6 comments on “Timmy elsewhere

  1. Whether green technology is foisted upon us at gunpoint or by market forces is moot, the key is (as the article mentions) “energy efficiency”, the underlying reason is to consume less of the earth’s resources and produce less CO2 etc in doing so.

    Currently, green technology reliant upon renewables does not achieve that goal, as mentioned in the article, energy efficiency for consumption technology is way in advance of the renewable energy production technology.

    The argument in favour of renewables is the fuel cost and waste elements are essentially free, but ignores the high building and maintenance cost, which is due to the inefficiency of the mechanism.

    Renewables are fuelled by sunlight, but this suffers from loss during natural transference, i.e. sunlight to wind for turbines, sunlight to wave/tide, etc, and during collection, as using turbines, PV, etc, are not the most efficient either.

    The energy cost for making enough devices to counter the inefficiency could end up using more energy overall, it is this point most green technology fails on.

    Instead of utilising sunlight transferred from 150m km away, you can manufacture sunlight directly on earth and convert it immediately to usable energy with minimal loss of transference, i.e. nuclear. We’ve been at this stage for decades now so why we are still considering inefficient technology ?

    Discussing cost, subsidies, etc, is a side show, the real argument should be whether these technologies actually do result in a net energy saving and are not subject to awkward conditions (such as CFLs which need to be active for 6-10 years before actually being considered more energy efficient than incandescents).

  2. I’m not convinced about their claimed efficiency gains either.

    I wonder how they plan to power container shipping using renewables? Have they considered the ramifications of a halt to container shipping?

  3. alan, it would certainly cause a massive drop in global population. Oops, that’s exactly what they want.

  4. Has anyone in the DECC been brave enough to break the news to the MoD?

    No Air Force to start with. The Army cant have tanks or similar. The Navy has to convert to 100% nukes.

    And just having an armed conflict uses a lot of energy. Is the DECC also going to ban warfare in its drive for efficiency? Its certainly a novel way to attain world peace.

    And when the DECC does disband the MoD the tax savings will certainly help offset the increased energy costs of “renewables”.

    Perhaps banning the military might be a step too far even for the DECC. So they will probably come up with a political compromise and advocate co2 free warfare; the bow and arrow.

  5. Our biggest problem, is that there is no avenue open to us, the public, to censure or impeach those in the public service who knowingly publish and promote falsehoods.

  6. As well as the lie about total energy consumption, it is worth checking something else. The clue is in the following quote.

    “….and meeting the UK‘s legally binding commitments to tackle global warming will be higher than the bill would be for using traditional energy sources.”

    The costs of using fossil fuels will include the costs of carbon capture. It is worth running the numbers to confirm this, with carbon capture costs at the model’s level, and then set to near zero. If this is the case then by far the cheapest option is to obtain a more balanced review of the cost/benefits climate change commitments, particularly when it is just a small number of countries meeting them.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>