"Green" policies are destroying this country

Nowhere near as polluting as fossil fuel vehicles.

If there are going to be millions of new vehicles manufactured every year, it's much better if they're BEVs

And the Power stations all have a fixed life span, so if we're going to be building new power infrastructure anyway, it's much better to build renewable compatible infrastructure for a 21st century clean energy system.

Don't often agree with Ming, but today I do

I thought it was illegal to talk about nuclear energy? Why is it included if we aren't allowed to have any?

Yeah I know and fuckin said we're on different pages. Christ ya just move on or hit the thanks button to acknowledge instead of acting a knob

Plus I'm still right on my page. Solar is more expensive now than 2 years ago for domestic roof top installations

Its actually a good pr trick, calling industrial generation sites 'farms' makes them sound more green and less intrusive. Solar farms, wind farms, smell of roses and have no negative visual impacts.

I'll have whatever you're having, seems to be good stuff.

There's so much wrong here but let's get the large elephant in the room out of the way first. Those very rare occasions you mention are infact the majority of the time.

Let's start with Solar in this lovely northern European country. It's prettyuch useless from September to March and has a capacity factor of about 12%. Meaning we need to be ready to supplement it the remaining 88% of the time.

Then we have wind, which has a (and let's be generous here) 35% capacity factor for onshore and maybe 45% for offshore. Again, we have to supplement it at best 55% of the year.

Ah, and before you say long term storage, let's look at those numbers. Green H2 requires about 4MW of energy to create 1MW of H2. So a 4:1 round trip before you even use it to generate a single watt. Even the best CCGTs are approx 45/46% before derating for H2, so we are in the realms of absolutely brutal energy efficiency and need to pay for the thermal plants anyway as renewables haven't cracked the capacity factor problem yet.

That's before we even look at how God awful solar and wind when it comes to land efficiency. Solar is around 2.5/3 acres per MW and wind takes up vast tracks of land or sea to avoid spillover from the blades.

My prediction is that by 2030 we'll have made good progress in reducing emissions but there'll be a sea change in public opinion as energy bills will continue to climb because of the vast infrastructure upgrades required to make any of this NetZero insanity anywhere near achievable.

That's before you factor in technical issues such as lower inertia to mitigate frequency excursions, ramping uncertainty, lower short circuit levels for protection relays, etc.

But the cost is the real elephant in the room. If all this supposed offshore materialises (most probably won't given recent signals from the sector), we'll be paying for oversupply that's spilled along with the energy generated on the windy days, then paying huge capacity premiums for thermal backups for those calm winter days. Not exactly bang for buck.

You'd do well to design a more inefficient and unreliable system. If it wasn't all cloaked in the NetZero zealotry, you'd genuinely laugh at it because it's so bad.

The bill for all this insanity is just beginning to be felt and we haven't even got past the starters on the menu. Wait till the real bill for the main meal comes along and a lot of people in Europe are going to realise what a pup they've been sold.

And not before time.

Makes you wonder why this wasn`t announce at the same time as the proposal on fosil fuels.

You don`t think by any chance somebody in government asked Ryan what the fcuk he thought he was playing at when the were not do you 😎

This is the thing, with cost of living and reductions in disposable income, the people who could afford to retro fit their houses have done so, same with ev's. The people who could justify it have bought them, its going to take longer to get others to follow, blood from a stone springs to mind. Yes some will upgrade but many simply can't afford to buy a new ev, and the secondhand market is a risky move imo.

Sure, it's usually determined over the course of a year.

Whenever you have a conversation/debate with a true Green Agenda believer you enter the realm of religion with dogma and subsequential blindness. Plus, the average person will just believe what is in the news. When you focus on equations/variables etc it takes too much energy to contemplate so most wont. It used to and still does amaze me how ignorant people are, or at least naive because the truth is out there and easy to find. But, green invested/infested institutions will just ramp up the propaganda warning people NOT to investigate under the banners mis-des and malinformation using the usual tactics of calling 'right wing' 'fake news' etc. Ministry of Truth kinda thing..

Well, bang for your buck would be a reliable, efficient and affordable electricity base load. That won't be solar or wind. The Greens have it the wrong way round. Put liquid (green or otherwise) nitrogen (or even hydrogen for that matter) in the mix and it still won't work. Start w natural (or liquified) gas and oil and add nuclear, then add wind and solar on top and see how everything actually functions in terms of variables including grid systems. Over time, and let technology develop. But no, they say we all HAVE to transit to an unreliable, inefficient and expensive system in the shortest period of time. Pity for them that the cracks have appeared already. If you think the whole mica thing was bad you just have another (more structural-system based) thing coming. However, there are enough 3 monkees (some with deep pockets) around to keep it going for a while longer..

How's your convincing of your family to become PAYE workers going?

Are you ever going to tell us how that helps the environment? Or improves anything in society?

You've been very quiet all week, I wonder if this article had anything to do with it:

https://archive.ph/7QDbQ

It seems to contradict everything you've been saying. More curiously, it also seems to have facts and figures to support it's argument rather than random regional rags from New Zealand or blogs from New York student magazines that you love linking to. That's before we get into the selective picking on a particular farmers family enterprise, honing in on just 2 years of profits (with no actual values) but ignoring 5 years of losses averaging 40k.