The Telegraph- The cost of net zero is now becoming clear
Mr. Pettigrew said seven times more infrastructure will be needed by 2030 than has been built over the past 32 years. That is a colossal task and one that will impact many rural communities. Arguably, underground cables can be used but they are more expensive than pylons, which are just as unsightly to many as on-shore wind farms.
Net zero is unachievable in our lifetimes, if ever. Basic chemistry and physics (yeah, I know – climate activists don’t have clue one about actual science) is such that current and currently foreseeable future technology will not overcome the fact that energy density is what drives modern civilization. And that ain’t net zero.
If I had my druthers, the net zero a$$hats would be given the chance to offset the rest of society by becoming carbon sinks.
According to statista, the UK has 27,130 MW of installed wind power nameplate capacity, which generated 75,610,000 MWh of energy last year.
If those wind turbines ran at nameplate capacity, they would have produced 237,658,800 MWh.
Instead they only produced 32% of their nameplate, and the headcase in charge of the national grind wants to increase that by 400% in offshore wind (off shore wind represents 11,255MW of capacity), because it can be hidden from view.
Or, they could build 14 Thousand Megawatt reactors closer to where the power is needed, and save a whole bunch of steel and aluminum
Don’t pretend that you know math, chemistry or physics, Thickhead.
If you don’t understand the logistic map, then you don’t understand squat about how life uses energy.
Oh look! HiHo pretending to have more than two brain cells. Go play with your little butt buddies at Rabble.ca, child.
“We just need more renewables”…………..
UK, Sunday 19th June @ 17.30.
Demand was 30GW and our 11,091 wind turbines with a nameplate capacity of 24.6GW, were generating 5GW.
We would need to install another 66,366 turbines to deliver the demand of a pleasant, warm, Sunday afternoon in June.
But, even if we did build and install another 66,366 wind turbines, we would still need to build or maintain 40GW of nuclear, gas, oil, coal base load as the turbines would deliver 0 GW if the wind wasn’t blowing and the electricity will have to come from somewhere won’t it?
And if the output from wind turbines and solar are supplying the demand they aren’t charging up any kind of mythical ‘battery storage capacity’, so there STILL wouldn’t be any backup for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun isn’t shining.
AND, also don’t forget to add the 39 million road vehicles and 25 million homes that currently use fossil fuels for heating which will also require electricity from somewhere.
Renewables: If they makes sense to you, you are insane.
They don’t intend to build the infrastructure. They will make energy rare and expensive. An electric car (if you are permitted to own one) and a smart meter with an energy allowance based on social credit score will be an easy way to control people. Digital currency. Temporary currency. The people that want you to eat ze bugs are not stupid. They just employ people who are, like Trudeau. All Western countries are following the same script. Some are farther along the agenda, like the Netherlands, but not by much.
The Power of Zero.
Even at that, he grossly underestimates.
When the wind isn’t blowing, an infinite number of wind turbines generate zero electricity. Infinity x 0 = 0.
Not zero.
Not ever.
It’s interesting how “the issue is never the issue.” Saul Alinsky
All the calculating, emoting and scamming re. CO₂ goes on despite there being no scientific basis for believing that future “Carbon Pollution” will have a detectable effect on world temperature. As for today, if the global temperature is actually rising, why aren’t the seas rising? Granted, small level change is seen when comparing old shoreline photos to current ones but that measure is made dubious by tectonics, and then there is NASA’s satellite “accuracy” to fractions of millimeters over Earth’s restless oceans.
Wouldn’t it be reasonable to concede that Earth’s temperature will fluctuate with or without human intervention in either direction, and then go about our affairs efficiently – no Green Agenda – the better to be more wealthy and technologically capable when change does arrive? We have enough real challenges to address that we must not be distracted into wasting resources fighting Greenie chimeras.