Britain’s Net Zero Disaster and the Wind Power Scam

By Rupert Darwall

December 20, 2023

“This is not about complicated issues of cryptocurrency,” assistant U.S. attorney Nicolas Roos declared in the Sam Bankman-Fried trial, after accusing the defendant of building FTX on a “pyramid of deceit.” Much the same can be said about the foundations of Britain’s net zero experiment. Energy is complicated, and electricity is essential to modern society and our quality of life, but as with FTX, the underlying story is straightforward: wind power and net zero are built on a pyramid of deceit.

Net zero was sold to Parliament and the British people on claims that wind-power costs were low and falling. This was untrue: wind-power costs are high and have been rising. In the net zero version of “crypto will make you rich,” official analyses produced by the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility rely on the falsehood that wind power is cheap, that net zero would have minimal costs, and that it could boost productivity and economic growth. None of these has any basis in reality.

The push for net zero began in 2019, when the U.K.’s Climate Change Committee produced a report urging the government to adopt the policy. Part of the justification was historic climate guilt. In the words of committee chair Lord Deben, Britain had been “one of the largest historical contributors to climate change.” But the key economic justification for raising Britain’s decarbonization from 80% to 100% by 2050 – i.e., net zero – was “rapid cost reductions during mass deployment for key technologies,” notably in offshore wind. These illusory cost reductions, the committee claimed, “have made tighter emission reduction targets achievable at the same costs as previous looser targets.” It was green snake oil.

During the subsequent 88-minute debate in the House of Commons to write net zero into law, the clean-energy minister, Chris Skidmore, also asserted that net zero’s cost would be the same as the previous 80% target, which Parliament had approved in 2008. Challenged by a Labour MP on the absence of a regulatory-impact assessment, Skidmore misled Parliament, saying that there had been no regulatory-impact assessment in respect of raising the initial 60 percent target to 80 percent.

The regulatory-impact assessment that Skidmore says doesn’t exist gave a range of £324 billion to £404 billion when the target was raised to 80% – an estimate that excluded transitional costs – and cautioned that costs could exceed this range. Unlike today’s political pronouncements, the assessment was honest about the consequences of Britain acting if the rest of the world did not. “The economic case for the UK continuing to act alone where global action cannot be achieved would be weak,” it warned.

The Climate Change Act was passed to show Britain’s climate leadership and inspire the rest of the world to follow its example. How did that work out? In the 11 years that transpired from passing the Act to legislating net zero in 2019, Britain’s fossil fuel emissions fell by 180 million metric tons – a 33% reduction. Over the same period, the rest of the world’s emissions increased by 5,177 million metric tons – a rise of 16%. Put another way, 11 years of British emissions reduction were wiped out in around 140 days by increased emissions from the rest of the world.

Someone who claims that he’s a leader but who has no followers is typically regarded as a fool. It’s different with climate. Politicians parade their green virtue – Skidmore is to quit the House of Commons, and he teaches net zero studies at Harvard’s Kennedy School – while voters get mugged with higher energy bills. Analysis of Britain’s Big Six energy companies’ regulatory filings reveals that fuel-input costs for gas and coal-fired power stations were flat from 2009 to 2020. Still, the average price per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity paid by households rose 67%, driven by high environmental levies to subsidize renewable-energy investors. Yet supposedly the cost of renewable energy has plummeted.

During Prime Minister’s Questions earlier this year, Rishi Sunak claimed the cost of offshore wind had fallen from £140 per megawatt hour (MWh) to £40 per MWh, numbers assiduously propagated by the wind lobby and the Climate Change Committee. His claim is flat-out false. The prime minister has been suckered by falling per MWh price bids made by wind investors in successive allocation-round bids for offshore wind subsidies.

The explanation for this is to be found not in falling costs but in a flawed bidding process that rewards opportunistic bidding by wind investors. The government was giving away valuable options that commit the government to honor the prices paid for winning bids but commit investors to nothing. Because investors don’t pay anything for these options, the only way they can get them is by cutting the price they offer – but are not obliged to take – for their electricity unless they choose to exercise their options much later in the process.

Falling prices in successive allocation rounds are thus an artefact of moral hazard hardwired into the allocation mechanism; they reveal nothing about the trend in the costs of offshore wind. Analysis of audited financial data of wind farm companies undertaken by a handful of independent researchers comprehensively debunks the falling wind costs claim. The unavoidable move to deeper waters offset any cost reductions and operating costs per MWh of electricity for new offshore wind projects; the prices for the move are around double those assumed in the subsidy bids.

Preeminent among these researchers is Gordon Hughes, a former economics professor at Edinburgh University and adviser to the World Bank on power plant economics. Hughes’s analysis shows that by the twelfth year of operation, rising per MWh operating costs of deep-water wind turbines exceed their government-guaranteed prices, squeezing out their capacity to repay their capital and financing costs.

The intermittency and variability of wind and solar led the government to create a capacity market to pay for standby generation. In any economic appraisal of renewables, the costs of running the capacity market should be allocated to wind and solar as their intermittency and variability create the need for it. Electricity procured from the capacity market is not cheap. In 2020, German-owned Uniper’s thermal power stations obtained an average price of £224 per MWh, around four times the typical wholesale price.

Confirmation that offshore wind has huge, likely insuperable, cost and operating difficulties came in June, when Siemens Energy issued a shock profits warning and saw its shares plunge by 37 percent, in part because of higher-than-anticipated turbine failure rates. According to Hughes, the implication is that future wind operating costs will be higher, and output significantly lower, shortening the turbines’ economic lives. His conclusion is crushing:

The whole justification for the falling costs of wind generation rested on the assumption that much bigger wind turbines would produce more output at lower capex cost per megawatt, without the large costs of generational change. Now we have confirmation that such optimism is entirely unjustified . . .  It follows that current energy policies in the UK, Europe and the United States are based on foundations of sand – naïve optimism reinforced by enthusiastic lobbying divorced from engineering reality.

The British government has been conned into placing a massive bet on offshore wind and is forcing electricity consumers to spend billions of pounds on a dead-end technology.

The falling cost of wind deception contaminates official assessments of the macroeconomic consequences of net zero. The Office for Budget Responsibility claims that the cost of low-carbon generation has fallen so fast that it is now cheaper than fossil fuel generation. Similarly, the Treasury erroneously took falling prices in wind subsidy allocation rounds as indicating falling wind costs. Both see the economy riddled with multiple layers of market failures, while not recognizing the real danger of government policy being captured by vested interests, as, indeed, it has been. Taken to its logical conclusion, theirs is an argument for switching to central planning and a command-and-control economy.

The Treasury argues that “other things being equal,” the added investment required by renewable energy “will translate into additional GDP growth.” Other things, of course, are not equal. As recent history shows, there’s a world of difference between investors and politicians making capital-allocation decisions. The centrally planned economies of the former communist bloc squandered colossal amounts of capital, immiserating their populations. Few now believe that investment in those economies boosted growth.

We don’t need to hypothesize. Government data disprove the Treasury’s contention and demonstrate that increasing deployment of renewable capacity reduces the productivity of Britain’s grid. In 2009, 87.3 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity, comprising only 5.1 percent of wind and solar, generated 376.8 terrawatt hours (TWh) of electricity. In 2020, 100.9 GW of generating capacity, with wind and solar accounting for 37.6 percent of capacity, produced 312.3 TWh of electricity. Thanks to renewables, 13.6 GW (15.6 percent) more generating capacity produced 64.5 TWh (17.1 percent) less electricity.

Those numbers are damning for renewables and demonstrate why they make electricity more expensive and people poorer. Before mass deployment of renewables, 1 MW of capacity in 2009 produced 4,312 MWh of electricity. In 2020, 1 MW of capacity generated 3,094 MWh, a decline of 28.3 percent. It’s as clear as can be: investment in renewables shrinks the economy’s productive potential. This is confirmed by the International Energy Agency’s net zero modelling. Its net zero pathway sees the global energy sector in 2030 employing nearly 25 million more people, using $16.5 trillion more capital and taking an additional land area the combined size of California and Texas for wind and solar farms and the combined size of Mexico and France for bioenergy – all to produce 7 percent less energy.

Britain’s energy-policy disaster has lessons for America. The physics and economics of wind power are not magically transformed when they cross the Atlantic. Whenever a politician or wind lobbyist touts wind as low-cost or says net zero will boost growth, they become accessories to the wind power scam. The data lead ineluctably to a decisive conclusion: net zero is anti-growth. It is a formula for prolonged economic stagnation. Anyone who wants the truth about renewables should look at Britain and the sorry state of its economy. For the last decade and a half, it has been going through its worst period of growth since 1780.

Unlike in business and finance, there are no criminal or civil penalties for those who promote policies based on fraud and misrepresentation. Rather, net zero is similar to communism. Like net zero, communism was based on a lie: that it would outproduce capitalism. But it failed to produce, and belief in communism evaporated. When the collapse came, it was sudden and rapid. The truth could not be hidden. A similar fate awaits net zero.

Rupert Darwall is a senior fellow of the RealClear Foundation and author of  The Folly of Climate Leadership: Net Zero and Britain’s Disastrous Energy Policies.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

5 31 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 24, 2023 6:11 am

The entire climate catastrophe hoax is falling apart. Time to start prosecuting and jailing all those responsible.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  2hotel9
December 24, 2023 6:46 am

They’ll probably never be jailed- I’d be satisfied with them being deeply humiliated.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2023 6:52 am

They have no shame so they cannot be humiliated. Prison is where they have to go. Thing is their disruption of energy production and agriculture is causing widespread problems to people, and once the mobs are in the streets they will beg to be put in prison.

John Hultquist
Reply to  2hotel9
December 24, 2023 7:54 am

Wishful thinking. Won’t happen.
Try not to be disappointed. 🙂

Bryan A
Reply to  John Hultquist
December 24, 2023 8:46 am

Bring back the old Stocks and Pull pillory
For Unlawful Climate Knowledge

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
December 24, 2023 8:48 am

That’s weird after posting “Pull” was added. I’m almost certain it wasn’t there prior

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Bryan A
December 24, 2023 11:17 am

Doesn’t matter it’s still funny 😂

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bryan A
December 24, 2023 11:20 am

Auto-corrupt does that to me all the time

Reply to  Rich Davis
December 24, 2023 12:46 pm

Seems to affect Climate Science too

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2023 8:21 am

I would be satisfied if they were publicly caned, tarred and feathered, and then banished to the Ross Ice Shelf.

Neil Lock
Reply to  2hotel9
December 24, 2023 7:02 am

Sunak is sunk. But I think we’re going to have to do a lot more than just jail them. We need to make them compensate the people, whom they were supposed to serve, for what they have done to us. The criminal punishments should be on top of all that. Making them live in an enclave where use of energy and all other products from fossil fuels are banned, for example.

Reply to  Neil Lock
December 24, 2023 7:21 am

Just as with FTX and Enron the money is gone, punishment is all that is left. Seizing what little personal assets they have will not come close to making those injured by their criminal activities whole.

Neil Lock
Reply to  2hotel9
December 24, 2023 7:42 am

It isn’t just the protagonists. All those that promoted, supported, made or enforced these policies deserve to be brought to justice too.

Steve Case
Reply to  Neil Lock
December 24, 2023 8:57 am

All of the people that pay attention to ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, Scientific American, National Geographic and any other subscriber to Covering Climate Now and have been educated in the nation’s public schools since 2000 constitute a problem.

It’s going to take time for them to realize that the weather isn’t significantly different from when they were kids. If you have a WWII date of birth you already know it, or at least you should.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Steve Case
December 24, 2023 10:49 am

Just to see what they’re feeding their readers I followed your pointer to Covering Climate Now. As an example, in their Resources Section they had an article by what they call “Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe” titled Climate Science 101. In it she wrote:

“Each of the last five decades has been successively warmer than the decade before, and the Earth is now warmer than any time in at least 12,000 years.” (my underline)

She must be one hell-of-a scientist to be able to fine tune the historic data to that point :<)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joe Crawford
December 24, 2023 12:34 pm

Another unsubstantiated assertion by Katherine Hayhoe. It’s what she does.

Richard Page
Reply to  Neil Lock
December 24, 2023 9:25 am

Sunak may well be sunk but Starmer will be equally as bad, arguably much worse.

Reply to  Richard Page
December 24, 2023 12:49 pm

He’ll have Ed Miliband doing the heavy lifting on Climate Change.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Neil Lock
December 24, 2023 9:51 am

What about for crimes against humanity for the (mainly) Democrat billionaires in the WEF command center who have masterminded the policies for Western governments. It ain’t even about stopping fossil fuel burning. It’s about getting rid of 6-7 billion people. It’s about a small group of elites controlling 100% of the economy. I hope these evil cynics are vulnerable to global class actions for damages can bleed their fortunes to zero. Ditto the phalanx of enabler fraudulent sciency-polysci-types in academe and other corrupted institutions. Treason probably fits for the big guys.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  2hotel9
December 24, 2023 7:56 am

That, in the UK, could amount to 10+ million folks – we are dealing with The Blob here.

It is The Blob that would enable every last one of ‘them’ to escape conviction because they’d endlessly assert:

  • I followed expert advice
  • I have/had no personal interest ##
  • The Science was clear
  • etc

## This one is the killer. Certainly while working as Members of Parliament they have to (be seen to) be cleaner than clean but UK Parliament is really only a Finishing School for Cronies
They go there to make friends & contacts within The Permanent Staff plus deep understanding of how government works.

So when they are de-selected, those things are pure gold dust for large companies.
They can use those contacts to ‘see into the future’ and thus give their new employers huuuuge advantage when it comes to making investments and bidding for contracts

That is probably where/why the UK offshore wind scam is falling apart.
Those ‘in the know’ got a foot firmly in the door, shutting out their competitors, at the very very start and once they were ‘inside’ were free to run amok (in the nicest possible way) and ransack the entire house.
= Exactly why ‘travelling salesman’ got such a bad name for themselves

Steve Case
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 24, 2023 9:14 am

I haven’t complained about referring to the BLOB for some time now. The “Blob” isn’t some unthinking entity, It’s a coordinated Mob. You don’t have to look much further than Mark Hertsgaard’s Covering Climate Now propaganda mill. Most of those media outlets mentioned in my post above are subscribers. The western civilized world is being spoon fed propaganda by well funded government and nongovernment organizations.

Rich Davis
Reply to  2hotel9
December 24, 2023 11:33 am

I regret to inform you, but as the system collapses it will be us “climate deniers” who will be jailed. Revealing state secrets, suspicion of sabotage, spreading dangerous propaganda that misleads voters and leads to the ‘regrettable’ need to suspend democracy.

Reply to  Rich Davis
December 24, 2023 12:55 pm

Where are the renewable enthusiasts now?
1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the Guilty
5. Punishment of the Innocent
6. Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

I’d guess some at 2., with a few at 3, and the majority still at 1.

Paul Hurley
Reply to  2hotel9
December 24, 2023 1:02 pm

Nah, just exile them to an isolated island. An island free of fossil fuels and the products derived from fossil fuels. There they can live a carbon-free existence.

Tom Halla
December 24, 2023 6:12 am

Enron type accounting?

Paul Stevens
December 24, 2023 6:31 am

Christmas Eve day and I am reading Watts Up With That. Why? Because it gives me hope for a better future. Thank you, everyone, Anthony most of all but all of the other contributors, commenters, and to those who send in the tips that often lead to the publication or sharing of great stories. This site and it’s contributors give me hope for the future. May I live long enough to see it blossom into what it could be and the majority of humanity living out a better and flourishing existence.

Reply to  Paul Stevens
December 24, 2023 6:52 am

Don’t hold your breath Paul,
in the pursuit of ‘Nut Zero’ governments are throwing OUR money like confetti at the next best thing since sliced bread … the ‘New Hydrogen Economy’ scam,
where you take ‘green electricity’, use it to turn water into Hydrogen, put that Hydrogen into fuel cells to make … ‘green electricity’.

The system is so efficient that for every 6 kW you get out, you only have to put 27kW in;
there’s a ~77% loss of energy !!!
A bit like going to the bank withdrawing £400 putting £100 in your pocket & shredding the other £300

Reply to  1saveenergy
December 24, 2023 8:23 am

Its worse than you think. Hydrogen is hard to compress and even harder to liquify. It has a low energy content per cubic foot, much less than methane. It tends not to be “containable.” That is it leaks readily through valve packings and gaskets and it gradually embrittles most metals meaning it cannot be distributed by existing natural gas distribution networks. That leaves trucking. To deliver as much energy to a “gas” station as does a single tractor trailer of gasoline, as many as 12 trips by tractor trailer compressed hydrogen tankers is needed. And once at the gas station, a hydrogen compressor is needed to transfer it to station tanks – you can’t just hook up a hose and let it flow. Add up the energy requirements of these processes and I suspect you will have another kind of net zero.

Reply to  Denis
December 24, 2023 9:50 am

And only a few weeks ago I saw a report that some minister in the House of Commons had claimed in a speech that hydrogen was a good thing because it has “high energy density” (his words, not mine!).

Is he stupid for believing that to be true or stupid for thinking we’ll believe it? I’m getting tired of being taken for a fool by these people…

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Reply to  Paul Stevens
December 24, 2023 11:33 am

Yes – but I fear that few, if any, of us will live to see that better future. My personal hope is just to keep my head above the bread-line for my remaining days.

Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2023 6:45 am

“Britain’s fossil fuel emissions fell by 180 million metric tons – a 33% reduction”

But does that account for exporting industries- meaning having to import those same products- thus importing any responsibility for the emissions? Not that I think there is a problem with CO2.

Wokeachusetts now brags about very low “carbon pollution” from the state now that it’s exported most of its industries- forgetting about its imports.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2023 11:39 am

Indeed – and, since most of the export destinations are much less efficient (and clean) than we were, I would guess that in reality it is at least a +33% change. Good news for the world as a whole of course (on the CO2 side at least) but not so good for our economy (or for the added real pollution of course).

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 24, 2023 12:55 pm

Coal burnt in China is virtuous. It is blessed by the UN so is not pollution; rather plant food. How would the west be woke if China did not make all the woke stuff like wind generators, solar panels, batteries and just about everything else the west needs for its transition to poverty.

And China needs to pump out all the CO2 it can to stay warm.

SHANGHAI (Reuters) – Shanghai was set to record its chilliest period in December in four decades with weather warnings for low temperatures and wind issued on Thursday, as the Chinese financial capital entered a days-long cold snap.

Imagine how much colder China would be if they did not have that thick plume of CO2 aver them retaining all the heat.

December 24, 2023 7:13 am

It’s all well and good, us, seeing excellent reports like this. But as long as the gov’t and media keep pushing the narrative, it will come to nothing. I’m not an expert, on any of this subject, but having attended college for electrical and electronic engineering (50+ years ago), I do have at least a reasonable understanding of the issues and implications. However, the ‘lay man’ will have no idea, that ‘he’ is being lied to and scammed by the system.

Neil Lock
December 24, 2023 7:33 am

That link to the regulatory-impact assessment:, deserves to be circulated to all friends of humanity. Even I hadn’t seen this report before. And even on a quick skim, it contains things which are… suggestive, at least, of fraud by the UK government against the people they are supposed to serve.

I’ll check it over tomorrow. There goes my Christmas! 🙂

Reply to  Neil Lock
December 24, 2023 1:12 pm

There are very few Australians who understand the Renewable Energy Target.

The scheme sets up electricity retailers as the bagmen for the subsidy farmers building wind and solar generators. Currently, every virtuous MWh of “renewable” electricity garners government sanctioned theft of $50 from consumers to be handed over to the subsidy farmers. The level of theft peaked at $90/MWh before 2020. But the 20% target by 2020 was achieved. That meant that only 20% of the electricity was virtuous. The updated 2030 target is 40%. So consumers will have to fork out the $50/MWh or more for 40% of their electricity by 2030. It goes up to 80% by 2050.

Large numbers of Australians who own a roof have joined the Ponzi scheme so they are now thieving from poorer consumers who do not own a roof.

Without substantial storage, the “renewable” market in Australia is already saturated. More capacity just leads to lower capacity factors. This will be the case for some years. So the current $50/MWh of sanctioned theft will rise astronomically as the Renewable Target departs from what is possible.

December 24, 2023 7:38 am

An excellent, well-reasoned, well-written article revealing the massive deceptions underlaying “green, renewable energy” . . . technically and politically.

Thank you, Rupert Darwall, RealClearEnergy, and WUWT!

I would give you each +42 intergalactic credits if I could.

December 24, 2023 8:28 am

This is about protests regarding an industrial scale solar park in northern England, latitude 52.7.

December 24, 2023 8:36 am

And another “conspiracy theory” is slowly proving to be true. AGW was never about temperature but instead all about defeating Capitalism.

Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
December 24, 2023 10:32 am

By whatever means necessary.

John V. Wright
December 24, 2023 8:48 am

Firstly, thank you to Rupert Darwall for an an amazing piece of investigative journalism. Secondly, please can we all be aware that, outside of Rupert’s thoroughly-researched efforts, there is a failure of journalism in the uk not just about this story but about Net Zero generally. Not even the ‘serious’ newspapers have investigated this issue properly.
The domestic gas boiler story is another shocking failure of uk journalism. Domestic gas boilers provide 80% of all uk homes with reliable hot water and central heating. That’s 80%. Most people in Britain get up get a shower and come home to a warm house because they have a gas boiler. It’s not just a technology, it’s basically a way of life for most Britons. Because of its commitment to Net Zero, the Government is going to rip out all of these gas boilers and replace them with heat pumps. Yet nobody has done the maths, certainly not the government and shamefully not the journalists. Because, co2 emitted from uk domestic gas boilers amounts to 0.000002% of the earth’s atmosphere. This is not only not capable of heating anything it is not even measurable. So when those wonderful boilers are forcibly ripped out it will achieve nothing for Net Zero. That is actually nothing. Zilch. Carrying out this policy is actually pointless.
Rather like Rupert’s story, no national journalists in the uk are researching or writing about this astonishing scandal. Are there no national journalists reading WUWT?

December 24, 2023 9:11 am

Canada under the feckless Justin Trudeau and his cabinet of folks appointed for DEI flag waving is in the same dismal state. The OECD has predicted that our economy will be at the bottom of the group until 2060. The good news is that it seems to be dawning on Canadians that maybe we shouldn’t be leading the race to the bottom.

December 24, 2023 9:22 am

In the words of committee chair Lord Deben, Britain had been “one of the largest historical contributors to climate change.”

NO. No. No; a thousand times no!

Just in the last eight years alone China is a vastly bigger contributor of CO₂ (though not perhaps climate change).

Reply to  quelgeek
December 24, 2023 1:49 pm

I’m confused. Why would anyone believe anything from John Gummer? He was and is a serial liar whose principal claim to fame was to be part of the John Major political coup that betrayed and overthrew Margaret Thatcher in 1990.Gummer was the Minister who was responsible for mishandling so very, very badly the BSE disaster in 1989-90.

Wikipedia attempts to conceal most of this, but there’s a limit to how much even Wiki can polish a turd like Gummer.

But you are entirely right about China. It’s contribution to global air pollution has risen in lockstep with China’s increasing economic dominance in global trade via the World Trade Organization. Perhaps the single biggest step in reducing CO2 emissions might be breaking up the WTO.

December 24, 2023 9:45 am

Lord Deben: There are three possible explanations.

A) He is very, very stupid.
B) He is corrupt and would destroy his country for personal gain.
C) He is a traitor serving a foreign power.

If anyone can think of another explanation for his actions, please let me know.

Personally, I think it is a combination of B and C with a mere coincidence of A.

Neil Lock
Reply to  MCourtney
December 24, 2023 10:24 am

(D) He’s got the green religion, and wants to enforce it on everyone.

Reply to  MCourtney
December 24, 2023 11:03 am

I was tempted to suggest A in my earlier post, but using far more offensive language. So I think it’s mostly A plus a lifetime of being told how clever he is.

December 24, 2023 10:11 am

Thanks for the link to the pew survey!  I hadn’t seen the “alternative energy sources” question(s) before.  I’d be interested in PEW finding what adults think of SMUD’s thoughts on Firm energy sources and cost considerations.  REF- Docket No. 21-ESR-01 SMUD Comments Re: Lead Commissioner Workshop on Senate Bill 423 Emerging Renewable and Firm Zero Carbon Resources December 4, 2023  

I’d also be interested in Pew asking folks if they think it’s time to bring the Paris Agreement to the US Senate for a vote.   

December 24, 2023 11:02 am

Is this correlated with reduced defense spending in the face of a land war in Europe?

December 24, 2023 11:04 am

I guess this is one reason the UK considered sending museum display pieces to Ukraine for defense assistance.

Richard Page
Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 24, 2023 12:13 pm

There is a mindset among some politicians that we no longer need tanks, or many troops – that drones, one or two planes and a bit of hacking will do the job far better. Amongst those learned and esteemed political idjits there was a feeling that we should have sent every tank we have across to Ukraine as we didn’t really need them.

December 24, 2023 11:40 am

You would create more jobs more cheaply and do a lot less damage to the UK economy if you simply broke every window in Britain.

December 24, 2023 1:18 pm

No mention of stored backup.
Energy storage doubles the cost of renewables.

Renewables cannot work without backup energy, which is currently gas (methane). The UK needs 25,000 gwh of stored energy, for when gas generators are phased out, and we only have 12 gwh.


December 24, 2023 2:41 pm

Excellent report.

“Unlike in business and finance, there are no criminal or civil penalties for those who promote policies based on fraud and misrepresentation.”

This is exactly why government should never be in charge of the production of anything and if they are they need to be held to the same level of accountability as everyone else.

One more thing all the technical, academic, scholastic, professional or whatever language needs to be toned down. This report was good. The fact that some bureaucrat can tell us renewable is cheaper than conventional generation and feel justified because he uses gibberish that no one can understand and measuring standards that aren’t relevant is unacceptable. There is one standard that everyone can understand concerning cost of generation and that is did my power bill go up or down. If you tell me renewables are cheaper and charge me more for my power you should be put in prison after a trip to the woodshed.

ethical voter
December 24, 2023 5:22 pm

Yes. Communism collapsed because of the immutable laws of economics and the inevitable exhaustion of other peoples money. And yes. Net zero and the climate madness will do the same. However when communism collapsed the fascist control freek part of humanity simply moved camp into the climate circus. When this circus collapses they will be looking for a new home. This must not happen. They must never find their feet again. To this end I exhort every person who has the freedom to vote to vote only for individuals and eschew all those who would gather you behind a banner of any sort. These people will be the new fascists and control freaks. Individualism is the right and proper antithesis of communism. Your individualism and your power to express it in your vote is the only hope.

Verified by MonsterInsights