Michael Kelly Exposes The Implications Of Net Zero
By Paul Homewood
A major new analysis by Michael Kelly on the practicability of Net Zero:
Former Conservative Party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith has called for an “honest and open debate” on Net Zero, warning that politicians have not sufficiently scrutinised the requirements, and saying that they must level with the public about the sacrifices required.
He also highlights the UK’s lack of energy security and Western Europe’s reliance on Russian gas.
Sir Iain’s comments, in the foreword to a new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, reflect growing alarm among Conservative backbenchers about a possible electoral backlash in the wake of the cost of living crisis, and a new awareness of the threat the Net Zero project represents to national security.
The report, by Professor Michael Kelly FRS, examines the scope of the Net Zero project and considers the financial, resource and manpower requirements, concluding that the political and economic upheaval it would necessitate make success a practical impossibility.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith said:
“We owe it to the citizens of the UK to take a long hard look at the path to be taken. Policymakers must be honest and open with the British public about how much all this will cost them and how much change to our everyday lives may be required.”
Professor Kelly said:
“The scale of this project is, in terms of resource and time, so great that a war footing and a command economy will be essential for its delivery”
The report is worth bookmarking, as it covers all of the practical aspects of achieving Net Zero:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
For those who read to the end of the text:
complicity
kəm-plĭs′ĭ-tē
noun
Involvement as an accomplice in a questionable act or a crime.
The state of being an accomplice; partnership in wrong-doing or in an objectionable act: usually followed by with before the person and in before the thing: as, complicity with a criminal, or in a criminal act.
The state of being an accomplice; participation in guilt.
The whole concept of ‘Net Zero’ is a house of cards founded on little more than ‘Good Intentions’ and ‘Wishful Thinking’. Net Zero is based on ‘Carbon Trading’ schemes which again are based on good intentions and wishful thinking. The Science beyond ‘First Glance’ does NOT hold water. ALL those ‘Energy Production’ systems that have been granted ‘Emissions Free’ status in the Carbon Trading system ARE NOT EMISSIONS FREE ! When you look beyond the ‘Here and Now’. All these Emissions Free energy production systems have ‘Embedded Costs’ that have been intentionally overlooked either by wishful thinking or willful deception.
Electric Cars
What is a battery? Tesla said it best when he called them ‘Energy Storage Systems’. They do not make electricity inside . . . they store electricity produced somewhere else. Primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas, bio-fuel or diesel-fueled Electric Power Plants. Therefore, to say an Electric Vehicle (EV) is a Zero Emission vehicle is not even remotely true! Since about 40%of the electricity generated in the United States comes from coal-fired generating stations . . . you could say that forty percent of the EVs on the road are Coal-Powered . . . Interesting . . . OH, and let’s not forget OHM’s law on resistance . . . at least 28% of the electricity produced is lost as Heat getting the electricity to EV batteries. At least 128-kwh of electricity is produced for every 100-kwh used. Average US CO2 emissions per kwh from ALL sources including line loss and charging EV’s is 1.19 lbs. per kwh. At least 15% MORE CO2 Per mile driven. (PDF) Tesla Versus Toyota Camry | Jim Le Maistre – Academia.edu
Solar Panels
Solar Panels, the main problem with them is the Heat and the chemicals needed during processing using the ‘Czochralski Method’ turning all that silicate into the silicon used to make these panels. Producing pure Silicon requires the processing of raw silicate. Including the 1,425o C Heat required to melt the quartz crystals, usually by burning coking coal or gas. The Glass covers are made by heating sand, soda ash and limestone to the incredibly high temperature of 1,700o C with gas. Then they are Re-Heated to 450o for tempering. What about the CO2 going up the chimneys where that quartz or that glass was melted? Then, silica, we use hydrochloric acid, Sulfuric Acid, Nitric Acid, Hydrogen Fluoride, Trichloroethane, and Acetone. Do we recycle that waste? What happens to all the ‘left-overs’ from using these highly toxic chemicals? Solar Panels need gallium-arsenide, copper-indium, gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride. All of which are highly toxic even radioactive. Furthermore, Silicon dust is a hazard to workers where silicone is made and where it used. Oh, and last, the Silicone infused Solar Panels cannot, as yet, be recycled. What happens to all the by-products from making and processing all these chemicals? Furthermore, it has been suggested that the energy input to build solar panels exceeds their energy output in their productive lifetime.
Wind Turbines
Wind Turbines, these are The Ultimate in Embedded Costs and Environmental Destruction. Each one weighs about 1,688 tons (equivalent to 23 houses) and they contain 1,300 tons of concrete and 295 tons of steel for the masts (Concrete and Steel = 15% Global CO2). 3.5 tons of copper, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass Then there are the rare earth minerals . . . 800 lbs. of neodymium-boron per turbine, praseodymium, and dysprosium. The leaching into the environment from tailings ponds, the radiation released into the environment and the mining of these minerals are all Embedded Costs. Where are all the calculations for all of these in The Environmental reports? Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last about 15 to 20 years, then, it must be replaced. Oh, we cannot recycle used blades yet either! That is why we see them lying on the ground at wind farms after they have been replaced. What about the coal burned and electricity used at all the production facilities processing these essential components and the CO2 generated during their production? Somehow is this ‘Green Magic’ without pollution, because it will be used to produce Green Energy? Not likely! It all gets brushed under the ‘Big Green Rug’ and seems irrelevant because ‘It’s for a Good Cause’ . . . Absolutely NOT !!
There is one more big advantage of carbon offsets. If you are the company selling them, they can be a significant revenue stream! The best example of this is Tesla. Yes, that Tesla we all know and love, the electric car maker, who sold Carbon Credits on the ‘Market-Based Carbon Emissions Trading Exchanges’ to the tune of $518 million in just the first quarter of 2021. That is over 2 Billion dollars worth of credits because their automobiles are declared ‘Emissions Free’ . . . Emissions Free? . . . With what we learned above? . . . is that so . . .??
‘Carbon Allowances’ are A One Trillion Dollar per year Scam
Carbon Trade is Already Covering the Equivalent of One Half of World Energy Emissions of $1 Trillion
From . . . https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction
Hello Jim,
You wrote that wind turbine blade life is 15 to 20 years. Prof. Gordon Hughes has written about OFF-SHORE wind farms in the following terms:-
“The economic life would be 15 years with the constant load factor and only 12 years for the [more realistic] declining load factor. Operating profit – gross revenue minus opex – is less than the finance charge in every year under both revenue scenarios. The project is clearly a dud for both lenders and investors if we base projections for revenues and costs on actual experience. So, what we have is the usual bromide “this time things will be different” – a variant of Samuel Johnson’s triumph of hope over experience.”
https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/365-wind-power-economics-rhetoric-and-reality
Thus OFF-SHORE wind farms (rather than the blades specifically) seem to have a reduced life compared to ON-SHORE windfarms, presumable because of the harsher conditions off-shore. In other words, “It really is worse than we thought!”
Regards,
John.
Absolutely . . . The whole ‘Net Zero’ thing is a Bust ! Gets worse as we learn more . . .
Hi John, it is not just the hasher conditions. In order to be economical the offshore units are much larger, hence longer and heavier blades. (Generation is largely determined by the swept areas of the blades multiplied by the cube of the wind speed ‘subject to Betz Limit and conversion losses) As the swept area is subject to a square law (double the blade length quadruples the area) they have become exceptionally long.
Unfortunately all the bearings have not improved accordingly and various basic engineering problems. are coming to the fore such as Brinelling (both true and false varieties)
Click to access Buds-Take-Issue-18.pdf
A major issue with tri bladed units is the shade effect – when the lower blade passes in front of the tower the wind pressure exerted upon it drops dramatically whilst the higher two blades are facing maximum pressure. This effect is prematurely wearing them out.
Further, on day one of year 16, the first day without subsidy, there isn’t a single windfarm I have seen accounts for that will be able to avoid losing an absolute fortune.
Michael Kelly has understated the capital cost of wind power BTW. Relatively short operational life and intermittency make them far dearer than nuclear which MK doesn’t point out.
The overall structure of MK’s paper could be a bit punchier. An executive summary for media circulation would be a good idea,
“…harsher conditions offshore…”
My father, a former Naval Officer, frequently ended a discussion with,
“Worse things happen at sea!”
I could never work out whether this was meant to be comforting or not.
How do we factor in the transmission loss? That must be considerably higher than with on-shore turbines. There was also a recent report about the problems of integrating Scottish wind farms into the grid due, if I recall, to distance from the main area of demand (or some such).
Are we actually getting any reliable figures as to the real cost per mwh of the used/usable electricity from these things?
Mr. Jackson, as far as I know, with out doing your own digging the ‘Line Losses’ are NOT freely published . . . The best data I could find came from Schneider electric . . .
· 1-2% – Step-up transformer from generator to Transmission line
· 2-4% – Transmission line
· 1-2% – Step-down transformer from Transmission line to Distribution network
· 4-6% – Distribution network transformers and cables. The overall losses between the power plant and consumers are then in the range between 8 and 15%. (average 12%)
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/144711/download
Charging EV’s another 16% on top of that . . . Green Car congress . . .
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/09/20180905fotw.html#:~:text=Unlike%20conventionally%20fueled%20vehicles%2C%20electric,to%20the%20battery%20during%20charging.
Therefore . . . For every 100 kwh used to run an EV . . . you need to PRODUCE 128 kwh of electricity . . . That 28% gets anned to the environment as HEAT . . . OHM’s Law . . .
https://www.academia.edu/49057069/Electric_Cars_Burn_31_More_Energy_than_Gas_Cars
I have just received an email from Reform UK demanding a referendum on the life-changing Net Zero plans forced upon us by Westminster politicians.
Over the spring and summer of 2022, we will be holding public meetings and rallies across the UK.
I always said we would need a good war to sort this out – it was meant in jest, but…
In the meantime Farage’s tame investment analysts at Southbank Investment Research are pushing the greatest investment opportunity evah, by investing in climate tech, which will come to our rescue and solve all our problems with decarbonisation. Maybe they can change the laws of physics too?
“I hope this report gives the bare facts about what is implied by committing to a net-zero emissions economy for 2050.”
Maybe it is my misunderstanding, but the term “net-zero emissions” implies that whatever CO2 is added must be balanced by the same amount taken out…Carbon neutrality.
” ‘Net zero emissions’ refers to achieving an overall balance between greenhouse gas emissions produced and greenhouse gas emissions taken out.”
He did not address that. Maybe it should be changed to a zero emissions economy? And even that is problematic because of the need for fossil fuels in transportation.
What is credited with ‘Zero Emissions’ i.e. EV’s are NOT zero emissions . . . IF you look to where that electricity comes from and what it takes to build an electric battery, and, and, and . . . Those things that never get considered . . . They and solar panels and wind turbines form the basis of these ‘Magician’s Tricks’ . . . I found this quote this morning . . .
Robert Stewart
PhD in Sciences, Theology, Paranormal, University of California, Berkeley
Do you trust the science that comes out today?
NO, because SCIENTISTS are HUMANS. Humans are driven and consumed by EGO. Hence, they will MANIPULATE any data that doesn’t ALIGN with the results that their FUNDERS, SPONSORS, FINANCIERS, etc., desire them to find. SCIENTISTS are also POLITICAL, and have no desire to agree with the FAR RIGHT or FAR LEFT no matter what the cost. So, they will FUDGE the numbers / data so as not to give the OTHER PARTY any iota of an ADVANTAGE. Lastly, some SCIENTISTS are THEORETICAL SCIENTISTS which actually ISN’T SCIENCE at all, but GAMBLING = GUESSING in the general public. These are some of the WORST CULPRITS of DECEPTION or GET RICH SCAMMERS.
In conclusion, I’m of the ANCIENT ORDER of SCIENTISTS, who kept their HYPOTHESIS and THEORIES to THEMSELVES until they had ABSOLUTE PROOF of what they discovered by EXPERIMENTS incorporating THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. I’ll REMAIN with ANCIENTS and let the PSEUDO-MODERN HUMANS become more and more like MACHINES, as their machines become more and more like HUMANS.
Again Re EV’s . . . https://www.academia.edu/62574334/Tesla_Versus_Toyota_Camry
Garbage in . . . Garbage out . . .
My thoughts . . .
You post a lot of ranting garbage It is deliberate of course ..
..” How Covert Agents Infiltrate The Internet To Manipulate Deceive And Destroy Reputations ” , Glenn Greenwald The Intercept Feb 25 2014
Why thank you Mr. Hamish,
I was glad to see your studied, pointed and well researched remarks . . .
Review what you wrote above and reconsider if it makes any sense ….And desist with the moral blackmail [ if it is true at all ] about your learning impediments …..My thoughts
Review what you wrote above and reconsider if it makes any sense .
Jim (leaving aside the unhelpful responses by SH ) I concur on the general point that faith in many scientists is misplaced by many. I am reminded of the Hydrogen bomb co designer Edward Teller. He really was a nasty piece of work who would happily lie and deceive to further his own political ends.and even assist legal prosecutions against those who might professionally disagree with him. A bit like Michael Mann really!
Thank you Mr. Sanders . . . I concur . . .
Given that Net Zero is impossible the interesting question is how that impossibility will manifest itself?
Slight of hand . . . The Carbon trading system . . . Of Course . . . moving chairs around on the Titanic . . . hoping to right the ship . . .
Well burning wood was declared acceptable despite the increase in CO2. Now gas has been declared as a necessary (but temporary) fuel, and there are moves in the UK to bring back fracking. There are even indications that nuclear may be considered as Non CO2 emitting and useful, esp. after the disruption of The Ukraine war.
I don’t know how long those turbines in the North Sea can last before needing expensive maintenance. Should electricity prices subside they may be regarded as too expensive.
The next step is for coal to be reinstated as useful (cheap and a boost for employment in rundown areas). It may be necessary to paint the each lump of coal white to get some to accept that.
How to Clean up Pollution and Save Planet Earth
This power generating station at Belldune NB was the first in Canada to install scrubbers to help reduce Sulphur dioxide emissions. It has an electrostatic precipitator that removes over 99% of particles in the flue gases. It has special burners to limit Nitrogen Oxide emissions. An upgrade began in July 2004 which saw a Titan ProAsh facility that recaptures 75% of the fly ash produced by the generating station. Water from the Smoke Stack Scrubbers is recycled. This eliminates the use of a ‘Tailings Pond’. The effluent removed from the water has resulted in the production of a Synthetic Gypsum Byproduct (Drywall) which is then sold, all over North America.
Belldune Coal Fried Power Generating Station – A Poster Child for Clean Energy!!
There is mostly steam coming out that chimney . . . Like what we see at all Natural Gas Plants!!
Environmentalists are screaming to have this plant shut down . . . not because it is clean . . .
Because it burns coal . . . Another Fossil Fuel . . . Clean Energy . . . somehow bad??
Please . . . Let’s find some common sense and bring it home to Environmentalism . . .
It is long overdue that humans visit the truth of Science in all of our Environmentalist Narratives. Clean-up the Planet of foul effluent first. Set CO2 on the back burner for now. Our obsession with CO2 is NOT helping the clean-up of the Environment. It is holding back the progress towards cleaning up of the pollution that is truly destroying the Environment on Planet Earth.
The by-products from burning fossil fuels:
1. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), which contributes to acid rain and respiratory illnesses
2. Nitrogen oxides (NOx), which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses
3. Particulates, which contribute to smog, haze, and respiratory illnesses and lung disease
4. Mercury and other heavy metals linked to both neurological and developmental damage
5. Fly ash and bottom ash, that are residues created when power plants burn coal
All are significantly reduced when we invest $800,000 million. As we see above!
Let’s work smarter, Not Harder . . . Be Visionaries, with a Goal – Clean-up Now!
From Pages 6 – 8 . . . https://www.academia.edu/45570971/The_Environmentalist_and_The_Neanderthal
My Thoughts . . .
“There are even indications that nuclear may be considered as Non CO2 emitting” I doubt anyone has seriously doubted that. Even the IPCC accept that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources
It may be necessary to paint the each lump of coal white to get some to accept that
We could then bring back National Service!
According to the IEA China (53%) and India (12%) account for roughly two thirds of world coal use and coal use by 2024 is expected to grow by 135 Million tonnes in China and by 129Mt in India. That’s an increase in coal fired generation of 4.1% in China and 11% in India.
Meanwhile between 2000 and 2020 the world doubled its use of coal fired power generation and much of that generation has decades of life ahead of it.
https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2021
Uk coal is deep mined. It is too expensive. Imported open cast coal costs more than necessary. Fracked gas is cheapest, clean, low CO2 (if that matters).
JF
‘The scale of this project suggests that a war footing and a command economy will be essential, as major cuts to other favoured forms of expenditure, such as health, education and defence, will be needed.’
Exactly. When you have no economy, there will be no tax revenue. The national government will have little money for anything.
I’ll read the report but from what I’ve seen so far it concentrates on the cost of HOW instead of WHY.
Given that so many have succumbed to the global warming myth, I presume they want to fight one battle at a time and leave that for later. The key thing, after having shown that NetZero is an unachievable fantasy, is to show that adaption to any real changes is the way forward. Then we will either all still be here but a bit warmer, or more likely, everyone will be grateful that cheap energy returned as each year gets a bit colder.
Gerry, there’s a big problem in that, following HMG’s lead, councils and other organisations all over the country declared a climate emergency, set up grandiose climate departments and are busy spending government money as fast as they can get it, on stuff nobody knows nor cares about, whilst neglecting real local issues. They don’t care whether the climate emergency is real or otherwise, so long as the money keeps rolling in. An example – my council has just voted to accept £1.6m to insulate 150 council houses. That’s over £10K per property for an energy saving of??/year. The money needs to dry up fast.
Plenty of sensible comments but why do so many Tory MPs still think it is a good and practical idea ?
It saves them having to think about it. But when they knock on doors at election time and people wave their monster energy bills, they’ll need to have some good answers 🙄
BBC/Guardian will insure they are punished for speaking up.
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
If the BBC and Guardian are not enraged then you are not doing your job properly.
Because so many MPs are employed by the Government – I am always amazed to discover there is a minister for something or other – or like my local dolly, looking to get a Government job there will toe the company line. Hence, you are not actually represented in Parliament which shows up our sham democracy.
“…why so many Tory MPs…?” and “…our sham democracy…”
Who can fathom the mind of professional liars? There is definitely some schizoid process in them.
The last time I spoke to one – a couple of years ago – I found that he really, really, believed in the whole schmeer: from babyish science, through to excited messianic orgasm, to us becoming “the Saudi Arabia of wind.” Oh, and he believed that the Chinese would pay us tens of billions of pounds each year juat to SHOW them how to do “defossilization.”
He thought a grateful electorate would keep him in Parliament for as long as he wanted to enjoy the perks. God help us, this was one of our cleverer MPs!
The most general reason, of course, is that everyone who sucks on the teat of the State finds it psychologically convenient to overestimate how much surplus there is for the taking, i.e. how much the ‘rich’ can be soaked before they simply disappear as a productive class and then how much the ‘middle’ can be soaked before THEY disappear as a productive class and… Of course, so long the ‘activists’ can skim ‘a little on the side for expenses’ the farce goes on*
Adam Smith said there is a lot of ruin in a State. That is why the final collapse comes as a complete surprise and never in quite the expected way. On the bright side, perhaps that is happening to Russia now?
* Bull Winkle on his incessant stealing of ‘pickanick baskets’ :
“I am a sort of Robin Hood. I take from the rich and I give it to the poor – with a little on the side for expenses!” On another occasion: “I always return the basket!”
Whoops. I recall now It was a County Councillor not an MP. They all seem the same to me.
Is it just me or has anyone else had a “TEST” email from WordPress to respond to that leads to a blank page?
I have had one as well
I’m guessing it was something to do with the problem of the Page 1 formatting that seemed odd this morning….and which seems OK now.
They just want to confirm that your email address on the file is correct.
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
Caroline Lucas was on Channel 4 News tonight peddling her usual lies in a piece they did on Boris saying we need to increase our output of oil and gas. Apparently it takes 28 years to get a new gas field on stream and 15 for a nuclear power station whereas you can get a windfarm on stream in 2 years.
We had to turn her off for the sake of our blood pressure, and the safety of the TV screen
Her indoors said Andrea Ledsom who was on before spoke a lot of sense. (I was in the kitchen making dinner so missed her)
I was on a platform with Caroline Lucas and before she gave her talk the Chairman told her I had a wide knowledge of the science of Climate Change and was a supporter of more CO2. In her speech she said nothing about climate. She is just a clever politician.
Aside from the obvious point that the time is largely a result of government regulation and delay, the claim we can go to a “war footing” and suddenly be turning out millions of wind turbines and solar panels is going round the Green nutters, including Monbiot.
That they believe we can simply massively increase production of such things in 3 months is telling – they simply have no clue about manufacturing, resourcing, employment, training, let alone the vast amount of fossil fuels such a plan would require. Nor do they even consider what we would have to go without if we shifted masses of people to these projects. They are utterly ignorant yet think they have a brilliant plan. It’s depressing.
An excellent report. Economic metal resources to achieve net zero simply don’t exist. Undeveloped discoveries of Cu, Co, Li and REE are too low grade to mine unless metal prices skyrocket, making the whole enterprise even more unaffordable.
As if by magic.
https://mobile.twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1501128121612914691?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
War footing? The only war is on common sense and genuine science. Fighting the climate is pathetic twaddle.
Report on current state of EV market, still too expensive and for the ‘rich’.
https://www.autotraderroadto2030.co.uk/
Now the price of nickel just skyrocketed, if sustained, EV prices will follow!
A very laudable report, in that it spells out the sheer impracticality of ‘net-zero’ (what is it about the letter ‘Z’??).
Unfortunately, it is like mowing a lawn to get rid of dandelions –they’ll keep cropping up unless you first dig out the roots.
What is needed first is to uproot ‘the science’ of mann-made (pun intended) climate change and all the associated lies, which Paul so diligently exposes, then net-zero will be zeroed.
Future EVs will use LPF batteries, with no cobalt or nickel. Tesla are already making the switch.
Recycling will recover the lithium and other valuables from waste batteries.
Same supply/recent vertical price increase applies to lithium. Even end of last year it was already estimated LPF added 15% to cost of EVs. Sensible estimates still have recycling more expensive than using raw materials. What would happen to value of all second hand EVs if latest battery technology significantly improved or became cheaper?
EVs are a pointless expensive imposition, whichever way you slice it.
Well the IEA says the world faces potential shortages of lithium carbonate and cobalt as early as 2025 so those battery makers better get a move on!
Tesla are thinking of using iron batteries, but the problem is these have much shorter ranges – not much use when range is already a major problem
LFP batteries are said to have inferior energy density, but Tesla claim they have overcome that to a large extent. I guess we will find out the truth soon, but I doubt you will see the range of Teslas decreasing as a result.
As well as not using cobalt and nickel, they also have a longer cycle life. In fact if you only use shallow depth of discharge they are said to last almost forever. Tens of thousands of cycles.
Climate sceptics continuing to raise outdated points doesn’t help the argument. It just gives the other side something to mock and then they think they’ve won.
“Future EVs will use LPF batteries,” Really? There was me thinking they were considering LFP batteries. One step away from a google search eh?
Sorry just a bit of dyslexia. Lithium Iron Phosphate. Doesn’t alter the argument does it.
Great. Wake me up when that’s all in place and cheaper than the current alternatives.
Nigel has had the platform removed from under him as a response to daring to put his head above the parapet :-
This morning we were made aware that the owners of Bolton Wanderers Football Club and the Bolton Whites Hotel had reneged on our contract to hold the first ‘Vote Power Not Poverty’ Rally on 26th March
I took the trouble to trace the ownership of these two entities through Radisson Group to Jin Jiang Holdings and Jin Jiang Capital to the Peoples Republic of China.
Our own govt was involved along the way in the form of pandemic grants converted to shares .
https://votepowernotpoverty.uk/statement-regarding-bolton-rally-venue/
Many Many hatey- lefty accounts tweeted with glee
eg The tweet by United Against Fascism is what ? Fascist ?
I think smearing political opponents with boo-word labels like Fascist or Nazi is an old Stalin tactic
… https://twitter.com/uaf/status/1501259164030537737
The idea that wanting much less state control of our lives is “fascist” just shows the ignorance of these people. Fascism is totalitarian. Wanting less state is the exact opposite.
Elon Musk has urged European governments to restart their dormant nuclear power stations to make up for the shortfall in energy amid surging costs stemming from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
“…restart..”
Just like that.
Let’s restart the coal power stations we sensibly mothballed just in case we ever had a problem with Russian gas…
It’s important to read the whole paper as in my opinion the executive summary is not particularly good. Prof Kelly admits he can’t deal with aviation, shipping nor agriculture. His remarks about public take-up are cogent. Why do people like Matthew Parris in The Times believe in it? So uneducated. The elephant(s) in the room are the unstoppable rise in CO2 and, oh dear, the truth that CO2 doesn’t affect the weather very much.
Reblogged this on boudica.us and commented:
H/T gds44
I like the report but it is overly vague and approximate in some areas. Such as the cost of retrofitting.
He does not take on the alarmists’ belief that wind, solar and batteries can only get cheaper as time goes on.
They claim that electricity will be about 2 cents/kWh and battery costs are plummeting.