The people of the UK exhale ca. 68 million kg of CO2 everyday. To this should be added the CO2 exhaled by all the domesticated animals. Has his Net Zero by 2050 plan taken into account this large amount of CO2?
Has he taken into account the CO2 released from soda pop and beer?
Will he fine fat people for exhaling too much CO2?
/s
Very little wind or solar today, and for the last few days.
I’ve been distracted by other things since Storm Amy (3rd to 5th October), so haven’t generated a new iteration of my “30-minute time resolution plot of the GB electricity grid” spreadsheet since then.
[ … clickety … clickety … ]
OK, “today” yes, but would you admit that “and the last few days” is maybe a slight exaggeration ?
I agree, however, with the various commenters here who say that “Renewables” should not be used as a synonym for “Wind + Solar” (especially without the “+ Batteries / Backup” suffix).
“Weather dependent” is possibly the most accurate term, but just “Intermittent” also works …
.
PS : My understanding is that most utility-scale “Solar” farms are located along the south coast of England, i.e. from Cornwall to Kent, in the 50-51.5°N latitude band.
Are there any readers from that region of the UK who remember the 3rd of October (Friday 9 days ago, when the “eye” of Storm Amy was moving north of Ireland / into Scotland) as being especially “cloudy / overcast / dark and dreary / …” ?
I regard 5MW as poor output from wind in UK. It’s been less than that since late on Thursday. Forecast for the coming week has low wind (<3 to 12 m/s cut in for a wind turbine 6m/s) until at least 26th of October. Fortunately we’re not being forecast cold nights. We’ve had overcast days for much of the country so Solar has not been performing well either.
Currently gas is supplying 65% of demand and we’re exporting electricity on all interconnectors except France and Norway which indicates Europe has the same low wind problems.
This is the GridWatch chart.
Yes, the UK probably has close to 30GW of wind now, so spells with 5GW or lower for even a day are a real indicator of a problem going forward. They happen every year, and regularly last several days, especially in winter. Sometimes as long as 10 days.
Miliband plans (or hopes) to have 90GW wind by 2030, and this with 45GW of solar, is supposed to supply 90% of peak demand of 45-50GW.
The most basic arithmetic shows it cannot do this. In November, December and January solar will deliver nothing during demand peak, and negligible amounts even at noon. The wind, 3 x what there is now, will generate 3 x current max output during calms, or 15GW. For up to ten days on end. And much lower for days or parts of days during this
Where is the rest going to come from? No-one knows.
The conclusion is obvious, the UK is headed for nationwide blackouts in one of the winter months one of these years. There will be, one of these years, the usual winter blocking high over England, wind will fall to 15GW (assuming Ed gets his 90GW installed, which itself is unlikely). With drops of several hours down below 5GW.
Anyone who thinks this is exaggerated needs to just look at the charts on
It will be freezing cold. Everyone will come home at a totally dark 5-6pm, plug in their EVs, turn on their electric cookers to make dinner, turn up their heat pumps to get warm, and the next thing you know they will all be looking for the candles.
Restarting will take at least a week, because Ed will have closed all the gas and coal spinning reserve, or it will have reached end of life, and the small nuclear capacity will have been closed because also end of life.
This is where Labour are taking the country in their current term, and its where the Conservatives took the country too during their 14 years in office. And its where the Greens, the Liberals and the SNP and Plaid are all united on taking the country. Because climate or Britain leading the world or something.
Though the Conservatives have recently started to say they will reverse direction. If you believe that, after their record in office….
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
. Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually not made public, but for this system it was.
Neoen, in western Australia, turned on its 219 MW/ 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia.
Ultimately, a 560 MW/2,240 MWh battery system, $1,100,000,000/2,240,000 kWh = $491/kWh, delivered as AC, late 2024 pricing. Smaller capacity systems will cost much more than $500/kWh
. Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh; turnkey cost $104.5 million; 104,500,000/181,900 = $574/kWh, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan, 50% of $104.5 million, at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return, 50% of $104.5 million, at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation) Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage, 15 years at 10%; loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, 5-y depreciation, loan interest deduction) is 92.3c/kWh Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt. . Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) loss factor 1/(0.9*0.9), HV grid-to-HV grid, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 15 c/kWh
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION
Almost all existing battery systems operate at less than 10%, per EIA annual reports i.e., new systems would operate at about 92.4 + 15 = 107.4 c/kWh. They are used to stabilize the grid, i.e., frequency control and counteracting up/down W/S outputs. If 40% throughput, 23.1 + 15 = 38.1 c/kWh.
A 4-h battery system costs 38.1 c/kWh of throughput, if operated at a duty factor of 40%.
That is on top of the cost/kWh of the electricity taken from the HV grid to feed the batteries
Up to 40% could occur by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, in sunny California and other such states. The more solar systems, the greater the peaks.
See URL for Megapacks required for a one-day wind lull in New England
40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charge above 80% and not discharge below 20%, to perform 24/7/365 service for 15 y, with normal aging.
Owners of battery systems with fires, likely charged above 80% and discharged below 20% to maximize profits. Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system. http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia
Regarding any project, Banks and Owners have to be paid, no matter what. I amortized the Bank loan and Owner’s investment
Divide total payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get c/kWh, as shown. Loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9), from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid, i.e., draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner.
. NOTE: EV battery packs cost about $135/kWh, before it is installed in the car. Such packs are good for 6 to 8 years, used about 2 h/d, at an average speed of 30 mph. Utility battery systems are used 24/7/365 for 15 years
It is very easy for coal to compete with wind and solar
In the US, Utilities are forced to buy offshore wind electricity for about 15 cents/kWh.
That price would have been 30 cents/kWh, if no 50% subsidies.
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar; power plant-to-landfill cost basis.
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 2 c/kWh = 9 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
.
Coal gets very little direct subsidies in the US.
Here is an example of the lifetime cost of a coal plant.
The key is running steadily at 90% output for 50 years, on average
.
Assume mine-mouth coal plant in Wyoming; 1800 MW (three x 600 MW); turnkey-cost $10 b; life 50 y; CF 0.9; no direct subsidies.
Payments to bank, $5 b at 6% for 50 y; $316 million/y x 50 = $15.8 b
Payments to Owner, $5 b at 10% for 50 y; $504 million/y x 50 = $21.2 b
Lifetime production, base-loaded, 1800 x 8766 x 0.9 x 50 = 710,046,000 MWh
.
Wyoming coal, low-sulfur, no CO2 scrubbers needed, at mine-mouth $15/US ton, 8600 Btu/lb, plant efficiency 40%, Btu/ton = 2000 x 8600 = 17.2 million
Lifetime coal use = 710,046,000,000 kWh/y x (3412 Btu/kWh/0.4)/17,200,000 Btu/US ton = 353 million US ton
Lifetime coal cost = $5.3 billion
.
The Owner can deduct interest on borrowed money, and can depreciate the entire plant over 50 y, or less, which helps him achieve his 10% return on investment.
Those are general government subsidies, indirectly charged to taxpayers and/or added to government debt. . Other costs:
Fixed O&M (labor, maintenance, insurance, taxes, land lease)
Variable O&M (water, chemicals, lubricants, waste disposal)
Fixed + Variable, newer plants 2 c/kWh, older plants up to 4 c/kWh
. Year 1 Cost
O&M = $0.02/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 y x 1000 kWh/MWh = $0.284 b
Coal= $15/US ton x 353 million US ton/50 y = 0.106 b
Bank/Owner = (15.8, Bank + 21.2, Owner)/50 y= 0.740 b
Total = 1.130 b
Revenue = $0.08/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 x 1000 kWh/MWh = $1.136 b Total revenue equals total cost at about 8 c/kWh Banks and Owners get 0.74/1.136 = 65% of the project revenues
For lower electricity cost/kWh, borrow more money, say 70%
Traditional Nuclear has similar economics; life 60 to 80 y; CF 0.9 in the US. . For perspective, China used 2204.62/2000 x 4300 = 4740 million US ton in 2024.
China and Germany have multiple ultra-super-critical, USC, coal plants with efficiencies of 45% (LHV), 42% (HHV) https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultrasupercritical-plant
How much extra gas was needed in case they didn’t get 44%
Let’s say wind+solar was only 39%. That means they need to make up 5% by increasing generation of other fuel sources and/or increasing imports or decreasing exports. If it is goes the other way at 49% that means they can reduce generation of other fuel sources and/or decrease imports or increase exports. Grid operators plan for both over/under forecasted generation supply and ramp up/down other resources to compensate as the need arises.
At 44% did your electric prices go down?
Relative to inflation…yes. In 20 years my summer rate has only increased about 40%. The winter rate only increased about 30%. For point of comparison the CPI increased by 65% and the national average electricity price increased by 70%.
I am fortunate enough to live within a grid authority who has managed and planned the system well over the years. However, the last couple of years have seen more price pressure due to the increase in data centers who come into are area due to the low prices.
As of the time of this post wind+solar is 26% in the MISO grid.
“Global circulation models.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (take a breath) HAHAHAHAHA. So a global circulation model, run 5 years ago, somehow informed MISO that wind and solar power would provide 44% of electricity demand for less than 1% of the earth’s surface area on a certain date in 2025? I don’t think the Oracle at Delphi was that precise
In MISO…yes. The nocturnal low level jet is common though not guaranteed. It’s not a perfect R = -1 though so the non-wind/solar resources have to be dispatched often. We’ll never be able to go fully renewable due to this and the lack of rotational inertia, but it does help diversify the resource mix allowing for more options for day-of, next day, and longer term dispatching. Not all area are as equally suitable for wind and solar though.
Yes, a clear indicator of the problem. Peaks like this are not showing that wind+solar is the solution. On the contrary, its producing feast or famine. On a calm winter evening it will be producing 5% of supply. Where does the rest come from, and what is the real cost in money and emissions of providing it?
The key variable is the cost and feasibility of delivering dispatchable power.
The question is what role wind and solar tech has in this. The question is not what peak wind and solar can deliver for a couple of hours. Do the sums and you will find that adding wind to a reliable conventional grid does nothing either for emissions or cost. It just decreases reliability and increases cost. Without lowering emissions.
Wind and solar isn’t a be-all-end-all option. It works well in MISO and has helped keep our costs down and the grid reliable. But yeah it’s not going to be as equally beneficial to other areas.
strativarius
October 12, 2025 1:08 am
We have rapidly gone from consensus to fragmentation. Reform are on record pledging to abolish net zero
Elected officials have voted to overturn a local authority’s declaration of a climate emergency. Staffordshire County Council, which has been run by Reform UK councillors since May’s local elections, made the decision on Thursday. – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmz3919wn3o
The Tory leadership wants to repeal the climate act, but does the party?
But May does say some important truths, albeit without meaning to:
while that consensus is being tested, the science remains the same. The harms are undeniable.
True. The science is exactly the same. There’s no confidence that any warming is having any effects on weather at all. The harms are undeniably non-evident.
We owe it to our children and grandchildren to ensure we protect the planet for their futures and that means giving business the reassurance it needs to find the solutions for the very grave challenges we face
Absolutely. We need to ensure that they aren’t burdened with ecological disasters and pointless mountains of debt.
re: “Absolutely. We need to ensure that they aren’t burdened with ecological disasters and pointless mountains of debt. ”
Plot twist: Saddle them with the debt, since, it won’t be your progeny anyway that ‘populates’ the country with the mass migration/invasion taking place and the rapid procreation thereof.
Theresa May was a catastrophic mistake! What makes her think that she is relevant? She was one of the worst PMs ever and jumped before she was pushed in the 2024 election.
Classic mistake; using simple observed spectra to imply temperature?
Eat this for your just deserts:
An excerpt from “International Journal of Hydrogen Energy” EPR (Electron Paramagnetic Resonance) is used to show a new property of Hydrogen … (Volume 47, Issue 56.)
Title: Electron paramagnetic resonance proof for the existence of molecular hydrino.
Link:
Temperature estimate in the solar corona are a.o. based on the FeXIV emission line at 5303 A and the FeX emission at 6374 A. Electron temperatures of the plasma are in the range 700000K to well over a million K. (FeXIV is 13 times ionised iron, requiring a seriously high temperature).
Incidently, the paper you refer to was published ‘on behalf of …’. It is a paid for advertisment.
I recently submitted a formal comment on the draft New York State Energy Plan. Roger Caiazza included my comment in a post on his blog “The Pragmatic Environmentalist of NY”. The main point of my comment was that the speculative “health benefits” and “avoided GHG benefits” produce no hard money to justify the huge expenditures expected by continuing to proliferate intermittent wind and solar sources with battery support.
South Australia no longer has a duck curve. It is gaping chasm with rooftops serving the entire demand in the State for a few hours from 11:30am till 3pm. At its peak, rooftops were pumping out 1806MW with the State net demand at just 1669MW. There was some being exported to other States. So the grid weather dependent generators had no demand in the State to serve.
Grid wind was heavily curtailed for a few hours producing around 400MW from a potential of 1100MW and grid solar just 15MW from potential of 550MW. See chart – and take note of the “curtailment” category at the bottom of the table. Curtailment is the difference between the demand served and the demand that could be served if the demand was available. It is not related to the installed capacity; rather the strength of the wind in combination with the capacity.. https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1d&interval=30m&view=discrete-time&group=Detailed
You can move the curser across the chart to change the table to 30 minute intervals.
Grid solar is now obviously a stranded asset in South Australia. Wind would be immediately uneconomic and a stranded asset without the export market or the guaranteed consumer theft..
September was the highest month for rooftop solar insrtallations in Australia and there has been 1GWh of households batteries installed since July 1 when the battery rebate kicked in – Sleezies offer of OPM to instal household batteries because no one wants a big grid battery near them.
I declared the economic demise of Australia’s electrical grids in 2016 – it is on the record. It is now coming to pass and should be clear to anyone looking. There is no reduction in the need for essential generation nearly all supplied by fossil fuels in Australia with a little hydro that is not highly perched water constrained. So unit cost for essential electricity is through the roof because all that fossil fuelled generating capacity has high standby costs spread across dramatically reduced volume. But no reduction in the peak demand.
Australian punters have democratised the grid. They have voted with their wallets, where they can, to reduce their exposure to rampant electricity price rise driven by the absurd charge to NetZero. It is the better side of a very sad tale for Australia’s economy – now free of heavy industry (apart from those on benefits) and most manufacturing.
Australia’s position on the globe gives it a unique relationship with truly abundant sunlight – the equal of no other G20 nation. Every roof is a potential electrical power source.And energy requirements in a sun drenched country modest compared with the winter snow covered regions of the globe.
Rooftops have won – now let’s get back to sensible essential electricity generation. Rather than the NetZero fantasy before the economy collapses.
Anybody recall this from the not-too-distant past? This was pre-mRNA ‘vaccine’ release:
Article: Early in the pandemic, President Donald Trump and White House senior official Peter Navarro arranged the donation of 63 million doses of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to America’s strategic drug stockpile to combat Covid-19. The government began securing HCQ in March 2020, after Trump, on the advice of his medical and scientific advisors, lauded HCQ as “very encouraging,” “very powerful,” and a “game-changer.” While HCQ (and its structurally similar analogue chloroquine) was not FDA-indicated for Covid-19, it was well-known to have specific off-label pharmacological functionality for preventing viral particle entry into cells, chemical derivatives of which have been utilized for antiviral use as far back as 1934.
Following Trump’s proposal, HCQ suddenly came under an unwarranted full-scale attack from federal officials, the press, so-called “fact-checkers,” and university professors. Many of the attacks contained outright falsehoods about HCQ’s pharmacology and safety or Trump’s endeavor to make HCQ available to eligible patients.
During the same March 2020 press conference and standing alongside Trump, Fauci very accurately stated that “[HCQ] toxicities are rare, and in many respects, reversible” … Following Trump’s proposal and subsequent stockpile of product, HCQ experienced a stunning, seemingly coordinated, fall from favor.
First, Fauci changed his mind regarding his March 2020 statement following the publication in the New England of Medicine on May 1, 2020 (later retracted), the FDA’s problematic methodologies in its review on May 19, 2020 (discussed above), and the Lancet’s publication on May 22nd, 2020 (later retracted).
History inevitably proves Trump to be right. A truly great man with incomparable influence across the globe. The world will be a better place when he achieves what he set out to do.
And president Trump also sent a hospital ship and field hospital to New York City and the assholes that run NYC refused to use either of them. Uhm and didn’t some legislators outlaw prescribing hydroxchlorquine for Covid? Oh yeah, didn’t Fauci flip flop on the effectiveness of masks against Covid?
By law, the ‘vaccines’ couldn’t be approved for emergency use if existing medications such as HCQ and Ivermectin against Covid. You figure out the rest…
HCQ was “safe” to administer and when administered as a prophylactic to entire populations….recipients had a 98 % plus survival rate….which medical researchers pointed out was probably a little less successful than Grandma’s chicken soup cuz the very odd person had a reaction to HCQ…but still very successful to those who “want to believe” but don’t believe in “control group”studies to see what natural immune response might contribute…
We need to learn from the administration of whole CoVid vaccine affair so that future pandemics can be more successfully countered instead of hoping it won’t occur. Hope is not a plan.
Acceptance of voluntary self-termination for people who feel it’s their constitutional right to NOT have a cure administered to them by the state probably isn’t a very good plan either…..although historically, interment has been accepted as the lowest cost anti-dissident program for many totalitarian states. Just sayin’….
Thank god the hoses of a gas station aren’t worth anything, otherwise the ecotards would be stealing them by the thousands to help their deluded cause.
But yes, EV charging cables contain precious copper, can’t avoid to chuckle that increased copper theft is becoming an additional “threat” to EV mobility besides the customers who refuse to buy that crap.
Washington State lawmakers are considering possible solutions to combat copper theft. Damages and replacement costs are thousands of dollars and the return to the crooks is minor by comparison. Another crime is crashing stolen autos into businesses, frequently, cannabis retail stores. The victims suffer, sometimes repeatedly. We all end up paying for these crimes with higher insurance and generally higher prices. Elected officials need to stop considering and actually legislate solutions.
Good for Machado!
Just like Academy Awards, etc., Nobel prizes aren’t worth what they used to be. Politics.
If the Noble people knew he as going to do that, he never would have gotten it.
The demonstrators should pay attention to the news. They got their wish.
Why are they not out in the streets celebrating Trump’s peacemaking in Gaza?
Oh, that’s right, the Radical Left/Marxists/Islamists don’t really want an end to the destruction, they just want a talking point for their violent radical left/Marxist/Islamist agenda. If the war in Gaza ends, then what will they complain about?
Trump is destroying the Evil Left and their agenda in this world. That’s why they hate him so much.
More power to you, President Trump.
Even the Palestinians are praising President Trump. Their supporters in the West hate what Trump is doing because Trump is showing the world a different, common-sense way to look at things. A peacefull, prosperous way of looking at things.
The Hateful, Radical Left/Marxists/Islamists of the world are in retreat, and Trump is the one who put them there. Keep it up, President Trump. And I know you will. So do the extremists and they don’t like it a bit.
The Radical Left killed Charlie Kirk and now hundreds of thousands of young people are looking to follow his example. The Tide is turning. Evil is on the retreat. Thanks to a few strong characters we are blessed to have leading the way.
If the UK and Australia went totally Net Zero and produced no carbon dioxide, it would make no difference to the Earth’s weather. Even if you believe CO2 can noticeably heat the Earth’s atmosphere, a Net Zero UK and Australia would reduce that heat by a hundredth of a degree or thereabouts. It’s a total waste of time and enormous amounts of money with a result that can’t even be measured.
CO2 phobia has sapped the intelligence from UK and Australian political leaders. They are destroying their own economies for no good reason. And they can’t see it, and so continue on down this Road to Ruin.
Self-inflicted, unnecessary destruction of the UK and Australia. They must be feeling very lonely, as no other nation, other than Germany, is focusing on reducing CO2, and other nations are focusing on inceasing their CO2 production and are doing so and this increase dwarfs any reductions in CO2 that the UK and Australia can do.
It is SO Stupid. That’s why Trump calls people who think like this “Stupid People” because they are stupid.
If the UK … went totally Net Zero and produced no carbon dioxide, it would make no difference to the Earth’s weather.
No no no!! You don’t understand, The shining example of the UK is so admired that all will feel bound to follow our example. Going Net Zero in the UK will save the world and its weather. Just you wait and see.
(Hmm. As I write, wind is producing just over 1% of our electricity.)
As I write, wind is producing just over 1% of our electricity … And the interconnects are almost maxed-out …
I noticed your post just after producing a graph of the GB electricity grid for “Westfieldmike” above.
A variant with the interconnect (ICT) sum included is attached below.
Notes
– I believe the “notional” capacity of all GB ICTs is around 9 or 10 GW, but the practical limit is more like 7 to 8 GW.
– While lots of “Wind” tends to reverse the ICT flows to become (net) exporters of electricity, other factors are clearly in play.
– Having the net “ICT sum” value hover steadily around the 4 (to 5) GW level for 48 to 60 hours straight is … “unusual”, in my (limited !) experience.
– The daily cycle for “Total Demand” for the GB grid has oscillated between 21 and 37 GW over the last couple of weeks. 4 (and a quarter) GW over an entire 24-hour (or longer) period is anything from one-ninth to one-fifth of “Demand” …
The useful thing is that it shows min, max and average generation by source. So you can immediately see just how variable wind is, and how little its peaks correspond to peaks in demand.
So Kat Timpf on the Gutfeld Show never votes for Republicans or Democrats. So how does her point-of-view ever see the light of day–politically? Voting for a party/group that never gets elected may make you fell good, but it does absolutely nothing to change the political spectrum. You need to attach yourself to a party that gets elected and change it from inside.
Independents are are not a party or group. They are individuals. Individuals are the real progenitors of change. Every major human achievement can be pinned to an individual. Never to a group or party, indeed, it is the very worst of human behaviour that groups and parties can claim credit for.
New Jersey Gets a Real Race for GovernorRepublican Jack Ciattarelli is closing the gap with Rep. Mikie Sherill by arguing that high taxes and foolish energy policies are ruining the Garden State.
Sherill didn’t do very good on the Transgender questions, either. She would not condemn biological males being allowed to play female sports.
I think allowing biological males in female bathrooms and in female sports is a very big controversy that will drive the vote as much as any other policy question. I think Sherill is on the wrong side of this issue, as 80 percent of the public is against allowing biological males in female sports.
Anyone who has worked out at a co-ed gym knows that biological men in womens sport is lunacy. Upper body strength is like night and day and even on lower back and legs, where the difference is less marked, its still considerable. And men have much more explosive power. Lunacy.
I think a lot of this psychology goes back to the Feminist Movement where feminists insisted that women could do anything men could do. The feminists don’t want to give up this concept.
I think that is still part of their psychology, even though, as you say, it is obviously not the case.
Sometimes you also will find rather the reverse happening – trainers who don’t understand what is and is not different. We have basically the same muscles, but the skeletons are slightly but importantly different, and of course women are lighter as well as less muscular overall.
So you sometimes find trainers prescribing thigh extension machines to women in lieu of squats or deadlifts, out of a vague feeling that these are not ladylike – and a feeling of the women that they are too musclehead and will lead to huge muscles. Which they will not, and in addition just doing thigh extensions does nothing for the lower back, which is a vital part of lower body strength, and it also increases the natural imbalance in women between the quads and the muscles of the inner and side of the thighs.
The result of this is increased risk of knee injury, especially ACL. The natural imbalance comes from the hip joints being further apart in women than in men. So proper old school leg work is especially important for women.
Trainers are also reluctant to prescribe proper heavy dumbbell bench presses, or bent arm pullovers, or free overhead presses, and prefer machines instead, often cable with very light weights. When they should be giving the traditional exercises with free weights, but of course with much lighter weights.
I guess it works both ways! And I have seen cases where a woman is welcomed into a group who were taking turns on the bench, but out of sheer ignorance urged on by the guys to have a go and take on more than was wise, The guys are less prejudiced than the trainers, but are naive in the other direction.
nyeevknoit
October 12, 2025 5:25 am
To the wind/solar supporters: we’re looking at wind / solar capacity wrong.
The formerly stable grids of the US, Australia, Europe customers and taxpayers should not freely provide for the inability of wind/solar to provide ON DEMAND, stable, dispatchable energy.
Firm capacity is required. The sporadic, intermittent, natural W/S variations of capacity must be filled.
The energy holes in W/S output should be filled on-site…not by the grid.
The W/S sites should be required to at all times account for fluctuations or total loss of wind/solar energy. W/S sites should be required to have on-site “make-up” capacity to seamlessly replace or add to contract capacity,frequency, voltage for W/S to follow load–the customers’ demand for energy.
Of course the actual costs of the complete W/S site and interconnection costs should be counted as costs of W/S. Not hidden from customers, taxpayers.
Capacity is not the customers’ goal. The goal is to provide customer demand continuously, with total capacity, energy, stable voltage, current as needed, at their location without concern.
The lowest cost should also be the goal. Transparency is good.
Enough of thinking “free” wind and solar can supply low cost (for industrial and all other consumers) and on-demand energy.
It is not “free” or low cost.
To: The Creatures of Prior Conditioning – who are ALWAYS set to ‘trigger’ on a perceived scam (sometimes they are a scam)! You, the subjects of classic Operant Conditioning (the term courtesy of psychologist B.F. Skinner) – hearing the bell – you (now) naturally salivate … the result of the classic experiment by Pavlov he called ‘classical conditioning’.
Well CoPC (Creatures of Prior Conditioning) – Here is the actual f r a u d you have been trained to re-actively/reflexively respond to –
Just for a laugh: Dem pundit Chris Mowrey is attacking a Rep candidate who believes (wrongly, per Chris) that solar doesn’t work when it’s dark and windmills don’t work when there’s no wind.
Sargon of Akkad discusses the the “philosophy of African Time” – the notion that events make up time and until events occur, time has not passed. The outcome is no ability to plan for the future, because it has not occurred yet.
My take it derives from subsistence living. If one is living day to day, one is not in a position to make any investment in the future. I saw this in Indian villages 60 years ago. However, for the well off – take landowners and brass smiths – they did not subscribe the the philosophy of just letting things happen.
And also, when the local warlord / criminal gang can just turn up and take your stuff, there’s no incentive to save (cash under the mattress is easily stolen) or repair anything. Why keep something in good condition if it’s going to be taken off you eventually anyway?
Claim is using less of fossil fuels by making use of solar electricity, but I see it as principally peak shaving because use of air conditioning is greatest during heat of the day (i.e. when sun is shining). Depending in part on time of day pricing as Chico CA for example has).
If the house is kept closed up, the peak need for AC will be later than the afternoon high temperature, which is after the peak electricity production. It will probably be most appreciated at bed time, when the sun is no longer shining.
willhaas
October 12, 2025 3:47 pm
Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science. For the truth about climate change try reading and understanding “The Rational Climate e-Book” by Patrice Poyet which one can down load from the Internet for free.
Read it. Fantastic work. Provides much detail and rigorous derivation of his arguments. It is lengthy, which is a disadvantage, and the ‘Climate At A Glance’, that has been described here, is a worthy companion to Poyet. I think someone provided a download of the ‘at a Glance’ book? Hoping to add it to the ever-growing library of contrarian literature.
This was an interesting video on the “Coherer Effect”. It was an early radio wave detection mechanism, before detector diodes be they vacuum tubes, cat-whisker-style wire on a Galena crystal (diode) or Ge or Si diodes –
“Wireless Communication with a Cup of Balls, Coherer Effect”
Shaun Spiers, executive director of the Green Alliance, an umbrella organisation for green groups, says: “There is no getting away from the need to upgrade the UK’s energy system, which will entail cost and changes to the landscape whether we go with gas or clean, home grown, renewable energy.
“England has just suffered the second worst harvest in our history, following the warmest summer and the driest spring in over 100 years. People in Lincolnshire and East Anglia know that climate change is real and dangerous.
Classic, absolutely classic!
The guy really thinks that the last year’s bad harvest was due to global warming. It obviously wasn’t, it was due to something called bad weather. Happens!
Then he thinks that installing wind turbines off the north coast of Scotland, and bringing the intermittent power generated down to the south, is ‘upgrading the UK’s energy system’, when actually all its doing is raise prices and increase the real and growing risk of blackouts.
And finally he thinks that doing this will in some way save farmers in East Anglia and Lincolnshire from the effects of climate change. When it will make no measurable difference to global CO2 emissions, which is what are supposed to be causing climate change and the bad harvests.
It is a classic case of eat up your dinner, think of all the starving children in Africa. To whom it will make not the slightest difference if you eat more or less, but eating when you are not hungry any more will do one thing for sure: produce childhood and later adult obesity.
I live in East Anglia (Norfolk), I know climate change is real but I know it isn’t dangerous. I also know that in my garden (1 acre) the apple trees have never been more productive and the weeds, of which there are many, are flourishing like never before, which I attribute to CO2 levels. Growers just need to adjust what they grow to make best use of the prevailing conditions.
Title: “Attempts to discredit the Zervos Henry Ford vaccine study fail miserably”
. Jake Scott and Jeffrey Morris engage in gaslighting cloaked in “expert” syntax in order to fool people into ignoring the ground-breaking Henry Ford vaxxed/unvaxxed study.
.
Also: Watch An Inconvenient Study (Live Digital Premiere) A Del Bigtee film
. Executive Summary . Jeffrey Morris and Jake Scott will try to convince you that the Henry Ford vaxxed/unvaxxed study is flawed. While their arguments “sound” legitimate, they are actually not.
For example, Jake Scott says that vaccinated kids are just sicker, it has nothing to do with the vaccine. Then he tells us it is “detection bias” but completely fails to point out that the cancer rates were comparable in the two groups (the negative control). Or that the study design was flawed even though it followed CDC Guidelines for vaccination studies and was approved by Henry Ford itself who was so impressed that they funded the study. So many things they just ignore…
Both Morris and Scott ignore the single most important message of the film, which is that when top scientists are given a choice, the correct choice is to save their careers from ruin (even when they are about to retire) rather than tell the truth and publish honest science. Do Morris and Scott agree with Zervos’ decision to bury the study so he wouldn’t get fired? Is that the right decision? Sacrifice the health of kids to save your job?
That is the KEY MESSAGE OF THE FILM and Morris and Scott miss it completely because they are captured.
Very little wind or solar today, and for the last few days. Do you think Ed is worried?
[Sir Jim Ratcliffe] asked him whether he could explain his policy on energy and the North Sea, but he wasn’t prepared to engage. He said, ‘I’m sorry, but that’s my policy. I’m not prepared to talk about it’.
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/10/11/miliband-refused-to-discuss-north-sea-with-me-says-ratcliffe/
Ed isn’t bothered in the slightest.
Well, why should he give anyone his information? They probably only want to find something wrong with it. (h/t Climategate emails)
That wouldn’t be difficult!
From the ‘sceptic’ article –
“Sir Jim said it was time for the Government to start listening to business or risk deindustrialisation in Britain.”
That is Ed’s ultimate goal
I thought that deindustrialization in Britain was well along.
The people of the UK exhale ca. 68 million kg of CO2 everyday. To this should be added the CO2 exhaled by all the domesticated animals. Has his Net Zero by 2050 plan taken into account this large amount of CO2?
Has he taken into account the CO2 released from soda pop and beer?
Will he fine fat people for exhaling too much CO2?
/s
I’ve been distracted by other things since Storm Amy (3rd to 5th October), so haven’t generated a new iteration of my “30-minute time resolution plot of the GB electricity grid” spreadsheet since then.
[ … clickety … clickety … ]
OK, “today” yes, but would you admit that “and the last few days” is maybe a slight exaggeration ?
I agree, however, with the various commenters here who say that “Renewables” should not be used as a synonym for “Wind + Solar” (especially without the “+ Batteries / Backup” suffix).
“Weather dependent” is possibly the most accurate term, but just “Intermittent” also works …
.
PS : My understanding is that most utility-scale “Solar” farms are located along the south coast of England, i.e. from Cornwall to Kent, in the 50-51.5°N latitude band.
Are there any readers from that region of the UK who remember the 3rd of October (Friday 9 days ago, when the “eye” of Storm Amy was moving north of Ireland / into Scotland) as being especially “cloudy / overcast / dark and dreary / …” ?
I regard 5MW as poor output from wind in UK. It’s been less than that since late on Thursday. Forecast for the coming week has low wind (<3 to 12 m/s cut in for a wind turbine 6m/s) until at least 26th of October. Fortunately we’re not being forecast cold nights. We’ve had overcast days for much of the country so Solar has not been performing well either.
Currently gas is supplying 65% of demand and we’re exporting electricity on all interconnectors except France and Norway which indicates Europe has the same low wind problems.
This is the GridWatch chart.
Yes, the UK probably has close to 30GW of wind now, so spells with 5GW or lower for even a day are a real indicator of a problem going forward. They happen every year, and regularly last several days, especially in winter. Sometimes as long as 10 days.
Miliband plans (or hopes) to have 90GW wind by 2030, and this with 45GW of solar, is supposed to supply 90% of peak demand of 45-50GW.
The most basic arithmetic shows it cannot do this. In November, December and January solar will deliver nothing during demand peak, and negligible amounts even at noon. The wind, 3 x what there is now, will generate 3 x current max output during calms, or 15GW. For up to ten days on end. And much lower for days or parts of days during this
Where is the rest going to come from? No-one knows.
The conclusion is obvious, the UK is headed for nationwide blackouts in one of the winter months one of these years. There will be, one of these years, the usual winter blocking high over England, wind will fall to 15GW (assuming Ed gets his 90GW installed, which itself is unlikely). With drops of several hours down below 5GW.
Anyone who thinks this is exaggerated needs to just look at the charts on
http://www.gridwatch.co.uk/wind
It will be freezing cold. Everyone will come home at a totally dark 5-6pm, plug in their EVs, turn on their electric cookers to make dinner, turn up their heat pumps to get warm, and the next thing you know they will all be looking for the candles.
Restarting will take at least a week, because Ed will have closed all the gas and coal spinning reserve, or it will have reached end of life, and the small nuclear capacity will have been closed because also end of life.
This is where Labour are taking the country in their current term, and its where the Conservatives took the country too during their 14 years in office. And its where the Greens, the Liberals and the SNP and Plaid are all united on taking the country. Because climate or Britain leading the world or something.
Though the Conservatives have recently started to say they will reverse direction. If you believe that, after their record in office….
I’m in the MISO grid here in the US. As of the time of this post wind+solar account for 44% of our supply.
South Australia, with all its wind power….. and a very small demand…
5:05am..
70% GAS
No solar for at least another 2 hours
Battery won’t last that long, so it will be diesel generators to the rescue.
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
.
Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually not made public, but for this system it was.
Neoen, in western Australia, turned on its 219 MW/ 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia.
Ultimately, a 560 MW/2,240 MWh battery system, $1,100,000,000/2,240,000 kWh = $491/kWh, delivered as AC, late 2024 pricing. Smaller capacity systems will cost much more than $500/kWh
.
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh; turnkey cost $104.5 million; 104,500,000/181,900 = $574/kWh, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan, 50% of $104.5 million, at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return, 50% of $104.5 million, at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage, 15 years at 10%; loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, 5-y depreciation, loan interest deduction) is 92.3c/kWh
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt.
.
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) loss factor 1/(0.9*0.9), HV grid-to-HV grid, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 15 c/kWh
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION
Almost all existing battery systems operate at less than 10%, per EIA annual reports i.e., new systems would operate at about 92.4 + 15 = 107.4 c/kWh. They are used to stabilize the grid, i.e., frequency control and counteracting up/down W/S outputs. If 40% throughput, 23.1 + 15 = 38.1 c/kWh.
A 4-h battery system costs 38.1 c/kWh of throughput, if operated at a duty factor of 40%.
That is on top of the cost/kWh of the electricity taken from the HV grid to feed the batteries
Up to 40% could occur by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, in sunny California and other such states. The more solar systems, the greater the peaks.
See URL for Megapacks required for a one-day wind lull in New England
40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charge above 80% and not discharge below 20%, to perform 24/7/365 service for 15 y, with normal aging.
Owners of battery systems with fires, likely charged above 80% and discharged below 20% to maximize profits.
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia
Regarding any project, Banks and Owners have to be paid, no matter what. I amortized the Bank loan and Owner’s investment
Divide total payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get c/kWh, as shown.
Loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9), from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid, i.e., draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner.
.
NOTE: EV battery packs cost about $135/kWh, before it is installed in the car. Such packs are good for 6 to 8 years, used about 2 h/d, at an average speed of 30 mph. Utility battery systems are used 24/7/365 for 15 years
Australia has a lot of COAL
Use it
.
NEW COAL ELECTRICITY LESS COSTLY, AVAILABLE NOW, NOT PIE IN THE SKY, LIKE EXPENSIVE FUSION AND SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/coal-electricity-less-costly-available-now-not-pie-in-the-sky
It is very easy for coal to compete with wind and solar
In the US, Utilities are forced to buy offshore wind electricity for about 15 cents/kWh.
That price would have been 30 cents/kWh, if no 50% subsidies.
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar; power plant-to-landfill cost basis.
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 2 c/kWh = 9 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
.
Coal gets very little direct subsidies in the US.
Here is an example of the lifetime cost of a coal plant.
The key is running steadily at 90% output for 50 years, on average
.
Assume mine-mouth coal plant in Wyoming; 1800 MW (three x 600 MW); turnkey-cost $10 b; life 50 y; CF 0.9; no direct subsidies.
Payments to bank, $5 b at 6% for 50 y; $316 million/y x 50 = $15.8 b
Payments to Owner, $5 b at 10% for 50 y; $504 million/y x 50 = $21.2 b
Lifetime production, base-loaded, 1800 x 8766 x 0.9 x 50 = 710,046,000 MWh
.
Wyoming coal, low-sulfur, no CO2 scrubbers needed, at mine-mouth $15/US ton, 8600 Btu/lb, plant efficiency 40%, Btu/ton = 2000 x 8600 = 17.2 million
Lifetime coal use = 710,046,000,000 kWh/y x (3412 Btu/kWh/0.4)/17,200,000 Btu/US ton = 353 million US ton
Lifetime coal cost = $5.3 billion
.
The Owner can deduct interest on borrowed money, and can depreciate the entire plant over 50 y, or less, which helps him achieve his 10% return on investment.
Those are general government subsidies, indirectly charged to taxpayers and/or added to government debt.
.
Other costs:
Fixed O&M (labor, maintenance, insurance, taxes, land lease)
Variable O&M (water, chemicals, lubricants, waste disposal)
Fixed + Variable, newer plants 2 c/kWh, older plants up to 4 c/kWh
.
Year 1 Cost
O&M = $0.02/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 y x 1000 kWh/MWh = $0.284 b
Coal = $15/US ton x 353 million US ton/50 y = 0.106 b
Bank/Owner = (15.8, Bank + 21.2, Owner)/50 y= 0.740 b
Total = 1.130 b
Revenue = $0.08/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 x 1000 kWh/MWh = $1.136 b
Total revenue equals total cost at about 8 c/kWh
Banks and Owners get 0.74/1.136 = 65% of the project revenues
For lower electricity cost/kWh, borrow more money, say 70%
Traditional Nuclear has similar economics; life 60 to 80 y; CF 0.9 in the US.
.
For perspective, China used 2204.62/2000 x 4300 = 4740 million US ton in 2024.
China and Germany have multiple ultra-super-critical, USC, coal plants with efficiencies of 45% (LHV), 42% (HHV)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultrasupercritical-plant
So how were they able to know they would get 44%
How much extra gas was needed in case they didn’t get 44%
At 44% did your electric prices go down?
Global circulation models.
Let’s say wind+solar was only 39%. That means they need to make up 5% by increasing generation of other fuel sources and/or increasing imports or decreasing exports. If it is goes the other way at 49% that means they can reduce generation of other fuel sources and/or decrease imports or increase exports. Grid operators plan for both over/under forecasted generation supply and ramp up/down other resources to compensate as the need arises.
Relative to inflation…yes. In 20 years my summer rate has only increased about 40%. The winter rate only increased about 30%. For point of comparison the CPI increased by 65% and the national average electricity price increased by 70%.
I am fortunate enough to live within a grid authority who has managed and planned the system well over the years. However, the last couple of years have seen more price pressure due to the increase in data centers who come into are area due to the low prices.
As of the time of this post wind+solar is 26% in the MISO grid.
Dropped from 44% to 26%…. that’s not good !!
….. something else has to cover for all that missing electricity.
How often do wind and solar deliver less than 5%.?
You are making a great case for totally avoiding putting wind and solar on the grid….. Well done. ! 🙂
“Global circulation models.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (take a breath) HAHAHAHAHA. So a global circulation model, run 5 years ago, somehow informed MISO that wind and solar power would provide 44% of electricity demand for less than 1% of the earth’s surface area on a certain date in 2025? I don’t think the Oracle at Delphi was that precise
Does wind and solar vary inversely so that there is an even, reliable output?
In MISO…yes. The nocturnal low level jet is common though not guaranteed. It’s not a perfect R = -1 though so the non-wind/solar resources have to be dispatched often. We’ll never be able to go fully renewable due to this and the lack of rotational inertia, but it does help diversify the resource mix allowing for more options for day-of, next day, and longer term dispatching. Not all area are as equally suitable for wind and solar though.
Yes, a clear indicator of the problem. Peaks like this are not showing that wind+solar is the solution. On the contrary, its producing feast or famine. On a calm winter evening it will be producing 5% of supply. Where does the rest come from, and what is the real cost in money and emissions of providing it?
The key variable is the cost and feasibility of delivering dispatchable power.
The question is what role wind and solar tech has in this. The question is not what peak wind and solar can deliver for a couple of hours. Do the sums and you will find that adding wind to a reliable conventional grid does nothing either for emissions or cost. It just decreases reliability and increases cost. Without lowering emissions.
Wind and solar isn’t a be-all-end-all option. It works well in MISO and has helped keep our costs down and the grid reliable. But yeah it’s not going to be as equally beneficial to other areas.
We have rapidly gone from consensus to fragmentation. Reform are on record pledging to abolish net zero
Elected officials have voted to overturn a local authority’s declaration of a climate emergency. Staffordshire County Council, which has been run by Reform UK councillors since May’s local elections, made the decision on Thursday. –
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmz3919wn3o
The Tory leadership wants to repeal the climate act, but does the party?
Tories at war over Badenoch’s plan to axe Climate Change Act as Theresa May brands it a ‘catastrophic mistake’https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-kemi-badenoch-climate-change-act-b2838186.html#
Reform does what says on the tin.
But May does say some important truths, albeit without meaning to:
True. The science is exactly the same. There’s no confidence that any warming is having any effects on weather at all. The harms are undeniably non-evident.
Absolutely. We need to ensure that they aren’t burdened with ecological disasters and pointless mountains of debt.
She signed the migration compact
https://www.iom.int/global-compact-migration
I can’t say here on a family website what I think of her – typical vicar’s daughter.
re: “Absolutely. We need to ensure that they aren’t burdened with ecological disasters and pointless mountains of debt. ”
Plot twist: Saddle them with the debt, since, it won’t be your progeny anyway that ‘populates’ the country with the mass migration/invasion taking place and the rapid procreation thereof.
The Plan For A Muslim Takeover of Britain
The “Muslim vote” has 5 MPs for the constituency of Gaza. That’s one reason for recognising Sand land.
Theresa May was a catastrophic mistake! What makes her think that she is relevant? She was one of the worst PMs ever and jumped before she was pushed in the 2024 election.
Encountered this the other day –
“Episode #2: What is Heating the Sun’s Corona?”
https://profanescience.substack.com/p/podcast-episode-2-what-is-heating
Looks like nonsense to me. ‘Hydrynos’ at a million Kelvin?
re: “at a million Kelvin”
Classic mistake; using simple observed spectra to imply temperature?
Eat this for your just deserts:
An excerpt from “International Journal of Hydrogen Energy” EPR (Electron Paramagnetic Resonance) is used to show a new property of Hydrogen … (Volume 47, Issue 56.)
Title: Electron paramagnetic resonance proof for the existence of molecular hydrino.
Link:
https://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/126823930/1_s2.0_S0360319922022406_main.pdf
If you’re weak on your analytics it will surf well over your head.
Temperature estimate in the solar corona are a.o. based on the FeXIV emission line at 5303 A and the FeX emission at 6374 A. Electron temperatures of the plasma are in the range 700000K to well over a million K. (FeXIV is 13 times ionised iron, requiring a seriously high temperature).
Incidently, the paper you refer to was published ‘on behalf of …’. It is a paid for advertisment.
Good question
https://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
I recently submitted a formal comment on the draft New York State Energy Plan. Roger Caiazza included my comment in a post on his blog “The Pragmatic Environmentalist of NY”. The main point of my comment was that the speculative “health benefits” and “avoided GHG benefits” produce no hard money to justify the huge expenditures expected by continuing to proliferate intermittent wind and solar sources with battery support.
https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2025/10/05/draft-energy-plan-comments-made-by-richard-ellenbogen-and-david-dibbell/
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
South Australia no longer has a duck curve. It is gaping chasm with rooftops serving the entire demand in the State for a few hours from 11:30am till 3pm. At its peak, rooftops were pumping out 1806MW with the State net demand at just 1669MW. There was some being exported to other States. So the grid weather dependent generators had no demand in the State to serve.
Grid wind was heavily curtailed for a few hours producing around 400MW from a potential of 1100MW and grid solar just 15MW from potential of 550MW. See chart – and take note of the “curtailment” category at the bottom of the table. Curtailment is the difference between the demand served and the demand that could be served if the demand was available. It is not related to the installed capacity; rather the strength of the wind in combination with the capacity..
https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1d&interval=30m&view=discrete-time&group=Detailed
You can move the curser across the chart to change the table to 30 minute intervals.
Grid solar is now obviously a stranded asset in South Australia. Wind would be immediately uneconomic and a stranded asset without the export market or the guaranteed consumer theft..
September was the highest month for rooftop solar insrtallations in Australia and there has been 1GWh of households batteries installed since July 1 when the battery rebate kicked in – Sleezies offer of OPM to instal household batteries because no one wants a big grid battery near them.
I declared the economic demise of Australia’s electrical grids in 2016 – it is on the record. It is now coming to pass and should be clear to anyone looking. There is no reduction in the need for essential generation nearly all supplied by fossil fuels in Australia with a little hydro that is not highly perched water constrained. So unit cost for essential electricity is through the roof because all that fossil fuelled generating capacity has high standby costs spread across dramatically reduced volume. But no reduction in the peak demand.
Australian punters have democratised the grid. They have voted with their wallets, where they can, to reduce their exposure to rampant electricity price rise driven by the absurd charge to NetZero. It is the better side of a very sad tale for Australia’s economy – now free of heavy industry (apart from those on benefits) and most manufacturing.
Australia’s position on the globe gives it a unique relationship with truly abundant sunlight – the equal of no other G20 nation. Every roof is a potential electrical power source.And energy requirements in a sun drenched country modest compared with the winter snow covered regions of the globe.
Rooftops have won – now let’s get back to sensible essential electricity generation. Rather than the NetZero fantasy before the economy collapses.
Very interesting. Law of unintended consequences!
Anybody recall this from the not-too-distant past? This was pre-mRNA ‘vaccine’ release:
Article: Early in the pandemic, President Donald Trump and White House senior official Peter Navarro arranged the donation of 63 million doses of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to America’s strategic drug stockpile to combat Covid-19. The government began securing HCQ in March 2020, after Trump, on the advice of his medical and scientific advisors, lauded HCQ as “very encouraging,” “very powerful,” and a “game-changer.” While HCQ (and its structurally similar analogue chloroquine) was not FDA-indicated for Covid-19, it was well-known to have specific off-label pharmacological functionality for preventing viral particle entry into cells, chemical derivatives of which have been utilized for antiviral use as far back as 1934.
Following Trump’s proposal, HCQ suddenly came under an unwarranted full-scale attack from federal officials, the press, so-called “fact-checkers,” and university professors. Many of the attacks contained outright falsehoods about HCQ’s pharmacology and safety or Trump’s endeavor to make HCQ available to eligible patients.
During the same March 2020 press conference and standing alongside Trump, Fauci very accurately stated that “[HCQ] toxicities are rare, and in many respects, reversible” … Following Trump’s proposal and subsequent stockpile of product, HCQ experienced a stunning, seemingly coordinated, fall from favor.
First, Fauci changed his mind regarding his March 2020 statement following the publication in the New England of Medicine on May 1, 2020 (later retracted), the FDA’s problematic methodologies in its review on May 19, 2020 (discussed above), and the Lancet’s publication on May 22nd, 2020 (later retracted).
More: https://brownstone.org/articles/trumps-63-million-doses-of-hydroxychloroquine-could-have-been-great-for-america/
History inevitably proves Trump to be right. A truly great man with incomparable influence across the globe. The world will be a better place when he achieves what he set out to do.
Trumps greatest achievement was fast forwarding the covid vaccine. Operation warp speed I think it was called. Saved millions of lives.
And president Trump also sent a hospital ship and field hospital to New York City and the assholes that run NYC refused to use either of them. Uhm and didn’t some legislators outlaw prescribing hydroxchlorquine for Covid? Oh yeah, didn’t Fauci flip flop on the effectiveness of masks against Covid?
If I’m wrong on any of that please tell me why.
Why? There was money to be made on the “super-vaccine-that-wasn’t-a-vaccine”, of course!
Yep. As always –
“follow the money!”
By law, the ‘vaccines’ couldn’t be approved for emergency use if existing medications such as HCQ and Ivermectin against Covid. You figure out the rest…
HCQ was “safe” to administer and when administered as a prophylactic to entire populations….recipients had a 98 % plus survival rate….which medical researchers pointed out was probably a little less successful than Grandma’s chicken soup cuz the very odd person had a reaction to HCQ…but still very successful to those who “want to believe” but don’t believe in “control group”studies to see what natural immune response might contribute…
We need to learn from the administration of whole CoVid vaccine affair so that future pandemics can be more successfully countered instead of hoping it won’t occur. Hope is not a plan.
Acceptance of voluntary self-termination for people who feel it’s their constitutional right to NOT have a cure administered to them by the state probably isn’t a very good plan either…..although historically, interment has been accepted as the lowest cost anti-dissident program for many totalitarian states. Just sayin’….
Thank god the hoses of a gas station aren’t worth anything, otherwise the ecotards would be stealing them by the thousands to help their deluded cause.
But yes, EV charging cables contain precious copper, can’t avoid to chuckle that increased copper theft is becoming an additional “threat” to EV mobility besides the customers who refuse to buy that crap.
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/10/12/huge-spike-in-ev-copper-cable-theft-leaves-drivers-stranded/
Washington State lawmakers are considering possible solutions to combat copper theft. Damages and replacement costs are thousands of dollars and the return to the crooks is minor by comparison. Another crime is crashing stolen autos into businesses, frequently, cannabis retail stores. The victims suffer, sometimes repeatedly. We all end up paying for these crimes with higher insurance and generally higher prices. Elected officials need to stop considering and actually legislate solutions.
“Leftist Cheers Turn to Tears as Machado Dedicates the Nobel Peace Prize to Trump”
Good for Machado!
Just like Academy Awards, etc., Nobel prizes aren’t worth what they used to be. Politics.
If the Noble people knew he as going to do that, he never would have gotten it.
That is “Nobel.”
Yesterday in the SW Wisconsin city of Viroqua demonstrators were waving Palestinian flags and calling for the genocide in Gaza to stop.
The demonstrators should pay attention to the news. They got their wish.
Why are they not out in the streets celebrating Trump’s peacemaking in Gaza?
Oh, that’s right, the Radical Left/Marxists/Islamists don’t really want an end to the destruction, they just want a talking point for their violent radical left/Marxist/Islamist agenda. If the war in Gaza ends, then what will they complain about?
Trump is destroying the Evil Left and their agenda in this world. That’s why they hate him so much.
More power to you, President Trump.
Even the Palestinians are praising President Trump. Their supporters in the West hate what Trump is doing because Trump is showing the world a different, common-sense way to look at things. A peacefull, prosperous way of looking at things.
The Hateful, Radical Left/Marxists/Islamists of the world are in retreat, and Trump is the one who put them there. Keep it up, President Trump. And I know you will. So do the extremists and they don’t like it a bit.
The Radical Left killed Charlie Kirk and now hundreds of thousands of young people are looking to follow his example. The Tide is turning. Evil is on the retreat. Thanks to a few strong characters we are blessed to have leading the way.
They’re mad because Trump.
Calling Arthur Dent…
I’ll lie down in front of Miliband’s net zero bulldozers, says Reform council leader
The man trying to defend Lincolnshire from a green energy assault
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/12/lie-down-in-front-milibands-net-zero-bulldozers-interview/
If the UK and Australia went totally Net Zero and produced no carbon dioxide, it would make no difference to the Earth’s weather. Even if you believe CO2 can noticeably heat the Earth’s atmosphere, a Net Zero UK and Australia would reduce that heat by a hundredth of a degree or thereabouts. It’s a total waste of time and enormous amounts of money with a result that can’t even be measured.
CO2 phobia has sapped the intelligence from UK and Australian political leaders. They are destroying their own economies for no good reason. And they can’t see it, and so continue on down this Road to Ruin.
Self-inflicted, unnecessary destruction of the UK and Australia. They must be feeling very lonely, as no other nation, other than Germany, is focusing on reducing CO2, and other nations are focusing on inceasing their CO2 production and are doing so and this increase dwarfs any reductions in CO2 that the UK and Australia can do.
It is SO Stupid. That’s why Trump calls people who think like this “Stupid People” because they are stupid.
Be careful who you vote for.
No no no!! You don’t understand, The shining example of the UK is so admired that all will feel bound to follow our example. Going Net Zero in the UK will save the world and its weather. Just you wait and see.
(Hmm. As I write, wind is producing just over 1% of our electricity.)
And the interconnects are almost maxed-out…
I noticed your post just after producing a graph of the GB electricity grid for “Westfieldmike” above.
A variant with the interconnect (ICT) sum included is attached below.
Notes
– I believe the “notional” capacity of all GB ICTs is around 9 or 10 GW, but the practical limit is more like 7 to 8 GW.
– While lots of “Wind” tends to reverse the ICT flows to become (net) exporters of electricity, other factors are clearly in play.
– Having the net “ICT sum” value hover steadily around the 4 (to 5) GW level for 48 to 60 hours straight is … “unusual”, in my (limited !) experience.
– The daily cycle for “Total Demand” for the GB grid has oscillated between 21 and 37 GW over the last couple of weeks. 4 (and a quarter) GW over an entire 24-hour (or longer) period is anything from one-ninth to one-fifth of “Demand” …
Gridwatch has readily available charts:
http://www.gridwatch.co.uk or you can get wind here:
http://www.gridwatch.co.uk/wind
The useful thing is that it shows min, max and average generation by source. So you can immediately see just how variable wind is, and how little its peaks correspond to peaks in demand.
Also see templar
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk.
You can get csv series for data from templar, and its more detailed. Gridwatch is easier to read at a quick glance.
Be careful who you vote for.
Ah, first you need to know how the Parliamentary dictatorship works…
Too true. Do you know that voting for independents would be a mega-shift to the right and destroy Parliamentary dictatorship? Think about it.
So Kat Timpf on the Gutfeld Show never votes for Republicans or Democrats. So how does her point-of-view ever see the light of day–politically? Voting for a party/group that never gets elected may make you fell good, but it does absolutely nothing to change the political spectrum. You need to attach yourself to a party that gets elected and change it from inside.
Independents are are not a party or group. They are individuals. Individuals are the real progenitors of change. Every major human achievement can be pinned to an individual. Never to a group or party, indeed, it is the very worst of human behaviour that groups and parties can claim credit for.
New Jersey Gets a Real Race for GovernorRepublican Jack Ciattarelli is closing the gap with Rep. Mikie Sherill by arguing that high taxes and foolish energy policies are ruining the Garden State.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/new-jersey-gets-a-real-race-for-governor-jack-ciattarelli-mikie-sherrill-134168bf?st=11bdXW&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Sherill didn’t do very good on the Transgender questions, either. She would not condemn biological males being allowed to play female sports.
I think allowing biological males in female bathrooms and in female sports is a very big controversy that will drive the vote as much as any other policy question. I think Sherill is on the wrong side of this issue, as 80 percent of the public is against allowing biological males in female sports.
I agree 100%! Maybe the trans could have their own league!
Okay, but the first season shall consist of games in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan.
Strangely enough, I saw a report yesterday where Iran is trying to become the Mecca for transgender surgery!
It seems that if you have surgery done to change your gender equipment, then the Iranians have no problem with you.
If you are just homosexual, without surgery, then they will throw you off a building to your death.
Anyone who has worked out at a co-ed gym knows that biological men in womens sport is lunacy. Upper body strength is like night and day and even on lower back and legs, where the difference is less marked, its still considerable. And men have much more explosive power. Lunacy.
I think a lot of this psychology goes back to the Feminist Movement where feminists insisted that women could do anything men could do. The feminists don’t want to give up this concept.
I think that is still part of their psychology, even though, as you say, it is obviously not the case.
Sometimes you also will find rather the reverse happening – trainers who don’t understand what is and is not different. We have basically the same muscles, but the skeletons are slightly but importantly different, and of course women are lighter as well as less muscular overall.
So you sometimes find trainers prescribing thigh extension machines to women in lieu of squats or deadlifts, out of a vague feeling that these are not ladylike – and a feeling of the women that they are too musclehead and will lead to huge muscles. Which they will not, and in addition just doing thigh extensions does nothing for the lower back, which is a vital part of lower body strength, and it also increases the natural imbalance in women between the quads and the muscles of the inner and side of the thighs.
The result of this is increased risk of knee injury, especially ACL. The natural imbalance comes from the hip joints being further apart in women than in men. So proper old school leg work is especially important for women.
Trainers are also reluctant to prescribe proper heavy dumbbell bench presses, or bent arm pullovers, or free overhead presses, and prefer machines instead, often cable with very light weights. When they should be giving the traditional exercises with free weights, but of course with much lighter weights.
I guess it works both ways! And I have seen cases where a woman is welcomed into a group who were taking turns on the bench, but out of sheer ignorance urged on by the guys to have a go and take on more than was wise, The guys are less prejudiced than the trainers, but are naive in the other direction.
To the wind/solar supporters: we’re looking at wind / solar capacity wrong.
The formerly stable grids of the US, Australia, Europe customers and taxpayers should not freely provide for the inability of wind/solar to provide ON DEMAND, stable, dispatchable energy.
Firm capacity is required. The sporadic, intermittent, natural W/S variations of capacity must be filled.
The energy holes in W/S output should be filled on-site…not by the grid.
The W/S sites should be required to at all times account for fluctuations or total loss of wind/solar energy. W/S sites should be required to have on-site “make-up” capacity to seamlessly replace or add to contract capacity,frequency, voltage for W/S to follow load–the customers’ demand for energy.
Of course the actual costs of the complete W/S site and interconnection costs should be counted as costs of W/S. Not hidden from customers, taxpayers.
Capacity is not the customers’ goal. The goal is to provide customer demand continuously, with total capacity, energy, stable voltage, current as needed, at their location without concern.
The lowest cost should also be the goal. Transparency is good.
Enough of thinking “free” wind and solar can supply low cost (for industrial and all other consumers) and on-demand energy.
It is not “free” or low cost.
To: The Creatures of Prior Conditioning – who are ALWAYS set to ‘trigger’ on a perceived scam (sometimes they are a scam)! You, the subjects of classic Operant Conditioning (the term courtesy of psychologist B.F. Skinner) – hearing the bell – you (now) naturally salivate … the result of the classic experiment by Pavlov he called ‘classical conditioning’.
Well CoPC (Creatures of Prior Conditioning) – Here is the actual f r a u d you have been trained to re-actively/reflexively respond to –
1) Website of the company ‘Quantum Energy’ – https://qqqq.energy/
2) The magnetic ‘engine’ – https://ie.energy/earth_engine/OFFLINE-index.html
The ‘Quantum Energy’ company videos on YouTube –
3) “Quantum Photon Engine – Perpetual Motion? Free Energy? Over Unity? None of the Above.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeBdyYPDiGw
4) “Quantum Energy – Magnetic Engine – Driven by Photons – Betty IV”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOyv9XSS6Xs
And, last but not least coverage of the lawsuit regarding this f r a u d to the United States SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) – This website explains it all (the pumping of stock via multiple shell companies et al) –
https://fraudcraftjournal.wordpress.com/2025/08/30/complaint-to-sec-against-inductance-energy-corp-quantum-energy-inc-flooidcx-corp-and-dennis-danzik/
Update to add – the high-pressure ‘sales’ video (to pump the stock) –
Gases dissipate heat. Our civilization depends on that happening. Clothes get dried. Your car cools. The electric baseboard heat warms your home.
Just for a laugh: Dem pundit Chris Mowrey is attacking a Rep candidate who believes (wrongly, per Chris) that solar doesn’t work when it’s dark and windmills don’t work when there’s no wind.
Yes, that is exactly what he said: https://x.com/chrisdmowrey/status/1976426819235741905
Sargon of Akkad discusses the the “philosophy of African Time” – the notion that events make up time and until events occur, time has not passed. The outcome is no ability to plan for the future, because it has not occurred yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN5PfzD5ehI
My take it derives from subsistence living. If one is living day to day, one is not in a position to make any investment in the future. I saw this in Indian villages 60 years ago. However, for the well off – take landowners and brass smiths – they did not subscribe the the philosophy of just letting things happen.
And also, when the local warlord / criminal gang can just turn up and take your stuff, there’s no incentive to save (cash under the mattress is easily stolen) or repair anything. Why keep something in good condition if it’s going to be taken off you eventually anyway?
Also, this by Connor Tomlinson (a member of the Lotus Eaters along with “Sargon of Akkad” Carl Benjamin) –
“We Don’t Understand How Africa Thinks”
New iPhone – after broad consumer input and suggestions from everyone –
Wait, an 8-track AND a punch card reader? SOLD!
But where’s the phone cord?
To be maxed out, it a player for cassette tapes.
AND – a tonearm (‘tone arm’? and turntable) – for playing records!
yApple certainly has a surplus of two-year-old-with hammer types – clutter cubed.
I wonder if anyone has given any thought to what effect the massive deployment of wind turbines may have on local weather
What effect?
Nevada solar the size of Las Vegas
before:
Vegas-sized solar project could come to Nevada’s smallest county; residents not thrilled – The Nevada Independent
after (cancellation):
Nevada solar energy project listed as ‘canceled’; developer pledges to continue – Las Vegas Sun News
There is a lot of local resistance to wind and solar going on in the United States now.
People are finally starting to wake up.
Another attempt to slide by people:
Buildings are turning to ‘ice batteries’ for sustainable air conditioning – Victoria Times Colonist
Claim is using less of fossil fuels by making use of solar electricity, but I see it as principally peak shaving because use of air conditioning is greatest during heat of the day (i.e. when sun is shining). Depending in part on time of day pricing as Chico CA for example has).
If the house is kept closed up, the peak need for AC will be later than the afternoon high temperature, which is after the peak electricity production. It will probably be most appreciated at bed time, when the sun is no longer shining.
Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science. For the truth about climate change try reading and understanding “The Rational Climate e-Book” by Patrice Poyet which one can down load from the Internet for free.
Read it. Fantastic work. Provides much detail and rigorous derivation of his arguments. It is lengthy, which is a disadvantage, and the ‘Climate At A Glance’, that has been described here, is a worthy companion to Poyet. I think someone provided a download of the ‘at a Glance’ book? Hoping to add it to the ever-growing library of contrarian literature.
This was an interesting address by Dr. Mills to the students Fresno State some years back.
The title of this video is “Dr. Mills Fresno State lecture”
Skip the intro and start at 5:30 point in the video –
https://youtu.be/8dCzVUnnL00?t=334
This was an interesting video on the “Coherer Effect”. It was an early radio wave detection mechanism, before detector diodes be they vacuum tubes, cat-whisker-style wire on a Galena crystal (diode) or Ge or Si diodes –
“Wireless Communication with a Cup of Balls, Coherer Effect”
Shaun Spiers, executive director of the Green Alliance, an umbrella organisation for green groups, says: “There is no getting away from the need to upgrade the UK’s energy system, which will entail cost and changes to the landscape whether we go with gas or clean, home grown, renewable energy.
“England has just suffered the second worst harvest in our history, following the warmest summer and the driest spring in over 100 years. People in Lincolnshire and East Anglia know that climate change is real and dangerous.
Classic, absolutely classic!
The guy really thinks that the last year’s bad harvest was due to global warming. It obviously wasn’t, it was due to something called bad weather. Happens!
Then he thinks that installing wind turbines off the north coast of Scotland, and bringing the intermittent power generated down to the south, is ‘upgrading the UK’s energy system’, when actually all its doing is raise prices and increase the real and growing risk of blackouts.
And finally he thinks that doing this will in some way save farmers in East Anglia and Lincolnshire from the effects of climate change. When it will make no measurable difference to global CO2 emissions, which is what are supposed to be causing climate change and the bad harvests.
It is a classic case of eat up your dinner, think of all the starving children in Africa. To whom it will make not the slightest difference if you eat more or less, but eating when you are not hungry any more will do one thing for sure: produce childhood and later adult obesity.
I live in East Anglia (Norfolk), I know climate change is real but I know it isn’t dangerous. I also know that in my garden (1 acre) the apple trees have never been more productive and the weeds, of which there are many, are flourishing like never before, which I attribute to CO2 levels. Growers just need to adjust what they grow to make best use of the prevailing conditions.
This just in, over the transom as it were –
Title: “Attempts to discredit the Zervos Henry Ford vaccine study fail miserably”
.
Jake Scott and Jeffrey Morris engage in gaslighting cloaked in “expert” syntax in order to fool people into ignoring the ground-breaking Henry Ford vaxxed/unvaxxed study.
.
Also: Watch An Inconvenient Study (Live Digital Premiere) A Del Bigtee film
.
Executive Summary
.
Jeffrey Morris and Jake Scott will try to convince you that the Henry Ford vaxxed/unvaxxed study is flawed. While their arguments “sound” legitimate, they are actually not.
For example, Jake Scott says that vaccinated kids are just sicker, it has nothing to do with the vaccine. Then he tells us it is “detection bias” but completely fails to point out that the cancer rates were comparable in the two groups (the negative control). Or that the study design was flawed even though it followed CDC Guidelines for vaccination studies and was approved by Henry Ford itself who was so impressed that they funded the study. So many things they just ignore…
More: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/attempts-to-discredit-the-zervos
Key excerpt –
Both Morris and Scott ignore the single most important message of the film, which is that when top scientists are given a choice, the correct choice is to save their careers from ruin (even when they are about to retire) rather than tell the truth and publish honest science. Do Morris and Scott agree with Zervos’ decision to bury the study so he wouldn’t get fired? Is that the right decision? Sacrifice the health of kids to save your job?
That is the KEY MESSAGE OF THE FILM and Morris and Scott miss it completely because they are captured.
FROM the video (one source linked above, a YT source linked below) at the 36:23 point:
“No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes .. between entirely un-immunized populations of children and fully immunized children.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/10/bombshell-vax-vs-unvax-study-finally-sees-light/
That’s it!
From the Ford study (childhood immunizations vs un-immunized) at the ~57 min point in the video –
Left column – Immunized
Right column – Unimmunized
(Now, granted, there were ~18k subjects in the immunized group, and ~2k in the unimmunized group, BUT to have zero cases in the unimmunized group!!!!)
The ratios worked out –