about, or to, these people simply doesn't work. Look where it's got us, after decades of this nonsense. People need to be angry. My co-author and me are angry. We know that, by showing that anger, we will lose some people - but we think we'd lose them anyway, because they aren't prepared to do as you did; engage brain and do the hard work of reading and digesting the difficult stuff.
Of course, there's no "right" way to communicate the truth. You may be right, we may be wrong. Each to their own style.
Fair play, and thank you for the complement. Some time ago I decided to try to get educated by reading widely, sometimes making a bee-line for material that contradicts biases I may be developing, in order to avoid joining the sincere but deluded - not as pernicious as liars, but also unreceptive.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." - Richard Feynman
Excellent analysis. Just two small extracts which our politicians ought to be able to take in, but won’t because their aim is the wreck our energy infrastructure:
“Far from wind being 9 times cheaper than gas, it [offshore wind] is in fact 3 times more expensive”
and
“Insane does not begin to describe it. Retail energy prices, already barely affordable for a large proportion of UK citizens, will become ever more expensive as the percentage of renewables grows …”
Thank you for a very interesting article, which I came to via your comments on David Turver's latest offering.
I have to say I almost stopped after the first three paragraphs as I feared it was going to continue as a rant, whereas things settled down and very serious and evidence-based observations were made, so I'm glad I continued.
I mention this, I hope politely, as I prefer to have my facts served without sauce and gravy, regardless of the author or which direction they're coming from, and however sincerely strong views are expressed. For what it's worth, I've become very tired of the mantra of the cheapness of wind and solar so I'm not expressing a partisan prejudice here.
I'll finish by thanking you again for your efforts which are much appreciated.
Thanks Ian.
Your point about blunt upfront summaries is well made, but it's a conscious strategy on our part. Issues around climate and Net Zero are not discussed, anywhere, in a good faith, professional debate. We have many, many people who do nothing but lie outright, to push a neo-Marxist Malthusian agenda or to further a personal grift by selling snake oil.
Being polite about, or to, these people simply doesn't work. Look where it's got us, after decades of this nonsense. People need to be angry. My co-author and me are angry. We know that, by showing that anger, we will lose some people - but we think we'd lose them anyway, because they aren't prepared to do as you did; engage brain and do the hard work of reading and digesting the difficult stuff.
Of course, there's no "right" way to communicate the truth. You may be right, we may be wrong. Each to their own style.
Thanks again for your kind comment.
Fair play, and thank you for the complement. Some time ago I decided to try to get educated by reading widely, sometimes making a bee-line for material that contradicts biases I may be developing, in order to avoid joining the sincere but deluded - not as pernicious as liars, but also unreceptive.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." - Richard Feynman
By the way, is snake oil a hydrocarbon? :)
Fantastic resource you have compiled! Here's a toolkit I've put together for smart meters FYI:
https://romanshapoval.substack.com/p/smartmeters
Net Zero and the climate lies is a very well thought out plan by the UN, WEF etc to tax, control and basically bankrupt us.
This will soften us all up for UBI which will be in the form of CBDCs conditional on biometric ID and vaccine compliance by 2030.