Rocketing Energy Prices Were Part Of The Plan All The Time
January 29, 2022
By Paul Homewood
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/
The above excerpt comes from the CCC’s Sixth Carbon Budget. It shows conclusively that it high energy prices have always been the official policy, in order that expensive renewables are made viable.
EU carbon prices have already risen from 32 to 80 euro/tonne in the last year, and the new UK ETS system tracks EU prices, with prices now at £75/tonne.
As it turns out global price rises for natural gas have brought the CCC’s dream to fruition a decade early.
56 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
At the international summit last summer hosted by Johnson, the finance ministers put out a statement. The world’s banks and finance houses, lead by Black Rock and Vanguard would cease to finance any business that did not follow the green agenda. In the words of ex B of E chief Mark Carney, non renewables would go bankrupt. They also took over the decisions of national governments and this was earlier called ‘going direct’ by the Black Rock CEO. If the UK government decided to authorise fracking and new oil and gas exploration, it would be going against the international rules which put UN agendas into operation. They don’t care if poorer people in cold countries die off of hypothermia and starvation. It suits the agendas.
Yes, its the BIS and CBs running this show, along with the likes of Blackrock. They are creating a new paradigm capitalism based on moneterisation of the ‘global commons’ ( ie everything) and resource constraints. Its deliberately disruptive. It uses the useful idiots in the green movements. It controls national government agendas.
Covid has been very useful in introducing national and in particular international constraints, so timely that its suspicious. Next up are CBs digi-currencies which will directly control everyone’s spending to further the agenda.
Yes. UN Agenda 30 For Sustainability. Its everywhere.
Covid-19.. Right from the start I have hoped this might be a blessing in disguise. Something which would make the people wake up later with a bad, bad attitude to quack science and ready to give the finger to demands for more sacrifice ‘for the good of the world.’ So far however that has not happened.
The only countries who will prosper from this ‘Green Virtue’ insanity are Russia and China who could give a Dam what the UN, The IPCC or any one else has to say . . . They are smiling or should I say sneering . . . all the way to the bank . . .
We should all stand up and celebrate our western government’ successes in destroying our economies thanks to the WOKE agenda’s of Social Engineering, Environmentalism & Globalization. Printing money to make up for what we gave away in the name of Environmentalism, to the Third World – Our Economies are dying – Social Elitism has failed – Now the once powerful ‘Home-Grown’ Unionists ARE the down trodden – They payed the price – while the Elitist Socio-Economic Wisdom thrives – in the West – meanwhile China and Russia Laugh – All the way to the Bank.
Today China alone, processes 60% of Global Base Metals . . . and all the pollution that goes with it – 25 Chinese Cities now account for 50% of Global CO2 – Out of site – Out of mind . . . The New World Order . . . While Russia mines and explores and develops resources with impunity . . .
Western Elitist Self-Flagellation in the name of Environmentalism – The Irony of it all . . .
https://www.academia.edu/49676862/Social_Engineering_Environmentalism_and_Globalization_A_New_World_Order
Environmentalism should be concerned with repairing potholes and other infrastructure faults and discouraging recurring smog and the like. Perhaps preventing over fishing also.
Can readers think of additional possible benefits from environmentalism?
I can’t but my imagination is rather limited!
“…- 25 Chinese Cities now account for 50% of Global CO2 [emissions]…”
That seems a strange assertion, as China accounts for 27% of Global CO2 emissions:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
I could believe that 25 Chinese Cities account for 50% of China’s emissions.
Quite, JLM. Well said.
‘Environmentalism’ is the new Inquisition.
It fits precisely.
John Doran.
Dave . . . Good catch . . . Excellent source !
I shall correct . . .
But given that they are ignorant idiots, they have failed to realise that when non-renewable reliable generation is gone, the lights go out and everything else goes off. I think Covid has brought this much closer to reality than we possibly expected. Oh, the irony of ‘dirty’ coal being cheaper to use even with global warming taxes added than ‘clean’ gas.
‘move unabated gas down the merit order, thus reducing its role in the generation mix.’
Maybe it would be a good idea to have a replacement for it before you push it out.
A good idea and obvious to any reasonable person, but not if your agenda is to collapse society.
I do not know if the agenda really is to collapse society – for fun basically like Pol Pot did in Cambodia. .Or whether it is simply a dumb idea like Mao’s Great Leap Forward. Perhaps the idea is to bring it CLOSE to collapse, expecting us at the last moment to put all power into the hands of the environmentalists, when we turn to them ‘for the answers.’ Turn to THEM?
Yes, for they will describe it, not as the result of unscientific nonsense, but as
an organizational crisis, a crisis of Capitalism, and a bungled rebuild. Bungled because it did not involve the proper purges, forced labour and punishment camps which Gaia demands.
They are at heart Marxists. But Marx had no idea how the economy would work after the Revolution and after the Withering Away of the State. The new society would reap the benefits of all that the dead Capitalists had done. People would be given their rations and out of a feeling of blissfulness wander off and make something. That was the plan!
As for the uber-rich of our world; they smugly think they can control this blind rush to destruction. They remind me of the German Industrialists (and Wall Street investors) who thought they were using Nazism and found out later it was the other way round. In retrospect in 1945, it seemed a bit dumb. Actually it seemed a bit dumb in 1932!
Where’s the fun in that?
What about abated gas, did the CCC bother to investigate that? It seems not.
Let’s be clear, a successful gas industry of any type would restrict or even prevent a ‘renewables’ industry from gaining any traction at all. ‘Gas must go’ is clearly the ‘independent’ CCC’s mantra.
PS It would be interesting to see the annual declared incomes of our ‘independent’ CCC members, and from whom they’ve received any funds.
Surely known corruption is illegal in the UK?
This shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone Paul. All of those responsible for the headlong unreliable rush to the Year Zero were fully aware of the consequences and openly admitted as much. As the spinmeister in chief, Barack Obama, proudly declared back in 2012, “as part of my plan electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket”. The plan hasn’t changed, just the reality of the consequences of the plan as it now begins to bite. Aside from a few of us on this side of the argument, no politician or journalist can now honestly claim that they weren’t aware that the current energy crisis was manufactured completely by design. The train wreck that is current Western energy policy was not only inevitable but entirely predictable.
I couldn’t agree More . . .
Wind turbines are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1,688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1,300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel (14.5 % Global CO2 is from concrete and steel), 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium- Boron, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
There may be a place for these technologies, but first we must look beyond the myth of Zero Emissions. I predict EVs and windmills will be abandoned once the embedded environmental costs of making and replacing and operating them become public. Once it becomes Clear that 28 % of the Electricity is lost as HEAT between production of Electricity and having a fully charged battery . . . For that Electric Car.
I am trying to do my part with these comments. Bringing ‘The Embedded Costs’ of Going Green to light, but those who never ask . . . will never know. Then there are the ‘Greenies’ who do not want to Know !
https://www.academia.edu/52039545/All_Electricity_Poisons_Planet_Earth
https://www.academia.edu/49057069/Electric_Cars_Burn_31_More_Energy_than_Gas_Cars
All Hail . . . The Big Green Propaganda Machine . . . For they shall be our undoing . . .
My Thoughts . . .
“At present, each year 186 billion tonnes of CO2 enter the atmosphere from all sources, of which 3.3% comes from human activities. More than 100 billion tonnes (57%) is given off by the oceans and 71 billion tonnes is exhaled by animals (including humans).
Page 180 of geology Prof. Ian Plimer’s fine book:
Heaven and Earth Global Warming: The Missing Science.
John Doran.
Also, with differing #’s same result . . .
The IPCC in its own research produces a similar finding in a published graph “Global Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Absorption of Greenhouse Gasses in the 1990’s”, finding, CO2 from natural causes is 793 billion tones, Man-Made sources is 23 billion tones. 23 divided by 793 is 2.9%. No calculations are presented for summary or review.
UKA prices have already gone through £85/tonne CO2 and are approaching £90 for 2024-25.
https://www.barchart.com/futures/quotes/CMz22/overview
Scroll down to see the futures quotes.
The government has ignored the provisions in the legislation to intervene and increase the supply of allowances to prevent prices from skyrocketing so it is indeed government policy to screw us. It’s now adding over £30/MWh to electricity prices any time they are set by CCGT, which is most of the time.
Has anyone any idea what happens after the train smash.
“…after the train smash.”
Undoubtedly “Lessons will be learned!” Meanwhile, certain people will be laughing all the way to the bank. Except… perhaps not. For, if the smash involves the collapse of our financial house of cards, there may well be no banks left.
Viewed coolly, we have a situation where many people have a hand on the same asset but fondly imagine theirs is the only hand on it and that it belongs to them alone. They think they have a resource to cushion them against any economic disaster. The squawking and squabbling, when the illusion is shattered, will be impressive but do no good.
The boilers rupture and there are massive explosions.
Quite a show. If you are some distance away.
We ALL will be economically destroyed . . . ‘Never saw it coming’ . . . will be the Media stance . . .
Aristotle’s contention that The Earth was the center of the Universe lasted 1,600 years or so as The Prevailing Doctrine. When Galileo, thanks to scientific observation through a telescope, demonstrated that the Sun was the center of the Universe, the Science supporting this observation was categorically rejected and deemed ‘Blasphemous’.
Today . . . in the 21st century . . . little has changed. Scientific reviews challenging Globally accepted ‘Consensus Views’ are treated as ‘Blasphemous Aspersions’ being cast upon ‘The Peers’ and ‘The Writers’ who have come to be known and loved. More energy is expended defending prevailing positions than will ever be spent examining the ‘Descenting Science’. Common sense in the face of change, evaporates. Counter-prevailing research and the Authors behind it are defamed, and aspersions are cast while the elite of the prevailing views spend vast energy reinforcing and reiterating their prevailing views . . . At times, even the courts are used to confront ‘Descenting Scientific Research’ that is counter to prevailing consensus views.
Galileo, the father of ‘The Modern Scientific Methods’, suffered 5 years of imprisonment and lived out his life under house arrest for his ‘Descenting Scientific Research’. The more things change . . . the more they stay the same. Environmentalism, today, is the new ‘Religion’ defining the prevailing ‘Global Consensus Views’ on Climate Change. The 2001 united nations document co-authored by Michael Mann that included his now famous ‘Hockey Stick Graph’ has become the new ‘Holy Grail’. Research . . . any Scientific Research counter to this Globally accepted consensus view that Climate Change is caused by humanity burning Fossil Fuels shall be deemed blasphemous to the ruling doctrine of our time, akin to ‘Satanic Worship’.
The Truth . . . The Environment as a subject, is Explosive! You speak against its Edicts at your Peril. Accept the truth as prescribed from upon high, or suffer the Scorn and the Ridicule among your peers. Not to mention by society as a whole. Environmentalism is a relatively New Science and it is being truly tested for the first time. If Climategate starting in 2009 is any example, we can only imagine what is yet to come. When that One Stone gets overturned proving Collusion and Willful Deception. The un-scientific foundations that have been supporting the Environmental Movement since its inception will render it . . . Null.
Sadly, to date, no self-respecting Media Representative wants to risk the Ire of their Peers or the Mandarins ruling the Environmental Movement or The Purveyors of Globalization in our New Social Construct. For they are ‘Brothers-in-Arms’, so to speak. Who wants to be the one to open Pandora’s Box? . . . It would be like pulling Hans Brinker’s finger from the Dyke or Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg . . . The old adage . . .
There are none so blind as those who will not see . . . How Ironic . . .
Only the believers . . . Never saw it coming . . .
Near treasonous.
Not just renewables … high energy prices have always been the official policy, in order that expensive NUCLEAR is made viable.
But no private investor is going to invest in nuclear, only state-owned/subsidised behemoths can play in this game. There were press reports that Sizewell got a £100M leg-up this week. I hope there was at least a “merci beaucoup”.
The economic answer is coal. Without the UKA handicap to make it look expensive.
Can you explain what this problem you have with nuclear power actually is.
It’s fundamentally expensive Ray. Way too commercially risky for the private sector. And we do not have a risk-managed answer to disposal liabilities, so we leave future generations the expense of a stash of waste to be looked after.
None of this is necessary while we have enough fossil fuel.
From where I stand, calling for new nuclear build is no more justified than calling for more wind farms. What fundamental need are they supposed to satisfy that cannot be better achieved using fossil fuelled sources?
From my perspective, empty claims that nuclear is low cost is no better than those claims that renewables are the cheapest source of power. Both rely on fanciful assumptions and selective analysis, all to dupe the public into bad choices which will be felt in the years to come.
I’m no fan of making energy more expensive for no good reason. It deserves contempt.
Jordan. I hope you are not basing your position on shale gas because it ain’t there. As for coal – in your dreams. Bottom line, we don’t have may options for fiossil fuels.
Hello Vernon
I don’t suggest BP is the last word on estimation of reserves, but should be OK as a credible source.
Click to access bp-stats-review-2021-full-report.pdf
The Reserve-Production ratio can be read as the number of years remaining at present production rates. BP provide the following for so-called “proved reserves”:
Natural Gas 59 years
Oil 53 years
Coal 139 years
Proved reserves is a conservative measure: “generally taken to be those quantities that geological and engineering information indicates with reasonable certainty can be recovered in the future from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions”.
There are quite a few limitations in there. Little or no allowance for exploration and discover, and technological development to improve extraction which keeps showing earlier forecasts are exceeded. There is also a relationship between supply and price as higher price will increase supply, and no reason to think of price is a fixed cap on production. I don’t want to cite other resources, but some estimates are hundreds of years’ fossil fuel by taking a different positions on the above.
On tight gas, I see no reason to accept today’s difficulty extracting some resources necessarily rules out learning resources being accessible in future. Where would we be if we always adopted the “throw up your hands and walk away” approach? The very least we could say is that it completely ignores past experience.
The economic “Energy Intensity Curve” suggests energy consumption does not rise at the same rate as economic growth due to the learning curve (improvements in knowledge and technology). It is yet another reason to consider the above estimates to be conservative.
In principle, I agree with you on needing to find alternatives to fossil fuels. My position is that it is not a priority at the moment, and might not be for a century or more. We will then be so much better prepared from a learning and technology perspective – economic self-harm today doesn’t exactly help.
The following resource estimates world Uranium reserves at about 90 years at current consumption rates, but with similar reservations (they use a cost threshold of 3 times present spot market prices).
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx
Regarding Uranium supply, the above source makes the fair point that technological developments will improve the burn-up rate of Uranium. This is aligned with everything I have said above.
Do not forget Thorium as an almost infinite fuel source! Most countries can produce it at a bearable cost from the rocks in their backyard. Self-sufficiency. Autarky. A lot to be said for it in this instance.
‘Not just renewables … high energy prices have always been the official policy, in order that expensive NUCLEAR is made viable.’
Starkly backwards from observations of last decades. Many states are shutting down their nuclear generation.
‘But no private investor is going to invest in nuclear, only state-owned/subsidised behemoths can play in this game.’
This part is true. States have shown a penchant for arbitrarily destroying nuke projects. Hence any investor must have full state funding to cover the prospect of the state deciding to kill the project.
‘The economic answer is coal.’
Bullshit. Nuclear is expensive because government makes it expensive. There is no reason why nukers should cost billions.
I can show you or any body what CLEAN Coal means . . . Beldune new Brunswick . . . They have scrubbers, Electrostatic Precipitators and Nitrogen Oxide burners . . . they even recycle the water from the scrubbers to make drywall board . . . Page 6 & 7 . . .
https://www.academia.edu/45570971/The_Environmentalist_and_The_Neanderthal
Now . . . Try and find an environmentalist who will advocate this method of Clean Energy . . . You will NOT find one . . .
Their goal is to destroy the fossil fuel industry . . . at ALL costs . . .
My Thoughts . . .
The point is that the environmental activists have an irrational hatred for both nuclear power and fossil fuels. They have done for fifty years or more. It goes along with their irrational hatred of “chemicals” and thus pesticides and E numbers (many of which are naturally occuring). These are not people who have reasoned themselves into their opinions. They are literally irrational, ignorant and highly opinionated. That is our problem now – governments are listening only to the most extreme and absurd opinions.
Gamecock
You have basically agreed with me, but for different reasons. I think nuclear is not the answer because it is expensive and commercially risky. For example, potentially uncapped liabilities in handling waste makes it untouchable to the private sector, and therefore waste needs to be underwritten by the taxpayer.
You think nuclear is uninvestable because governments make it so. This means a sympathetic (to nuclear) government does not help matters as it is impossible to bind future (unsympathetic) governments. So your position really kills it stone dead.
Since we both agree that nuclear is a commercial dud for the private sector, our attention can turn to alternatives needed for energy security. We should ensure we are not solely dependent on a single fuel source and technology, and a priority is then be to identify a reliable and flexible compliment to natural gas. That’s why I turn to coal fired generation.
It is easy for you to declare this is “bullshit”, but you don’t come forward with a commercially viable suggestion.
One word, Benjamin: Gas.
“For example, potentially uncapped liabilities in handling waste makes it untouchable to the private sector, and therefore waste needs to be underwritten by the taxpayer.”
No. Nuke waste is not a risk to the private sector. Government has long sense taken the role of dealing with it.
Gamecock.
“Nuke waste is not a risk to the private sector. Government has … taken the role of dealing with it.”
Agreed. Nuclear power is a nationalised industry because the public purse underwrites the liabilities.
BUT, it is also the case that this nuclear nationalised industry displaces private enterprise. Squeezing nationalised nuclear energy into the energy market displaces profitable operation of coal and gas fired power stations which would have existed in the private sector.
It is then impossible to argue nuclear energy is profitable and lowers the total cost of energy supply to society. You cannot compare a wholly privatised activity with a nationalised industry in that way. If nuclear is to make an argument that it lowers cost of energy to society, it needs to do so on an even footing, not receiving public support.
Exactly the same applies to wind generation. My objection is therefore being consistent between the two.
Recall how Phoenix asked why I object to nuclear at the top of this thread. I hope you are both getting the idea.
Jordan. I’m not following your responses. Are the figures you quote for UK or World? I can understand why you mis-understood me – I am not in favour of renewables unles it is long term nuclear. My thoughts for the moment are that we should be extremely gratified that we have survived the recent windless days without widespread failures and we should think about that and plan accordingly. My answer goes something like this
1 We get rid of this prime minister and Boris Johnson and junk Net Zero (we have already paid lip service but its irrelevant anyway).
2 We should keep what wind generation we have but not add more. The rule that renewables trump alternatives should be dropped. The alternatives must be commercially viable.
3 Whatever coal capacity exists must be maintained and if any can be restored they should be. The obscenity of biomass at Drax shoud be dis-continued and the boilers returned to coal. But accept that there will never, ever, be a reopening of UK coal mining.
4 CCGT should be our strongest alternative but must made dual fuel. Ireland requires at least three months of liquid fuel storage. Why can they be so clever and our lot so stupitid?
5 By all means have another try at fracking shale but do it properly this time (i.e. government supported finasncially and politically (but I don’t hold hope for any different result from Cuarilla’s.
6 That leaves the interconnectors and I just don’t hold a view – but I’m suspicious about dependency on them.
Sorry to be so long-winded, not like me.
1 Love too but spineless tories only interested in themselves so he will stay at lbh opposition are into this even more than tories.
2.yes but shouldn’t discourage retrofitting existing sites with higher capacity machines
3. Agreed. Unfortunately the demolition men move in before the boilrs ahve gone cold which is criminal. They should have been mothballed. The Drax Biomass is an absolute disgrace but doesn’t help half the environmentalists won’t come out against it. Sorry but if burn coal we must mine it here otherwise what’s the point.
4 Agreed
5. Umm politically that ones been screwed for at least a generation.
6. For a country that now inward looking they must be ruing the day we found ourselves on the hook to the EU for so much of our electricity.
They are world figures Vernon
1 Agree with ditching Net Zero, BoJo or not. Maybe fighting for his job will get BoJo’s feet back on the ground – I wouldn’t put it past him..
2 I could see a role for wind generation as displacing the marginal cost of fossil fuelled generation (i.e. it can displace energy, but it doesn’t displace installed capacity). The capacity of wind will therefore be limited as it will have a disruptive effect on supply of other fuels (the uncertainty of demand will make them more expensive to acquire). The whole lifecycle costs of wind must therefore be less than the marginal cost of fossil sources, and I don’t think wind should benefit from price support (CfD etc). New wind capacity should wash its face in the market, and this will probably mean contraction from today.
3 True, we cannot lose existing coal fired capacity any time soon (especially with most of the nukes about to close). But existing UK coal fired capacity is ancient, will be costly to keep running safely, will be unreliable and inefficient. It really needs to be replaced. The UK should be seeking switching capability to diversify firm-flexible energy supply by planning about 10GW of new modern coal fired capacity. There will probably be no reopening of UK deep mining in any material sense, but opencast methods have improved and can access deeper reserves economically. There could be a role for UK open casting, but nothing approaching supply for 10 GW of coal fired capacity. So the UK would be playing on the international coal and gas markets to secure supply.
4 Dual fuelling CCGT isn’t all that straightforward as it complicates the combustion system and environmental permit (which will limit the hours). If you are going to build a machine, a focused and specialised design is often much better than a generalist design in terms of complexity, maintenance, efficiency and reliability. (Think hybrid cars!) If we are to diversify fuel supply, it’s better to do so as different power stations?
5 On fracking shale, I’d prefer to deregulate and allow reserve exploration to do its job. Same for the North Sea and West of Shetland reserves – we need to let the industry do what it should be doing to the best of its ability.
6 Like wind, interconnectors should be considered to be a source of energy and not capacity.
I always remember a certain Chicago Community worker or Kenyan extraction, telling America that the cost of energy would necessarily sky rocket – to save the “planet”
So really the script has long since been written,
How can it not be more expensive if lowering CO2 emissions to zero and then to net zero is the goal. Without fossil fuels for transportation?? Nobody can even manufacture EVs without biofuel vehicles to transport people, food, and all of the materials needed. The same goes for solar and wind installations. Are these people that far out of touch with reality?
Decarbonisation in particular and AGW in general are fraudulent, and are now suspected to be near-treasonous. It’s the best single reason to oust Boris and his current squeeze.
Who could usefully succeed him? What about John Redwood?
…er Caroline Lucas?
Are there no mechanisms to hold all of those involved in these machinations, to account?
the people who would do the ‘holding to account’ are the same people who are involved in the machinations, otherwise steps ould have been taken by now. We have no means of redress this side of a catastrophic breakdown of society. Then we may see some sensibility return, and the retributions won’t be pretty.
The whole point of the CCC was to put this stuff beyond accountability. When the Left (broadly speaking) has the opportunity, it embeds decsion-making in agencies and structures that democracy cannot touch – the UN, the EU, the CCC, quangos. It then imbues these organisations with “virtue” making them extremely hard to attack.
The highlighted paragraph demonstrates that the writer(s) does not understand the importance of gas in maintaining system stability. Monkeys and hand grenades come to mind. Unfortunately the losers are the U.K. public in general and U.K. in terms of lost competitiveness. It will be difficult to overturn this policy as we have a non technical political body and seemingly advisors to that body?
As I write windmills are producing 5% of a low ish demand mid forenoon. Not too chilly atm
Degrowth, recessions and Mortality. Emissions Austerity and Mortality. The Deflationary Carbon Based “Gold-standard”. [(((Carbon Credits(( “Just,(“” In Time””)”)))]
https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2022/01/30/degrowth-recessions-and-mortality-emissions-austerity-and-mortality-the-deflationary-carbon-based-gold-standard-carbon-credits-just-in-time/
Health is used as an Occult word for Mortality, and specifically population control and eugenics motivated “Herd Management” . Similarly, Carbon Footprint policing and Measurement of CO2 emissions is a usefull proxy for Mortality in Target populations in need of “Pruning”, Re-balancing and otherwise generally brought into line with the “Correct way of thinking”
How long before ‘rocketing energy prices’ and ‘civil unrest’ appear in the same news reports?
Tthat is the hope-a (mild) revolution against the corrupt Iiars, fraudsters and deluded followrers, environmental “charities”and the like.
No guillotines needed, though some deserve that. Maybe the stocks of yester year.
This is dangerous delusional stupidity. You can’t make renewables cheaper by making the alternatives artificially more expensive. Cost is cost.
A fine appraisal of the energy industry & the mad “Green” machine ruining our societies following the Darwinian & Malthusian concepts endorsed by our 1%s banksters & billionaire eugenicists is Merchants Of Despair by PhD nuclear engineer Robert Zubrin.
John Doran.