The result of all that planning by the State

The coal closure programme was largely expected – not so the gas – but it was meant to be substituted by £100bn of new investment in lower carbon substitutes such as nuclear and wind. The closure programme is ahead of schedule while the opening programme is at least three years behind withonshore wind projects stuck in planning, offshore wind slow to develop and atomic power more expensive than expected.

Note, we\’ve had the finest minds of our generation working on this. All those terribly bright politicians and bureaucrats, acting purely in our best interests with no thought of rewards for themselves. Working at a quite important problem: how do we keep the lights on?

And what\’s happened? They\’ve fucked it, haven\’t they?

This sort of planning, at this level of the whole economy, just doesn\’t work, does it? As Hayek said, the only method we have that works of coordination at this scale is the market. The twats should have stuck on a carbon tax a decade and more ago and then left well alone.

16 thoughts on “The result of all that planning by the State”

  1. Again, any discussion on energy policy should just look at this. For 2 weeks in July, wind output (installed now around 10GW I think) rarely exceed 1GW, and the rest of the time is up and down like the proverbial tart’s pants.

    Greenies and beneficiaries of renewable subsidies should have their power cut off by smart meters once the renewable supply exceeds their own demand. They might learn something and will keep the lights on for the rest of us a little longer.

  2. “Note, we’ve had the finest minds of our generation working on this. All those terribly bright politicians and bureaucrats, acting purely in our best interests with no thought of rewards for themselves”

    Hence my often voiced suggestion. Carpet bomb Oxbridge, bulldoze the rubble & sow the ground with the nuclear waste from their own research reactors. Let the twisted wasteland, glowing behind high fences, serve as a warning to future generations.

    Look at the educational history of most senior politicians & civil servants. That of the renowned members of the Fourth Estate who should be keeping an eye on them on your behalf.
    You have a higher education system that teaches applied incompetence. The primary qualification is a PPE but many get by on arts degrees. It’s a rot eating away the heart of the nation. There’s no cure. Cauterize it.

    (OK. The system does produce some decent scientists. If you wish, smuggle them out before the bombing starts. But isolate them in camps & brand them so they can never become involved in Government)

  3. Tax people more and a nuclear power plant will magically appear.

    What have you been smoking, Tim Worstall?

  4. “should have stuck on a revenue neutral carbon tax a decade and more ago and then left well alone.”

    Fixed that for ya.

  5. Right on all counts Tim.

    Except for the Carbon Tax.

    They can shove that up their arse as well.

    Ps–Take a look at the EU Referendum blogposts where Richard North reveals how they are spending another billion on emergency diesel generators to make sure the lights don’t go out (because of the wind/solar circus)–except they make “green” energy more polluting than the ordinary and even more costly.

    Still, not Cameron’s money, eh?.

  6. @Like: because pyschopathic egomaniacs tend not to study subjects that have objective answers, where they can be shown to be wrong. They prefer ones where they can bullshit on about anything, and as long as it sounds vaguely plausible, no-one will contradict them, and they will get a pass.

  7. Jim, thanks. But I’m not sure. Is it because engineers/economists strike the rest of us as wankers? See Romney vs Obama. And imagine our host’s chances of election. Quite high in communist china, quite low (ie zero) anywhere democratic. I draw no conclusions fr this btw.

  8. Well, there’s Steve Baker, isn’t there?

    But yes, his chances of getting anywhere near the levers of power are non existent.

  9. “Why do arts/humanities/PPE graduates get elected, not scientists, engineers etc?”
    Are you suggesting scientists or engineers would be better at running a country? Hard to see why.
    My point is, running a country isn’t a subject that can be taught. It’s only a subject that can be learned. It’s learnt by being out in the world, doing the things that need running. The absolute last place that knowledge can be gained is the halls of academia where competence is judged by ones fellows. Where any nonsense can hold credibility with the consensus of the ignorant.

  10. @ Luke
    Because the guys who want to get elected choose PPE
    The guys who want to do as real job choose a course that leads them to a real job – and I made a deliberate choice to do a post-graduate Diploma in Statistics rather than an M.Sc to avoid an academic career.

  11. Oh, a better example is my pal who went to Birmingham University instead of Oxbridge because he wanted to do metallurgy and Oxbridge didn’t do it in the 1960s

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *