|
The addition of all those solar panels made it look top heavy to me. Un-seaworthy.
|
The addition of all those solar panels made it look top heavy to me. Un-seaworthy.
Re the panels I'd also be (more) concerned about the windage,which you cant counterbalance with battery ballast (though lots of newer boats fit solar arrays on arches and/or rigid canopies) but either way, there would have to be fairly severe weather for it to be a survival issue, and severe weather is not mentioned in that report.
|
|
|
|
|
On the topic of electric buses, London has a new "IETRAM" Bus which is fully charged overnight at the garage but gets a topup at the end of each trip from a specially adapted bus stop. The stop has a pantograph arm which swings over the bus and provides enough charge in about 6 min for the next 15.7 mile trip (longest of TfL's routes).
Edited by misar on 15/12/2024 at 16:46
|
The stop has a pantograph arm which swings over the bus and provides enough charge in about 6 min for the next 15.7 mile trip (longest of TfL's routes).
Very reminiscent of adding water to a steam engine .... :-)
|
The stop has a pantograph arm which swings over the bus and provides enough charge in about 6 min for the next 15.7 mile trip (longest of TfL's routes).
Very reminiscent of adding water to a steam engine .... :-)
...or a certain DeLorean doing 88mph near a clock tower... ;-)
|
|
|
The stop has a pantograph arm which swings over the bus and provides enough charge in about 6 min for the next 15.7 mile trip (longest of TfL's routes).
I saw a similar system in use in Spain where trams got recharged that way. No need for miles of overhead wiring. I think it was in Seville.
|
|
Tesla Model S selected as example.
Conclusion
"The GB electricity grid is already facing stresses towards the end of this decade from retirements of nuclear and gas generation, as well as the growing difficulties with managing grid stability as the proportion of intermittent renewable generation increases. However, the highly ambitious Clean Power 2030 plan magnifies these dangers significantly. Gas plant retirements could be accelerated, and even if new renewables are built, they do not work when it’s not windy or sunny, and the grid infrastructure to ensure they can be fully utilised is very unlikely to be completed on time. The country is not sleep-walking into a security of supply disaster – under CP2030, it is running headlong into it"
watt-logic.com/2025/02/02/blackout-risks-in-the-gb.../
|
The solution to the problem could come from Electric vehicles. They typically charge overnight when demand is low and once they've taken you to work or brought you home you could (with the right tech) plug it in and use the cars battery pack to power the house or flow direct to the grid during peak demand. Our Leaf allows for this but the dual directional charging points aren’t available in the UK for some weird reason.
Use the ever increasing capacity of EV’s as backup storage for the grid. It’s not that complex to introduce, the tech is already available and isn’t particularly costly. The will and knowledge are all that are required.
I can plug our Leaf in at home and at work so it could be earning its keep when stationary and helping secure the countries power network.
|
|
"Will there be enough power to charge your EV ?"
is the wrong question.
It will be "Can you afford to recharge your EV?"
Why? Because the capital investments talked of - Mainly the National Grid £70B but others as well - are likely to double the cost of electricity...and maybe more.
The people involved are acting like dumbos = spend and do sums later.. Or liars ..know the results and not telling.
|
|
And yet, our electricity consumption continues to decline since 2005. And we continue to import and export electricity to balance loads.
The National Grid needs investment because, just like pretty much everything else in this country, it has been allowed to fall apart.
|
And yet, our electricity consumption continues to decline since 2005. And we continue to import and export electricity to balance loads.
The National Grid needs investment because, just like pretty much everything else in this country, it has been allowed to fall apart.
More like been very poorly spent (wasted) for decades now. Unfortunately too few people are willing to have a very difficult conversation as to the problems we face on many fronts, this just being one significant one of them.
Rarely does it stray from 'not enough money being spent', when many other factors in how our taxes are spent and why are really what drives most of the problems.
|
More like been very poorly spent (wasted) for decades now. Unfortunately too few people are willing to have a very difficult conversation as to the problems we face on many fronts, this just being one significant one of them.
Rarely does it stray from 'not enough money being spent', when many other factors in how our taxes are spent and why are really what drives most of the problems.
The UK has under invested in its energy infrastructure for decades, and the margins between peak demand and capacity have fallen.
Privatised companies dislike excess capacity - costs and reduces profit. Under government ownership profligacy ruled - no effective oversight. Both unacceptable extremes.
Consumers will need to pick up the investment cost - whether through increased charges or increased taxation. There is no free lunch!
There is a clear trade off between early investment in green capacity, and lower future operating costs (mainly fuel) in future decades.
What the government can do is make sure that the energy companies are able to invest - possibly guaranteeing loans, part funding the investment or something more creative.
|
|
"Will there be enough power to charge your EV ?"
is the wrong question. It will be "Can you afford to recharge your EV?"
Why? Because the capital investments talked of - Mainly the National Grid £70B but others as well - are likely to double the cost of electricity...and maybe more.
The people involved are acting like dumbos = spend and do sums later.. Or liars ..know the results and not telling.
You need to look at the full life costs of technology - it makes a HUGE difference:
Gas - low up front investment costs followed by decades of high operating costs (fuel)
Wind/solar - very high up front costs followed by decades of fairly low maintenance costs
General consensus is that solar and wind provide the lowest LCOE (long term cost of energy) - look it up.
Dumbos don't bother to do the sums at all, preferring preconceived conclusions whether right of wrong!!
|
"Will there be enough power to charge your EV ?"
is the wrong question. It will be "Can you afford to recharge your EV?"
Why? Because the capital investments talked of - Mainly the National Grid £70B but others as well - are likely to double the cost of electricity...and maybe more.
The people involved are acting like dumbos = spend and do sums later.. Or liars ..know the results and not telling.
You need to look at the full life costs of technology - it makes a HUGE difference:
Gas - low up front investment costs followed by decades of high operating costs (fuel)
Wind/solar - very high up front costs followed by decades of fairly low maintenance costs
General consensus is that solar and wind provide the lowest LCOE (long term cost of energy) - look it up.
Dumbos don't bother to do the sums at all, preferring preconceived conclusions whether right of wrong!!
Ahh the usual answer : ignoring the well known issue of irregularity of supply and the need for 100% backup for the 20 odd days a year when wind and sun are not working.
|
"Will there be enough power to charge your EV ?"
is the wrong question. It will be "Can you afford to recharge your EV?"
Why? Because the capital investments talked of - Mainly the National Grid £70B but others as well - are likely to double the cost of electricity...and maybe more.
The people involved are acting like dumbos = spend and do sums later.. Or liars ..know the results and not telling.
You need to look at the full life costs of technology - it makes a HUGE difference:
Gas - low up front investment costs followed by decades of high operating costs (fuel)
Wind/solar - very high up front costs followed by decades of fairly low maintenance costs
General consensus is that solar and wind provide the lowest LCOE (long term cost of energy) - look it up.
Dumbos don't bother to do the sums at all, preferring preconceived conclusions whether right of wrong!!
Ahh the usual answer : ignoring the well known issue of irregularity of supply and the need for 100% backup for the 20 odd days a year when wind and sun are not working.
Plus that wind and solar are not cheaper overall, because the have been and continue to be (despite the tech being 'mature' for well over a decade now) heavily subsidised by both taxpayers and consumers through 'green' levies.
I also just saw a report that identified solar farms being a significant problem for wildlife, reducing the number of insects, and significant numbers of deaths of birds - especially migratory species, who smash into the PV panels thinking they are bodies of water to land on.
I still am amazed how the biggest proponents of PV still want to yet further reduce our food production output and reliance on foreign imports (which generate far more CO2, including from transportation and lose rural jobs / vital farming experience for the future) by subsidising solar farms (or wind farms in not particularly windy areas, like mine [where that turbine fire was]) when far more could be done to actively encourage businesses and other organisations who use lots of electricity and have big roofs to house them.
Absolute madness, but then, we are dealing with ideologue activists, politicians and (already) rich and powerful chums / puppet masters of theirs looking for more at the expense of the average person.
|
"Ahh the usual answer : ignoring the well known issue of irregularity of supply and the need for 100% backup for the 20 odd days a year when wind and sun are not working.
Of course its a problem if you have a closed mind. Have a look at Clean energy without the wind or the sun | National Grid Group to start with. Car batteries averagely have ~60kwh capacity - just half of this would keep the average home running for 2/3 days.
That the UK has ~12 days gas storage capacity should be at least as great a concern!!
Plus that wind and solar are not cheaper overall, because the have been and continue to be (despite the tech being 'mature' for well over a decade now) heavily subsidised by both taxpayers and consumers through 'green' levies.
I suggest you look at the data not make swift unsubstantiated judgements:
- levellised cost of production shows green energy at ~50% of the cost of gas over the lifetime of the plant Electricity generation costs 2023
- green energy is no longer directly subsidised - to kick start the technology there were subsidies for solar panels etc
I also just saw a report that identified solar farms being a significant problem for wildlife, reducing the number of insects, and significant numbers of deaths of birds - especially migratory species, who smash into the PV panels thinking they are bodies of water to land on.
Sweet smalling CO2 of course has huge benefits for human and animal health. makes plants grow more and has nothing to do with climate change. It's a choice.
I still am amazed how the biggest proponents of PV still want to yet further reduce our food production output and reliance on foreign imports (which generate far more CO2, including from transportation and lose rural jobs / vital farming experience for the future) by subsidising solar farms (or wind farms in not particularly windy areas, like mine [where that turbine fire was]) when far more could be done to actively encourage businesses and other organisations who use lots of electricity and have big roofs to house them.
Most farms are unprofitable. Agricultural employment is ~1% of total UK (minor). Over the next 25 years less than 10% of farmland may be lost to green energy English farmland could be cut by 9% to hit green targets - BBC News
Technological change is likely to ensure total food output will be maintained.
Absolute madness, but then, we are dealing with ideologue activists, politicians and (already) rich and powerful chums / puppet masters of theirs looking for more at the expense of the average person.
It helps if you look at the evidence rather than making it up!!
|
|
|
The solution to the problem could come from Electric vehicles. They typically charge overnight when demand is low and once they've taken you to work or brought you home you could (with the right tech) plug it in and use the cars battery pack to power the house or flow direct to the grid during peak demand. Our Leaf allows for this but the dual directional charging points aren’t available in the UK for some weird reason. Use the ever increasing capacity of EV’s as backup storage for the grid. It’s not that complex to introduce, the tech is already available and isn’t particularly costly. The will and knowledge are all that are required. I can plug our Leaf in at home and at work so it could be earning its keep when stationary and helping secure the countries power network.
Not so good if the wally in charge in government thinks practically all electricity (including that he thinks should replace natural gas etc to heat buildings) comes from solar panels and wind turbines, which don't exactly provide much in winter.
Plus we currently still rely on imported electricity via interconnectors, and increasingly those nations doing so are reviewing whether that's good for them, given their own problems at home. Norway being the latest.
Also, yet another wind turbine catches fire not far from me. Hardly the easiest tech to maintain at the best of times.
Note that 'backup' via cars relies heavily on car owners to charge their cars exactly when most beneficial to the grid and to meekly accept using them as defacto storage buffers, including to run their batteries down feeding back into the grid at peak periods. Like with the panic buying during the pandemic, people will likely refuse to connect their EV to the grid to run the battery down, just in case they need to use the car.
I can't see that working out, partly as explained above, especially when nuclear won't be anywhere near taking over the base load (and is actually going down until well after 2030) in winter when solar and wind obviously cannot provide it.
Buffer storage would in reality need to be huge, and there frankly just isn't the resources (including raw materials needed for the huge amount of extra batteries) or tech to pull that sort of thing off, especially in just 5 years.
Bear in mind that one country alone could not do this, and yet practically every major Western developed nation is doing something like these things, all competing for quite scarce raw materials and production facilities, many of which are controlled by nations not exactly friendly to us and often near / actual dictatorships, or at least terribly corrupt in comparison to us (which at the moment is saying something).
I'm just not convinced. Way too unrealistic and could be really, really bad, with no quick or economic fix.
|
solar and wind turbines, which don't exactly provide much in winter.
You are right about solar, but wrong about wind - 1st and 4th quarters have higher wind speeds.
Plus we currently still rely on imported electricity via interconnectors, and increasingly those nations doing so are reviewing whether that's good for them, given their own problems at home. Norway being the latest.
That an interconnect facility exists is good for both parties - but permanent reliance on vulnerable undersea cables should not be part of a long term strategy.
Also, yet another wind turbine catches fire not far from me. Hardly the easiest tech to maintain at the best of times.
It is demonstrably hugely cheaper than feeding a gas turbine with fossil fuels. Turbine fires are rare, usually destroy the tower but little else. Explosion and fires from gas leaks far exceed turbine fires with a much higher risk of death or injury.
Note that 'backup' via cars relies heavily on car owners to charge their cars exactly when most beneficial to the grid and to meekly accept using them as defacto storage buffers, including to run their batteries down feeding back into the grid at peak periods. Like with the panic buying during the pandemic, people will likely refuse to connect their EV to the grid to run the battery down, just in case they need to use the car.
Nonsense - I suspect owners will be able to chose when and how much their EV battery is depleted based on individual travel plans. Were I an EV owner I would charge at cheap rates and happily sell back to the grid at a higher rate in a period of high demand.
I can't see that working out, partly as explained above, especially when nuclear won't be anywhere near taking over the base load (and is actually going down until well after 2030) in winter when solar and wind obviously cannot provide it.
I agree nuclear roll out is dire and needs accelerating. Increases in electricity demand will emerge over the next 20+ years as EV sales are mandated, and gas boilers replaced with heat pumps - possibly starting 2035.
Buffer storage would in reality need to be huge, and there frankly just isn't the resources (including raw materials needed for the huge amount of extra batteries) or tech to pull that sort of thing off, especially in just 5 years.
This is not a 5 year problem - it is a 25 year problem. Needs a coherent plan not a panic attack.
Bear in mind that one country alone could not do this, and yet practically every major Western developed nation is doing something like these things, all competing for quite scarce raw materials and production facilities, many of which are controlled by nations not exactly friendly to us and often near / actual dictatorships, or at least terribly corrupt in comparison to us (which at the moment is saying something).
If it appears the transition to green energy/nuclear is not working (or going too slow) - avoid decommissioning existing gas generation until transition to green energy is proven.
I'm just not convinced. Way too unrealistic and could be really, really bad, with no quick or economic fix.
Doesn't need a quick fix - it needs a workable plan with contingencies.
|
|
<< This is not a 5 year problem - it is a 25 year problem. Needs a coherent plan not a panic attack. >>
The trouble there is that before the end of the 25-year period, the goalposts have moved so far that the original plan is no longer appropriate. And as tech advances those goalposts move more quickly !
|
|
|
solar and wind turbines, which don't exactly provide much in winter.
You are right about solar, but wrong about wind - 1st and 4th quarters have higher wind speeds.
It depends on where you are in the UK, plus there's a big difference between maximum speeds and the mean. In mid-late Autumn and sometimes in early Spring, stormy weather and high winds mean wind turbines have to be shut down for safety. Often in winter, outside of stormy weather, we'll have very cold, dry periods where there's little to no wind.
Plus we currently still rely on imported electricity via interconnectors, and increasingly those nations doing so are reviewing whether that's good for them, given their own problems at home. Norway being the latest.
That an interconnect facility exists is good for both parties - but permanent reliance on vulnerable undersea cables should not be part of a long term strategy.
Only if the provider doesn't also go Net Zero and thus can't provide that electricity to others because they need it all to replace gas, etc. Plus others doing the same drives prices through the roof, especially in times of peak demand, like now.
Also, yet another wind turbine catches fire not far from me. Hardly the easiest tech to maintain at the best of times.
It is demonstrably hugely cheaper than feeding a gas turbine with fossil fuels. Turbine fires are rare, usually destroy the tower but little else. Explosion and fires from gas leaks far exceed turbine fires with a much higher risk of death or injury.
When was the last time a gas-fired power station had a gas leak or explosion that killed or severely injured anyone, or sufficient to stop all or a good proportion of their output?
Why hasn't nuclear been prioritised as the main base load for electricity generation by successive governments of all political stripes, including the current Sec of State, when funds were far more plentiful and it was obvious it was needed?
Note that 'backup' via cars relies heavily on car owners to charge their cars exactly when most beneficial to the grid and to meekly accept using them as defacto storage buffers, including to run their batteries down feeding back into the grid at peak periods. Like with the panic buying during the pandemic, people will likely refuse to connect their EV to the grid to run the battery down, just in case they need to use the car.
Nonsense - I suspect owners will be able to chose when and how much their EV battery is depleted based on individual travel plans. Were I an EV owner I would charge at cheap rates and happily sell back to the grid at a higher rate in a period of high demand.
Maybe you personally, but enough to make any significant contribution to electricity storage UK-wide? Everyone makes decisions based on their own personal circumstances for their families, not for what some government bod wants them to. Unless you want to force people to by law?
I can't see that working out, partly as explained above, especially when nuclear won't be anywhere near taking over the base load (and is actually going down until well after 2030) in winter when solar and wind obviously cannot provide it.
I agree nuclear roll out is dire and needs accelerating. Increases in electricity demand will emerge over the next 20+ years as EV sales are mandated, and gas boilers replaced with heat pumps - possibly starting 2035.
Again, I'd love to know how that will work, given how so many homes are just not suitable to take such tech, whether because of the type of property (like mine - a flat) or its construction, namely older properties with little benefit from installing cavity insulation or where cladding is inherently unsafe, won't do much, not possible due to preservation orders / planning rules or too expensive for the owner to afford over their lifetime.
Also, note how many shoddy installers there are in this industry, and the total number of installers still several magnitudes less than currently needed, with little chance of that number improving (or the quality) much before 2035.
Buffer storage would in reality need to be huge, and there frankly just isn't the resources (including raw materials needed for the huge amount of extra batteries) or tech to pull that sort of thing off, especially in just 5 years.
This is not a 5 year problem - it is a 25 year problem. Needs a coherent plan not a panic attack.
So why are the laws all changing to mandate EVs only for new sales by 2030 and net zero by the same year, when none of the plans are achievable or coherent, even if applied over a much longer timeframe?
Forcing people or the country to bankrupt themselves to go net zero in order to satisfy rich and powerful ideologues whispering in politicians' ears so they can grab yet more wealth and power is hardly a good argument.
The 'plans', such as they are, need to be completely re-written and be more realistic. I would say that 25 years is probably a significant underestimate, probably 50+.
Bear in mind that one country alone could not do this, and yet practically every major Western developed nation is doing something like these things, all competing for quite scarce raw materials and production facilities, many of which are controlled by nations not exactly friendly to us and often near / actual dictatorships, or at least terribly corrupt in comparison to us (which at the moment is saying something).
If it appears the transition to green energy/nuclear is not working (or going too slow) - avoid decommissioning existing gas generation until transition to green energy is proven.
Not according to our Sec of State. He wants net zero by 2030, whatever to cost. That obviously won't involve nuclear, because Hinkley Point C will come online (assuming it works as intended) around 2030, but by then, nuclear's share of the load will have fallen because older power stations will have been shut down.
Unfortunately, the politicians, egged on by the green lobby, are ploughing ahead when many techs are far from being proven and many they want to ramp up either won't be achieved (not even near) and won't be able to prove a sufficient (365) base load or with enough storage to cope in peak periods / lowest generation times.
I'm just not convinced. Way too unrealistic and could be really, really bad, with no quick or economic fix.
Doesn't need a quick fix - it needs a workable plan with contingencies.
I seriously doubt that you'll find that in government / officialdom circles of all stripes. Hasn't been for decades now. No-one with a sensible bone in their body and who ha access to non-ideological / corrupt / selfish 'experts' who have the country's best interests at heart as opposed to just their own.
Anyone who actually fits that bill has been sidelined / cancelled, precisely because they've called out the farce. Like on so many issues these days, I'm sad to say.
|
|
<< The 'plans', such as they are, need to be completely re-written and be more realistic. I would say that 25 years is probably a significant underestimate, probably 50+. >>
As I said above, serious planning for 50+ years ahead requires an extremely far-seeing crystal ball. How about those railways that were still being built about 1900, when new road transport was pretty noticeably on the horizon ; and the fleet of new steam engines designed and built from 1950-60, just a few years before the decision to abandon steam ?
Planners simply can't see clearly for any serious number of years ahead. Especially when everything now is affected by global changes as much as national ones.
|
<< The 'plans', such as they are, need to be completely re-written and be more realistic. I would say that 25 years is probably a significant underestimate, probably 50+. >>
As I said above, serious planning for 50+ years ahead requires an extremely far-seeing crystal ball. How about those railways that were still being built about 1900, when new road transport was pretty noticeably on the horizon ; and the fleet of new steam engines designed and built from 1950-60, just a few years before the decision to abandon steam ?
Planners simply can't see clearly for any serious number of years ahead. Especially when everything now is affected by global changes as much as national ones.
If you don't plan a disaster is assured. Any plan needs review, refinement and update as it progresses to reflect additional information. In the 15 years from 2010:
- wind power has grown from 2% to 25%
- solar power has grown from 0% to 4%
- other renewables have grown from 3% to 12%
- coal has fallen from 28% to 1%
- gas has fallen from 45% to 32%
This has been achieved with fairly shambolic policy implementation - nuclear delayed, wind licences restricted, nimby protests over solar.
With effective management a 25 year time horizon for net zero is entirely feasible. It does rely upon a clear plan developed to meet storage needs to manage wind and solar variability - but if we don't start it is guaranteed never to happen!!.
|
<< The 'plans', such as they are, need to be completely re-written and be more realistic. I would say that 25 years is probably a significant underestimate, probably 50+. >>
As I said above, serious planning for 50+ years ahead requires an extremely far-seeing crystal ball. How about those railways that were still being built about 1900, when new road transport was pretty noticeably on the horizon ; and the fleet of new steam engines designed and built from 1950-60, just a few years before the decision to abandon steam ?
Planners simply can't see clearly for any serious number of years ahead. Especially when everything now is affected by global changes as much as national ones.
If you don't plan a disaster is assured. Any plan needs review, refinement and update as it progresses to reflect additional information. In the 15 years from 2010:
- wind power has grown from 2% to 25%
- solar power has grown from 0% to 4%
- other renewables have grown from 3% to 12%
- coal has fallen from 28% to 1%
- gas has fallen from 45% to 32%
This has been achieved with fairly shambolic policy implementation - nuclear delayed, wind licences restricted, nimby protests over solar.
To be fair to the 'nimbyists', many are decent people concerned about the ruination of the local environment and or use of prime farmland that increases our dependency on (expensive, not green) imported food and the decimation of our family-led farming industry in favour of corporations who fleece the public in return for higher much electricity prices and intermittent supply.
With effective management a 25 year time horizon for net zero is entirely feasible. It does rely upon a clear plan developed to meet storage needs to manage wind and solar variability - but if we don't start it is guaranteed never to happen!!.
Dreamland, especially with an extra 1M net people 'legally' arriving (still bad even if its less than 10% of that figure) every year. What 'storage' that is 100% guaranteed and for long enough to cope with many days of poor winter weather that isn't conducive to wind and solar generation?
As I said before, the UK isn't the only nation going this way, and thus we'd be in direct competition for all the extra tech and resources (batteries?) needed for any 'storage', all vying for a very limited amount of stuff.
There's so much else that needs to be done to achieve this sort of thing, and half of the tech doesn't exist or is not sufficient to pull it of yet, and likely won't be for several decades at least.
Note that the head office of Net Zero and a good few others had (ironically) a significant power cut today. A sign 'o' the times.
|
<< The 'plans', such as they are, need to be completely re-written and be more realistic. I would say that 25 years is probably a significant underestimate, probably 50+. >>
As I said above, serious planning for 50+ years ahead requires an extremely far-seeing crystal ball. How about those railways that were still being built about 1900, when new road transport was pretty noticeably on the horizon ; and the fleet of new steam engines designed and built from 1950-60, just a few years before the decision to abandon steam ?
Planners simply can't see clearly for any serious number of years ahead. Especially when everything now is affected by global changes as much as national ones.
To be fair on the 'steam engines' issue, it was obvious to a blind man that steam was on the way out, given most of Europe and much of the Western world had already started to go over to diesel-electric and full electric before WW2 and especially in the decade afterwards.
I suspect that decision was made because the government was more interested in the capital cost (bearing in mind WW2 essentially bankrupted us, only paying off the US loans about 20 years ago) and that they had a large supply of coal still available. The problem was that steam engines were far more dependent upon manpower, far less energy efficient and needed much more maintenance.
Rather typical big organisations, like governments and large companies. I used to see this with many former government organisations (privatised ones) my former firms worked for, because they retained the 'way of thinking' of their former masters - pay less for capital spending, don't care about the much higher running / maintenance costs because it's a different dept 'responsible' for it.
Essentially a lot of bad planning is down to 'silo' thinking and turf wars between vested interests, many of which compete for the same funding or whose senior management despise each other and often actively do things to spite / sabotage the other. Seen it happen many times.
Nowadays, you add in rich and powerful 'green lobby experts' (they aren't experts, just savvy at convincing politicians to waste loads of money in their direction in return for favours and 'donations') to the mix, who just make things worse, because they certainly do not have our best interests at heart, as I've mentioned before.
That lot have just replaced similar lobbyists from other industries - railways, road haulage, power generation, etc, etc. Just go back to some of those episodes of Yes, Minister / Prime Minister to see why things mostly go pear-shaped: it's all for the benefit of lobbyists and their chums.
|
|
|
|
|
watt-logic.com/2025/02/02/blackout-risks-in-the-gb.../
The opinion of a single individual with some experience in the energy sector and financial services is an opinion, not evidence. You can chose to believe it or challenge it.
About Watt-Logic - Watt-Logic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
