From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
There’s no wind, no sun, it’s boiling hot and the air conditioners all go on.
What could possibly go wrong?
From the Telegraph:
Britain has been forced to urgently import more electricity from the EU to avoid power shortages during the record-breaking heatwave.
The National Energy System Operator (Neso), which manages the grid, issued a rare emergency power supply warning on Tuesday after soaring temperatures triggered a slump in solar energy, with panels struggling to work in the hot conditions.
It was subsequently withdrawn after Neso secured emergency supplies from the Continent on Wednesday.
Kathryn Porter, an industry consultant, said Neso had “begged the EU” to lift import trading limits which would have capped the amount of energy Britain could import.
Ms Porter said the sudden easing of restrictions had allowed the UK to obtain 2.3 gigawatts (GW) of imports versus a 1.5 GW limit introduced in May, helping Britain avoid power shortages.
She said loosening the restrictions was necessary because Neso “didn’t see this shortage coming”.
Britain secured the emergency supplies via the interconnectors linking the grid to those on the Continent.
The UK had been scheduled to export power, but was forced into an about-turn by temperature conditions which have hit 36c.
Fintan Devenney, from energy consultancy Montel, said the situation had become “sufficiently severe to overrule the trading limit”.
“Heatwaves usually coincide with higher demand. But of course other markets, including the Netherlands, are in similar situations to Great Britain today, so our Dutch, Belgian and Danish interconnectors were all scheduled to export power at the day-ahead stage,” said Mr Devenney.
When Neso announced the limits, it told the market that it “does not have concerns over electricity system security”.
Full story here.
We were in the same boat last night, with CCGT running flat out to keep the grid going as the sun went down:
https://www.solar.sheffield.ac.uk/pvlive/#
The second chart shows the Interconnector flows, and how we were desperate for their power in the evening.
But, of course, Europe had exactly the same problems as us. That’s why we had to pay through the nose for the 1.7 GW we imported from the Netherlands:
https://twitter.com/MontelAnalytics/status/2069770213155897832/photo/1
Market prices here rose to almost £250/MWh:
The Europeans call it a Hitzelflaute:
https://twitter.com/MontelAnalytics/status/2069406465962491913/photo/1
And where did all this grid-saving Dutch power come from?
https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/actual/perType/generation
You guessed it! Coal and gas!
It’s wonderful, all of this “renewable” electricity!
But what will happen when the European gas and coal plants are shut for good?
[Ctrl f] search on “nuclear” comes up 0/0 Why should I read any further?
Because the point is not to show why nuclear would be better, but to show that solar and wind are not doing the job.
An article on the uselessness of exorbitant Vitamin C usage needn’t discuss the benefits of sun tan lotion.
Oh how you must Pay Through the Nose when you make yourself dependent on Other Countries for your energy by eliminating your domestic sources and decreasing your domestic base load potential.
Obviously they need bigger taller lighter more sensitive windmills which operate best in light winds. As the winds increase, shut down the light wind turbines and activate the higher wind ones. Elevator platforms? Foldable blades and towers?
In gusty winds, pump water into the blades to make them heavier and provide a better flywheel effect.
Retrofit gears, like ICE car transmissions which ensure engines remain in the most efficient power band.
I gotta do all the thinking for those clowns?
I hope that was sarcasm.
Because it is exactly the sort of GreenCrap™ nonsense that is being touted.
If those dimwits try to implement those ideas, I will laugh my ass off. Unfortunately, I don’t think they actually are that dumb.
If Millivolt can insist on more Solar panels whilst also promoting dimming the Sun he is already that dumb.
EUROPE AIMS TO WEAKEN THE US WITH EXPENSIVE OFFSHORE WINDMILLS THAT PRODUCE EXPENSIVE, LOW-QUALITY ELECTRICITY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/europe-attempts-to-entangle-us-with-expensive-offshore-windmills
.
Net zero by 2050 Euro elites tried to weaken the US, with help of the unpatriotic, leftist Biden clique, into going down the black hole of 30,000 MW by 2030 of expensive, highly subsidized, weather-dependent, grid-disturbing offshore windmill systems, which would need expensive, highly subsidized, short-lived, battery systems for grid support.
.
If little wind and solar, aka DUNKELFLAUTE, there is near-zero output of wind and solar, and a large fleet of OTHER plants, must provide the missing electricity up to demand, 24/7/365.
If the OTHER plants are insufficient, electricity needs to be imported at high wholesale prices
If too much wind and solar, much of the electricity needs to be exported at low wholesale prices
These OTHER plants must be fueled, staffed, kept in good working order to instantly provide what is missing.
The more wind and solar tied to the expanded/reinforced/more complex grid, the more OTHER plants.
THAT TWO-SYSTEM COMPLEXITY DOES NOT COME FOR FREE.
Hidden Costs: These are the A-to-Z costs (windmill to land fill) almost all folks are kept ignorant about.
At a future 25-30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect far-flung W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if no curtailment, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Total: 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh
.
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, with equivalent of 50% subsidies
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
Some values increase due to inflation and as more W/S systems are added to the grid.
.
Such expensive W/S electricity would have made the US even less competitive in world markets.
Any US tariffs on the European/Chinese supply of W/S systems would greatly increase their turnkey capital costs/MW and their electricity costs/ kWh.
.
Almost the entire supply of the wind projects would be:
1) designed and made in Europe,
2) then transported across the Atlantic Ocean by European specialized ships,
3) then unloaded at new, taxpayer-financed, $500-million storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading areas,
4) then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the windmill systems.
5) The financing would be mostly by European pension funds, that pay benefits to European retirees.
.
Hundreds of people in each seashore state would have jobs during the erection phase
The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships
Hundreds of people in each seashore state would have long-term O&M jobs, using mostly European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.
.
Conglomerates owned by Euro elites would finance, build, erect, own and operate almost all of the 30,000 MW of offshore windmills, providing work for many thousands of European workers for decades, and multi-$billion profits each year.
.
That Euro offshore wind ruse did not work out, because Trump was elected.
Trump-hating, Euro elites are furious. Projects are being cancelled. The European windmill industry is in shambles, with multi-$billion annual losses, lay-offs and tens of $billions of stranded costs.
.
Trump spared the US from the W/S evils inflicted by the leftist, woke Democrat cabal, that used an autopen for Biden signatures, and bypassed on-the-beach/in-the-basement Biden, an increasingly dysfunctional Marionette.
.
Euro elites used the IPCC-invented, “CO2-is-evil” hoax, based on its own “science”.
The article shows what had been predicted by Energy Systems Analysts in about 2000.
At that time, several articles predicted an operational and cost wall at about 25 to 30 % annual wind/solar on the grid.
But their voices were drowned out by the woke bureaucrats and the moneyed elites, who saw a big chance to have long-term lucrative tax shelters at the expense of all others.
Well, those chickens have come to roost in Germany, UK, Ireland, Spain, etc.
Europe’s Steady Decline Started in the 1970s
European elites, after loss of nearly all their colonies by about 1970, from which they had extracted huge wealth for 500 years, found that these recently free colonies wanted to use their fossil fuels and other resources to develop their own economies. They became new centers of growth and want to select their trajectory of development on their own, without interference and control by outsiders. Countries in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America became centers of industrial production, especially China and India.
The loss of colonies was followed by other events, such as 1) the “Golden Age” of rapid European post-war growth formally ended in the early 1970s, 2) the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system (1971), and 3) the 1973 oil crisis. All these events created massive inflation and high unemployment, a phenomenon known as stagflation. During this time, the US and especially emerging Asian economies began reducing Europe’s share of global world trade.
Whereas European productivity growth remained relatively strong through the 1980s, the turning point was 1995. Since 1995, the US and Asian markets experienced a massive technological and productivity upsurge. Whereas Europe’s economy continued to grow, it grew significantly slower than the US, India, China, etc., leading to a steady decline in Europe’s share of World GDP from 40% in 1973 to 23% in 2025
Because of decades of poor decisions by the elites of European governments Europe became increasingly less competitive in world markets. Not only did Europe decline from a lofty perch but then proceeded to dig a deep hole for further decline, such as:
1) Grossly excessive rules and regulations, emanating from bureaucratic Brussels, that act as a wet blanket on economies, and
2) Restructuring its economy based on fossil fuels, nuclear, etc., to one based on weather-dependent wind, solar, batteries, etc., and
3) Encouraging the displacement of slow-growing native populations. A total of 64.2 million unvetted, uneducated, untrained, non-citizens were in Europe at end 2025 (not counting their children and grandchildren born in Europe). How will Europe ever get rid of these people, before its rapidly growing population is greater than the shrinking population of natives?
4) In 2022, these elites imposed a ban on Russian low-cost fossil fuels and other natural resources much needed by Europe, so Russia cannot profit from them; the sanctions backfired on Europe’s competitiveness.
5) After NATO was established, European elites, dependent for defense on the US, saved themselves $trillions by spending only 0.5 to 1.5% of GDP on their own defense, while the US spent about 4 to 5% to keep the peace in the world. How can you claim to be sovereign and not be able to defend yourself?
That grossly inequitable situation came to a screeching halt in 2025, when Trump required Europe to spend up to 5% of GDP for their own defense, because the US was “busy elsewhere”.
Trump imposed tariffs on European imports to reduce the US trade deficit, will reduce US troops and their costs in Europe, requires Europe pay for its own defense, no longer wants to pay for Ukraine, but will provide US weaponry, if Europe pays for them.
The US, Europe and Canada created NATO on April 4,1949. Russia and 7 east European nations created the Warsaw Pact on May 14, 1955. Originally NATO had 12 members. After the dissolution of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact in 1991, NATO, after expanding to east Europe, has 32 members. Managing many members with diverse interests has become difficult, even with the EU and Media incessantly scare-mongering about an imminent attack by Russia, the designated common enemy to justify the continued existence of NATO.
There were various coups, color revolutions, election interferences, etc., in east Europe (such as in Yugoslavia, Moldova, Rumania, Georgia, Hungary, etc.) to create new countries and install governments that support the US/EU/NATO. After 1991, the US/EU has relentlessly expanded NATO to Russian borders “to bark at the gates of Russia”, said Roman Pope Francis in June 2022.
So instead of one set of backup in the form of gas/nuclear you end up with light wind, normal wind and high wind setups and still need the gas/nuclear. Next it will be Moon panels.
+1 for “Moon panels“
A better solution that Water (no pun intended) would be to place moveable weights inside the blades. In light winds move them close to the center of mass while in heavy winds extend them toward the tip
/snark /snark /snark
You forgot the third type of wind turbine that only kicks in when wind speeds get really fast.
it’sa really big blow!
They can pass all the laws they like but they can’t overcome the laws of nature (other, of course, than by using fossil fuels or nuclear)..
I only use fossil fuels as a last resort, such as when I wish to live above a stone age level of comfort.
Too right!
Not your intent I think but you implied that solar is natural and nuclear is unnatural. How does one define ‘natural’? Is it possible to overcome the laws of nature in any context?
No, they want to pass new tax laws on American tech in place of building tech in their own utopian villages. DJT is having to use threats of more tariffs to defend tech.
People in Europe are so brainwashed that they will love it when the power goes out. They will return to their gardens, plant their own food, raise livestock and live off the land once again. They will move back to the countryside and build new towns and villages, returning to a natural way of life. Cities will slowly become ghost towns. Transport will be manual and the food will be much better. The population will grow, family life will become more popular, and having more children will be the new trend. I guess maybe the brain washing is okay, since this new world will be so much better! Who needs electricity any ways!
And then they visit the US of A to se what the ALTERNATIVE approach produces and their brain washing disappears.
That’s the beauty of the feudal lifestyle (from the view of the self styled elite), since transportation is limited to foot traffic, there’s no way for people to get to these other places where things are done differently.
Made sense until you wrote “The population will grow“. No electricity for more than a month would mean mass death, starting at hospitals and retirement homes.
Their wood-based economy, so popular during the feudal Middle Ages, when Europe’s population was about 70 million (40 million after the Black Death), would not last 5 years, because all forests would be gone, with a population of 600 million at end 2025, including 64.2 million not born in Europe who largely live off the fat (what fat would be left over?) of the land
Of course, the various elites would still be flying in private planes, have their luxury cars and yachts and mansions in tax havens and keep moving to avoid paying taxes.
It was quite a heat wave. Even nuclear reactors couldn’t cope in France.
Note that France’s nuclear reactors that have to reduce power or shut down in hot weather do not do so because they are are technically unable to operate. They do so to limit the river temperatures so as to protect the fish and frogs (sic!) etc. I.e. for ‘environmental’ reasons…
Good job on protecting the frogs.
Now that’s no way to talk about Parisians!
OUCH!
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/small-modular-reactors
.
SMRs sounds good, but the electricity cost/kWh would be at least 2 times gas fired CCGT plants.
Such plants are up to 60% efficient, have very low CO2/kWh.
.
It would take at least 5 to 8 years to build SMRs at a rate of say 50 units per year, because the US no longer has the thousands of educated and trained nuclear engineering professionals capable of designing any nuclear plants.
The US lost that capability after Three Mile Island in March 1979, more than 45 years ago.
.
Also, the US has not enough working-aged people who 1) know how to do more complicated stuff, 2) care enough to do it, 3) have the work ethic and mental discipline, or 4) are otherwise inspired to make themselves useful.
Factories have 400,000 unfilled jobs, but there are few skilled, ambitious people to take them.
People have weird expectations; they want to make big bucks doing nothing.
.
The US has a total lack of Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics (STEM) professionals who are in high places to call the shots.
The US has been filling the shortfall with Chinese, Indian, etc., STEM folks.
The vacuum at the top was filled by lawyer/liberal arts/enviro functionaries who know next to nothing, except obstruction; Hochul, Newsom, etc., are demagogue-style examples.
.
At present, no country is set up to produce, say 50 SMRs per year, at 200 MW each.
China, Russia, South Korea, and the US, with large command/control economies, would be the only countries able set up the required A-to-Z infrastructures.
.
A 500 MW (2 units at 250 MW each) CCGT power plant can be built in two years, at a turnkey cost of $2000/kW.
New York State has finally agreed to allow the building of the gas pipeline from Pennsylvania to New England.
.
If four countries were building 50 SMRs/y each, it would require:
.
Increased uranium mining,
Processing the uranium into fuel bundles,
Constructing factories to produce components and subassemblies,
Constructing factories for assembling the final units near harbors.
Shipping the assembled unis to the site, likely by ship or barge,
Selection and preparation of the site near harbors,
Adding the remaining balance of plant systems,
Plant test operation of each subsystem,
Connecting the plant to the grid, with switchyard,
Test operation of the entire plant,
Commissioning the plant to produce electricity at design output
.
AI systems require lots of steady electricity
Each major AI system should be required to have its own power plant
.
Any SMRs shipped to Africa and other such areas, would be turnkey-built in Europe, the US, Russia, Korea, China, and then shipped by special barges to Africa, etc. The SMRs would stay on the barges and send power to shore. No fuss, no muss
.
Highly subsidized, very expensive, environment-uglifying, bird/bat/sea fauna/tourism/fishery/viewshed-destroying, weather-dependent, variable/intermittent, grid-disturbing, expensive-electricity-producing wind/solar/battery systems do not qualify.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1
.
Russian SMR Projects under Construction
The RITM-200N is the land-based version of Rosatom’s RITM-200 small modular reactor (SMR) series.
It is designed as a modular solution for providing heat and electricity to remote industrial clusters, mining operations, and data centers.
A single RITM-200N unit provides the following capacities:
Thermal Capacity: 190 MW
Electrical Capacity: Up to 55 MW
Multiple units can form a Small Nuclear Power Plant (SNPP) with a total electrical output of up to 330 MW
Performance: availability reaching up to 98%
Turnkey Capital Costs
As of early 2026, the turnkey capital costs for RITM-based land plants are as follows:
Current Target: Rosatom’s stated goal is to bring capital expenditures down to a competitive range of $3,500/ kW to $4,500 kW by 2030
.
Project Examples:
1) Ust-Kuyga (Yakutia, Russia): The plant is intended to provide power for mining and local usage. The first land-based RITM-200N unit is under construction and expected to start power generation in 2028.
2) Uzbekistan: Construction started on March 24, 2026, with ceremonial pouring of concrete.
The plan features two 55 MW RITM-200N SMR units and two 1,000 MW VVER-1000 units. Total capacity will be 2,110 MW.
Nick,
Even the article you linked to points out:
You’re better than that, mate.
No he isn’t.
Is he?
His post does say otherwise.
Nitpicker? Cherrypicker
Are these rules thoughtfully written and implemented, or are they just hippie dippie give ways to those who wanted to restore the Seine, pre Olympics? I’m open to evidence, and realize that it is up to the regulators to assess harm. Plenty of generic assessments available, albeit with no B-A incremental outcomes that I have seen. But I would have voted in these limits, based on the quantitative evidence of environmental damage.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X2300886X?utm_source=chatgpt.com
But a stipulation/inference in all such WUWT posts is that we could have much more nuc/coal if only the mean ol’ regulators would cut us a break on this or that family of regulations – with NO examination of their provenance. Certainly an audible dog whistle, conveniently serving those interests.
I think we actually agree on the importance of those environmental safeguards. If discharging hotter water harms river ecosystems, then yes, those limits are absolutely justified.
But that’s exactly why I pushed back on Nick’s framing.
What happened here wasn’t nuclear “failing to cope” with heat. The plants were deliberately curtailed to stay within environmental discharge limits. In other words, the system behaved as designed, operators reduced output to avoid ecological damage.
That’s an important distinction:
Heatwaves were the trigger, sure, but the constraint is environmental regulation, not an intrinsic inability of nuclear power to function.
So if the claim is “heatwaves can indirectly limit output under current environmental rules,” that’s fair.
But saying reactors “couldn’t cope” blurs that into something more like a technical failure, which isn’t what actually happened.
“Failing to cope”. Maybe Nick should have expanded on how, but I got it.
The nuc reactor operational limits were enacted to reduce environmental damage to a tolerable level. Note that the discharge rate was set for restriction at at or above set dTs. I.e., some water heating is tolerated. That level is justifiable in the view of the regulators – with those regulations established within a vivid democracy. So, as with ALL power producing facilities, the reactors need to operate within both “system failure” limits, and those imposed by the world in which they run. A view not espoused by those writing these periodic rent seeking WUWT articles.
BTW, since more AC use would be concomitant with max natural water heating, the regs make even more sense.
Yes, France needs more AC, especially for seasoned French folks and med faciities. Or better insulated buildings. Or more (gasp?) wind/solar power, with associated grid improvements and backup capacity. Or some combo….
More wind and solar?
Sure add even more unreliable energy capacity!
When the wind dies down under a blocking high for a week no power is produced regardless of weather you have 100TW of Wind Capacity or 2,000TW of Wind Capacity.
Solar produces less at higher latitudes and in Winter requiring 10-20 times capacity just to equal 1/10 nameplate and 100TW of Solar or 2,000TW solar still produces NOTHING after 4pm long before evening Peak Demand.
Wind and Solar are useless to a modern technological society without their required Massive (PWhs) of Battery Storage or 100% Reliable Back-up (Fossil Powered Generation) at which point the Wind and Solar become Superfluous
“More wind and solar?”
Inevitable. Why not get ready now?
“When the wind dies down under a blocking high for a week no power is produced regardless of weather you have 100TW of Wind Capacity or 2,000TW of Wind Capacity.”
You’ll need a continentally integrated grid. AGAIN, the need will emerge within the blink of an eye, compared to modern European history, so why wait to get started?
“Wind and Solar are useless to a modern technological society without their required Massive (PWhs) of Battery Storage or 100% Reliable Back-up (Fossil Powered Generation) at which point the Wind and Solar become Superfluous”
Modern battery tech + transcontinental grid integration + renewables + whatever George Jetson Macyvers you can pull with SMR’s, is in the future, like it or not. Hubbert’s curve is already on it’s down side. Either wait until Paris is the new Calcutta, with the current African/East Asian “solution” of privately owned gen sets for the 1%’ers, heat torture for the rest, or snap out of it now.
You need for your neighboring countries/states to install 100% of your demand just to be able to “Share” generation with you when your wind dies. Conversely You need to install 100% of your neighboring countries/states demand to be able to return the favor when Their wind dies off. But neighbor to neighbor does nothing for Solar after 4pm. Their sun is gone too.
Regardless of robustness of your grid, you still produce nothing at night when the wind is calm and you can’t depend on Nature to supply your neighbors with fuel when nature refuses your supply.
And PWhs of Storage requires PWhs of dedicated redundant generation available to recharge it
“You need for your neighboring countries/states to install 100% of your demand just to be able to “Share” generation with you when your wind dies.”
Not 100%. Just what the closer combo of sources can’t. Yes, grid capacity would have to be girded up, but that’s a must, no matter what. Just transmitting power from west Texas to east Texas – the distance that most Texas power travels – is comparable. Yes, Texas needs more interconnectivity with other states, but that’s just a Shoot Yourself In The Foot Texas political choice.
“Regardless of robustness of your grid, you still produce nothing at night when the wind is calm and you can’t depend on Nature to supply your neighbors with fuel when nature refuses your supply.”
You mean the min load period? THAT night?
“And PWhs of Storage requires PWhs of dedicated redundant generation available to recharge it”
Battery loads are for load balancing and for parts/thousand time periods of max max peak loading. IOW, not for days of full grid loading. And battery tech is still improving exponentially, especially stationary tech. So, until both gas peters out and SMR’s prove to be a bust, n’gonna be a deal choker.
Redge,
The fact is that because of the heat, the nukes could not operate within legal limits, so they were forced to close down. They could not cope.
Then you need fixed, real backup-coal, oil, gas.
Coal is not a backup source. Gas, and renewable redundancy on a continental level. With much more integrated grid capability of course. They’ll need it in a blink of an eye anyhow, relative to even the time since the industrial revolution. So why not start the Trumpian YUGE transition now?
Not to mention the PWhs of Battery Storage because Natures “Free Fuel” might not be available when Demand requires it. Especially in the case of Solar!
.
Coal is an absolute Back-up possibility as you can add more fuel when You need it and not when Nature decides to allow you to have it.
Come on Nick, you’ve been caught lying by omission when you said
The fact is the nuclear plant could cope.
The fact is even your link doesn’t state the plant “couldn’t cope”.
The fact is the nuclear plant was shut down deliberately for environmental reasons.
There’s no need for that.
Again, a reactor has to produce power while complying with environmental and othe laws. If it can’t do that, it isn’t coping, and that is why it had to be shut down. No point arguing whether you think the environmental laws are justified. The nuke is stopped. Not producing power. Because of the heat.
Nick,
You’re clutching at straws.
The nuke is stopped because of environmental laws (which I agree with), not because the plant can’t produce electricity.
To be fair the article made a big thing about importing enough energy over the interconnectors when that was also simply a regulatory limit rather than a technical one.
An alternative article might have pointed out that under the extreme heat conditions, the UK grid remained stable but that’s not the message they want to make.
Interesting word, “cope.”
In point of fact, the reactor did cope with the heat wave, and in accordance with regulations.
Cope: V: to effectively deal with, manage, or overcome a difficult situation, stress, or problem
The nuclear reactors effectively dealt with and managed the difficult situation. They reduced power.
That there was an associated cost with the solution is true, but irrelevant to the definition of cope.
I have no medical qualifications, but observation leads me to the conclusion that someone in a position of some political power has lost all sense of proportion…
They never had a sense of proportion in the first place, their school teachers told them it was a bad thing to have.
No. It’s all planned. Various ‘world’ organisations fear the future – especially their future – if people are educated, wealthy, happy and comfortable what will they need bureaucrats for?
State control of energy is critical to controlling the masses.
Yes.
The U.S. in whole is one of the last bastions against global control by bureaucrats. Those in control in most places promote discomfort to increase their control. The fight happening here is beginning to get out of control.
Case in point is the terrible governance in California and all the problems it exacerbates.
No Wind? No Sun? What Could Possibly Happen Next?
Air Conditioning Torn From Homes Under Net Zero Clampdown
After the election…
Keir Starmer pledges to ‘tread more lightly’ on lives of voters – Telegraph
The reality has been quite the reverse.
The bureaucrats who ordered the taking of air conditioners are frightened because of stories it is so hot where they are headed. Or so says the myth that they believe. Geoff S
Story tip. Manchester’s Green candidate for Mayor
Geraldine Coggins has promised to ‘throw the kitchen sink’ at the Manchester mayoral race to halt Reform UK’s surge
Green Party candidate for Manchester mayor has backed calls for “car-free” Sundays. GBN
Unsurprisingly, this zealot believes: developers should “decouple housing from parking”, ie provide nowhere to park at all. And what for? [Her] pledge to “prioritise people and planet over profits”
How will she fund that?
Bit sexist of the Green Party, must be the time of the month
Have you seen Emma Hayes on ITVs world cup coverage? In the kitchen!!!
The blackboard is where the oven would be…
No need for an oven if you live off supermarket precooked and Deliveroo.
Looks like those drawers are stuffed with cakes and pies.
SHE looks ‘stuffed with cakes and pies’ …
Likely the “Drawers” Scissor’s cutting remark referred to
Come on guys, there’s no need to make nasty comments about her appearance. Plus she’s pretty good at her job.
Can a mod delete these comments?
“Gentleman”. The old term that applies to you in the best sense.
it seems the voters threw the kitchen sink back at her
Oh, she’ll find a deranged billionaire for supporting her campaign.
I take it she hasn’t factored in the need for a lot of Manchester cyclists to take a shower at work after getting totally soaked by wind-driven rain, which does have a regular habit of depositing itself over Manchester? Probably the same for all walkers?
So if not cycling or walking, will she provide city-centre stabling for all those riding to work on horseback? And will she require house builders to provide one stable slot for every occupant in lieu of underground car parking/garages etc??
Or is she going to build a completely new Metro system underground for all Manchester commuters eh?
My guess is she will refer to the green playbook and become a victim when the going gets tough. And it will.
And to cap it all 17% of our CCGT plants are over 30 years old, by 2030 that will be 50%, and by 2040 (about the earliest point we could expect to see new capacity coming online) that’s going to be a staggering 69%.
We’ve got a major crisis coming up.
Looking at the totality of what the UK is facing, I don’t think the UK will last until 2040. (Something along the lines of, if you bring enough ‘there’ here, here will soon be ‘there’). OTOH, a shortage of electricity will no longer be an issue.
What they need are more EVs so they can transition to clean electricity faster!
Don’t forget that the efficiency (and lifespan) of solar panels goes down when they get hot.
It is interesting that UK peak demand appears to be at noon. I have been under the impression that demand peaks in the evening in North America. At least the solar is showing up at the right time of day in the UK. They probably have too much installed already.
Annoying click bait ad pops up “Electricians: The Mistake That Doubles Your Electricity Bill”… and my brain auto-completes “wind and solar”.
Really? Because that would mean they have less than half a brain.
Oddly enough the poster boy for wind energy in Australia, the mendicant state of South Australia, has had a 2 day wind drought and is relying on the mendicant state of Victoria’s soon to be closed coal power stations. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-28/wind-drought-stress-tests-south-australia-energy/106847354 This is of course what you get when you have an electricity system designed by politicians and pressure groups.
Britain has no one to blame but themselves. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators. You will have all the power you need. Remove wind and solar from the grid.
GW or GWh.. who cares, it just science.. all you need to know about the expertise of the author is on clear display by that one missing letter..