Winter’s Risks Increased by Irrational Energy Policies

By Vijay Jayaraj

Spare a thought for millions who will be living through an uncertain winter due to unaffordable heating prices. The situation is worse this year because of the energy crisis in Europe, where fuel is scarce and expensive. In the U.S., a bomb cyclone that suddenly chilled much of the country sent power demand soaring and disrupted supplies to consumers.

Being a species born in the tropics, humans are prone to greater morbidity and mortality in winter. People exposed to cold conditions have a “higher risk of stroke, respiratory infection and other injuries” due to reduced strength and dexterity in low temperatures. Whether the threat is a flu infection or a fall, the risk is generally greater in the more challenging environment of cold weather.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Death rates in winter months have been eight to 12 percent higher than in non-winter months.” It adds that “even moderately cold days can increase the risk of death for many people.”

The dangers of winter temperatures are not unique to temperate regions. Even subtropical people are susceptible. According to a study published by PLOS ONE, the subtropical Chinese city of Guangzhou “showed a clear seasonal pattern in mortality, with a sharper spike in winter.”

The heating of homes and other buildings is what reduces winter risks. However, access to heating is not uniform across the world. In underdeveloped regions, the primary method of heating is to light a fire using wood, dried animal dung or some flammable waste available in the vicinity. People often forage for days looking for wood.

In more developed economies of the West, most people use gas or electricity-based heaters, which are more reliable, clean and convenient than open-flame heating. According to a recent survey in the U.S., 48 percent of people prefer to use gas. Electricity is preferred by 38 percent. Fuel oil and kerosene are the third most common source of heat.

So, it is unsurprising that a high cost of gas and electricity leads people in developed economies to cut back on winter heating. In New Zealand, fuel poverty is reported to be a contributing factor to the country’s high rate of excess winter mortality and hospitalizations. According to a European Parliament report, “In 2020, about 36 million Europeans were unable to keep their homes adequately warm.”

Commenting on the sharp spike in the UK’s power prices in 2022, analyst Peter Matejic says, “It is impossible to think a care worker or a shop assistant will have to scramble to find hundreds more pounds to pay for their heating or that the entirety of someone’s income for a whole year will be less than their energy bill.”

The UK’s National Health Service, the second largest publicly funded healthcare system in the world, has issued a stark warning about increasing energy prices.

“The country is facing a humanitarian crisis,” NHS‘s confederation chief executive said. “Many people could face the awful choice between skipping meals to heat their homes and having to live in cold, damp and very unpleasant conditions. This in turn could lead to outbreaks of illness and sickness around the country and widen health inequalities, worsen children’s life chances and leave an indelible scar on local communities.”

In the U.S., a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “a lower heating price reduces winter mortality, driven mostly by cardiovascular and respiratory causes.”

In other words, winter mortality drops with the price of heating, and vice versa. Usually, this unaffordability of heating occurs when there is an overall slowdown in economic growth, resulting in lower purchasing power among consumers.

However, the current heating crisis is a direct consequence of “green” policies that have pushed up the price of energy in developed economies. An irrational insistence to transition to wind and solar has increased prices and reduced reliability of energy suppliesBlackouts like ones experienced by millions over the Christmas weekend are a serious threat to lives.

Policy makers ignore these realities at the risk of losing the public’s trust. Consumers who once casually put their lives in the hands of large utilities have reason to feel less secure.

This commentary was first published at Real Clear Energy, December 28, 2022, and can be accessed here.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, UK and resides in India.

5 25 votes
Article Rating
66 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
December 31, 2022 6:14 am

The real tragedy is that the people responsible for this energy disaster won’t be the ones freezing to death.

Curious George
Reply to  Ron Long
December 31, 2022 8:18 am

Mr Putin will be happy to supply all missing natural gas 🙂

Hivemind
Reply to  Curious George
December 31, 2022 9:15 pm

It isn’t Putin, its the toxic green conspiracy.

David Wojick
December 31, 2022 6:22 am

Here is another piece of the problem:
https://www.cfact.org/2022/12/30/blackouts-for-christmas-a-sick-grid-gift/

The growing anger may be useful.

Scissor
Reply to  David Wojick
December 31, 2022 6:50 am

Who would have thought that replacing reliable power with unreliable power makes the system unreliable?

strativarius
Reply to  Scissor
December 31, 2022 6:59 am

Ed Miliband doesn’t. He could be a minister before long….

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
Tony_G
Reply to  Scissor
December 31, 2022 8:08 am

Who would have thought

The problem is that many still aren’t thinking that – they think more unreliable power and less reliable power is better. And those are the ones in charge of policy.

David Wojick
Reply to  Tony_G
December 31, 2022 8:55 am

True but the anger is mounting. Even FERC now admits that renewables are causing unreliability.
See https://www.cfact.org/2022/12/27/ferc-considers-constraining-renewables/

Tides do turn.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  David Wojick
December 31, 2022 9:49 am

Tides do turn.”

Until some purple-haired, nose-ringed, privileged, brat screams racism.

strativarius
December 31, 2022 6:37 am

“even moderately cold days can increase the risk of death for many people.”

But the focus of attention has always been on proving heat kills, not cold. So, this comes across as further glimpses of the bleedin’ obvious to most sceptics, I’m sure.

In a truly warming world, by definition it cannot get colder – not without some amazing mental gymnastics.

Richard Greene
Reply to  strativarius
December 31, 2022 9:03 am

Sure it can.
Antarctica is getting colder as the world (average) temperature is getting warmer.

That’s actually a pattern of greenhouse warming.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
strativarius
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 31, 2022 9:06 am

Bolleaux, dear boy

A warming world, not selected bits to suit you

You are Olga Korbut and I claim the tenner…

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
MarkW
Reply to  strativarius
December 31, 2022 9:54 am

Climate/weather is complex.
If slightly warmer temperatures cause wind patterns to shift, then it is trivial for some places to get colder.

Richard Greene
Reply to  MarkW
December 31, 2022 11:45 am

There are many climate change variables that are global, regional and local. The net result of all variables can be colder in one place, and warmer elsewhere.

If the average change is warmer, we are said to have global warming.

There is always global warming or global cooling so we should be thrilled we live in a global warming trend during an interglacial. That’s te best climate this planet has to offer humans and animals. C3 plants (90%) would prefer more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Richard Greene
Reply to  strativarius
December 31, 2022 11:38 am

Those are facts based on theory and measurements. … And what does Olga Korbut have to do with Antarctica? I think you have flipped the Korbut Flip. Go play your violin!

“Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide actually cools part of Antarctica

Local weather conditions, altitude to blame for counterintuitive trend

comment imageNASA

In a world where most regions are warming because of increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), central Antarctica has been cooling slightly in recent years. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 typically trap heat radiated back toward space from the planet’s surface, but large swaths of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (the broad pink mass on the right side of the image) are, on average, actually colder than the upper layers of the atmosphere for much of the year—the only place on Earth where that’s true. When the team looked at the overall balance between the radiation upward from the surface of the ice sheet and the radiation both upward and downward from the upper levels of the atmosphere across all infrared wavelengths over the course of a year, they found that in central Antarctica the surface and lower atmosphere, against expectation, actually lose more energy to space if the air contains greenhouse gases, the researchers report online and in a forthcoming Geophysical Research Letters. And adding more CO2 to the atmosphere in the short-term triggered even more energy loss from the surface and lower atmosphere there, the team’s climate simulations suggest. The topsy-turvy temperature trend stems, in part, from the region’s high elevation; much of the surface of the ice sheet smothering East Antarctica lies above an elevation of 3000 meters, so it is much colder than it would be at lower altitudes. Moreover, that region often experiences what meteorologists call a temperature inversion, where temperatures in the lowest levels of the atmosphere are cooler than those higher up. For the lower-altitude fringes of the icy continent, and for the rest of the world (even Siberia and Greenland), the greenhouse effect still works as expected.”

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
strativarius
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 31, 2022 12:53 pm

A theory is not a fact, especially where the climate is concerned

I said a warmer world, Olga

Richard Greene
Reply to  strativarius
December 31, 2022 1:29 pm

There are measurements of Antarctica temperature that show no overall warming since the 1970s. That is a fact.

There is some local warming here and there from underseas volcanoes near ice shelfs and some local warming of the tiny peninsula from underseas volcanoes and some tide shifts.

Those local areas warming in Antarctica are offset by global cooling elsewhere.

The net result is no warming of the continent.

The opposite of the Arctic.

You can deny reality in Antarctica,but reality is smarter than you will ever be — so is my cat.

rah
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 31, 2022 4:27 pm

The all powerful miracle molecule is capable of anything in the eyes of the true believers.

ATheoK
Reply to  rah
January 1, 2023 10:01 pm

RG is propagandizing Antarctica falsely through sophistry.

The net result is no warming of the continent.”

That’s because Antarctica has been cooling for decades.
And no, not a single model predicts that cooling.

Warmista opinions are offered claiming specious facts about Antarctica, they’re not facts.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 31, 2022 9:50 am

world (average) temperature”

Physically meaningless.

doonman
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 31, 2022 11:22 am

If you stand in a bucket of liquid Nitrogen while sticking your head in a 400 Deg F oven, your average temperature is a balmy 80 deg F, no different than a day at the beach.

Richard Greene
Reply to  doonman
December 31, 2022 11:47 am

A stupid example unrelated to global average temperature anomalies.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 31, 2022 2:44 pm

Always enjoyed “The Adventures of Robin Hood” when I was a kid. Surprised you’re still around.

Hivemind
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 31, 2022 9:24 pm

The use of the scary word ‘anomalies’, instead of the correct word ‘differences’ shows how political the whole warmist debate is.

ATheoK
Reply to  Hivemind
January 1, 2023 10:04 pm

Differences (anomalies) that are meaningless unless the full set of error bounds are also stated. A range of error possibilities plus/minus several degrees Celsius.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 31, 2022 11:46 am

It’s a statistic not a temperature that anyone lives in
Very meaningful to determine cooling or warming trends … otherwise you’d have to flip a coin and would be wrong 50% of the time.

AndyHce
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 31, 2022 12:04 pm

nah, heat is just getting sucked out of Antarctica and distributed elsewhere.

Richard Greene
Reply to  AndyHce
December 31, 2022 1:30 pm

Antarctica has g had record cold at times in the past two years.

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 31, 2022 12:07 pm

That [Antarctica is getting colder]’s actually a pattern of greenhouse warming.“. Tosh. Utter tosh. Year after year, the climate alarmists have been telling us all how Antarctica has been warming up and losing ice (remember all those panics about Antarctican ice sheets breaking off?), and they have been trying to ignore, hide and shout down the actual scientists who said that the Southern Ocean and Antarctica were cooling. I had a paper on Southern Ocean cooling rejected by an editor who acknowledged its merits but basically said that he didn’t want to publish it. Please stop trying to twist everything to fit your chosen narrative and started trying to see things how they really are.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 31, 2022 1:39 pm

Antarctica can’t melt from additional greenhouse gases.
You should be happy about that. CO2 emissions can not significantly change the trend of sea level rise if Antarctica remains cold.

The climate alarmists are lying about Antarctica, completely ignoring actual temperature measurements. Or reporting only the peninsula, about 3% of Antarctica, that has local warming and is the favorite place for scientists.

I don’t come here to report tosh, whatever that is.
I provided useful scientific information about Antarctica. I think you agree with me but that’s hard to tell.

Glaciers always calve because they are slowly moving rivers of ice. An ice shelf over the ocean is likely to eventually break off. But the total Antarctica snow and ice mass is not declining.

I’m sorry your paper om Southern Ocean cooling was rejected. Why not publish a summary of it here?

Southern Ocean cooling is indirect evidence that Antarctica is not warming.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Peta of Newark
December 31, 2022 6:49 am

I smile at the hysterics that weather/climate folks gets themselves into – this time its the phrase ‘Bomb Cyclone‘ that’s triggered me

As I understand, Climate Variations and Metoelogical Mayhem Of All Hellish Variations Break Loose when/if, surface pressure drops at a rate in excess of 1 millibar per hour

Hopefully see the attached picture – a screenshot of the data output from my new local Wunderground here in Cambridge

See the black line along the bottom = surface pressure in mb on the day of December 27
How it goes from 1026mb at 10 in the morning then plummets to 1003 by 6 in the evening.

Pressure dropped almost 24mb inside 8hours = three times the rate it changes inside a Bomb Cyclone

But see the other traces = Precisely. Nothing. Happened.

iow: A Category Three Bomb Cyclone went off over Wisbech last Tuesday and Completely Nobody Noticed.
‘cept you now

‘sad’ ‘pathetic’ ‘desperate’ are some of the words….

Wisbech Non Bomb 271222.PNG
Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
strativarius
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 31, 2022 7:06 am

Peta, you know the drill. Even the slightest phenomenon – eg light breeze Brian – gets a name now.

As for the Pineapple Express:

Atmospheric rivers hitting California will become even more intense. Here’s how they work

https://www.sfchronicle.com/weather/article/Atmospheric-rivers-hitting-California-will-become-17686559.php

They ain’t scary, they form an important part of California’s water budget.

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
Scissor
Reply to  strativarius
December 31, 2022 7:59 am

California’s worse drought in 1200 years, don’t cha know.

strativarius
Reply to  Scissor
December 31, 2022 8:03 am

California is a basket case

Richard Greene
Reply to  strativarius
December 31, 2022 1:41 pm

It must be really bad — all my leftist relatives there moved out

Richard Greene
Reply to  Scissor
December 31, 2022 1:41 pm

It’s the worst drought
since the last worst drought.

Stuart Baeriswyl
Reply to  strativarius
December 31, 2022 10:28 am

Living in Santa Cruz County, I can remember the phrase “Pineapple Express” used all the time until recently it has fallen out of favor. A Pineapple Express sounds perhaps beneficial and even whimsical, where Atmospheric River (arguably better more technical jargon in meteorological circles) sounds more threatening. I sometimes wonder to myself (lol) if the phrase Pineapple Express has been dropped over political correctness reasons…
Anyways, I’m writing this now S.C. County is experiencing one strong and wonderful Atmospheric River!

doonman
Reply to  Stuart Baeriswyl
December 31, 2022 11:31 am

Santa Cruz County just outlawed Natural Gas. Effective Sunday 1/1 2023, the county will require all new residential construction in urban, unincorporated regions to be designed with electricity as the permanent and sole energy source.

Stuart Baeriswyl
Reply to  doonman
December 31, 2022 4:19 pm

Yes doonman, that natural gas prohibition it is sad to say -soo Californian- ! I love natural gas and now it’s become one of the fake bogeymen substances that our present governor and legislators have implemented😕

antigtiff
December 31, 2022 7:47 am

But the earth is in the balance…its out of kilter….its more than a crisis…its an emergency…the virtuous must act to save the planet…..anything goes to save us…..remember what Joey Biden said….he’s gonna end fossil fuels, kiddo.

Last edited 1 month ago by antigtiff
Scissor
Reply to  antigtiff
December 31, 2022 7:54 am

He sure didn’t leave our strategic reserves in the ground.

ATheoK
Reply to  Scissor
January 1, 2023 10:10 pm

Biden drained the Strategic Reserves so fast that he destroyed the rationale for the Strategic Reserve.

If it was a military demand upon the Strategic Reserve, they’d have drained it completely in a short period of time.

Tony_G
December 31, 2022 7:49 am

48 percent of people prefer to use gas. Electricity is preferred by 38 percent.

The way I read it, that wasn’t due to preference:

“48 percent of the country relies on gas for home heating. Coming in second were homes that relied on electricity, which was at 38.9 percent.”

How many of them use gas or electric simply due to lack of alternative options?

Leo Smith
Reply to  Tony_G
December 31, 2022 8:51 am

I use oil mainly. At around 8p/kWh right now is the cheapest option there is.
Gas prices have come way down, but electricity prices are still massive. They cant blame gas any more. It has to be renewables

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 31, 2022 11:38 am

I read yesterday or the day before that oil/gaa price in Europe had fallen to the level it was before the Invasion of Ukraine. That event is still being used as justification for continuing high energy prices, in the UK at least

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tony_G
December 31, 2022 9:53 am

Yes, it’s not really a preference, unless you’re only looking for homes/apartments that provide these specific options.

Drake
Reply to  Tony_G
December 31, 2022 10:19 am

Almost every, 99.9999999% of homes in the western world have electricity.

Every one of those homes that ALSO have a gas line, apparently 48% or more, have the choice of using gas or electric for heat, unless some insane laws do not allow gas heat any more, or even worse require conversion from gas to electric.

SO some homes with a gas supply MAY chose to use electric, but most homes with electric only, no piped gas, MAY, in general, chose to use LPG for heating. That would, in general, put the use of direct fossil fuel heat close available to close to 100% for detached single family residences., although LPG IS more expensive than piped natural gas.

I have natural gas in my home in Las Vegas, and LPG at my cabin where NG is not available.

As a side note, when my cabin was being built I was asked why I was getting Propane for heat, etc. The worker who asked said that all electric was cheaper since we were supplied from a coop electric company who got the power through rural electrification federal government regulations at a much lower cost than urban areas can get it. Ours comes from the hydro generators at Lake Powell.

I never considered the cheap electric when I went with LPG, since I intended to have a BU generator, run off the LPG, and didn’t want to install a very large generator.

Now, look at this article that “could” “may”, all ACGW scientific terms, cause my electrical rates to skyrocket, since our electric coop may need to find a new electricity supplier.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/23/weather/lake-powell-power-generation-outlook/index.html

Tony_G
Reply to  Drake
December 31, 2022 2:41 pm

Yes, pretty much all homes have electric.

When someone buys a home with gas service but electric heat, how many of those new homeowners will opt to add the expense of adding gas heat, vs. just staying with the electric, even IF they prefer gas.

but most homes with electric only, no piped gas, MAY, in general, chose to use LPG for heating

Or may not, depending on the municipality. That would not have been an option at all at my last house. And again, that’s ignoring the cost. And completely ignoring renters, who have no choice in the matter.

I don’t think your scenarios are realistic for most people due to the cost. So to be pedantic, allow me to rephrase my statement to “lack of affordable alternative options”

Regardless, my point was that the referenced article did not survey preferences, rather it surveyed actual use.

John Hultquist
December 31, 2022 8:50 am

I’ve seen photos such as at the top. A modern house in an area where snow can be expected is in no danger from the amount of snow shown. The soffit and siding suggest modern construction.
If heavy rain does fall on 4 feet of snow, then the weight starts to climb. That’s only about 2 feet deep.
What happens is that one person begins to clear the roof, neighbors notice, and soon thousands of pounds of snow is moved — for no good reason. This is a “follow the crowd” sort of thing.

Scissor
Reply to  John Hultquist
December 31, 2022 9:38 am

Maybe there are solar panels under there somewhere.

Scissor
Reply to  John Hultquist
December 31, 2022 9:56 am

I agree with you that there is no good reason to require that snow to be removed.

Drake
Reply to  John Hultquist
December 31, 2022 10:28 am

AND that snow insulates the home from colder outside temperatures.

I was investigation a steel building for a Fire House and talked to the company’s designer about roof slopes for snow load and clearing. He said that keeping the roof flatter only required an increase in beam size and a reduction in purlin spacing and, due to the reduction in the roofing metal, the cost difference was negligible.

I asked about his experience with high snow load areas, and he informed me his office was in Park City Utah. Enough said!

He noted that the snow on the roof reduced heating cost, and since big dumps didn’t happen very often it was easier to keep the areas under the eaves cleared of snow.

Richard Greene
Reply to  John Hultquist
December 31, 2022 11:50 am

Walking on the roof can damage the shingles and cause a leak
Or you can fall off the roof or the ladder.
The snow will melt.
If you must interfere with the snow, send up the kids or the wife — they are lighter.

Ben Vorlich
December 31, 2022 8:53 am

When I was growing up there was an old Shepherd who used to come in on cold and snowy days for a brew and a warm

When entering he’d often say “well we’ve never died of winter yet” this was said in thanks more than anything else.

Richard Greene
December 31, 2022 9:00 am

Vijay Jayaraj is a consistently good writer!

Jeff Alberts
December 31, 2022 9:46 am

This in turn could lead to outbreaks of illness and sickness around the country and widen health inequalities

Oh brother.

Elliot W
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 31, 2022 1:02 pm

A “health inequality” is when you are sick but I am not. In the interests of equality, I should get sick also. For fairness.

rah
December 31, 2022 10:35 am

Well get ready! It looks like the pressure pattern is wheeling around again so that blocking high pressure will once again drive the polar jet stream south into the US the 2nd week of January. So stock up, replenish your ready stack of firewood, and make sure your generators are in operating condition.

rah
December 31, 2022 10:41 am

My natural gas bill for the period of November 26th to December 26th was $132.00. Not bad at all considering that includes the period of the coldest temps and highest winds of this last polar blast. My 3 bedroom, two bath house is exposed to the west with a farm field about a mile wide in that direction so we are pretty exposed to the wind.

I would say my new fireplace insert is doing a great job of lowering my gas consumption considering that the price of NG has already jumped considerably.

doonman
Reply to  rah
December 31, 2022 11:41 am

I’ve lived in the same house for 45 years. When I moved in, my December natural gas bill was $10. Since then, I’ve added insulation and replaced single pane windows, caulked and weatherstripped everything and added setback nighttime thermostats. I’ve also replaced all gas appliances with pilot free ignitions. Now my Dec natural gas bill is $168. But I also pay a delivery fee, a readiness to serve fee and a city tax, none of which existed originally.

Last edited 1 month ago by doonman
Richard Greene
Reply to  doonman
December 31, 2022 1:47 pm

$10 in 1977 had the same purchasing power as $49 dollars in 2022

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 31, 2022 11:07 am

For the past 24 months I’ve been on a fixed-price plan with our natural gas provider at $0.599 per. therm. That contract expires next month and the current rates are running between $0.895 and $0.999 depending on term (curiously, the highest rate is the 12-month plan and the lowest is the 18-month).

So thanks to “Putin’s inflation”, my heating bill is going to rise by about 50%.

I could complain, but that’s still less than 15% the price of gas in Germany right now, unless I’m doing the conversion wrong. This resource shows residential natural gas at $0.227 / KWh as of March, and 1 therm is 29.3 KWh. So that equates to $6.65 / therm — Ouch!

Our largest bill in the past 12 months was January 2021 when we used 160 therms. In Germany the cost for that would be over $1,000. And prices are even higher in Sweden and Netherlands — the Dutch paying double what Germans pay!

Quick reality check: This site estimates a 180 sq. meter (1,937 sq. ft.) house will consume 20,000 KWh of gas annually, and using a Berlin postal code (10117) that homeowner could expect to pay 3.443 € ($3,693) or more annually for gas heat. That works out to $0.185 / KWh ($5.42 / therm) rather than the $0.227 cited earlier. A 50 sq. m. (538 sq. ft.) one bedroom apartment in the same area would use an estimated 5,000 KWh and cost at least 892 € ($957) annually.

AndyHce
December 31, 2022 12:00 pm

Electricity is preferred by 38 percent

I suspect that grossly overstates the situation. Too many places simply have no access to gas, there are no local pipelines. Electricity isn’t preferred, it is all that is available. It is always, so far, much more expensive than gas heating. It is always, so far, getting to be still more expensive.

Elliot W
Reply to  AndyHce
December 31, 2022 1:36 pm

When we lived in a rural area, gas heating wasn’t an option. Our furnace was electric, but we heated our home with a woodstove. Lots of work, but lovely heat and virtually free. All our neighbours did the same as rural electricity could not be relied on in winter; we had long outages with every storm, car hitting a power pole, or “routine maintenance”.
Our province actively discourages woodstoves as they push only-electric homes. It’s hard not to come around to the belief that the Elite in charge just want people to die.

Tom Johnson
December 31, 2022 7:13 pm

Part of the problem is that the media and the government all describe wind and solar as ‘free’. Well, so are coal, oil, and gas. Mother earth sends no bills for any of them. The cost comes from getting the energy from them to where and when they are needed. History tells us that wind and solar are the most expensive in that case. Their cost comes from their unreliability and the inability to store the energy from them in a cost-effective manner.

Energy is unbelievably cheap in the developed world. Your 2000 K-calorie daily food contains about the same amount of energy as a quarter’s `worth of electricity in the US. In a BEV, it won’t get you 10 miles. Too bad as electricity, it can’t be stored for the winter like a sack of rice.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights