Labour’s plan for a net zero grid by 2030 is unrealistic and will require a “huge sacrifice” by the country, a leading power station builder has warned.
It’s gonna make us a lot, lot, poorer.
Labour’s plan for a net zero grid by 2030 is unrealistic and will require a “huge sacrifice” by the country, a leading power station builder has warned.
It’s gonna make us a lot, lot, poorer.
This is the sort of thing why we need to destroy the Tories and let Labour in. Net Zero has to collapse disastrously, let it be on Labour’s watch. When grannies are freezing to death across the country, and the lights are all out, Nigel can say ‘I told you to get rid of Net Zero. Vote for me and we will’. A Tory opposition won’t be able to say that, because they want exactly the same as Labour.
And the only party leader stating this truth during the debates is?
That idiot Milliband is determined to bring ruin upon us all. As Jim says let him.
The lynchings will be quite a laugh.
Based on his love of all things Putin, apparently Nigel Farage’s Internet nom de guerre is “Steve”.
And colder and darker
I’m assuming that a net zero grid is defined a bit like ‘smoke-free Britain’ where if fewer than 5% smoke then the country is smoke free.
Also assuming that imported electricity, biomass, methane from digesters and fuels converted from CO2 (from cement kilns) into CH4 before being burnt are going to be declared as carbon neutral. Also that imported gas from the UAE will be declared net zero provided its substituted by an equivalent amount of energy generated by their new nuclear reactors (I think they’re near completion of the third of 4).
If needed at a push, the National Grid could buy some land, plant trees, and count the CO2 captured towards the target, without needing to subtract what would have been captured by what would have grown anyway
Easy peasy.
I’m with Jim on this. If the people want net zero (or the elite deem that they want it) let Labour give it em good and hard. Same with our NHS, benefit lifestyles , 4 day weeks, the free flow of dinghy rocket scientists and everything else.
The whole shitshow is on the brink of collapse, it needs a good hard push to bring it to an end, and Labour is best placed to do that
‘Based on his love of all things Putin, apparently Nigel Farage’s Internet nom de guerre is “Steve”.’
I watched the ‘interview’ on iPlayer last night. Contrary to Nick Robinson’s inaccurate summation, Farage expressed no ‘love’ for Putin or his deeds. Robinson peddled his usual fare of inaccurate summary followed by an immediate move on/ move the goalposts ploy. If Farage were candid, his view of Robinson might be just as unfavourable as mine.
This is underpants gnome politics.
Install socialists with
unassailable mandate – – – – – – – – ? – – – – – – – – – Freedom!
I suppose, in desperation, this may seem like a political strategy – but it’s just bonkers.
without needing to subtract what would have been captured by what would have grown anyway
There’s a question I’ve been meaning to ask Jim for quite a while. And that’s what is the mass of a hay crop per acre/hectare/whatever? Because I wondering if tree planting does actually net sequestrate carbon? Any piece of land will grow vegetation given sufficient irrigation. Try & stop it. It’s not hard to see that the vegetation needs x energy from sunlight/m2 plus inputs to produce vegetable mass. If you don’t crop it, the mass then gets eaten by various organisms & whatever mass isn’t emitted as CO² etc by the organisms ends up as soil. Soil is to a large degree carbon.
So is there something special about trees turning energy into biomass & sequestrating it? I’ve a suspicion there isn’t. Yeah, you get a lot of tree wood that’s easily identifiable. But forest does not produce soil. Anyone who’s ever dug in a forest knows that.
Based on his love of all things Putin, apparently Nigel Farage’s Internet nom de guerre is “Steve”.
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these:
‘Steve was right again!’
The destruction of Net Zero in two words: copper ore.
Bastiat: not considering the consequences of the unseen are fatal.
The end point of Net Zero is an all-electric economy and society. Since everything that uses, generates, transmits, distributes electricity needs copper, the amount of this to reach Net Zero is vast. Wind/solar generators, cabling, transformers and other grid equipment, battery chargers, BEVs + motors, heat pumps, electric stoves, any other equipment running on gas – all in addition to current use of copper in electric appliances and things non-electric.
This requires an equally vast amount of copper ore. It is practically impossible to increase mining operations to a volume and rate sufficient to meet demand within the 2050 timeframe.
Evidently, the nitwits promoting Net Zero have not considered its total reliance on copper and whether enough will be available. It won’t.
Since demand will surge ahead of supply, prices will go up, making anything made from copper increasingly and ultimately prohibitively expensive.
Net Zero cannot be achieved, but the economy can be destroyed in the effort.
PJF – I suppose, in desperation, this may seem like a political strategy – but it’s just bonkers.
What do you suggest we do instead? We already tried installing the Tories in office for 14 years and giving them a landslide majority.
If Steve gives me a pile of bunce
I’ll happily say
He’s right for once.
Some do insist that a cropped pasture sequesters more carbon than a forest. Monbiot insists that’s wrong. Therefore I believe it to be true.
PJF
The missing words are “Revolution” and “Executions”
Who needs copper ? Nikola Tesla proved that it is possible to conduct electricity through the air.
So we all grow brain tumours… Can’t have everything…
It also costs the country billions of pounds in energy expenditure every year by keeping Britain reliant on higher gas imports
We have billions of barrel equivalent of cheap natural gas under our feet.
Crucially, Britain’s legally binding climate targets are also in jeopardy
Legally unbind them then.
The promise was based on calculations by independent thinktank Ember, which found last year that bills could be far lower by 2030 if Britain replaced its reliance on gas with a largely clean power system.
Lying cunts.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives believe the answer to lower home energy bills lies in wringing more gas from Britain’s own reserves in the North Sea, a claim that has been debunked.
Supply and demand has been deboonked, bigots.
TMB – Splendid
Monbiot insists that’s wrong. Therefore I believe it to be true.
«/sarc»You can’t beat the scientific method can you?«sarc»*
*Is that how I override my default setting?
– What do you suggest we do instead? We already tried installing the Tories in office for 14 years and giving them a landslide majority.
The Tories haven’t done anything to pull the bus off the cliff edge, so the answer is to put a socialist at the wheel and all go sit in the dangly end.
“ When grannies are freezing to death across the country, and the lights are all out, ”
They’ll blame the Tories.
“If only they’d started the transition earlier instead of wasting billions on Brexit and trashing the economy we wouldn’t need to have acted so dramatically to avert the oncoming climate catastrophe. Think about grannie making the ultimate sacrifice for the protection of future generations in the same was soldiers did in WW1.”
Or similar bullshit wibble.
– The missing words are “Revolution” and “Executions”
Yes, the socialists are very good at those.
Meanwhile, how is that Venezualan uprising coming? North Korea?
PJF – The Tories haven’t done anything to pull the bus off the cliff edge, so the answer is to put a socialist at the wheel and all go sit in the dangly end.
Seriously, what do you suggest the British electorate does instead?
Another term for the Tories?
Seriously, what do you suggest the British electorate does instead?
Instead of commit suicide?
Fucking not commit suicide.
PJF – Fucking not commit suicide.
Which candidate is that, then?
“There’s a question I’ve been meaning to ask Jim for quite a while. And that’s what is the mass of a hay crop per acre/hectare/whatever? Because I wondering if tree planting does actually net sequestrate carbon?”
There’s a big argument over whether trees sequester any net carbon in the long run anyway, as all trees (in nature at least) end up rotted on the forest floor. Many farmers argue (with I think a solid scientific basis) that as Tim says, permanent pasture thats cropped with livestock sequesters more carbon (in the form of more soil, and higher organic matter levels) than trees do, even when they are in their growing phase. This of course is not politically acceptable, as livestock are the devil, and must be removed in favour of bugs and gloop made in factories out of God knows what. So whatever science there is that supports grass fed livestock production as a means of sequestering carbon is roundly ignored. Follow The Science™ at work again.
The amount of grass you can harvest per year depends on multiple factors, such as grass type, fertiliser use, rainfall, temperatures etc. But if you take a field with native grasses (ie not Italian ryegrasses which produce like mad for a few years then lose all vigour) and you use no fertiliser other than natural manures from grazing livestock, then you expect between 1 and 2 tonnes/acre of dried grass (in the form of hay). The variance is largely down to the weather – basically damp warm weather grows grass like stink, cold and dry doesn’t.
Don’t ever forget that Net Zero is completely pointless as it is a totally futile attempt to solve a problem that doesn’t even exist. Futile because even if the problem did exist it wouldn’t work anyway.
In related news, the Cricket World Cup is happening in the Caribbean at a stadium that has hundreds of solar panels on the roof. Every time that one of the big hitters scores a six, another solar panel bites the dust.
PJF/ Steve
‘Which candidate is that then?’
Exactly – if you are white or male All parties are committed to your impoverishment and death. That is the reality. I’d rather not die and Reform are the only ones challenging that overarching narrative. The Conservatives have failed totally and I’m hoping the Labour Party, currently composed of sundry faggots, Dikes and other sexual grotesques and child molesters may not be up to practising what their bile suggests.
“Install socialists with
unassailable mandate – – – – – – – – ? – – – – – – – – – Freedom!”
There’s no guarantee that the Freedom bit happens. But then if we keep putting the Tories in charge all we get is the same direction of travel, ever closer to the socialist boot stomping in our faces forever anyway. Name one thing the Tories have done in the last 14 years to increase our freedom, reduce the power of the State and leave more of our earnings in our pockets. Everything they’ve done has been in the opposite direction. There’s a million and one things they could have done to leave landmines for a Labour government, by passing laws that gave people freedoms that Labour would find hard to remove, but they do nothing, like the good little Fellow Travellers they are.
So our choice is simple, socialism lite (Tory) vs socialism heavy (Labour), or socialism heavy vs the possibility of someone in favour of freedom (Reform or something that comes after them out of the ashes) . Voting Tory guarantees us no freedom and more and more socialism, just slightly less than under Labour.
Fuck that. Lets bring on the crash that socialism always induces and lets see what comes out if it. Freedom or death I say.
Two cheeks of the same arse.
Are labour worse than the tories? Yes.
But since the b-liar obscenity was shat into number, when have the tories ever reversed any of the globo-filth, woke, anti-British, anti-western, anti-humanity hate and destruction?
Damn it, they’ve had plenty of time, and a lot of said hate and destruction has been on their watch.
If it was the third world zoo euphemistically called the labour party that was about to get it’s arse handed to it and a tory landslide was predicted (I’ll believe a labour landslide when I see it!) the same basic argument would apply. This is pretty much what happened 4 years ago!
How is the present situation possible unless the tories actively want it?
What could they have done to have retained that support?
As one of the fools who, after a quarter of a century, gave them my vote, if they had shown even the hint of a glimmer of trying to make the babiest of genuine steps to disentangle this country from the euro-prison, nut zero and all the rest of the criminality, I would very likely be willing to give them a second chance now.
But the “fuck you” we fools got in return for that trust.
Sorry the cenobites can have them!
The Woodland Trust make the claim that:
“On average, one hectare of native broadleaf woodland will store 300 – 350 tonnes of carbon over a 100-year period”
https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/plant-trees/woodland-carbon-farmers-and-landowners/
So about 1.32 tonnes of carbon per acre per year. Roughly the same as hay. So save the energy cost of doing those plantings. Exception: if you can make a profit without subsidy from hay or from timber then do what is profitable but otherwise stay out of the way of nature.
I believe the water table around Salisbury is only about 1.5m below surface so there’s a good case for trees there, as grasses don’t send roots that far down but the subsidy system should be abolished so that tree plantations can take advantage.
But in Wales, the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District, it is likely better for grasses to build up the soil levels. So stay out of the way, no subsidies, and let those farmland owners there go bust.
Imv of course.
Some strong emotions there, lads, and I share your frustration and anger.
The degradation of our country is all so unnecessary. We have everything we need here, if not to build Jerusalem, then at least to ensure we have reliable, cheap electricity.
All rished away, by the Conservatives.
They’ve rished away every offer the British electorate has made them since 2012: please do normal conservative stuff and we’ll make you government for life. It doesn’t need to be Thatcherism on steroids, we’d accept John Majorism circa 1993.
They wouldn’t even give us peas. Brexit was a total fluke after the May deliberate detour years. How they hated Blond Man, for his opportunistic Brexiteering! Tory MPs must have felt physically ill implementing Boris’ Brexit. They preferred to run him out of office at the soonest shoddily confected opportunity, rather than give us any tangible reason whatsoever to vote for them. (Francis Urquhart would have had the plotters executed for treason, I feel sure.)
Rishi isn’t a prime minister, he’s one of the countless hilariously self-unaware posh knobs Alan Sugar sacked off The Apprentice for being unable to run a whelk stall. None of these expensively Oxbridged wankers has any plan whatsoever that doesn’t involve their own self enrichment, and most of them aren’t even good at that.
As a wise man once said:
There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.
“On average, one hectare of native broadleaf woodland will store 300 – 350 tonnes of carbon over a 100-year period”
How about over a slightly longer period of time, that would include the trees dying and rotting down again, and releasing all the CO2 previously absorbed? Or do we only need to save the planet for 100 years, then let it boil?
On average, one hectare of native broadleaf woodland will store 300 – 350 tonnes of carbon over a 100-year period
These are nonsense numbers. Jim’s quite right but additionally there’s the aspect of harvesting the timber by degree to make furniture and wood chippings and logs for the fire all of which processes will release carbon and one of which will prolong the storage of carbon.
Goodness! A thought has just struck me: has this been modelled by the team at Imperial?
It totally depends on how you calculate it, and how either is used.
But Monbiot is wrong, since a fully matured forest is, at best, carbon neutral itself, and short-term even a net cabon producer.
But then again… Monidiot is a firm believer in “The Amazon is the Lungs of the Earth” bovine crap, and has clearly demonstrated he does not, or rather: does not want to, understand the basic principles and equations involved. Especially when they prove him wrong.
On YouTube, there’s a good podcast called Triggernometry
Probably also available elsewhere.
They did interviews with Suella Braverman and another with Liz Truss.
Both claimed that even though they had high offices and lots of political power, they were stymied at every turn by inertial forces and reluctance by the civil service.
Well worth listening to.
All I could think was that
1. Tories been in for 14 years, plenty of time to get things through, especially with a big majority
2. If the civil service is getting in the way and too slow, cut it out and back. They’re meant to be there to do the government work, not decide what should and shouldn’t be done
3. If they can’t, as PM and Home Minister, get things done then they aren’t really in charge
4. Maybe, despite making noise about cutting back, freedom,etc, maybe they actually weren’t that interested in doing these things.
On a separate note, has anyone had any
election materialpropaganda through for the election?We’ve hardly had anything.
We’re in a labour seat, but only just.
Only thing we’ve had is Mrs Drakon had a leaflet for Labour through.
Don’t know why those globo-Communist fucktards didn’t send me one though…
All our bumf turned up on the same day { Friday through the post).
Although despite a large existing Tory majority it is a three wayer between Con Lab and Reform.
“1. Tories been in for 14 years, plenty of time to get things through, especially with a big majority
2. If the civil service is getting in the way and too slow, cut it out and back. They’re meant to be there to do the government work, not decide what should and shouldn’t be done
3. If they can’t, as PM and Home Minister, get things done then they aren’t really in charge
4. Maybe, despite making noise about cutting back, freedom,etc, maybe they actually weren’t that interested in doing these things.”
The basic fact is that despite their large nominal majority, there wouldn’t ever have been a majority of the post 2019 election Tory party (let alone the HoC in total) in favour of doing anything significant to alter the status quo. Most Tory MPs are Blairites, in favour of doing what sounds ‘nice’ and unthreatening. We can see that with the issues over the boat people, dealing with the issue was simple, it just required people to make tough decisions and drive them through, despite all the usual suspects screaming blue murder. Thats not going to happen in the feminised political system we have today.
Chernny,
“All I could think was that
1. Tories been in for 14 years, plenty of time to get things through, especially with a big majority
2. If the civil service is getting in the way and too slow, cut it out and back. They’re meant to be there to do the government work, not decide what should and shouldn’t be done
3. If they can’t, as PM and Home Minister, get things done then they aren’t really in charge
4. Maybe, despite making noise about cutting back, freedom,etc, maybe they actually weren’t that interested in doing these things.”
There is no “styming” of government, no cabal of highly motivated Marxist.
When you meet and work with people in the public sector, the most common negative traits are incompetence and idleness. And I don’t mean that they’re being idle as an objection to some work, but that the idleness is general.
Like the failure with government IT is not some Tory thing. The civil service and the NHS were not firing on all cylinders to help Brown and Blair. They fucked up just as much.
Everyone has this view that government is like Yes Minister, House of Cards with 4 dimensional chess players, but the shambles of The Thick of It is probably closer to reality. Most politicians don’t know what they’re doing, nor do much of the civil service. When government works it’s overwhelmingly because of the dedication of some people. Nurses, teachers, soldiers, the people who look after town parks generally have some pride in what they do.
I’ve had 2 leaflets so far. Nothing from the Tories or Labour.
One was from the current MP (Pete Wishart SNP) and the other was from some Independent that didn’t seem to be aware of the existence of the Green Party (or had previously been ejected).
Both a waste of paper and a stamp.
There is no “styming” of government, no cabal of highly motivated Marxist.
*Snip*
Everyone has this view that government is like Yes Minister, House of Cards with 4 dimensional chess players, but the shambles of The Thick of It is probably closer to reality. Most politicians don’t know what they’re doing, nor do much of the civil service.
Erm, yay?
Assuming this to be true, why the fuck are the governments of any type putting up with such outrageous incompetence?
And I can’t imagine it is that true.
When they wanted to do something, say placing the entire country under house arrest to protect us all against a mild flu, suddenly laws were passed super fast, contracts drawn up, studies done, parties thrown, etc.
Either way, it seems like we need to treat the HoC and the Whitehall civil service like the Aegean Stables upon Thames. Let’s divert that handy river and wash all the shit away.
Having worked as a contractor to the Environment Agency, this fits my experience (albeit some years ago) spot on. The civil servants were lazy, feckless and entitled. Those few who weren’t were promoted to their level of incompetence. Everyone was just killing time until their next vacation (of which they had lots), offsite week-long training course (see paid vacation) or retirement, whichever was closer.
Their core hours were 10:00 AM until 4:00 PM and they usually snuck in at well after (pretending they’d just come from a meeting) and snuck off well before (again, off to some other undisclosed meeting). Between this their main event wasn’t work, but lunch (often liquid) in the Civil Service Bar, often itself a 2 hour affair.
Their workloads were light to match their ability and the time they actually spent at their desks, with the contractors like myself picking up the slack. Naturally we often ended up doing effectively 8 AM to 8 PM work hours to cover their laziness, but that’s pretty much why we were hired and paid big bucks until IR35 came along and made it no longer worth the effort.
Because the ministers, who nominally run the shop are restricted to making Departmental Policy and the Senior unCivil Servants are there to implement policy, but the reality is they are there to protect the Blob and distract, frustrate and sabotage the minister from doing anything which is counter to Blob policy (irrespective of which flavour of government is nominally in charge).
Quite frankly the only way to change this is to have a Javier Milei style manifesto committing to destroying the Blob and replacing it with a far smaller ministerial executive which comes and goes with the government along with staff whose employer is the actual government, not the Blob and their contract ends at the change of government.
“Quite frankly the only way to change this is to have a Javier Milei style manifesto committing to destroying the Blob and replacing it with a far smaller ministerial executive which comes and goes with the government along with staff whose employer is the actual government, not the Blob and their contract ends at the change of government.”
Or just abolish the department and anything it does (or is supposed to do, but manages not to)
On a separate note, has anyone had any election material propaganda through for the election?
I’m in mid-Bucks – a boring Home Counties are, whose main claim to fame (infamy?) was that it was the seat of ‘Big’ John Bercow. We’ve had leaflets from the 6 obvious parties (including Greens, SDP and Reform), but today arrived a new one: The Climate Party. They seem to think the Greens aren’t Green enough.
This would normally be a rock-solid Tory seat (hence Bercow), but I don’t know if the plates have shifted enough to give Labour a chance – their PPC is a 34yo dusky-hued female, glorying in the soubriquet of Carissma (sic) Griffiths. When I do a Gurgle on her, she seems to think she’s standing in Shrewsbury, so I guess she’s a last-minute parachutist.
@Chris Miller “…last minute parachutist…”
And there’s an indicator of our problem. The candidates any party provides for the “democratic vote” are selected in a backroom by… whom?
Certainly not by any of the hoi polloi – sorry, electorate. How dare those people have a view?
And when the parachutists have tumbled to a stop, and the survivors placed in their comfortable seats in the House, do they represent what the hoi polloi may desire?
They do not.
They are “whipped” to vote for policies selected in a backroom by… whom?
Couple all that with the self-evident fact that most of the candidates are clearly weirdos and incompetents, regardless of rosette colour, and the only conclusion is that the electorate have no power to direct (legacy) parties.
A thought: At what level of low turnout is a General election invalid? Answer: There is no legal minimum.
Conclusion: We’re fucked; the cards are stacked against we hoi polloi.
Comments are closed.