From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KN
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Cunningham
Oh dear!
Mad Miliband’s Clean Power plans lie in tatters:
From the Telegraph:
Ed Miliband has opened the way for a fleet of new gas-fired power stations to back up Britain’s wind and solar farms.
He has told the National Energy System Operator (Neso) – the UK’s grid operator – that by the end of the decade it must keep 40 gigawatts (GW) of spare generating capacity on standby for days when wind and solar cannot keep the nation’s lights on.
The request is part of a system known as the capacity market, where companies are paid to keep generating capacity on standby for days when renewables output plummets or demand surges.
The capacity market already costs British consumers about £1.3bn a year – but this will surge to £4bn by 2030 as reliance on renewables increases, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has said.
Mr Miliband’s letter to Neso has told it to ensure it has 40GW-worth of back-up generating capacity on the system, roughly equating to the output of 35-40 large gas-fired power stations. About two thirds is expected to come from gas and the rest from batteries, interconnectors and other sources.
Full story here.
In the ageless battles between ideology and reality, there is only ever one winner.
Miliband has finally been forced to do something rational but undoubtedly against his core wishes.
The gas plants will be justified because he will claim they will be subject to ‘carbon capture and storage’ legislation.
Miliband is a national liability and a security risk to the UK. Hs latest gift from the treasury is funding to provide a discount of £3,750/EV purchased by customers. This is on top of the £22 billion he has been given by the treasury to achieve carbon capture and storage programs.
It comes as no surprise to anyone, we have not heard anything from him on how that program of work is progressing?
The Chancellor’s submission to her emotions as witnessed the other day in the HoC (House of Commons) suggests she is struggling to find the revenues needed to fund ED’s mad ideology crusade. Maybe she was reflecting on the 16 thousand mega wealth individuals who used to pay tax in the UK now having left to live in more balanced communities elsewhere. Maybe she had just learned of the secret importation of 24,000 Afghans at a cost of £7 billion which she knew nothing about…apparently. Or maybe it was the increasing inflation coming down the track, factored on high energy costs and disruption to manufacturing caused by renewable power providers. Thinking of tracks don’t even mention HS2
Thankfully our political class have now gone on holiday until September.
Rejoice at that news.
The Chancellor is a compulsive liar. A chess champion? At the election much fawning went on. Take the BBC’s Faisal Islam (economics editor)
“Rachel Reeves favourite chess move is the Sicilian defence.
It’s an opening move designed to open up the board for later in the game – and one the Chancellor used often as a junior chess champion.”
https://order-order.com/2024/10/15/investigation-rachel-reeves-british-chess-champion-myth-busted/
Great story only Rachel was never a chess champion at any level, she did come 26th, so she was there. But no champion.
Rachel from Accounts (Customer Complaints) has finally dropped her pretensions of being an economist
“REEVES GIVES UP ON CALLING HERSELF AN ‘ECONOMIST’ AT MANSION HOUSE SPEECH”
https://order-order.com/2025/07/16/reeves-gives-up-on-calling-herself-an-economist-at-mansion-house-speech/
Jonathon Reynolds (business secretary) pretended he was a lawyer until he was forced to cease and desist by the lawyers body
“The Solicitors’ Regulation Authority has told business secretary Jonathan Reynolds they may prosecute him in future over his claims to have been a ‘solicitor.’”
https://order-order.com/2025/06/16/reynolds-threatened-with-prosecution-if-he-makes-solicitor-claim-again/
It’s their truth
It depends upon what he was soliciting. 😉
That reminds me of United States Senator Blumenthal who lied about serving in Vietnam. Yet the stupid people of Connecticut keep electing this liar to represent them.
How can you trust someone who would lie about his military service? It would be impossible for me, and I wouldn’t vote for someone I didn’t think I could trust.
It’s such an outrage to hear Blumenthal expounding on military matters, as if he knows something about it.
Stolen Valor! A little weasel is trying to put himself in the company of honorable men and women, when he doesn’t belong.
So, how is it that you can trust party politicians who owe their position and allegiance to the party above their own conscience and how can you see these people as honourable? I see puppets who are manipulated by people who believe the end justifies the means.
Ed Miliband has gone full tonto. No idea is too bonkers for this boy.
Solar panels on schools and hospitals – one hospital in Bristol had a very nasty solar panel fire…
Covering arable land in Lincolnshire (on top of a huge gas field) with solar panels – Reform UK has taken control of Lincolnshire County Council…
A wind turbine in every garden
All these and more will need lots of money from the taxpayer/billpayer.
“Miliband confirms onshore wind task force and hints at higher CfD renewable auction pot”
https://www.edie.net/miliband-confirms-onshore-wind-task-force-and-hints-at-higher-cfd-renewable-auction-pot/
This has to be the most rank amateur government in the history of England – right back to 925AD.
“Starmer has been making a big song and dance about “saving jobs” at Jaguar Land Rover, announcing his US-UK trade deal at their factory “because we are going to back you to the hilt.”
Starmer Humiliated After Jaguar Land Rover Slashes 500 Jobs
https://order-order.com/2025/07/17/starmer-humiliated-after-jaguar-land-rover-slashes-500-jobs/
Onward to deindustrialisation brothers.
“The capacity market already costs British consumers about £1.3bn a year “
According to perplexity, it costs about £65 in gas fuel cost to generate a MWh, and UK gas generates 10^8 MWh, so a total cost of £6.5bn for gas alone. So it is a very good deal to replace gas with wind and solar (which have no corresponding ful cost), and pay for contracted capacity in reserve.
ps Miliband did not invent capacity auctions – they have been around for years. They would be needed even without renewables.
Ah, our resident expert speaks.
“You have theories. But the observed reality is rapid growth.”
I don’t do blind faith, Nick, I do reality…
After the economy shrinks again
Is that really what you describe as rapid growth? It’s rapid ungrowth in the real world.
You seem to have omitted the cost of building all the wind and solar and batteries, the costs of connecting it all to the grid, and the cost of replacing it all every ~20 years or so.
Plus the cost of paying the wind and solar *not* to produce when it over produces, and overpaying for the poor quality electricity it does produce to “encourage” its construction to begin with.
But I would expect nothing less from a defender of stupidity.
This is a marginal cost calculation. It is much cheaper to pay for capacity than to pay for gas fulltime. As to total cost – you need to go back to LCOE.
Your calculations are utterly meaningless. In fact, you won’t even address facts in the real world, like a shrinking economy. An economy that cannot pay for all these pipe dreams because we are de-industrialising.
Why is that? I think you should tell us.
Falling in love with falsities is a human foible.
Though wind and sun are ‘free’, so are coal, natural gas, and oil. All of these are worthless until they are converted into something a consumer can actually use, exactly when he needs it most. You are ignoring the costs of this conversion for sun and wind, but including those costs for coal, natural gas, and oil.
The fallacy is in this obsession with one particular kind of current cost, fuel cost, And the claim that all you need to do is compare performance on this one particular parameter. Its completely wrong. Are sailing ships cheaper than diesel powered because the wind is free?
You have to do a proper comparison, meaning all the cash flows, both capital and current, over the life of the project. And you have to compare two systems, one with conventional, the other with wind and solar bolted on the side, and see if adding the wind and solar makes sense.
I keep asking for such a study, even a sketch of one. And nothing ever comes back.
A modern container cargo ship can carry up to 25,000 20 foot containers or 12,000 40 foot containers
How many sailing ships would you need to replace just one of those container ships? 🙂
The Cutty Sark measures about 212 feet long by 36 feet wide at the extremes with a 20 foot draught. A 40-foot shipping container is 40 x 8 x 8.5 feet. You might theoretically fit 5 x 4 x 2 = 40 of the 40-foot containers inside it’s footprint. However, given the design of the Cutty Sark and sailing ships in general that’s not really feasible when it comes to loading and unloading, at the very least the masts and deck get in the way. With some design modifications, like opening up the main deck to accept smaller 20-foot containers and some sort of internal mechanism to shuffle containers around, it could be done.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume a newly-designed sailing ship can hold the equivalent volume, ie, 40 x 40-foot containers. The answer is then that you’d need 300 ships.The Cutty Sark cost just over GBP16000 when it was constructed, which is the equivalent of around GBP2.5m today, meaning to construct a fleet of 300 you’d be looking at GBP750m. However, that only takes inflation into account. In all likelyhood you’re not going to make it out of wood, and the abundance of cheap labour in 1870 doesn’t really exist today. More likely, it’ll need to be made of fibreglass, the same as modern yachts. I expect it would easily cost 10x as much to build a modern equivalent.
As for speed, the Cutty Sark could apparently make the trip from Australia to England in 70 days (10 weeks), and could make 17.5 knots. A container ship can go faster, ranging from 16-24 knots, and on average makes the same voyage in 6 weeks. For crew, the Cutty Sark needed around 30, modern container ships somewhat less at around 15-25. I think a redesigned sailing ship taking advantage of modern technology like self-furling sails could probably get away with slightly fewer crew.
For the purposes of argument, I’ll assume the same number of crew (25) for both cases. Wages for the crew at USD400pppd comes to USD10000 per day, and for 70 days that’s USD700000 for the afore-mentioned voyage for the sailing ship, vs. USD490000 for the container ship.
The current cost of sending a container from Asia to Northern Europe is around USD3000, which means the sailing ship will make 40 x USD3000 = USD120000, leaving the ship unable to pay its crew, never mind provisioning and maintenance. To break even just on wages, it would need to cost USD17500 per 40ft container-equivalent.
Sources: the internet.
To sum up, as much as I’d like to see London docks being home to a forest of masts as it was before, I certainly wouldn’t appreciate the jump in costs of *everything* that would have to be paid for it.
Ha has the mind of a child, it might be a child.
Coal, natural gas and oil don’t need backup storage because they are stored energy. Bonus.
No, you don’t need to go back to LCOE, because as usually done that leaves out half the renewable costs and assumes that all power generated has the same value, no matter whether there is demand for it at the time or not.
I have pointed out numerous times that Lazard’s have now accepted that their LCOE did not reflect the need and cost required to have back up for times when the unreliables were unable to meet demand..They also understated the lifetime of modern gas plants.
But Nick sails on repeating his song.
Perhaps he will pay heed to Prof Paul Jostrow of MIT.
LCOE “Is inappropiate for comparing intermittent generating technologies like wind and solar with dispatchable generation….and also overvalues intermittent generating technologies compared to dispatchable generation….what is needed instead is a system wide model rather than simplistic LCOE calculations”
“repeating his song”
Here is what Lazards trumpets on their opening page:
“Lazard’s 2025 LCOE+ report highlights that, despite headwinds and macroeconomic challenges, renewables remain the most cost-competitive form of new-build generation on an unsubsidized basis (i.e., without tax subsidies). As such, renewable energy will continue to play a key role in the buildout of new power generation in the U.S. This is particularly true in the current high power demand environment, where renewables stand out as both the lowest-cost and quickest-to-deploy generation resource. The report also emphasizes the need for diverse generation fleets to meet rising power demands, as well as the vital role system-wide planning and innovation will play in shaping a reliable and sustainable energy future. “
Seem to be missing Dave’s point Nick. Why is it so difficult to comprehend that you CANNOT use LCOE for comparing the costs of energy sources with different lifetimes and different efficiencies. I should have thought that was obvious.
Again, from the NYC investment bank Lazard:
“renewables remain the most cost-competitive form of new-build generation on an unsubsidized basis (i.e., without tax subsidies)”
Sounds like they are making that comparison. So it isn’t obvious.
That’s a “look over there, it’s a squirrel” response Nick. You didn’t address my point, and I believe that Dave was making, which was that LCOE cannot be used to compare costs of different energy sources. It doesn’t matter who tries to do that – it’s just a wrong method.
JP Morgan disputed Lazard’s use of LCOE a while back:
https://irp.cdn-website.com/0bdd390b/files/uploaded/JPMorganElephants-in-the-room.pdf
“levelized costs” comparing wind and solar power to fossil fuels are misleading barometers of the pace of change.
Levelized cost estimates rarely include actual costs that high renewable grid penetration requires:
(a) investment in transmission to create larger renewable coverage areas,
(b) backup thermal power required for times when renewable generation is low, and
(c) capital costs and maintenance of utility-scale battery storage.
I am amazed at how much time is spent on this frankly questionable levelized cost statistic.
In other words, you are ignoring most of the costs, because they don’t support the point you want to make. How typical of a “climate” scientist.
Beyond that, you seem to believe that the marginal cost of a fossil fuel plant on standby is zero. As I’ve explained below, and dozens of times previously, nothing could be further from the truth. But then again, you never have let truth get in the way.
As to LCOE, how many times does that myth have to be shredded?
Pretty much everything in that calculation was an outright fabrication.
LCOE has been proven highly questionable as an analysis tool.
No Nick, this isn’t a marginal calculation, this is a necessary capital investment required to back up the renewables. The renewables cannot be counted on to operate WITHOUT this construction, therefore it is required for basic operation, not an expansion of marginal utility.
Edit: your LCOE calculations are the kind of things that made SUNNOVA look like a good investment. Go post your theories on that thread.
The capital costs are absorbed into the £1.3bn that companies bid at capacity auction.
My LCOE? No, Lazard’s.
If they are a requirement of operation, they are operational costs, not a marginal calculation. End of story.
Also,once you endorse them by using them to advance your argument they become yours.
The fallacy of sunk costs again Nick.
You seem to be trying to use the LCOE costing method to compare different energy source costs. But LCOE is only useful for looking at the cost of a single energy source over its own lifetime. You need to use different cost methods, such as FCOE, to correctly compare the costs of energy sources with different lifetimes, over a time period that has to be the energy source with the longest lifetime.
Yep. Get rid of gas, solar and wind will save us. /sarc
Please take a course at the calculator academy.
https://calculator.academy/cost-per-item-calculator/
Enter the total number of items purchased and the total cost of those items into the calculator to determine the cost per item.
And yet the “greener” the electricity, the more expensive it is. Go figure.
So it really is not green at all. It is red in the accounting context.
it costs about £65 in gas fuel cost to generate a MWh, and UK gas generates 10^8 MWh, so a total cost of £6.5bn for gas alone. So it is a very good deal to replace gas with wind and solar (which have no corresponding ful cost), and pay for contracted capacity in reserve.
Oh dear, Nick. Is this really how you think about investment and how you want to assess proposals? Do you really think that lower fuel costs are the only thing that matters in comparing the two systems?
Because that is what we are doing. System 1 has CGCT turbines and no wind or solar. System 2 has open cycle (fast start) gas turbines and wind and solar, in unspecified proportions. Your claim is that the fact that wind and solar have no fuel costs is all you need to know to judge that installing it is financially advantageous compared to a system without it.
This is just wrong, howlingly wrong, its not how financial analysis of capital projects is done. Its as elementary a mistake as claiming that you can square the circle, or that non-Euclidean geometry is not a thing. Or that there are perpetual motion machines.
I had started to write yet another explanation of how to compare two systems, but just found it too irritating. For goodness sake, get a copy of Brealey and Myers, and read it!
Your mistake of course is to assume that capital costs don’t count. Any two systems will differ in how much capital they require and what their current costs are. This is why you cannot just always pick the alternative with the lowest current costs! This is why there is a whole academic discipline devoted to how to arrive at the correct choice between such systems.
Endlessly reciting that it must make sense financially because no fuel running costs? Its not just wrong, its stupid.
“Your mistake of course is to assume that capital costs don’t count.”
To a marxist there is no such thing a the cost of capital. The government owns all capital and can create more for free!
The mistake is believing that Nick is being honest about his “analysis”.
The problem is, Nick believes his analysis and is honestly stating that belief.
The problem is, his belief is not founded in reality, it is religious doctrine.
“Do you really think that lower fuel costs are the only thing that matters in comparing the two systems?”
You kep ignoring it. I just point out that the difference is very large, and way exceeds the cost of gapacity provision, which quantifies the supposed disqualifying cost of intermittency.
And yet…
I don’t ‘keep ignoring it’. I just keep saying I want to see a proper analysis using the standard methodology in support of your claim. This would, of course, include all current costs for the two systems being compared.
You then go on to say ‘the difference is very large and way exceeds the cost of capacity provision’.
Its getting worse and worse. What you have to do to generate a comparison between the two systems is list all the costs (cash flows) for each. The number you are looking for, in each case, is NPV.
What you’ve produced is a non sequitur. You’ve listed a number for cost of fuel and then, without any comparison, claimed that saving an undefined amount of that at an undefined cost obviously pays for itself.
It may or may not. Do the numbers and show it does. The longer you keep refusing to do it, and keep asserting these unsupported claims, the more doubtful the claims become. I don’t believe that adding wind and solar to a conventional system saves money or justifies the investment. Part of my reason is that I can’t find anyone who has produced a case showing it.
Just as I can’t find any account of how much CO2 emissions will be saved by a UK move to EVs. Wonder why that is.
I am reminded of the remark made by a former colleague in an investment meeting. He asked the proponent of an investment proposal where his analysis of risk was. The reply after some fumbling was that it was very hard, it was almost impossible to do one.
To which my colleague replied, thoughtfully, Oh dear, is it really that risky?
The case was thrown out. If all the argument you can offer for adding wind and solar is what you keep offering here, your case should be thrown out too, and would be by any investment committee of any large Western corporation..
It really doesn’t matter how often this stupid notion of Nick’s gets shot down. It’s useful, so he will drag it out, over and over again.
Nick still believes that fossil fuel plants cost nothing when they aren’t producing power.
That’s a belief that is so stupid, that only a “climate” scientist could believe it.
First off, it takes hours to days to fire up a fossil fuel plant from a cold start. Because of this, they have to be kept in either warm or hot standby. Which means they are burning fuel just to keep the boilers and the pipes warm. This is fuel being burnt that produces no power at all.
Secondly, the facilities have to be fully staffed at all times, just in case they have to start producing.
Finally, since they are being operated, even though no power is being generated, they are still accumulating wear and tear, so they end up needing almost as much maintenance, as they would if running at full power.
(Actually, since they were designed to run at full power, the wear and tear might actually increase. Especially if the power being demanded constantly ramps from near nothing to full power.)
End result, there is little if any “savings” to be had here. Of course, Nick will keep pushing this lie, because that’s what his paycheck requires.
Well yes, this would be true of coal, and to a lesser extent is true of CCGT gas plant, But its not true of open cycle rapid start gas.
You are right about the underlying problem however, it is that in order to use gas to make up the gaps in wind you have to use rapid start gas, and this means less efficiency and more fuel consumption when they are running. The difference is substantial: 50-60% efficiency for CCGT versus 30-40% for open cycle. CCGT is basically like a condensing boiler. But you have to have rapid start if you are backing up wind, and just look at Gridwatch to see how rapidly the wind generation changes.
‘So it is a very good deal to replace gas with wind and solar (which have no corresponding ful cost)’,
Are you saying the turbines and solar panels come with no cost? I’ll have some of what you are drinking.
A simple correction to his post he should have made. fuel = ful
That he did not even proof read what he posted makes one wonder if he ever double checks his math or data sources.
Credibility is low in this one, Obi Wan.
There is a flaw in your logic controller. Please reflash your BIOS with the latest updates.
Or are you joking?
The level of Stupid required to attempt to replace an electric grid which was working fine with one which was not only more expensive, but only works some of the time, and then having to build a backup system at further great expense because of the new, unreliable one is so mind boggling that I wonder if even Grok can grok it.
One might generously believe that level of stupidity is by design. Maybe the real goals are something other than the stated goals.
We will certainly need gas backup. Current total electricity demand is 32 GW.
Last night wind was producing 0.209 GW at one stage with gas providing 10 GW.
Wind is now up to 1.98 GW, solar 4.66 GW, gas 8.99 GW and we are importing 25% of our electricity.
This is in the middle of July. Heaven help us in January.
Green aspirations collide with engineering reality.
It’s even worse. Old article that received very little attention:
https://nsjonline.com/article/2019/08/duke-energy-application-points-finger-at-solar-for-increased-pollution/
Real world measurements taken of a grid using solar with NG ramping up and down as needed. Emissions were greater than if NG, alone, provided the power.
Baby steps.
Now that idiot merely needs to learn he can “cut out the middle man,” since THE GAS FIRED POWER STATIONS CAN PRODUCE THE ELECTRICITY NEEDED ALL BY THEMSELVES. And do it far more cheaply.
No worse-than-useless wind or solar is needed.
C’mon Ed – it’s like having directions to go from here to there that look like a big “L,” and having the epiphany that you can get there faster by just taking the straight line route between the far ends of it.
Actually, for rural communities in parts of the UK with plenty of wind (be that Wales, NW England, Western Scotland, Northern Ireland), it’s probably not a bad solution if the cost of connecting isolated communities to a central gas distribution hub is high. Just like generating heat from cattle slurry can be the ‘baseline power source’.
This of course assumes you’re allowed to keep cows to create local energy.
Solar is a better solution for the eastern side of the country where you get 1500+ hrs of sunshine a year. But only as a source for summer-only activities and a means to cut use of gas/nuclear in the summer.
Solar is a solution for subtropical desert regions, where the sun shines for 10hrs a day > 300 days a year. It’s entirely unsuitable at 50-60N. You know: North Africa, the Arabian peninsula, SE California etc etc.
Solar is only a solution for subtropical desert regions, if you assume that they don’t need electricity after the sun goes down.
It is fairly reasonable to match local PV solar installations to local air conditioning loads on hot sunny afternoons. The load exists, the grid exists, sunlight exists and is the cause of the load. Wind, on the other hand is nearly useless because the randomness of winds matching load requires backup…. and it is more reliable and less costly to just buy the backup and not the wind turbines…
Up to some level of build-out where you are relying on past grid redundancy as backup (instead of new batteries or new gas turbine backups), PV is “the least costly” method of increasing capacity, on paper, of your deliverable MW….
Solar isn’t much good for desert regions either, as Morocco has found – one of their solar systems has to use 200,000 litres of water daily to keep the panels clean. The same problem in the Pilbara region of Western Australia – one minesite tried to add solar, but found that the panels were completely covered in dust and useless after 48 hours, due to constant minesite activity. Added to this is the reduced output on hot days, plus the fact that solar isn’t that efficient in the first place.
Isolated and small grids, perhaps.
Niche applications are ok. All of grid applications are a death penalty to a significant percentage of the population.
Proving once again that battery storage works fine for a system heavily reliant on renewable power sources, provided you use gas instead of batteries.
Gas is a lot cheaper than batteries, and you don’t have to double or triple the amount of wind and solar in order to charge the batteries.
Heads up….
Starmer has just confirmed votes for 16 and 17 year olds for the next general election and onwards. Half of them don’t want it according to polling..
https://order-order.com/2025/07/17/labour-confirms-votes-at-16-for-next-general-election/
Two-tier thinks he’ll be bagging more votes.
‘Something remarkable is happening with Gen-Z’ – is Reform UK winning the ‘bro vote’?
Reform was quick to engage with a younger audience on TikTok – racking up more than 300,000 followers – more than any other major political party.
https://news.sky.com/story/something-remarkable-is-happening-with-gen-z-is-reform-uk-winning-the-bro-vote-13265490
Note they announce this ridiculous voting extension and then they go on holiday. It looks almost like a great day to bury bad news…..no one around to talk about it or justify it.
The next phase will be voting by phone, just wait.
Always the way. They
work forlaugh at you.One day they will parameterise our votes… based on their assumptions. They are completely out of ideas – at least ideas that aren’t woke or leukophobic in some way.
Better to raise the voting age to 40. By that time you’ll have experienced governments of differing hues and can make a more informed decision of which is the least stupid.
The Roman republic had a rule that only those 40+ could hold public office. Experience counted.
Age 30 for Quaestor
Also, a candidate could buy votes by handing out bread.
The younger the voters, the more inclined they are to believe that someone else should be looking after them. It’s a natural result of their recent dependency on parents and schoolteachers. By middle age, most people have come to the realization that they have to look after themselves.
Unless they are a Democrat living with their parents into middle age. The movie “Failure to Launch” comes to mind.
16 year olds cannot be tried as adults because their brains are too immature. Also, 16 year olds should totally get the right to vote.
Here’s a better idea — raise the voting age to 25.
In many states they’re too immature to get tattoos. In every state they are too young for alcohol and tobacco products. Electing bad candidates has likely resulted in more deaths than alcohol.
If you haven’t experienced the enjoyment of filling out a 1040 Long Form (sorry, US centric. Suspect an equivalent exists in many countries.) then you should absolutely not have the right to vote.
Christ on a bike.
40GW is enough to keep the whole UK up and running with the hydro and nuclear and wood burning plant.
It’s utter chaos.
Hopefully Reform will win the next election and simply stop funding ‘renewables’ and use gas until they can get some nuclear built
Red Ed Mini Brain. It is a very slow process and constant repetition, but “the lad” is possibly gradually learning something.
Don’t bank on it.
40 GW spare? In the Winter, maximum demand is around 45 GW. So doubling the amount available, as 45GW demand is on the edge.
Transitioning for a climate changer isn’t easy as although there won’t be the demand anticipated for electricity with the lithium battery revolution once the insurance underwriters have finished with it-
Electric vehicles will be harder to access in Hawaii
Kaohsiung battery factory fire sends 15 to hospital | Taiwan News | Jul. 14, 2025 10:07
Two Fires, Four Months: This EV Battery Facility Keeps Burning
there is still the pressing need to replace the fickles being gobbled up by the green AI gorillas-
Google Inks $3 Billion US Hydropower Deal in Largest Clean Energy Agreement of Its Kind
and hence Ed needs the gas pronto for that. Strictly as a temporary transition measure to net zero you understand. You know it makes sense.
….and would that mean tried as adults too or two tier Keir again?
Starmer confirms voting age to be lowered to 16 by next election | Watch
Call it the NHS of net zero. BTW, when do the wind mill parts break?
This is on the same level as saying “I’m going to buy a car so that I can use it when my horse is sick.”
Wind and solar can not replace fossil fuel and nuclear, everybody knows that. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generator. Build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Remove all wind and solar from the grid. Put Miliband in jail.
Impact investing and its potential to drive positive social and environmental change
Impact investing is an emerging investment approach that focuses on generating positive social and environmental outcomes alongside financial returns. It aims to tackle critical issues like climate change, poverty, and inequality by funding companies, projects, and organizations committed to social responsibility. Various types of impact investing include socially responsible investing, ESG investing, and renewable energy investing. However, challenges persist in measuring impact, balancing returns with social goals, and identifying suitable investments. Despite these obstacles, the growth of impact investing signifies a shift towards a more sustainable, equitable economy, as investors increasingly recognize the potential of their capital to effect positive change.