Skip to content

Another Absurd Pro Renewables Letter

October 16, 2019

By Paul Homewood


The Telegraph has already embarrassed itself by publishing a letter last week from an XR activist, Tom Hardy, containing serious factual errors about renewable energy and fossil fuels.


It has now compounded its mistake, by publishing another letter full of errors praising renewable energy, presumably in an effort to give the eco-loons free publicity.

Blaise Kelly may well be a member of the Energy Institute, but, as the letter makes obvious, he knows little about energy. Indeed he specialises in air quality, no doubt a worthy job but not one that needs knowledge of power generation.

Mr Kelly is, however, an ardent supporter of both renewable energy and XR, as his twitter feed makes clear.




The letter from Steve Proud, which he refers to, is below:

SIR – As a chartered engineer who worked in the electricity supply industry for 39 years, I despair to hear politicians like Rebecca Long-Bailey claiming that renewables will provide for most of our energy needs by 2030.

Renewable generation – solar, wind and tidal – is, by definition, non-synchronous and it is technically impossible to operate our electricity transmission system solely on non-synchronous generation. There is a real danger of system instability and consequential widespread blackouts once non-synchronous generation exceeds around 30 per cent of total generation at any one time.

The National Grid report on the recent major outage makes numerous references to the lack of inertia in the system. This resulted from insufficient large synchronous generators (nuclear, coal, gas) being connected.

Given the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the only option is to increase significantly nuclear build rapidly. Both Labour and Conservative governments have been unwilling to commit themselves to this, which has led us into the problems we now face.

It is unfortunate that politicians and environmental campaigners are ignorant of the technicalities of energy supply, or wish to ignore them. MPs may have the power to change the laws of the land, but not to change the laws of physics.

Steve Proud


 Kelly begins with an outright error. It was Hornsea wind farm which tripped first, not Little Barford. Moreover, the outage was compounded by the tripping of a large amount of unreliable embedded renewable generation.

Regardless of the exact cause, Kelly ignores Proud’s comment about system inertia, presumably because he does not understand it.

Kelly then proceeds to show his ignorance of how baseload generation works, accusing large generators of being inflexible. In reality it is the reliability of these that allows the grid to be supplied with the bulk of expected demand at any time of day or year. Small fluctuations in demand can easily be dealt with through small scale peakers and frequency management, just as they have successfully been for many years.

It is the inherent unreliability of renewables that makes them utterly inflexible, because you cannot switch them on and off when needed.

He then proceeds to whittle on about smart meters, which would not have made the slightest difference to the outage. And just how they can match our intermittent demand with the variable, but highly predictable, generation from renewables beats me! Unless he is suggesting that we have our power cut off whenever the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.


He then claims that wind and solar have only had a tiny proportion of the investment and government support that fission (and fusion) nuclear power have had.

At current prices, Hinkley, with a strike price of £101.99/MWh, will receive an annual subsidy of £1.4bn. By contrast, subsidies for renewables are costing £11.4bn this year alone.


Finally he caps off his nonsensical letter by claiming that nuclear power is a fossil fuel, and that we don’t need to import all of the rare earth metals needed for wind turbines and solar panels. (Even though we actually have none!)


While letters pages should reflect a wide range of views, it really is unacceptable that the Telegraph should see fit to publish two letters with so many factual errors, which should have been readily apparent to any competent Letters Editor.

  1. October 16, 2019 11:21 am

    There you have it. The letters editor may be an intern whose job is to choose letters that fit on the page.

    • Emrys Jones permalink
      October 16, 2019 11:36 am

      Journalists have become convinced by Climate Change propaganda that they are fit to judge scientific matters. The trouble is that in science, facts are sacred (unlike the Graun where only the *right* facts are sacred) and journalists just do not have that mindset.

  2. Patric kUpton permalink
    October 16, 2019 11:27 am

    Will you write to the Telegraph letters about this? Would be great if you could set the matter straight.

    • Bertie permalink
      October 16, 2019 3:02 pm

      It appears that they choose not to publish Paul’s letters or anyone elses (including mine) with the opposite view.

  3. Joe Public permalink
    October 16, 2019 11:45 am

    If he’s a ‘graduate’ of Energy Institute as he boasts, what the hell do it teach its students about energy?

    • Nigel Sherratt permalink
      October 16, 2019 12:26 pm

      He is a graduate member (i.e. not yet a full member). Energy Institute is a professional body. Graduate member just means you’ve got a degree and have paid the sub. He appears to not be a full member of any professional institution despite the many letters after his name on the Hydrock website.

    • bobn permalink
      October 16, 2019 2:05 pm

      There is no such thing as ‘Graduate energy institute’. He’s making it up. There are student, affiliate, associate, etc members but there is no ‘graduate ‘ class. he’s not a member of anything but just an XR propagandist. Whats more. you become a memer of energy institute if you pay the fee. I’m thinking of buying a membership for my dog.

      • Dave Ward permalink
        October 16, 2019 8:37 pm

        “I’m thinking of buying a membership for my dog”

        Didn’t Anthony Watts do something similar?

  4. Nigel Sherratt permalink
    October 16, 2019 11:46 am

    I doubt there is one person at Telegraph who understands enough engineering to have any idea what this post is about (Booker RIP!)

    • Barbara Elsmore permalink
      October 16, 2019 1:32 pm

      As a Telegraph reader it seems that we are being drip-fed information from all sides on this subject – are we being softened up and generally herded in this way or are we being encouraged to delve further and think for ourselves?
      Following from a front page article on Monday 14 October headed Climate Change:
      Report urges ban on incentives for flying
      Air miles reward schemes should be banned because they “stimulate demand” for excessive flying, according to a report commissioned by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), the Government’s climate change advisers.
      Frequent fliers should also be hit by an “escalating air miles levy”, it said. The suggestions are aimed to restrict the 15 per cent of Britons thought to be responsible for 70 per cent of flights to keep their “privileged traveller status”.
      The report was authored by Dr Richard Carmichael of Imperial College London.

  5. jack broughton permalink
    October 16, 2019 11:49 am

    We are all told repeatedly that the “Science is proven” and that armaggedon is close. The BBC is a leading purveyor of this total lie, but most of the press follow it believing thus that they are saving the world. There no longer seem to be any reporters who will stand-up and challenge the big-lie and reveal its implications in terms of misuse of public money, damage to the economy and even society: that ought to be the big story!

  6. Bloke down the pub permalink
    October 16, 2019 11:55 am

    According to 15,152 respondents to a September AA poll, only i% of members expressed a desire to purchase an EV in the next 12 months.

    • Michael Adams permalink
      October 16, 2019 12:08 pm

      Last night i was talking to a garage owner who has a deanship with a leading car manufacturer. He said he has had not real enquiries about EVs and the few enquiries he’s had have all been put off by the price. The car company wants him to install a new ramp that will take the weight of these EV’s, which nobody wants, at a cost of 15K. On top of that he needs to train at least one of his staff to deal with EVs, another 3K. With no charging points in the area he doubts very much that the EV revolution will take off.

      • Michael Adams permalink
        October 16, 2019 12:18 pm

        I wish you could edit these posts. You can’t so I’ve reposted the corrected version here.

        Last night I was talking to a garage owner who has a dealership with a leading car manufacturer. He said he has not had any real amount of enquiries about EVs and the few enquiries he’s had have all been put off by the price. The car company wants him to install a new ramp that will take the weight of these EV’s, which nobody wants, at a cost of 15K. On top of that he needs to train at least one of his staff to deal with EVs, another 3K. With no charging points in the area he doubts very much that the EV revolution will take off.

  7. dickgoodwin permalink
    October 16, 2019 11:57 am

    What a f*cking dope. I hope he paid for his own education but if his parents paid for it they deserve a rebate. I must start following him on Twitter, l could do with a laugh.

  8. Nigel Sherratt permalink
    October 16, 2019 11:59 am

    Despite the experience of 11 years Blaise (Pascal turning in his grave) appears to not yetr be a full member of any professional institution and has even misspelled CIBSE! One of the reasons that my son who is a full member of CIBSE is now self-employed as a fully qualified plumber and gas fitter. My daughter in law is a full member of IMechE (founder George Stephenson). I have been MICE (founder Thomas Telford) for 40 years.

  9. Anthony F. Bainbridge permalink
    October 16, 2019 12:02 pm

    Following Patrick Upton (above) I also would urge Paul H. to write to the Telegraph. I too am a Chartered Engineer and Fellow of the IET. I welcomed Steve Proud’s letter as breath of fresh air, and am constantly distressed by fundamental errors being propagated as fact, by the BBC and many others.

    • Bertie permalink
      October 16, 2019 3:06 pm

      He does. They don’t print them. Why don’t you give it a go?

  10. Bloke down the pub permalink
    October 16, 2019 12:03 pm

    Kelly seems to think that if we recycled more, we wouldn’t need to import rare earth metals to make renewable energy. I recall reading that photovoltaic panels cannot currently be recycled anywhere.

    • Michael Adams permalink
      October 16, 2019 12:13 pm

      Yes, i seem to recollect reading that somewhere. Another inconvenient truth for the renewable brigade.

    • Mack permalink
      October 16, 2019 12:46 pm

      Yup, extremely difficult, hazardous, time consuming and uneconomic to break up into their constituent parts. In fact, the cost of attempting to recycle them on a large scale is arguably more than the cost of their creation and any energy they produce, so landfill beckons. Which of course all makes perfect sense in Green La La Land.

    • Dan permalink
      October 16, 2019 1:33 pm

      That is not true. There are a number of routes that are technically proven, but manufacturing seems to be a cheaper route than recycling. There is a plant in Rousset, southern France, recycling in the region of 2000 Tonnes. It is an industry in its infancy.

      If we talk silicon, the main materials are glass (~70%), plastic (~10%) and aluminium (~10%). 95% of the glass and 100% of the Al can be recovered, to be recycled in those production chains. The plastic, at this time, is probably best for thermal treatment.

      The last ~10% is silicon and doping metals. Some of these can be recovered as lower grade cells. If we avoid that, then your only choice is to melt and purify, not impossible in something like a rotary hearth process or shaft furnace.

      Thin film requires wet chemistry techniques but again glass will be the main component with the others making 10% of the rest.

      • Mack permalink
        October 16, 2019 3:39 pm

        Would that be the plant owned by that very well known green subsidy farming, I mean, waste management company Veolia with whom our very own climate change committee have connections by any chance? I suspect that it is only economically viable, if indeed that isn’t just marketing puff, with lashings of green gravy.

  11. October 16, 2019 12:05 pm

    The green energy advocates are doing the same here in the USA, 100% renewable by 2030-2050 depending on where one resides. The statement below by Mr. Pound sums-up the dilemma with green energy or in other words “renewable energy.” I have read the 30% penetration factor and here in lies the problem. As I debate my brother-in-law (Clean Energy Institute, Seattle, WA) on the merits of renewable energy, and I will not profess to be any expert; these details are ignored or dismissed outright (by our political class and the green energy zealots), as well as, ”dispatchable” and ”scaleable.”

    As I said to him on more than one occasion, this is a niche energy provider and in no way can be any more than that. In CA, the electricity was turned off for days to help in mitigating potential wildfires, as was the case last year. Unfortunately, no electricity from solar, since it is fed into the grid and those Tesla drivers were warned to get their vehicles charged ASAP or else. The real story is the negligent of our forests and the lack of proper management as fuels increased (unintended consequences of environmentalism). By the way, invest in back-up generator producers and perhaps propane since demand might be increasing in Northern CA. I was going to suggest natural gas, however additional connections might be limited or restricted. Another brilliant idea and policy decision that imitates from the People’s Republic of California.

    Finally, the debate then descends into the question of “public good?” I see little if any public good, except for the subsidies for these corporates who are willing to accept them at the expense of higher electricity costs for the consumer and likely higher taxes, too. No public good here. Public good Is for the betterment of life and the consumer. I see none of this.

    “Renewable generation – solar, wind and tidal – is, by definition, non-synchronous and it is technically impossible to operate our electricity transmission system solely on non-synchronous generation. There is a real danger of system instability and consequential widespread blackouts once non-synchronous generation exceeds around 30 per cent of total generation at any one time.”

    Sorry for the rant.

  12. October 16, 2019 12:09 pm

    I have no scientific qualifications but have spent 16 or so years opposing wind energy since moving to the far north of Scotland where I can see the increasing idiocy of our government’s obsession with renewable energy. My county is covered in windfarms and single turbines. I can drive across the county seeing windfarms on either side with not a single blade turning so producing no energy but when they are producing too much the developers are being paid millions to switch them off. This does not prevent more windfarms appearing to earn yet more millions. Perhaps if the idiots who write and print these letters bothered to learn a bit about renewables they could see that what we need is reliable 24/7 electricity which wind and sun will never produce.

    • Bertie permalink
      October 16, 2019 3:14 pm

      I believe that they keep them turning using electricity from the grid.

      • October 16, 2019 3:50 pm

        Yes that’s true – can’t leave the blades still too long as the weight damages the mechanism (sorry, that’s not very technical). Another minor inconvenience the windies prefer not to mention along with blade throw, fire, tower collapse etc.

  13. Robin Gilliver permalink
    October 16, 2019 12:18 pm

    If you have read the editorial in today’s (16/10/19) Telegraph it is no surprise that the paper is only too willing to publish such letters. If we keep being telling such lies eventually we will believe it!!!!!!!

  14. Victor Hanby permalink
    October 16, 2019 12:20 pm

    As a member of the Institute of Fuel/Institute of Energy/Energy Institute since 1968 this person’s ignorance brings us into disrepute by claiming affiliation.

    • Emrys Jones permalink
      October 16, 2019 1:33 pm

      The statement that Nuclear Power is a fossil fuel tells the reader all they need to know, although it didn’t ring any alarm bells at the DT apparently.

      • A C Osborn permalink
        October 16, 2019 5:11 pm

        Not only that but the Subsidy for Nuclear is only required to allow it to compete with the subsidies for Wind & Solar.
        To compete any new generation is going to need the same especially when Wind & Solar have first call and you nice shiny new facility will sit idle until the wind doesn’t blow.

      • sonofametman permalink
        October 16, 2019 10:02 pm

        In reality it’s all stellar energy.
        The conventional thinking is that elements heavier than Iron/Nickel could only be formed in a supernova event. Nuclear power is therefore stellar power.
        Closer to home:
        We call the star our little rock orbits ‘Sol’ so we refer to it’s radiated output as solar power.
        Wind power is merely transformed solar power.
        Hydro-electricty is utimately solar power, as the water was lifted against gravity to the height it then falls from by solar energy.
        Here’s the kicker.
        All fossil fuels on our little rock store energy originating from our nearby star, captured by the magic of photosynthesis, so that’s actually stored solar power.
        Coal power = solar power.
        Try that suggestion on an eco-loon and watch their head spin.
        Maybe I’ll buy a t-shirt with that printed on it, and go on a ‘climate’ march.

  15. Vernon E permalink
    October 16, 2019 12:24 pm

    It is not surprising that the Telegraph’s profits fell by 95% this year, it a pale bluish pinkish liberal shadow of its former self. As a lifetime subscriber I am strongly tempted to cancel – it is a total waste of money. There are no decent journos (Silly Jilly has been replaced by an even dafter young woman who writes similar nonsense) and reports often contradict editorial content. Regrettably, a lot of this downfall seems to have been driven by “Climate Panic”. Please do what you can Paul but I think the horse is already dead.

    • belsay bugle permalink
      October 16, 2019 12:40 pm

      There is some hope, Vernon. They’ve got a newish columnist, Sherelle Jacobs who seems to have conservative views and writes attractively and they still have Charles Moore who must sell them a lot of papers. Also Norman Tebbit has his occasional column.
      What would you swap it for if you cancelled it?

      • Bob MacLean permalink
        October 16, 2019 12:55 pm

        I agree bb. Sherelle Jacobs, Allison Pearson, Julie Burchill, Camilla Tominey (sometimes) and one or two others (mainly female) are very good. Michael Deacon is seldom worth reading and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is past his sell-by date. I had an online subscription to the Times and it has become like a watered down version of the Guardian. Warts and ali the Telegraph is the best of a bad bunch and has improved over recent months.

      • Emrys Jones permalink
        October 16, 2019 1:28 pm

        I had a subscription to The Times a few years ago. Then came two stories that I happened to know the full facts of. Both stories in The Times were completely wrong. Contributions BTL that corrected the main story, with references, were deleted. Raucous abusive posts that followed the cheerleading of the main story were left in place.

        I cancelled my subscription and sent an email explaining why. I got a standard reply looking forward to my return to ‘the paper of record’. Well maybe, but not an accurate record.

        Curiously enough the paper that does best at opinion in and facts in different paragraphs, and presenting lots of straight facts is now the Daily Mail. Its Science pages are also streets ahead of anyone else. I am coming to terms with this.

      • October 16, 2019 7:42 pm

        Try the Spectator.

      • October 17, 2019 12:11 am

        “What would you swap it for if you cancelled it?”

        ‘Viz’…A much higher standard of journalism !

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      October 16, 2019 2:06 pm

      Matt and the crosswords. Now Booker is no longer with us there’s nothing else.

    • Hugh Higginson permalink
      October 18, 2019 7:55 am

      I no longer buy the Telegraph and have cancelled my licence.

  16. Nial permalink
    October 16, 2019 12:55 pm

    “It is a myth that large, centralised power stations provide greater grid stability”

    Black is indeed white.

  17. October 16, 2019 1:08 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate-

  18. Robin Guenier permalink
    October 16, 2019 1:23 pm

    All good points Paul. There are a few more in an exchange I had yesterday with Peter F Scott on your original post about the Steve Proud letter: Scroll down to October 15.

  19. J B Williamson permalink
    October 16, 2019 1:44 pm

    See also the DT article here…subs needed however…

  20. Gerry, England permalink
    October 16, 2019 1:56 pm

    And sadly we have Prince William spouting drivel about melting glaciers in Pakistan while being guided by an ‘expert’ on his visit. The ‘expert’ accompanying him said that more education was required. He is right but not as he thinks. Why do I feel that a proper look at Pakistani glaciers and flash floods will reveal a different story?

  21. MrGrimNasty permalink
    October 16, 2019 2:04 pm

    Reality hits home. But it will be a great deal more expensive now than if wind and PV had never been entertained as a viable solution for electricity generation in the first place.

  22. DevonCamel permalink
    October 16, 2019 2:09 pm

    It would be refreshing to see proper scientific objective analysis from the Telegraph. This would expose all the misleading and incorrect assertions being made by the renewable lobby. The basics seem indisputable – renewable power relies upon intermittent sources and therefore cannot be relied upon when the grid comes under sudden pressure.

    • Bertie permalink
      October 16, 2019 3:22 pm

      Indeed.. You, nor I, need to be a scientist to work it out.
      Correction – ‘scientist’ has now become such a discredited word, we can all claim to be one!2

  23. mjr permalink
    October 16, 2019 3:16 pm

    unfortunately this is just another manifestation of the green blob permeating the media. last night Radio4 “Costing the Earth” programme “Powering Britain”.
    The panel consisted of The Guardian’s energy correspondent, the CEO of the Committee on Climate Change and the CEO of a Green energy company. So a good balance panel there!!! Usually discussion . Reduce demand, how much cheaper renewals are becoming (£40 per mwh strike price ) Grid scale batteries, The usual rubbish, dodgy figures and optimism about technological advance and the weather.
    Worth a listen with a sense of humour

    • Curious George permalink
      October 16, 2019 5:39 pm

      What is a strike price of a blackout?

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        October 17, 2019 1:24 am

        National Grid use £6,000/MWh as the Value of Lost Load. In essence, that’s what they’re prepared to pay to keep the interconnectors flowing into the UK. One way to look at it is to note that if we use 300TWh in a year, the VoLL for that is £1.8 trillion, or about 6/7ths of GDP.

  24. Vernon E permalink
    October 16, 2019 3:28 pm

    Bob McLean: I agree that the names you mention are good – very good sometimes, but they are feature writers, not journos. The news items are lifted straight from the agencies – Reuters etc. I’ll keep an open mind about lady mentioned above – she may well be the one I referred to as dafter than Silly Jilly as the new science correspondent. Maybe I just hit a couple of bad days.

    • Bob MacLean permalink
      October 16, 2019 5:48 pm

      Point taken Vernon. I tend not to take much of my actual “news” from the MSM any more so I do concentrate more on the Opinion columns.

  25. Stephen Tobin permalink
    October 16, 2019 3:35 pm

    Are you sure this Tom Hardy character isn’t the actor?

  26. Colin Megson permalink
    October 16, 2019 3:59 pm

    “…By contrast, subsidies for renewables are costing £11.4bn this year alone…”

    It would be great if your £11.4 bn is correct; if it is, can you explain how you pick it out from that Excel data?

  27. October 16, 2019 4:15 pm

    The “highly predictable” renewable energy generation comment struck me as not just wrong but very wrong. New York State is promoting utility-scale solar projects and developers have submitted plans for two 200 MW and two 400 MW facilities in the last month. How can anyone ever predict output from facilities that large on a bright sunny day with scattered puffy cumulus clouds? I don’t see how output won’t be on – off – on – off as the clouds pass over the array. Multiply that pattern times the out put from facilities that big has got to be a problem.

  28. October 16, 2019 4:19 pm

    The general dumbing down of education, the fact that alleged ‘experts’ know what they are talking about (even if one of them is a 16 year old with Aspbergers) have made AGW credible. The fact that atmospheric CO2 concentration was once 500x greater than it is now is ignored. The fact that fossil fuels were once CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere to where they are being returned is ignored. The fact that as CO2 increases so does plant growth removing it from the atmosphere, helping to prevent starvation in third world countries.There is no demonstration of any individuals reading and researching these claims for themselves, collectively they believe whatever drivel they have thrown at them. That to me is what is the second most frightening thing, the first being that our prosperous Western societies are going to become poverty stricken, disease ridden, feudal, 13th century throwbacks. That this is political is ably demonstrated that if indeed all of life on Earth is going to die anyway, there is no excuse for switching to nuclear power, ideally Thorium fuelled. The ‘Telegraph’ should be leading the way in exposing this farce, not capitulating to populism to sell newspapers.

  29. A C Osborn permalink
    October 16, 2019 5:22 pm

    I have just emailed Paul, another sane, disenting voice has been silenced, this time it is Susan Crockford.
    She has been kicked out of Victoria Univeristy because someone(s) complained about her speeches on Polar Bears.

    • Bob MacLean permalink
      October 16, 2019 6:06 pm

      I’ve read her books and know her research is genuine. This is yet another scandalous suppression of free speech and truth tellers.

  30. Ivan permalink
    October 16, 2019 6:28 pm

    I think the editors of general daily newspapers should stay away from letters on scientific and technical subjects. They do not have the expertise to avoid publishing basic errors and pseudoscience. Witness Private Eye being taken by Wakefield on MMR

    This week the Financial Times published a letter stating that, on the evidence of a working thorium reactor at Petten in the Netherlands, thorium is the solution to our energy needs. But there isn’t one, not in Petten, nor anywhere else. Not hard to check. Whilst some daily papers doubtless have an agenda that they don’t mind supporting with fake facts, I don’t know what the FT was doing printing such nonsense.

  31. permalink
    October 16, 2019 6:42 pm

    All the above is staggering and scary stuff. What I cannot understand is how the Conservative government has been sucked body and soul into this giant green cult.

  32. Harry Passfield permalink
    October 16, 2019 7:51 pm

    “Blaise Kelly MSc BEng is a Senior Air Quality Consultant in the Hydrock Building Performance Engineering team. He is a member of the Institute of Air Quality Management (MIAQM) and Institution of Environmental Science (MIEnvSc), a Graduate member of CIBSE (GradCIBSE) and the Energy Institute (GradEI).” (according to:

    It seems he has a passion for proving that CO2 is a harmful pollutant. He is the epitome of a ‘scientist’ with an agenda instead of an inquiring mind.

    • Joe Worcester permalink
      October 17, 2019 10:48 am

      So he works in Air quality but is broadening his horizons into the causes of Air pollution.

      Perhaps you could look to being more enquiring, rather than being so heavily critical of young engineers?

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        October 17, 2019 8:28 pm

        Straw man, Joe. I’ve no problem with people working in ‘Air Pollution’; my concern is that he/you think that it and global warming are interchangeable – and justified. CO2 is not a pollutant. Agree?

  33. europeanonion permalink
    October 17, 2019 9:26 am

    We are constantly confronted with ‘common knowledge’. The scales have tipped. ‘Common knowledge’ is a web of deceit and confirmation by repetition . What the argument needs is the intercession by uncommon knowledge. However, because AGW is drama and threat and therefore susceptible to the romance of prose, it is an ideal subject for all the media.

    Additionally, it has become a sign of personal maturity and concern through self advertisement.. Admirable human qualities in part but I bet the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who labour door to door in their devotion, wish they had caught on to this idea, their pews would be full by now, The difference is, of course, devotion-faith and posturing masquerading as undeniable truth and at that point I run out of ideas.. As faith in the Witnesses’s God has all but vanished those powers are now vested in us faulted humans. We are wide open to Shaman and ranters, the era of sects and, as we know, sects make you blind.

  34. Phil O'Sophical permalink
    October 17, 2019 10:17 am

    There is a self-preservation mechanism by which any critic of any PC topic includes a disclaimer: “Of course I recognise that immigration has it’s benefits, but…” or “Yes, we need diversity, but…”

    Steve Proud my be spot on with his engineering, yet he still feels the need to genuflect: “Given the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions…”

    Um? What need is that? Treaties and targets and acts of Parliament are not a practical need. On this topic they are whims, virtue signalling and anti-Western propaganda. But the Earth does have a need, beneficial to all life on it: all the sequestered CO2 we can unlock. And because of the logarithmic nature of its warming effect, greater concentration will make negligible contribution to the natural slow warming.

  35. October 17, 2019 10:35 am

    Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

  36. Mark Hood permalink
    October 17, 2019 10:43 am

    Gone are the days where Grid fluctuation was largely consistent with the 9 to 5 routine of industry. Having spent the last 20 years in the power industry, large power stations, predominantly coal and nuclear, cannot vary their output within a reasonable timescale and by definition are inflexible. Whilst I disagree that we can suddenly transition to 100% renewables overnight, combined with smart grids, which I think ‘Kelly’ was referring to definitely add to a healthy mix within UK power generation.

    There are plenty of dinosaurs in the industry who seem to believe that there were no power cuts before renewables came online. They would do well to understand the benefits of having a diverse energy mix.

    • Jud Kirk permalink
      October 18, 2019 12:15 am

      Most large power stations are gas, not “predominantly coal and nuclear”!
      The Dinosaur does not seem to appreciate that renewable power, wind in particular, has only become a signicant source of electricity recently so it’s is not surprising there haven’t been issues with its instability

  37. RICHARD WALKER permalink
    October 17, 2019 11:36 am

    Just what is high quality electricity? Why were we not told about this before?

  38. RICHARD WALKER permalink
    October 17, 2019 7:52 pm

    Blaise Kelly is an ignoramus in saying that there is something called “high quality electricity”

    • Stuart Brown permalink
      October 18, 2019 8:00 pm

      No, no, Richard, I think you have something here. We could build out a second lot of transmission lines just for the ‘low quality’ electricity. Sometimes it would be 300volts, sometimes nothing. Frequency could vary wildly from 20Hz to over a hundred with nothing much to regulate it – no inertia. It would all be supplied by wind and solar, which could then be banned from the real grid.

      The catch would be that the price would be based on the true cost of the generators for each type. You might pay less for ‘low quality’ power or you might not!

  39. Vernon E permalink
    October 18, 2019 6:49 pm

    europeanonion: as I have often posted, this whole issue was more-or-less started by Sir John Houghton, a fervent third generation Methodist who, as head of the IPCC and author of the first assessment report in 1990, is publicly on record that he believes that global warming is a warning from God to behave ourselves.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: