NZW Warns Of Energy Rationing
By Paul Homewood
London: 26 March 2024
Net Zero Watch is warning that consumers are going to pay the price for the UK’s failing electricity system. The campaign group’s statement comes after Ofgem announced that it wanted to introduce a time-of-use price cap.
As renewables start to dominate the grid, prices need to rise dramatically when the wind isn’t blowing if supply and demand are to balance. But the current fixed price cap prevents this from happening, hence Ofgem’s announcement.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
This is energy rationing in all but name. It is not for the benefit of consumers, it’s papering over the cracks in the renewables-led grid.”
Since as far back as 2021, Mr Montford has been warning that smart meters would be used to ration electricity during wind lulls.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Energy rationing was always inevitable given the fact that, without reference to the voters, Parliament rushed through legislation to condemn the Nations of this Sceptred Isle to face a future dominated by Nett Zero’s obsession with zero emissions and Renewable Energy, an energy source that is both Energy intensive in its construction, but intermittent in its supply, with no economical method of storage at scale.
Suddenly it is dawning on People that Nett Zero is in reality going to decimate employment both current and future, decimate farming in the mistaken belief that People prefer a vegan diet to a diet developed over tens of thousands of years, decimate living standards as Heat and Light move from staple everyday item to luxury expensive.
Yes, the Climate Change/Crisis activists are correct, not for stating that things will change because of industrial development causing destruction of eco systems, but it will change because of Man Made Climate Policies that fail to understand that planetary temperatures have varied since the dawn of time – like Canute they are trying to turn back the incoming tide without realising that it will turn naturally and that nothing Man does will alter this.
Power is everything, not just Political but Energy, and Intermittent Power is worse than useless.
Think of everything you use in daily life – turn the tap for water, without a pumping station maintaining the pressure, nothing; flush the loo, without a pumping station moving the main sewer that has been fed by gravity, nothing moves resulting in a blockage; heat, light, water – all need power that is reliable and available 24/7/365- without it we are a third World country.
Ultimately, maybe this is what Western leaders actually mean by “levelling up”, rather than continue to improve living standards Worldwide through the development of fossil fuels and the benefits they bring, bring the First World down to the Third World, create a new system with a One World, All Equal, All at the bottom – except for the Elite who will look kindly on the new serf class just as they did before the Industrial Revolution.
You got it. I’m not sure though how many people are yet aware of the impending disaster.
Succinctly & beautifully expressed.
Bit unfair on Canute. He wasn’t tryng to stop the waves but was trying to demonstrate to his fervent followers that he could not stop the waves. Somehow this got mangled on the BBC of the time!
Correct in that Canute was demonstrating the limit of power, but a useful metaphor for showing that somethings are just natural and timeless.
We need to keep things simple if politicians are too understand them.
What’s the threshold for a legal challenge against government Net Zero policy?
National security?
‘Asking on behalf of 68 million friends’?
Material threat to UK economy?
Unfit for purpose?
At what point does someone take the government (or our entire political establishment) to task on the sheer recklessness of Net Zero?
There ought to be room for a legal challenge when it’s clear that the policy runs a high risk of material damage to the country.
Can Net Zero Watch make such a case? Could it have legal standing to either be heard in the first place, or force changes to reduce the now obvious risks?
I would just like my MP, who’s seemingly leading the UK’s ‘transport decarbonisation’ project, to see sense and not continue to be suckered by the green blob.
He says:
“I believe climate change is an undeniable scientific fact.”
“I feel it’s the single greatest challenge that faces our generation”
“Since the onset of industrialisation in the 18th century, CO2 has increased by 50%”
“CO2 absorbs sunlight then radiates in all directions causing an increase in global temperature”
“The ‘Sphinx Patch’ of snow in the Cairngorms has melted 6 times since 2017, therefore climate change”.
“I do not view net zero as a cost but an opportunity”
“I’ve been to see a company developing electric air taxies that’ll do 100mph”
Really????
He says:
“I believe climate change is an undeniable scientific fact.”
Wanna make him stammer? Ask him what ‘climate change’ means.
I have…
Sir,
Let’s get back to basics. You state “I believe climate change is an undeniable scientific fact.”, so first off, define ‘climate change’ objectively, i.e. what is measured, where and how, and state the limits above and below which ‘climate change’ is ‘fact’, and the error bars for these measurements. You see, ‘science’ is the process of objective measurement and observation, it is absolutely not a statement of belief.
Then once you have done that, objectively/measurably illustrate how breeching these limits is ‘dangerous’ to us, with what latency, where, when and over what timescale.
Next, state what the global temperature will be in 2030, 2050, etc. with the UK having spent the extra countless tens, hundreds of billions of OUR money on climate change ‘mitigation’, especially considering China’s and India’s CO2 (not carbon!) emissions totally dwarfs anything we do in the blink of an eye.
Only if you can do all these can you claim any rationality of your position.
Your ‘transport decarbonisation’ brief and indeed the whole Net Zero agenda is utterly futile?
At what point does someone take the government (or our entire political establishment) to task
A costly and possibly pointless judicial review of the various irrational and unfair processes which have been created by the Climate Change Act might be a possibility, but it would be a quagmire.
Some parts of the medjia should be crawling all over the cost of net-zero and the lack of proof of CAGW, but they need prodding.
And we hear today that 4 million customers have smart meters that are faulty.
teaef: in addition to faulty meters there are, if I understand correctly, many millions more using the 2G/3G networks to communicate. Those networks are due to be switched off in the near future to free up bandwidth for other uses. Apparently it is impractical and/or too expensive to upgrade the affected meters so they will have to be replaced.
And there are folks like me, who have smart meters, but who changed suppliers – weren’t we all supposed to exercise our rights to competitive supply at one point? They were at my house when I bought it, it being only a few years old.
As they are SMETS1 meters they work just fine, but only the original supplier could ever do anything remotely, so I’m obliged to read them occasionally – no hardship. I suppose they are counted as faulty. Who on earth thought that a design that could not move between suppliers, and that used a mobile technology already slated for closure was in any way sensible?
The only other hardship is fending off the incessant calls/emails/letters telling me about the wonderful opportunity to upgrade to SMETS2, which I was obviously thinking about but couldn’t work out how to do. No thanks.