The Eco-Experts!
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dennis Ambrose
They call themselves experts!!
As you may have already spotted, the article includes a couple of howlers:
WRONG!!
The true figure is 12%, over half of which is hydro power.
.
.
WRONG!!
The correct figure is 14%
.
.
But the most intriguing stat is this one:
I’m not sure if we are supposed to be impressed, but given that we probably drink more 11 million cups a day I would have to say I am underwhelmed!!
She is also enamoured of China:
But what she obviously has not realised is that China is a much bigger country than the rest of us. Solar power there accounts for a miniscule 1.6% of primary energy consumption, exactly the same figure as in the UK.
The author, Beth Howell, considers herself quite the little expert.
Just as well she’s not doing a real job then!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Perhaps qualified enough…
… to make the tea?
Let’s see if the BBC picks up the story . . . ?
This really stupid twit is almost enough for me to breakdown and open a Twitter account just to mock her stupidity…. but alas as only about 3% of the population really twit I shall refrain from the urge to be able to expose her lack of actual journalistic integrity.
Real Howell-ers, then!
Real Howell-ers, then!
Beth has a real passion for green lying, it seems.
That’s a bit strong, Vincent! Naive? Delusional? But lying! Surely not.
Lying? no!
Gullible? yes!
Simple? probably……..but at least she’s enjoying herself!
“This writing expert stuff is so much more fun than colouring in ever was!”
This made me think of Fletcher’s one time cell mate in Porridge, Heslop, commenting on the the book he once read (the only one) :-
“Green it was”
Bit like boris johnson who is a past Master of lying !!! And his little wife is deep GREEN !!!!
This actually causes me serious concern. Lines like “13,284.3MW a year” Strewth she probably managed a science GCSE knowing such incredible shite nonsense. How monumentally thick is this person?
“40% of UK’s energy comes from renewables” does this idiot really not know the difference between electricity and energy?
This is really a sick joke.
Well when Tony BLiar signed up for the EU Renewable Energy Directive he did not know the difference between electricity and energy . So she is in good company as an expert on lying.
Beth Howell is a nobody. Christiana Figueres is significant – she was the power behind the Paris Accords. But in her book “The Future We Choose” she demonstrates she also does not know the difference between energy and electricity. Read page 55: 50% of Britain’s energy comes from “clean power”. Why believe a word she says when she demonstrates such a lack of understanding? And yet she is internationally regarded as an authority in these matters. What hope is there for the rest of us, when our leaders are so ignorant?
According to the UK Tea and Infusions Association it’s about 10 times that number. See https://www.tea.co.uk/tea-faqs#:~:text=Q%3A%20HOW%20MANY%20OF%20CUPS,year%20%5BSource%3A%20ITC%5D.
Presumably that’s the total. She was trying to say how many made by solar. To confound her numbers, we’ve been using a non-electric kettle on our gas hob for a while 🤣
She would probabl put an electric kettle on her AGA!
google search brings up
The Eco Experts – Solar Panel Price Comparisonhttp://www.theecoexperts.com
The Eco Experts is a free solar panel comparison website allowing you to compare prices of trusted installers in your area.
they sell solar panels!
This post is also listed, the power of google.
If she’s such an expert on solar panels I assume she would be delighted if our weather warmed up and sunshine records were smashed…er…no thought not.
If Howell’s got my back I running away.
More articles by Beth here, https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/author/beth-howell, have a laugh at them, it just shows the ignorance of the eco loons
GB, it would appear her move to ‘smog soaked’ London was a Damascene conversion. If she’d lived in London during the 1950s she might want to quantify that slur. Presumably she loves it so much she’s not moved away.
She has no idea what a smog is. They stopped when the UK Clean Air Act came in that replaced coal with smokeless fuel. I remember them, and one of my boyhood jobs, to refill the coal scuttle from the outside coalstore (next to the outside loo). Beth has no idea how comfortable her life is now, with her iPad and lattes, compared to the millions that she would deny real energy & reliable electrical supply to.
Air pollution in London in 1970 was 4 times as high as it is now.
She’s nieve at best. Her hydrogen boiler article for example is full of the usual fallacies, the most basic 2 being that hydrogen is not an energy source, and that its energy RoI (energy input to usefully recovered) is only ~30%.
11 million cups of tea. What’s that in Hiroshima bombs?
‘WRONG!!
The true figure is 12%, over half of which is hydro power.’
Hold on. 2 billion people use dried dung for heating and cooking. I suspect 29% may be closer than 12%.
Is that an IUPAC teacup or just the old Imperial measure? Must not confuse with the coffee cup y’know!
Does the 12% figure only refer to electricity and not total energy use?
I understand our Beth is highly qualified. Legals?…well she was a Head Barista at Tap Coffee!
3 A levels (BBB) in English, Sociology and Psychology and a Journalism Degree from Chester College of Higher Education (jokingly now claiming to be a University.) Clerk at Associated British Foods and then….Marketing journo for MVF for whom MoveHub and the Eco Experts are simply clients. And also setting up her own “Environmental Platform” – The Tiny Dot Collective.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/bethany-howell-a85a90101/
So essentially no relevant qualifications at any level (even the most basic – “MW a year” for God’s sake) just a typically thick chancer of a 5th rate journo.
Yes I realise this post is an “Ad Hom” but really I find these sorts of people quite abhorrant.
My feeling after I read a word or two was that this was an advertisement.. I expect it is written by someone in marketing, I thought . And so it was. I have been thinking recently a lot of our “Carbon” journalism is written by people who worked for advertising and marketing. It certainly seems so in Aotearoa New Zealand . That is what the marketers are calling the New Zealand ‘brand ‘. They market milk products and other produce with hints of the great outdoors conveyed in the carefully chosen market strategies. A Clean Green Image is what they call it. Most of the climate change journalism has the same literary flavour. So maybe Advertising rules the world of perceptions which rules journalism which influences politics.
If it was an ‘advert’ then the ASA should be informed about its grossly misleading content.
just watched third episode of Attenborough’s Green Planet.
We’ve finally been hit by the climate change propaganda at the end of this episode which is about how the seasons affect plants. He walks through Sequoia trees in the Sierra Nevada and tells how they are dying due to lack of water due to climate change and drought. He tells of how seasons have to be reliable . Now unprecedented climate change over the last few years has affected this . Then he mentions how these trees are up to 3000 years old. So there have been no changes in the climate over those 3000 years then Sir David. . And then at the very end, explaining a piece earlier about a plant in South Africa that needs a fire to germinate, he explains how more extreme wild fires are affecting this.. Its hotter and drier, and a fire man explains how many more fires they have. Biggest fires in living memory around the world. Pure Attenborough bullshit propaganda. And he was doing so well in the first two episodes
We have yet to have the “pleasure” of that series in Australia. It will be on Channel 9 (with added logos and adds). I won’t be watching.
Re Attenborough I think that he has caught Biden’s affliction and is just reading what the BBC Environment(al?) Department have decided we should hear.
As for forests, when I was younger I listened to a chap who had been fire fighting in the Dandenongs (outside Melbourne) during the 1939 fires (very severe). The mountain ‘ash’ (eucalyptus regnans) was burnt and there were fears, at the time, that it wouldn’t regrow. Well it did, reaching well over 30 metres. Recently there were more (less severe) fires and the trees sprouted lots of new growth and scientists discovered a species of possum thought to be extinct. Its numbers jumped when new food supplies e.g. green shoots of eucalyptus appeared. Obviously a result of many years of evolution.
I can’t make up my mind whether Attenborough is being conned by the green activists or whether we are being conned by Attenborough.
I recommend reading Crockford’s “Fallen Idol”.
I’m not a tea fan. Can we get a figure for chilling beer?
I don’t know how I became Dennis Ambrose…It’s OK Paul, not offended!
Laughing at this so-called expert. Just goes to show that in her generation, the more ignorant one is the more convinced one is that she has ALL the answers! EWWW.
A dumb/stupid person’s they know everything, an informed/clever person knows there are huge gaps in their knowledge.
And a very clever person realises that we think of as knowledge probably isn’t!
I have a relative who is a teacher of Mathematics at the Secondary level.
With sickening monotony, children slide backwards, emotionally and intellectually, while in the belly of the beast.
At best they come out blithely stupid like the writer of the article being castigated. Others are much less happy.
I think be careful with posting stuff like this Paul. I know you like running your WordPress blog but attacking individuals in this manner is very unpleasant – I assume you are one of those older white men who feel particularly emboldened by posting on the Internet.
I don’t know if you have any loved ones but imagine how they’d feel if this was about them? It would also be useful if you could share sources for your own ‘statistics’ (you know, lead by example). Perhaps you should have stuck to accountancy.
It’s all readily available from BP Energy Review
“I assume you are one of those older white men who feel particularly emboldened by posting on the Internet.”
Sheer snide. And your assumption is ageist and, strangely, racist: Paul is well-qualified to discuss the statistics and we are grateful that he does.
I feel no pity for hacks who make their money without doing the research and from a biased position. But do it nicely.
C de L…I fail to see where I needed to be chided for my comment. If anyone was not being ‘nice’ it was ‘James’. As it is, isn’t ‘hack’ rather meant to be not ‘nice’?
My family . . . My children, my aunts and uncles . . . ALL stand for TRUTH !!
You cross that line . . . You will hear from them . . . In Spades . . .
Paul . . . I acting like ANY GOOD parent would !!
“I know you like running your WordPress blog but attacking individuals in this manner is very unpleasant ”
No it is perfectly acceptable for Paul to call out pure BS like this. As I have posted above I find these types of ADULTS quite abhorrent. They are marketing things and making statements they either know nothing about or are simply lying for their own personal gain.
They hide behind the “little girl in pigtails” type of imagery deliberately to evade being rationally questioned.
People like you (in defending her and citing both ageist and racist remarks) are equally abhorrent.
“I don’t know if you have any loved ones but imagine how they’d feel if this was about them?”
If the referenced article were written by any of my relatives, including my children, they’d get a flea in their ear from me to do their homework properly. The facts are readily available and it isn’t that hard to quote them correctly in an article, even where the article is making a case for a particular technology that is for sale.
When you get something wrong, you should expect criticism.
Isn’t there an applicable law her which she and/or her publisher is breaking by such blatant mis-representation?
Again this area worries me. I am not an expert in this subject but I believe that as this is an internet discussion piece it does not fall under the normal advertising regulations. Consequently all manner of outright lies and deceptions seem to be gotten away with. I really have no objections to anyone expressing an opinion but when there are deliberate misrepresentations of numbers and facts, surely they should be regulated?
Yeh let’s admire China producing solar panels with slave labour. Way to go Beth.
Gridwatch UK just now says wind is on 6%, solar 1.2%, coal 4.6% and gas 55.1% of UK electricity supply.
Not many solar cups of tea there. Fancy a fossil one?
‘solar-powered cups of tea’
Is Ms Howell willing to just drink tea between 11AM and 3PM?
I wonder if she has the same paymaster as Barry Gardiner MP?
So many experts! 🙂
Hydrogen’s Hidden Emissions
Shell’s fossil hydrogen plant in Canada found to be emitting more climate-wrecking gases than it is capturing
https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossil-gas/shell-hydrogen-true-emissions
About as good as bio-fuels! 🙂
What is rather instructive in that article is that it carefully overlooks the fact that hydrogen (blue, green, turquoise or whatever) is in itself a very potent INDIRECT greenhouse gas.
Fugitive hydrogen emissions rise high into the atmosphere and cause various effects. Reacting with ozone hydrogen depletes the ozone layer, it causes stratospheric moistening ( creating creating water vapour and ice crystals at very high altitude) and most importantly it strips hydroxyl radicals from the atmosphere that would otherwise convert CH4 methane into
CO2 +H2O. In stopping CH4 decay it enhances its long term effect. None other than the IPCC give Hydrogen a very high Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 5.8.
As we know hydrogen readily escapes so even so called green hydrogen will be adding to the “problem”.
Solar power will keep the lights on while the sun is shining.
Regarding her love affair with China. Do not forget the latitude that a lot of China is at? Take a pin and stick it in the middle and you come up with 35DegN. The UK is 52-56DegN and in spite of her gushing, physics IS an issue when it comes to the viability of solar panels. In the US there is a number somewhere around 36.5degN (ref please) which is the economic northern limit for viable solar.
That sort of reminds me of what that much missed Professor David Mackay said about Britain – not the right place for solar energy production. Certainly right about solar…London has just 44% of the solar energy input of Honolulu; Edinburgh just 38%…
Every country just loves to show how great their ‘green’ energy is; however, most of the stats are sheer nonsense! I wonder why countries like Germany are still building coal fired power plants and have had a 300% increase in the cost of power?