If Liz Truss is looking to give her leadership a new start, a cross-party group of MPs has suggested some answers, in the form of a 10-point wishlist for climate and nature.
Tripling the capacity of floating offshore windfarms, restoring 30% of the UK’s saltmarshes and seagrass meadows, and expanding the existing energy company obligation to make more homes efficient,
It’s as if these people have never heard of incentives.
The energy companies make more money when more energy is sold. So, their incentive is not to efficientise homes. Homwowners lost money from inefficiency. So, their incentive is to efficientise. And the higher prices go the more the incentive to efficientise.
Prices have recently done what?
So, the incentives are already in place, aren;t they?
’If Liz Truss is looking to give her leadership a new start…’
Ahahahahahaha! There’s no ‘start’, this is the finish.
Hang on, I thought wind was now eleventy-three times cheaper than any other source of leccy? Surely firms are already exploiting this to develop floating offshore windfarms? If not, why…?
A group of cross-party MPs (uniparty MPS, rather?) has been bribed, cajoled or lobbied to produce a wishlist of crap. Salt marshes, FFS.
Tripling the capacity of floating offshore windfarms,
That should be easy as I believe we only have 75MW capacity, so it’s a tiny proportion of offshore wind. It’s not been attractive as it’s a costly approach, though last year a Scottish development with 14.5GW if floating and 10.5 fixed was licensed.
Unicorns gambolling in the salt marshes, mermaids grazing on the sea grass.
Yes, that will do the trick.
How did we end up with these imbeciles?
Out of curiosity, in a manuscript of 70,000 words how many of the words are words like “efficientise”?
Absolutely none – just thought I’d try a neologism this morning. Just because.
I think the word that’s needed is “efficate,” though it’s a bit close to “defecate.”
Some are technical, such as expanding the Treasury’s tax breaks on investment to cover skills and non-physical capital, and cutting VAT on public electric vehicle charging points from 20% to 5%.
This is like the captain of RMS Titanic announcing the entire ship is about to become carbon neutral.
Surely the way to understand it is that none of this has anything to do with “saving the planet” & everything to do with certain interests making money. All one needs to do is identify who’s coining it.
This is like the captain of RMS Titanic announcing the entire ship is about to become carbon neutral.
With the notable exception that he would have been entirely correct, whereas all this twattery is wrong.
Can the Conservatives just grasp that they are the Nasty Party, and that maybe some people want that? We want to drive cars, pay less tax, watch police beating the shit out of XR protestors.
You are McDonalds. The cool kids hate you, but millions of people love Big Macs. But no, the Cons are all “let’s replace half the menu with risotto and chia seeds”.
It doesn’t matter whether you triple or quadruple the number of wind mills, their unreliable, intermittent, weather dependent nature make their (ironically) unsustainable output incapable of providing base load which must then be provided either by nuclear or fossil fuels, and requires that gas-fired generation be permanently on stand-by to an equal capacity to ensure grid stability to meet increased demand above base.
The saving in C02 e’misions will be insignificant, but the cost enormous.
And… to rebuild the grid and generating capacity to replace the energy from motor fuels and gas for domestic use within a ten year time-frame is impossible. The infrastructure has to be in place ready for the ‘transition’ – it cannot be cobbled together piecemeal.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
‘Why is this so difficult to understand?’
Because then they’d have to admit they can’t do it??
Why haven’t you lined these people up and shot them?
John B.
An old stalwart, but…..“it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair.
Dennis @ 11.18, We’re outnumbered and they have all the guns. You Septics on the other hand…..
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Their positions depend on them pretending not to understand it.
PJF – Jeremy Hunt seems like the kind of man who’d grab a random child and then demand a lifeboat.
The left spends a lot of agonizing over how do you reduce consumption while still keeping prices low. Responding to incentives is regarded as immoral.
It doesn’t matter whether you triple or quadruple the number of wind mills, their unreliable, intermittent, weather dependent nature make their (ironically) unsustainable output incapable of providing base load which must then be provided either by nuclear or fossil fuels, and requires that gas-fired generation be permanently on stand-by to an equal capacity to ensure grid stability to meet increased demand above base.
And that’s not just an internet rant. Check the wind portion now:
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live
Today the sun is shining so the renewables portion looks slightly above pathetic. Check again Thursday when the wind speed is even lower but clouds cover the sun. I think we’ll see that crimson coal making an appearance.
It’s something when you’re hoping that the entire winter is just endless miserable gales coming in from the warmish Atlantic. Given that National Grid has been busy fulfilling European gas requirements rather than our own, a lovely crisp cold snap with freezing fog might actually kill the grid.
Twats.
How will building more windmills keep my gas central heating running?
A bit less flippantly, how will I do any plumbing when the propane for my plumbing torch is outlawed?
@ jgh
Easies – they’ll outlaw home plumbing like they’ve outlawed home electrics.
Dennis @ 11.18, We’re outnumbered and they have all the guns. You Septics on the other hand…..
Well, that’s your own fault. Don’t you have any narwhal tusks lying around?
Dennis, I think maybe the point was that while we can’t, you won’t.
I think the word that’s needed is “efficate,” though it’s a bit close to “defecate.”
I always like to use “efficienise”
“It’s something when you’re hoping that the entire winter is just endless miserable gales coming in from the warmish Atlantic. Given that National Grid has been busy fulfilling European gas requirements rather than our own, a lovely crisp cold snap with freezing fog might actually kill the grid.”
I hate to be bearer of bad news, but the weather forecaster chap whose service I subscribe to on the farm is suggesting that the weather up to Christmas at least will not feature westerly winds, and instead be more high pressure dominated, which tends to lead to the cold but windless days that you are afraid of. Its not surprising really, we’ve had high pressure dominant over the UK for most of 2022, so there’s no reason to think its going to suddenly change just because we’d like it to.
@philip – “How did we end up with these imbeciles?”
We voted for them – using FPTP which is a pretty terrible system.
@jgh – “How will building more windmills keep my gas central heating running?”
By letting windmills provde some power – however intermittent – less gas is needed for power so more is available for your central heating. This is a different issue from the gas generating capacity required and its expense. Though, of course, it’s a bit late to be building windmills to help with the coming winter.
Yes, I was being a bit flippant, the less gas used to make electricity, the more gas available to use it properly. I’ve been dipping into GridWatch over time, and gas is averaging 60% of generation. That’s MADNESS! Where have all the engineers gone?
“We voted for them – using FPTP which is a pretty terrible system.”
What difference does the voting system make? All the 3 major parties are in agreement on this nonsense. Whoever wins by whatever voting system the policy is the same……….
Charles, if the gas use is TOO intermittent, you’d waste more gas than you’d save revving the turbines up and down. So they’d have to make sure the regs favour gas saving rather than windmill generating.
I dunno whether you could restart the Dounreay reactor in time. I understand it was shut down because some wimps were bothered by the fact that it was full of radioactive molten sodium.
But you could certainly try to bully the Jerries. There’s three reactors they could restart, but the Greens insist that only two be considered and that they not be refuelled first. Perhaps AfD could find a few executioners. After all, they’re supposed to be the Nazi’s aren’t they?
And of course there’s good old Fessenheim that the Frogs were bullied into shutting down just because it was forty years old. The Jerries could grovel and cringe abjectly and beg them to restart it. (Hey!! This is fantasy remember.)
And to deal with next winter, a crash program to frack, frack, frack. Plus the Jerries could try and restart all the other reactors they’ve shut down. I understand that even St Greta pointed out that nukes’d keep them warm.
But you could certainly try to bully the Jerries. There’s three reactors they could restart, but the Greens insist that only two be considered and that they not be refuelled first.
In a surprising turn of events Sholz showed some decisiveness and ordered that all three are open until April. A lot of commentators I read think he’s done Harbeck a favour to get him out of the political mess he was in with his Green Party by taking the decision for him.
We voted for them – using FPTP which is a pretty terrible system.
FPTP is the worst possible voting system, except for all the others. There’s a wonderful demolition of PR by Sir Karl Popper here.
TL;DR PR is a system whereby the people vote and the politicians decide who has won, see Germany passim.
@Jim – “What difference does the voting system make?”
FPTP greatly favours large parties because a vote for a minor party is almost certain to be wasted. This means that the electorate frequently have no genuine choice – as you point out has happened. With STV you can vote for whoever you like best with the reassurance that if they are hopeless your preference between the parties you dislike still counts. This means that a candidate can stand when most people think they have little chance without most voters refraining from voting for them for fear of wasting their vote. This also works within a party – two candidates from the same party have much less risk of splitting the vote and letting someon else in, so voters can choose between candidates who agree on many things and only have small differences – they are not faced with the choice between a party they like which is making some mistakes and an opponent they entirely hate, which is exploited in FPTP by parties to claim that a vote for them must be a vote for every single policy they support.
@Chris Miller
That’s a demolition of party list PR. Popper was clearly limited in his knowledge of the different possibilities. PR covers a very wide range – from STV systems which are far superior to FPTP to party list systems which manage to be even worse. Germany seems to have a two-vote system which combines the worst of FPTP with the worst of PR – quite an achievement.