Intro by Watchdog
Here’s more insight into the war on prosperity being carried forward through the deception of the “Net Zero” psyop. It exemplifies how reports riddled with groundless and deliberately misleading assumptions, yet touted as “scientific”, can be used to bamboozle you and any policy-makers who happen to be of good will (they are still there, albeit submerged like nuggets in silt) and thereby forward a destructive agenda.
In this instance, the agenda is the dismantling of economic life and the impoverishment of the People.
Put another way: conning people into agreeing with and assisting their own destruction by touting falsehoods thinly disguised as science.
We are indebted to the watchful freedom fighters at Net Zero Watch for exposing this strategy.
Please visit Net Zero watch and give them your support.
New study warns of soaring energy bills
Official Net Zero models have grossly understated costs
SOURCE: Net Zero Watch Press Release
London, 26 January – It has recently been revealed that almost all major studies on Net Zero contain serious modelling errors, and thus have grossly underestimated the cost.
A new paper from Net Zero Watch presents a new model of the 2050 electricity system that corrects these errors. It thus supercedes all the erroneous official studies.
The new paper also reveals that official studies have suppressed the apparent cost of Net Zero still further by using extreme speculations about the costs and efficiencies of all the equipment required in the 2050 grid.
According to Andrew Montford, the director of Net Zero Watch:
“The Royal Society, for example, assume that the cost of almost everything will halve, and the efficiency of almost everything will soar. It’s not impossible, but it is imprudent to assume that it will happen. If you correct the modelling errors, and use known costs and efficiencies rather than speculation about what might be available in 2050, you get a very different picture of the future.”
The report warns that with current technology, the cost of a Net Zero grid would approach £8,000 per household per year.
Mr Montford says:
“The costs may come down somewhat, but policymakers need to be told what it would cost if they don’t. The numbers are staggering. The failure to explain the extreme nature of the underlying assumptions is culpable.”
As a result of these problems, Net Zero Watch is calling for the Royal Society to withdraw its recent report  on electricity storage because it is so misleading for policymakers.
The report can be downloaded below.
Notes for editors
* Erroneous modelling by the Climate Change Committee and the National Infrastructure Commission was exposed first by the Sunday Telegraph, with further revelations, showing that the same or similar errors had been made by National Grid ESO and the Royal Society, coming this week from Net Zero Watch.
* The Royal Society report, entitled Large-scale Electricity Storage can be seen here.
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.