PAUL HOMEWOOD
LAST November the National Energy System Operator (NESO) published a report, ‘Clean Power 2030’, which examined how Labour’s plan to decarbonise the power sector by 2030 could be achieved.
Although Energy Secretary Ed Miliband crowed that the report proved his plan was feasible, the opposite was the case: as NESO stressed, we would still need a full fleet of gas power stations to fire up when the wind stops blowing, so it would be impossible to run the country only on ‘clean’ power. Miliband has also repeatedly and falsely claimed that NESO said electricity bills would fall.
But buried in the small print of the report is the ugly truth about just how much Miliband’s plan would cost us all, something the mainstream media seem to have missed at the time.
Over five years, the capital cost of building all the wind and solar farms needed plus upgrading the power grid will add up to an astonishing £242billion. Sums like these are mind-boggling, but it works out at about £9,000 for every household in the country.
Most of this money will come from private-sector investors, who will not only want repaying in full, but will also demand large profits on their investment. The cost will, of course, be picked up by energy billpayers.
https://www.neso.energy/document/346781/download
And what do we get back from this mammoth investment? It will replace about 70 TWh of gas power generation with wind and solar power, about a quarter of the total electricity generated. As we will still need to maintain a full working fleet of gas power stations, the only financial saving will be the fuel that would have been used in those gas plants. The cost of that fuel works out at £3billion a year. However the new wind and solar farms will need money spending on operating and maintenance, so the net saving would be in reality less than £2billion.
In other words, we are planning to spend £242billion to save £2billion a year! This really is the economics of the madhouse. Yet there is still no real recognition of this fact in the media or amongst our politicians, who continue to recite from the Net Zero mantra.
The Reform Party have at least pledged to put a windfall tax on renewable energy, hoping to recoup some of the tens of billions of already subsidies handed out. (Reform have been wrongly criticised for not simply planning to abolish those subsidies – unfortunately they are legally binding, long-term contracts which cannot be cancelled). But come the next general election in five years’ time, we will have already spent or committed most of that £242billion, so it will be too late for anybody to do anything about it.
How on earth did we get ourselves into a situation where one man, Ed Miliband, can single handedly do so much damage?
Solar farm madness
Burcot is a Thames-side hamlet in touristy Midsomer Murders land. It sits in the middle of the Green Belt, a few miles from the historic Wittenham Clumps, one of South Oxfordshire’s most iconic landmarks and an SSSI.
None of this seems to matter to the vandals who want to build a solar farm just a mile away. The planning application has twice been turned down by the district council on the grounds of ‘harm to the Green Belt’ but ‘Mad Ed’ Miliband has allowed yet another appeal in his desperation to cover the countryside with these industrial sites.
The solar farm will have a capacity of 44 MW, with a battery storage unit rated at 50 MW, and will be built on prime farmland. Planning permission has already been given for a 300-acre solar farm in nearby Nuneham Courtenay, and there is another application for a 140-acre one next door to that, equating to a loss of nearly 500 acres of Green Belt land within an area of approximately six square miles.
Quite apart from the visual impact on the countryside, the battery farm poses an environmental risk. Within the last month there have been two major fires at battery storage facilities in California and Australia – see here and here. These lithium fires can take days to put out and pump vast amounts of hydrogen fluoride gas into the atmosphere. It is crazy that such potentially toxic industrial sites are allowed anywhere near human habitation.
Miliband wants to plaster the countryside with a thousand solar farms like Burcot, at an estimated cost of £26billion over the next five years, tripling the current capacity.
And all of this for what? It is claimed that the Burcot solar farm would power 16,842 homes, except that they would only get that electricity during daytime, and in winter they would only be enough to last half an hour or so.
One day last week when we had a spell of gloomy weather, all the solar farms in Britain produced only enough electricity to power the country for five minutes, meaning of course that we had to fall back on gas generation. Because of short days and bad weather, solar power is virtually worthless during winter months.
According to the blurb produced by the developers, Burcot will save 10,371 tonnes of CO2 a year. Given that the world produces 35billion tonnes, I don’t think Burcot will exactly save the planet.
Solar power is so intermittent that it is only viable with subsidies, which added about £600million to your energy bills last year. And we won’t even go into their carbon footprint and environmental damage caused in China where the panels are made.
Instead of tripling solar power, as Miliband plans, we could simply build three or four gas power plants instead, and have reliable power when we need it, instead of industrialising the countryside and wasting valuable farmland.
This article (The climate scaremongers: Miliband’s economics of the madhouse) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Paul Homewood
See Related Article Below
EV Hype Continues As Sales Trends Turn Negative and Car Companies Shift Gears, Exposing Another Government Scam
THOMAS J SHEPSTONE
The EV hype continues unabated even as everyone is running away from them. Two videos explain, one from Geoff Buys Cars on the hype and the other from John Cadogan, Auto Expert, who slices and dices with the facts on what’s happening.
Geoff notes how car magazines have turned into nothing but EV propaganda, as if the government was paying them or something…
Cadogan, always the irascible curmudgeon that he is, looks at what car makers are doing, not what they say or the government tells them to say:
These two videos tell the whole EV story, which is a case of ‘flash in the pan’ political correctness combined with shoddy journalism, all pushed by government.
#GeoffBuysCars #JohnCadogan #EVs
SOURCE: EnergySecurity and Freedom
*****
Climatologist: No Rise In Climate Disasters Despite Record CO2
25 years of data reveal the gap between climate rhetoric and disaster trends
DR. MATTHEW WIELICKI
In previous articles, I’ve delved into the discourse surrounding climate-related natural disasters and their purported increase due to rising greenhouse gas emissions. [emphasis, links added]
Today, I aim to update this analysis with the most recent data from 2024, a year that mainstream media (MSM) has widely proclaimed as the hottest on record.
For instance, The Guardian reported that two-thirds of the Earth’s surface experienced record-breaking heat in 2024, attributing this to human-induced climate change.
Despite these alarming headlines, an examination of the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) reveals a different narrative.
The data indicates that since 2000 there has been no significant increase in climate-related natural disasters such as extreme weather events, wildfires, droughts, and floods.
This finding challenges the prevalent assertion that higher CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures directly correlate with an uptick in such disasters.
Analyzing the EM-DAT Data:
EM-DAT, maintained by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), offers a comprehensive global record of natural and technological disasters.
Focusing on climate-related events, specifically floods, droughts, extreme temperatures, storms, and wildfires, I observed that from 2000 to 2022, the frequency of these events remained relatively stable.
Contrary to popular belief, certain years in the early 2000s even recorded higher counts than more recent years.
This finding is particularly intriguing given that the 21st century has seen unprecedented CO2 emissions and supposedly some of the hottest years on record.
If the widely accepted narrative held true, we would expect a corresponding increase in climate-related natural disasters.
The absence of such a trend in the EM-DAT data suggests that the relationship between GHG emissions, rising global temperatures, and [disaster frequency] is more complex than often portrayed. …snip…
Focusing on Climate-Related Events:
In my analysis, I concentrated solely on climate-related natural disasters, deliberately excluding technological events, epidemics, and geophysical occurrences like earthquakes.
This focus aligns with the prevalent narrative that links GHG emissions and global warming specifically to an increase in climate-related events.
By isolating these categories, the analysis directly addresses the claims that such disasters have escalated in frequency due to human-induced climate change.
Challenging the Mainstream Narrative:
Despite the EM-DAT data, mainstream media and authoritative bodies continue to assert that extreme weather events are increasing due to climate change.
For instance, a recent article in The Guardian emphasized that we are living in an era of extreme weather, citing rampant wildfires, floods, and other natural disasters displacing countless individuals.
Similarly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated…
These assertions contribute to a pervasive belief that climate-related disasters are on the rise, a narrative that is not substantiated by the EM-DAT data.
The Symbiotic Relationship Perpetuating the Narrative:
The persistence of this narrative can be attributed to a symbiotic relationship among funding agencies, governmental institutions, climate scientists, and the MSM. Research funding is often directed toward studies that emphasize the adverse impacts of climate change, incentivizing scientists to focus on alarming scenarios. Governmental bodies, in turn, utilize these studies to justify policy decisions and regulatory measures. The media amplifies these messages, as sensational stories about extreme weather and impending disasters attract readership and viewership.
This cycle reinforces the perception of a direct and escalating link between GHG emissions and climate-related natural disasters, despite empirical data suggesting otherwise.
Conclusion:
It’s imperative to critically assess the prevailing narratives surrounding climate change and natural disasters. The EM-DAT records indicate that, contrary to widespread claims, there has not been an increase in climate-related natural disasters over the past 25 years.
In light of these findings, it’s essential to question the motivations behind the perpetuation of this narrative and to seek a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between human activities and natural disasters.
Irrational Fear is written by climatologist Dr. Matthew Wielicki and is reader-supported. If you value what you have read here, please consider subscribing and supporting the work that goes into it.
SOURCE: Irrational Fear
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply