"The election of Joe Biden as president of the US could reduce global heating by about 0.1C, bringing the goals of the Paris agreement “within striking distance”, if his plans are fulfilled, according to a detailed analysis.

Biden’s policy of a target to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and plans for a $1.7tn investment in a green recovery from the Covid crisis, would reduce US emissions in the next 30 years by about 75 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide or its equivalents. Calculations by the Climate Action Tracker show that this reduction would be enough to avoid a temperature rise of about 0.1C by 2100."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/joe-biden-paris-climate-goals-0-1c

$1.7 trillion for 0.1C? Just imagine if he really meant it and used 3 times that investment. ::)

lee wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 1:27pm:

$1.7 trillion for 0.1C? Just imagine if he really meant it and used 3 times that investment. ::)

Then you'd get your first erection for a decade?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 1:33pm:

Then you'd get your first erection for a decade?

No petal. You? ;)

lee wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 2:00pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 1:33pm: Then you'd get your first erection for a decade? No petal. You? ;)

Not really, increased environmental spending interests me from an intellectual point of view.

Lets hope Biden goes this direction,

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/nuclear-energy-policy-represents-a-bipartisan-path-forward-on-climate-for-the-biden-administration/

Gordon wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 2:09pm:

Lets hope Biden goes this direction, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/nuclear-energy-policy-represents-a-bipartisan-path-forward-on-climate-for-the-biden-administration/

As long as its factually based not fussed which way he goes to be honest,

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 2:02pm:

Not really, increased environmental spending interests me from an intellectual point of view.

"Green" spending is not sustainable environmentally.

"We need a rapid transition to renewables, yes—but scientists warn that we can’t keep growing energy use at existing rates. No energy is innocent. The only truly clean energy is less energy.

In 2017, the World Bank released a little-noticed report that offered the first comprehensive look at this question. It models the increase in material extraction that would be required to build enough solar and wind utilities to produce an annual output of about 7 terawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s enough to power roughly half of the global economy. By doubling the World Bank figures, we can estimate what it will take to get all the way to zero emissions—and the results are staggering: 34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.

In some cases, the transition to renewables will require a massive increase over existing levels of extraction. For neodymium — an essential element in wind turbines — extraction will need to rise by nearly 35 percent over current levels. Higher-end estimates reported by the World Bank suggest it could double.

The same is true of silver, which is critical to solar panels. Silver extraction will go up 38 percent and perhaps as much as 105 percent. Demand for indium, also essential to solar technology, will more than triple and could end up skyrocketing by 920 percent.

And then there are all the batteries we’re going to need for power storage. To keep energy flowing when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing will require enormous batteries at the grid level. This means 40 million tons of lithium—an eye-watering 2,700 percent increase over current levels of extraction."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/06/the-path-to-clean-energy-will-be-very-dirty-climate-change-renewables/

That round peg in a square hole again Lee?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 2:22pm:

That round peg in a square hole again Lee?

If that's the way you want to put it. You tell us what those extraction figures would do for the environment. ;)

lee wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 1:27pm:

"The election of Joe Biden as president of the US could reduce global heating by about 0.1C, bringing the goals of the Paris agreement “within striking distance”, if his plans are fulfilled, according to a detailed analysis. Biden’s policy of a target to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and plans for a $1.7tn investment in a green recovery from the Covid crisis, would reduce US emissions in the next 30 years by about 75 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide or its equivalents. Calculations by the Climate Action Tracker show that this reduction would be enough to avoid a temperature rise of about 0.1C by 2100." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/joe-biden-paris-climate-goals-0-1c $1.7 trillion for 0.1C? Just imagine if he really meant it and used 3 times that investment. ::)

Wow Joe will bleed the US.

The oligarchy will be rubbing there hands as they extend them to good old Joe, thank you very much.

Does this mean to get it to under 2°C we would have to spend 20 times more money, $1.7 trillion for every 0.1C.

If the sun develops a black hole that farts directly on the Earth warming her up well there goes 1.7 trillion down the toilet as natural eclipses manmade CO2.

Its madness I wonder what future generations will think of us, imo they will think we were very very stupid people.

lee wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 2:21pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 2:02pm: Not really, increased environmental spending interests me from an intellectual point of view. "Green" spending is not sustainable environmentally. "We need a rapid transition to renewables, yes—but scientists warn that we can’t keep growing energy use at existing rates. No energy is innocent. The only truly clean energy is less energy. In 2017, the World Bank released a little-noticed report that offered the first comprehensive look at this question. It models the increase in material extraction that would be required to build enough solar and wind utilities to produce an annual output of about 7 terawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s enough to power roughly half of the global economy. By doubling the World Bank figures, we can estimate what it will take to get all the way to zero emissions—and the results are staggering: 34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron. In some cases, the transition to renewables will require a massive increase over existing levels of extraction. For neodymium — an essential element in wind turbines — extraction will need to rise by nearly 35 percent over current levels. Higher-end estimates reported by the World Bank suggest it could double. The same is true of silver, which is critical to solar panels. Silver extraction will go up 38 percent and perhaps as much as 105 percent. Demand for indium, also essential to solar technology, will more than triple and could end up skyrocketing by 920 percent. And then there are all the batteries we’re going to need for power storage. To keep energy flowing when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing will require enormous batteries at the grid level. This means 40 million tons of lithium—an eye-watering 2,700 percent increase over current levels of extraction." https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/06/the-path-to-clean-energy-will-be-very-dirty-climate-change-renewables/

All these extra minerals that need to be mined how much manmade CO2 will they generate....???

What about the wind farms they are manmade climate change.

So who do we blame when the wind farms change jet stream, these changes will then flow on to our weather and then climate. How much will that cost to fix.

But of course the alarmists will not say any such thing.

Will anything grow around solar panel farms and battery storage depots.

IMHO we are going to destroy the Earth trying to save her.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 2:02pm:

lee wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 2:00pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 1:33pm: Then you'd get your first erection for a decade? No petal. You? ;) Not really, increased environmental spending interests me from an intellectual point of view.

Government around the world spent $70 billion on green investment and subsidies.

No wonder the oligarchy love green energy.... :D

Government burn $70 billion a year subsidizing renewables, and wild claims of “fossil fuel subsidies” debunked

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/government-burn-70-billion-a-year-subsidizing-renewables-and-wild-claims-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-debunked/

Ajax wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:07pm:

Australian government spent $70 billion on green investment and subsidies.

Reference?

https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reach-5-2-trillion-and-29-billion-in-australia-91592/#:~:text=Pumped%20Hydro-,Global%20fossil%20fuel%20subsidies%20reach%20%245.2%20trillion%2C%20and%20%2429%20billion,a%20total%20of%20%2429%20billion.

Ajax wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:07pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 2:02pm: lee wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 2:00pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 1:33pm: Then you'd get your first erection for a decade? No petal. You? ;) Not really, increased environmental spending interests me from an intellectual point of view. Australian government spent $70 billion on green investment and subsidies. No wonder the oligarchy love green energy.... :D Government burn $70 billion a year subsidizing renewables, and wild claims of “fossil fuel subsidies” debunked http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/government-burn-70-billion-a-year-subsidizing-renewables-and-wild-claims-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-debunked/

ONe of these days we need a chat about how to assess a reference.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:09pm:

Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:07pm: Australian government spent $70 billion on green investment and subsidies. Reference? https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reach-5-2-trillion-and-29-billion-in-australia-91592/#:~:text=Pumped%20Hydro-,Global%20fossil%20fuel%20subsidies%20reach%20%245.2%20trillion%2C%20and%20%2429%20billion,a%20total%20of%20%2429%20billion.

I'm not for any subsidizing whether its fossil fuel or green energy.

You wan to create a business and make profits fine, but don't expect tax payer dollars to back you up.

Ajax wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:12pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:09pm: Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:07pm: Australian government spent $70 billion on green investment and subsidies. Reference? https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reach-5-2-trillion-and-29-billion-in-australia-91592/#:~:text=Pumped%20Hydro-,Global%20fossil%20fuel%20subsidies%20reach%20%245.2%20trillion%2C%20and%20%2429%20billion,a%20total%20of%20%2429%20billion. I'm not for any subsidizing whether its fossil fuel or green energy. You wan to create a business and make profits fine, but don't expect tax payer dollars to back you up.

Interseting how this only manifests in throwing out drivel about renewable subsidies and keeping silent on the coal ones.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:10pm:

Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:07pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 2:02pm: lee wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 2:00pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 1:33pm: Then you'd get your first erection for a decade? No petal. You? ;) Not really, increased environmental spending interests me from an intellectual point of view. Australian government spent $70 billion on green investment and subsidies. No wonder the oligarchy love green energy.... :D Government burn $70 billion a year subsidizing renewables, and wild claims of “fossil fuel subsidies” debunked http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/government-burn-70-billion-a-year-subsidizing-renewables-and-wild-claims-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-debunked/ ONe of these days we need a chat about how to assess a reference.

My mistake that was not only Australia but the whole world.

Jonova is a reliable source.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:14pm:

Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:12pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:09pm: Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:07pm: Australian government spent $70 billion on green investment and subsidies. Reference? https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reach-5-2-trillion-and-29-billion-in-australia-91592/#:~:text=Pumped%20Hydro-,Global%20fossil%20fuel%20subsidies%20reach%20%245.2%20trillion%2C%20and%20%2429%20billion,a%20total%20of%20%2429%20billion. I'm not for any subsidizing whether its fossil fuel or green energy. You wan to create a business and make profits fine, but don't expect tax payer dollars to back you up. Interseting how this only manifests in throwing out drivel about renewable subsidies and keeping silent on the coal ones.

Did you not read what I wrote.

further down same reference


Quote:

[UNCTAD] “ “Green government procurement will also be essential in the early stages of a transition to a green economy. In 2009, global green stimulus spending reached $200 billion.”

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/government-burn-70-billion-a-year-subsidizing-renewables-and-wild-claims-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-debunked/

Either way if fossil fuel subsidies are a honey pot.

Then green energy subsidies are jam and marmalade.

The oligarchy can happily digest both.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:09pm:

https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reach-5-2-trillion-and-...

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The IMF? ;D ;D ;D ;D The study that  used depreciation as a subsidy? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You know those "subsidies" that Wind Generators and Solar farms get? ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:27pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:09pm: https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reach-5-2-trillion-and-... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D The IMF? ;D ;D ;D ;D The study that  used depreciation as a subsidy? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You know those "subsidies" that Wind Generators and Solar farms get? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Indeed.

The IMF’s Huge Miscalculation of Energy Subsidies

"Criticizing countries like India and China (or Kiribati) for the $424 billion spent on real subsidies is unlikely to attract the attention of rich world elites. To implicate developed country governments and create outrage, the IMF adds everything that they believe should be included in the cost of fossil fuels, and say that by not including these costs in the price of fuel, countries are “subsidizing” fossil fuels. "

"So what’s included in this outsized re-definition? First, the IMF comes up with a price-tag of $2.3 trillion for air pollution. Burning coal is incredibly polluting, so the IMF claims coal is subsidized because it doesn’t pay for all the air pollution it causes. "

"The IMF calculates that China’s coal air pollution costs $720 billion per year. This is a vast exaggeration: two recent studies show China’s total air pollution costs $27-38 billion, or one-twentieth as much. And this is the cost for all air pollution, with another study showing less than half can be blamed on coal. So, the IMF has claimed that coal air pollution is 40 times costlier than it is, and then mislabeled this as a “subsidy”.

Next, the IMF claims that gasoline and diesel-driven cars cause a huge amount of congestion and traffic accidents. Sure they do – but so do electric vehicles. This is an argument for congestion charges and better road design, safety measures and speed limit enforcement.  The absurdity is revealed when we realize that according to this logic, governments could reduce their fossil fuel “subsidies” by building more roads.

The authors go on to claim that every nation should implement a consistent VAT across all products. Because they don’t, the IMF counts “missing” VAT in countries like the USA as a subsidy. Not only is this an even more bizarre definition of “subsidy”, but it suggests the IMF’s political views on taxation should overrule the decisions of democratically elected governments.

Finally, the authors claim there’s a whopping cost of more than $1.3 trillion from global warming. They are correct that climate change has a real cost and should be included in the price of fossil fuels. That doesn’t make it a subsidy though – and it’s very odd they use a carbon tax more than five-times higher than the best estimate for the real world.

In trying to give grist to environmental campaigners in the West, the IMF’s politically motivated report distracts from the important issue of encouraging the world to dismantle the $424 billion left in fossil fuel subsidies. It might not generate as many headlines, but the IMF should be in the business of careful and sensible economics."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornlomborg/2020/01/17/the-imfs-huge-miscalculation-of-energy-subsidies/?sh=167d0a7d4b42

lee wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:37pm:

The IMF’s Huge Miscalculation of Energy Subsidies "Criticizing countries like India and China (or Kiribati) for the $424 billion spent on real subsidies is unlikely to attract the attention of rich world elites. To implicate developed country governments and create outrage, the IMF adds everything that they believe should be included in the cost of fossil fuels, and say that by not including these costs in the price of fuel, countries are “subsidizing” fossil fuels. " "So what’s included in this outsized re-definition? First, the IMF comes up with a price-tag of $2.3 trillion for air pollution. Burning coal is incredibly polluting, so the IMF claims coal is subsidized because it doesn’t pay for all the air pollution it causes. " "The IMF calculates that China’s coal air pollution costs $720 billion per year. This is a vast exaggeration: two recent studies show China’s total air pollution costs $27-38 billion, or one-twentieth as much. And this is the cost for all air pollution, with another study showing less than half can be blamed on coal. So, the IMF has claimed that coal air pollution is 40 times costlier than it is, and then mislabeled this as a “subsidy”. Next, the IMF claims that gasoline and diesel-driven cars cause a huge amount of congestion and traffic accidents. Sure they do – but so do electric vehicles. This is an argument for congestion charges and better road design, safety measures and speed limit enforcement.  The absurdity is revealed when we realize that according to this logic, governments could reduce their fossil fuel “subsidies” by building more roads. The authors go on to claim that every nation should implement a consistent VAT across all products. Because they don’t, the IMF counts “missing” VAT in countries like the USA as a subsidy. Not only is this an even more bizarre definition of “subsidy”, but it suggests the IMF’s political views on taxation should overrule the decisions of democratically elected governments. Finally, the authors claim there’s a whopping cost of more than $1.3 trillion from global warming. They are correct that climate change has a real cost and should be included in the price of fossil fuels. That doesn’t make it a subsidy though – and it’s very odd they use a carbon tax more than five-times higher than the best estimate for the real world. In trying to give grist to environmental campaigners in the West, the IMF’s politically motivated report distracts from the important issue of encouraging the world to dismantle the $424 billion left in fossil fuel subsidies. It might not generate as many headlines, but the IMF should be in the business of careful and sensible economics." https://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornlomborg/2020/01/17/the-imfs-huge-miscalculation-of-energy-subsidies/?sh=167d0a7d4b42

GOLD............ 8-)

The IMF, the World Bank and the United Nations all ruled and governed by the olicarchy.

Ajax wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:44pm:

lee wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:37pm: The IMF’s Huge Miscalculation of Energy Subsidies "Criticizing countries like India and China (or Kiribati) for the $424 billion spent on real subsidies is unlikely to attract the attention of rich world elites. To implicate developed country governments and create outrage, the IMF adds everything that they believe should be included in the cost of fossil fuels, and say that by not including these costs in the price of fuel, countries are “subsidizing” fossil fuels. " "So what’s included in this outsized re-definition? First, the IMF comes up with a price-tag of $2.3 trillion for air pollution. Burning coal is incredibly polluting, so the IMF claims coal is subsidized because it doesn’t pay for all the air pollution it causes. " "The IMF calculates that China’s coal air pollution costs $720 billion per year. This is a vast exaggeration: two recent studies show China’s total air pollution costs $27-38 billion, or one-twentieth as much. And this is the cost for all air pollution, with another study showing less than half can be blamed on coal. So, the IMF has claimed that coal air pollution is 40 times costlier than it is, and then mislabeled this as a “subsidy”. Next, the IMF claims that gasoline and diesel-driven cars cause a huge amount of congestion and traffic accidents. Sure they do – but so do electric vehicles. This is an argument for congestion charges and better road design, safety measures and speed limit enforcement.  The absurdity is revealed when we realize that according to this logic, governments could reduce their fossil fuel “subsidies” by building more roads. The authors go on to claim that every nation should implement a consistent VAT across all products. Because they don’t, the IMF counts “missing” VAT in countries like the USA as a subsidy. Not only is this an even more bizarre definition of “subsidy”, but it suggests the IMF’s political views on taxation should overrule the decisions of democratically elected governments. Finally, the authors claim there’s a whopping cost of more than $1.3 trillion from global warming. They are correct that climate change has a real cost and should be included in the price of fossil fuels. That doesn’t make it a subsidy though – and it’s very odd they use a carbon tax more than five-times higher than the best estimate for the real world. In trying to give grist to environmental campaigners in the West, the IMF’s politically motivated report distracts from the important issue of encouraging the world to dismantle the $424 billion left in fossil fuel subsidies. It might not generate as many headlines, but the IMF should be in the business of careful and sensible economics." https://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornlomborg/2020/01/17/the-imfs-huge-miscalculation-of-energy-subsidies/?sh=167d0a7d4b42 GOLD............ 8-) The IMF, the World Bank and the United Nations all ruled and governed by the olicarchy.

GO on say it, you know you want to.


Agen.....one.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:48pm:

GO on say it, you know you want to. Agen.....one.

If you're smirking the jokes on you... ;) :)

Ajax wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:55pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:48pm: GO on say it, you know you want to. Agen.....one. If you're smirking the jokes on you... ;) :)

Who's smirking, I'm scared of your types.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:56pm:

Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:55pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:48pm: GO on say it, you know you want to. Agen.....one. If you're smirking the jokes on you... ;) :) Who's smirking, I'm scared of your types.

And what type might that be dear........ ::)

Ajax wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:59pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:56pm: Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:55pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:48pm: GO on say it, you know you want to. Agen.....one. If you're smirking the jokes on you... ;) :) Who's smirking, I'm scared of your types. And what type might that be dear........ ::)

QAnon/SovCit/Cters.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 4:01pm:

Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:59pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:56pm: Ajax wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:55pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9th, 2020 at 3:48pm: GO on say it, you know you want to. Agen.....one. If you're smirking the jokes on you... ;) :) Who's smirking, I'm scared of your types. And what type might that be dear........ ::) QAnon/SovCit/Cters.

Conspiracy theorist that's the best you got.

Meanwhile in England -

"London, 6 November: The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) is today calling on MPs to start an urgent inquiry into the economic and national security implications of the growing fragility of the UK electricity system.

For two days running, (4th and 5th November), National Grid, UK’s Electricity System Operator has issued System Warnings in the form of an Electricity Margin Notice, alerting the markets to a reduced system margin. In large part this is due to low levels of wind power as a result of a very large high pressure system that covers the whole of the UK, bringing the first frosts of the winter.

At peak load on the 4th of November the UK’s entire transmission connected wind fleet of 18,000 MW in capacity was providing a mere 17% of its possible output (3,000 MW).

The last of the UK’s remaining coal plants stepped in and provided over 2,264 MW of generation, alongside other conventional forms of generation. For a government that claims to be “Powering Past Coal” this is deeply embarrassing.

The UK’s electricity sector is now so fragile that a normal weather event causes it to wilt like a hothouse plant left out in the frost, and the prospects for the future are deeply troubling.

Much of the conventional capacity that has been stabilising the system in the last two days, particularly coal, is scheduled for rapid closure in the drive towards Net Zero. This hasty policy has long looked overambitious, it now appears dangerous as well as ruinously expensive.

The government has become a hostage to renewables industry lobbyists, inside and outside Westminster, and will not spontaneously initiate an inquiry into the threat to energy and national security or admit failure. The GWPF is calling for MPs to initiate their own investigation of the perilous state of the United Kingdom’s electricity system."

https://www.thegwpf.com/gwpf-calls-for-urgent-inquiry-into-rising-blackout-risk-threatening-national-security/

The rush to renewables. ::)

lee wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 5:43pm:

Meanwhile in England - "London, 6 November: The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) is today calling on MPs to start an urgent inquiry into the economic and national security implications of the growing fragility of the UK electricity system. For two days running, (4th and 5th November), National Grid, UK’s Electricity System Operator has issued System Warnings in the form of an Electricity Margin Notice, alerting the markets to a reduced system margin. In large part this is due to low levels of wind power as a result of a very large high pressure system that covers the whole of the UK, bringing the first frosts of the winter. At peak load on the 4th of November the UK’s entire transmission connected wind fleet of 18,000 MW in capacity was providing a mere 17% of its possible output (3,000 MW). The last of the UK’s remaining coal plants stepped in and provided over 2,264 MW of generation, alongside other conventional forms of generation. For a government that claims to be “Powering Past Coal” this is deeply embarrassing. The UK’s electricity sector is now so fragile that a normal weather event causes it to wilt like a hothouse plant left out in the frost, and the prospects for the future are deeply troubling. Much of the conventional capacity that has been stabilising the system in the last two days, particularly coal, is scheduled for rapid closure in the drive towards Net Zero. This hasty policy has long looked overambitious, it now appears dangerous as well as ruinously expensive. The government has become a hostage to renewables industry lobbyists, inside and outside Westminster, and will not spontaneously initiate an inquiry into the threat to energy and national security or admit failure. The GWPF is calling for MPs to initiate their own investigation of the perilous state of the United Kingdom’s electricity system." https://www.thegwpf.com/gwpf-calls-for-urgent-inquiry-into-rising-blackout-risk-threatening-national-security/ The rush to renewables. ::)

I'm willing to bet that these very same people that are in favour of green energy will jump the highest when at night the electricity is turned of so essential services can keep function.

And we may end up having certain hours of the day where the electricity is guaranteed after that take your chances and you better save every 5 minutes.

There are always pros and cons for any system of energy.

Problem is the greenies only think about the pros and not the cons.

Do you think Greta will take 3 hours a day and none at night of internet access lying down...LOL

That's where we're headed with green energy.