Skip to content

Another eaten by the blob

I’m not going to argue with the proposition that there is plenty of fault in the way net zero has been pursued. But the idea that the goal of decarbonising the economy is in itself at the root of all our problems is quite frankly nonsense.

It also suffers from a logical absurdity – that a crisis caused by a calamitous rise in the cost of hydrocarbons can be solved by making the economy more dependent on them.

No, that’s not the point at all. Rather, we are dependent upon them and shall be for several more decades come what will. So, throttling supply isn’t a good idea at all now, is it?

12 thoughts on “Another eaten by the blob”

  1. So, if you’re dependent on food and there’s a calamitous rise in its cost, one shouldn’t produce more and thus make yourself more dependent on it???

  2. Of course the “Green revolution” isn’t directly responsible for the current price of hydrocarbons. The war between Ukraine and Russia, and the less-than-sensible reaction of our Overlords to it is.

    What the “Green revolution” is directly responsible for is the increasing dependence on those (russian) hydrocarbons, because any other alternative we had to become less dependent on them has been thoroughly inquisitioned by the Green Religion lobby over the past decades, in favour of their independable and insufficient unicorn babies.
    With the inevitable result we’re decades behind solving this issue which shouldn’t have been an issue at all.

  3. ‘which shouldn’t have been an issue at all.’

    Must admit that’s what really annoys me about this Grikath. Had common sense prevailed, we wouldn’t even need to think about this nonsense.

    But I suppose that’d deprive the woke wankers of their fun!!!

  4. 100% Grikath

    I read Warner’s article and lamented how useless the Telegrafspee had become. I see Bootle still appears and talks dome sense, but Juliet Samuels is the only one of the regulars who has her head screwed on

  5. Insofar as I understand his argument, it seems to be that if you would only stop consuming HCs, some other form of power would miraculously appear. Sunbeams and cucumbers are no doubt involved.

  6. RdJ

    If all the plebs are forced to stop using hydrocarbons they’ll die out and leave the world to people like him. Of course, he hasn’t tumbled to the fact that the people with real power consider him as just another pleb.

  7. If the plebs die out, who’ll clean his toilet? They seem to be aiming for Solaria where the elite had purged themselves of all the icky underclass and luxuriated on their million-acre ranches, never being polluted by the presence of any other human.

  8. If I have understood correctly, the UK situation is not just about gas prices, but the fact that the power generation to supply a large slice of base load together with nuke – coal, which is most efficient for this, ie least cost per GWh – was shut down and replaced with wind and solar neither of which can contribute to base load, being intermittent, unreliable and non-dispatchable…. useless really.

    Base load is therefore reliant now on nuke and gas, and less gas is therefore available for increased and peak demand which must now be met by wind.

    However the way the pricing system works, the price paid for supply to the grid is determined by the last half hour of the clearing period, according to the price of the dominant input source. That is almost invariably gas, so even that ‘free’ wind gets paid the gas price which is the most expensive, instead of coal which was least expensive. This then is reflected in retail prices.

    Bonus: since the nuke and gas are preoccupied with base load and greater demand is now reliant on wind, spare gas capacity is too low to keep the lights on if the wind fails.

    Buy candles.

    To say this has nothing to do with Net Zero is ignorant. How else could it be handled than replacing fossil fuel and nuclear with ‘green’ energy. The fact is it won’t matter if we have a million or ten million wind mills, they still cannot provide base load and a stable grid. It is not how much power they can generate, but whether they can do it continuously and on demand.

  9. The windmill fans still quote some formula based on nominal power times the capacity factor as a way of measuring how useful wind is.
    We have nominal power from wind of 26GW (12 offshore and 14 on). The quoted capacity factors are 0.27 on, and just over 0.42 off. Sounds cool, so we should expect c9GW of useful production from wind, as an average.
    Gridwatch today shows that number is 5.4GW and exceeded 9GW roughly 24 hours total in the last month.
    We are being played. Wind can be useful but those advocating it are giving us bogus numbers.

  10. George Arthur Philip Charles

    @ John B

    Apparently if we have more wind and solar it means that there will always be some part of the UK where renewables are generating power.

    Of course, I guess they really mean wind only as solar won’t work in any part of the UK when it’s dark.

    And then you need enough wind turbines in all parts of the UK to cater to total peak demand otherwise you are back in the same position as now.

    TL;DR – The eco-loons really are mad.

  11. @ George Arthur Philip Charles
    Wind-power is only 0.14% reliable.
    So you would need 700 times base load (or base load minus nukes minus hydro) for wind if you want to switch to 100% carbon neutral.
    Fiendishly expensive but that’s not the *big* problem – which is that it would burn out the entire grid anytime it got near the peak 60% of rated capacity.

Leave a Reply

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