In the aftermath of the release of the Lockdown Files, the public is slowly coming to terms with some fairly shocking facts: that the Government was willing to lie and mislead, and to scaremonger and manipulate the media, in order to achieve its Covid policy objectives (or even just to garner a few headlines). The news is still sinking in, but a day of reckoning for those involved looks likely.
For those of us bearing the scars of long engagement in the climate and energy wars, however, none of this was a surprise. It has long been clear that the inhabitants of the Westminster village were happy to hype up fears of climate purgatory and to fib about the road to redemption – renewables – and the cost of taking it. Once the public understand the depth and extent of the deception, and the damage done to the economy and the prospects for our children, the trickery over Covid is going to look decidedly peripheral.
The latest report from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) is a case in point. On the surface it’s a roadmap to a decarbonised electricity grid, but in reality it’s merely a sales document, full of tricks, evasions and outright falsehoods that would make even the most cynical used car salesman blush.
For example, in a number of places, it says that decarbonisation of the grid will be ‘cost-effective’, but you will find next to no information on what it will cost. The game that is being played becomes a bit clearer when you read the reference to ‘carbon prices’. In normal usage, the carbon price is the estimate of the damage done by a ton of carbon dioxide, but in the CCC’s parlance it is an estimate of what it will cost to decarbonise. So, while it gives you the impression it has done a cost-benefit analysis and is going to be saving you money, in reality it is only saying that the bill to be paid will be the same as previously advised. It’s a trick.
Another trick is to assume that wind power costs will be only a quarter of what they actually are. For years, the industry has been pushing claims that they have brought about a cost-reduction revolution. The problem is that windfarms’ own financial accounts show that it isn’t true. And with new windfarms now saying they will not come on stream without further subsidies, the deception has been exposed.
I’m picking on the CCC here, simply because it is in the news today. But it’s not just the CCC. None of the bodies whom the public expect to tell the truth about the Net Zero project will do so: the Royal Academy of Engineering is silent. The Royal Society likewise. National Grid pretends the task is a cinch. The National Infrastructure Commission just repeats the Government line verbatim. Parliament asks how soon the job can be done, not whether it can be done or how much it will cost. Everywhere the tricks go unchallenged and the lies are swept under the carpet.
Such deceptions mean that we are storing up catastrophic harms for our economy, and for our children and grandchildren. Energy that was said to be as cheap as gas is actually going to cost three or four times as much. The costs of ensuring supply when the wind doesn’t blow are an order of magnitude larger.
And whether it was delivered on the back of a lie or not, you are going to have to pay for it. A huge pipeline of wind projects is in place already, each eligible for an astonishing array of hidden subsidies – the list is too long to give here. Once built, they will suck wealth from our economy and hope from our society. They will be hard, if not impossible, to close down – they have been made exempt from windfall taxes and the Government cannot simply switch them off without destroying investor confidence in the economy as a whole. If we do not reverse course soon, our children will never know the wealth we have enjoyed until now, just poverty and rationing and hardship. And all because everyone is too scared to challenge the lies. Just like Covid.
Andrew Montford is Deputy Director of Net Zero Watch.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So in this case… conspiracy or cock up?
Both.
Throw in “education” and almost religious belief of and acceptance of “Precautionary Principle”, useful idiots, ideology by many … Power used everywhere.
You have to remember that the precautionary principle is about ensuring that what you propose is no worse than what currently exists; it is not about doing something “as a precaution” and you seem to imply.
Yea, perhaps.
I have learned from speaking with many people of all ages over the last decade that people all seem to have a different understanding of the “Precautionary Principle”, but almost always their definition tends to support their view. I perhaps can be seen to be guilty of that assumption also.
I don’t know what is taught in schools anymore. Surely has changed since I last looked.
I now go with what the UK Government says which is currently is how they should be operating if they adhere to their own regulations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/environmental-principles-policy-statement-published
Numerous points in the above document, but the most interesting one is:
“The precautionary principle states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, a lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
[my bold]
I am stumped to understand what “scientific certainty” is. No such thing in my world. Oh well.
The Precautionary Principle only works in one direction.
Most obviously, there is absolutely no precaution whatever needed, or even desired, before fossil fuel power generation is replaced by weather dependent Ruinables.
It is even unnecessary to be mindful of the old proverb – make sure you are happy with the new shoes before throwing away the old.
Blow up old infrastructure as fast as possible.
The “Precautionary Principle” though as regards the issue of climate is only ever used in one direction, It talks of the risks of using fossil fuels but never about the risks of NOT using them. Since almost 90% of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels then that risk is high. Particularly in poor countries where over one billion people still have no electricity and proper sanitation, and those people are being coerced into missing out on the fossil fuels that gave the western world the prosperity it now has and instead going directly to inefficient unreliable renewables like wind and sun. ———The precautionary Principle when used in this way gives carte blanch to government to go full steam ahead with political agenda’s like NET ZERO and Agenda 2030 with little regard for the consequences. —-The agenda comes first and people come last.
$cience, follow the £ – corruption, conspiracy, planned, cockup and graft on a grand scale, about U$1 Trillion a year…..with the usual fake data, fake costs, fake claims, fake $cience, fake expert$.
In the recent UK cold spell you heard on the fake news that wind/solar was down to 2% of our needed energy prod – you do remember hearing that shouted on the front page every day and Minister Moron admitting that failure….don’t you?
Conspiracy and cowardice.
Yes. From a bunch of brown envelope collectors.
While it’s just about plausible to view the Covid folly as cockup because it arrived “suddenly”, the climate change scam has to be a conspiracy because there was no sudden “emergency” to be dealt with
True, and there never has been!
Terrific piece. Perhaps someone can help get this message into the corporate media. Yes, know probably a futile task, but do it anyway. There are people who have the power and influence to do this.
Covid, climate! There a hell of a money maker!
This is exactly the two-pronged global business plan initiated by the Rockefellers here. That is: 1) global health, 2) climate and environment. Klaus Schwab joined them in 1967.
When you can build a windmill using the output from another windmill, then,and only then,it will be viable! Self sustainable profit is only possible if it can self replicate and still leave a surplus!
When you can build a windmill using the output from another windmill, then,and only then,it will be viable! Self sustainable profit is only possible if it can self replicate and still leave a surplus!
Oops!
Why not go for the hat trick ? Have a nice day.
Working on it
very sorry, not sure what happened there!
(I said) Oops upside your head…
Thank you gap band!
Strange how both identical posts have had upticks? There must be some deep psychology behind that!
Or depends which one read first!
have an uptick for being human….
Absolutely worth repeating!
Yes, wind is far more expensive than they make out. But if you want to be really horrified look at their plans for hydrogen. Another triumph of dodgy financial engineering and PR spin over the Law of Thermodynamics.
According to the Government’s modelling of hydrogen production costs, it will actually cost less than nothing to make if you use bio-gasification and carbon capture. The reason? The producer will receive carbon credits valued at nearly 10X the cost of storing CO2.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/popping-the-hydrogen-bubble
I haven’t checked but if Blackrock, Gates etc are invested in such industries it tells you all you need to know, prepare to once more have any of your wealth remaining transferred to them.
Gates is invested in nuclear and sun blocking technology!
Gates absolutely needs slamming.
When you have $150 billion you are invested in pretty much every industry.
That includes the endowment of the Gates Foundation which is effectively still his, given he has 100% control of it. Its just a tax and PR efficient way of putting the money to work. It allows him to call his pursuit of global power and influence “philanthropy”.
In the case of Blackrock, it’s the same but in the trillions instead of billions. And their ass covering story is ESG.
This extract from the CCC’s press release announcing their new report confirms the role that we, the paying customer, will have to play…..
I’m happy to do my bit to help the resilience in the supply of electricity as I have no desire for an EV or a heat pump – but it seems inevitable that controlled usage or, to put it more bluntly, rationing, of electricity will become a normal part of our lives.
Yes. That’s what smart meters are about.
It depends on what they actually mean. After all, if you are on a “smartmeter” with 30 minute updates available to third parties, they might “offer” open market rate price variation as well, all the way to the individual customer. Look at how much it changes each day: https://grid.iamkate.com/ looking at the Price per MWh graph on the left of this page.
The biggest pseudo scientific fraud ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. It is time that we had another sort of ” Great Global Warming Swindle” type of documentary featuring the likes of Andrew Montford, Ross Clark, Ross McKitrick, Christopher Essex, Richard Tol, Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Schellenberger as well as Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry and any manner of qualified people prepared to face the totalitarian might of Big Government and it’s pandering to the UN Sustainable Development Agenda, ably assisted by Mainstream Media who long ago ceased being Investigative Journalists and simply became Climate Activists. It is unlikely such a documentary would be allowed to appear on BBC or SKY and other bought and paid for media but why not on GB News eg ? Or if not on there some other format. It is long past the time when this NET ZERO and climate con trick masquerading as science is exposed for what it is. It is long past the time when climate is only in the hands of the Activists who refuse to debate and who refuse to allow any questions to be asked.
The one I really like is “pumped hydro”
You let water run down hill through a turbine and charge high prices for the energy produced, then you pump it back up using subsided cheap energy and do it all again! You can’t fail! Money for old rope.
Historically, the “pumped hydro” technique has been used to cross-balance demand and supply a bit, by pumping it uphill when it’s cheap, and selling it on when it isn’t (a cynic might say). If run well, it can assist short term variation as well. E.g. the underground one at Dinorwic (https://www.fhc.co.uk/en/power-stations/dinorwig-power-station/) can run up in less than a minute, when there is a short term peak in demand. Especially useful for power plant that really needs a steady load most of the time, such as Hinkley Point B.
But will it save the planet? or just pamper to our short term needs?
Short term monetary benefits do not make for a viable solution, seriously, pumping water uphill to let it run down again! God, a child could see through this one
Perhaps it could be a good option if we get to a point where we are able to generate lots more electricity than we need from wind, solar etc (taking into account the manufacturing and maintenance costs). It’s arguably more sustainable than mining lithium, exploding batteries etc. But you’d need to look at total cost including construction and maintenance.
Seriously, it’s a good idea. It helps with capacity.
It’s actually rather a good idea.
I posted a couple of links yesterday evening re the fraud of net zero. I’ll repost here as they’re pertinent.
First one is the business plan, infrastructure, workforce planning required to implement the plan by 2050: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/04/feasibility-for-achieving-a-net-zero-economy-for-the-u-s-by-2050/
Second one is a scientific challenge with actual science (I know, shock!) to “Net Zero”:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A4a52e6bf-f7f5-3d75-9f72-851010ab76c4&viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover
All the deception is interconnected. They are saying that ‘Climate Change’ will make viral pandemics more likely. The SARS-CoV-2 affair is not an isolated event. ‘Climate Change’ is not an isolated event. Everything that is currently going on is connected. The deception is vast.
The attached paper (published Feb 2022) is interesting as regards comparing costs of different technologies.
“Different electricity generating technologies are often compared using the Levelized Costs of Electricity (LCOE), which summarize different ratios of fixed to variable costs into a single cost metric. They have been criticized for ignoring the effects of intermittency and non-dispatchability. This paper introduces the Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity (LFSCOE), a novel cost evaluation metric that compares the costs of serving the entire market using just one source plus storage. Like LCOE, and in contrast to alternatives such as System LCOE, LFSCOE condense the cost for each technology into one number per market. The paper calculates LFSCOE for several technologies using data from two different markets.”
The table copied in below suggests that wind and solar (in combination) cost more than 10 times as much as natural gas in the German market and more than 5x in Texas.
Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity by Robert Idel :: SSRN
I’d like to agree with this piece but I fear I can’t get beyond the first paragraph. In my experience, the general public is not coming to terms with the shocking facts of lockdown; it’s easy to think that if you are part of a sceptical or questioning community, but my experience is completely the opposite; at best, people are shrugging and saying ‘time to move on’. At worst, there is a voluble group that argue lockdowns were too little, too late, and that masks and lockdowns should become the standard response for respiratory disease outbreaks. I have had this argument more than once with colleagues at my place of work – most science PhDs, who believe that masks were highly successful against Covid and should be used more generally.
Believing in something is not evidence that it’s any good (at least physically). Too much trust in that of other “specialists” seems to be a common mistake.
Our friend’s little daughter came home from school the other day crying. Turns out her teachers had been telling them that all of the fluffy white polar bears were dying because of ‘climate change’. Something that is demonstrable lie – polar bears are thriving.
These tax payer funded thick as mince Ayatollahs are literally teaching our children that their world’s ending and entrenching permanent despair. This is flat out child abuse.
“…the Government was willing to lie and mislead, and to scaremonger and manipulate the media, “
That is because our elected politicians are controlled by an unelected Civil Service that has contempt for the UK electorate. In addition external groups and organisations (also unelected) have captured many once sovereign nation’s governments and are bending them to their will.
Please see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mK-FMY1374&t=2126s
Stunning Short History – of Why the World has Gone Mad!
There are only two reasons anyone would believe in Climate Change.
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
I dunno.
Sure the recent “revelations” that we were scammed and manipulated for 2 years into lockdowns and nonsense liberty shredding policies by craven politicians is big.
However isn’t it more of a global crime to have pushed for, and still make excuses and lie about, injecting poisons into pregnant woman young children, indeed whole swathes of populations to the tune of billions potentially decimating the human population through disease, early death and lowered fertility?
This is a global genocide still happening.
I guess the equivalent Hancock-gate for these poisons hasn’t been allowed to filter through to our highly controlled MSM….
Focussing on the cost of Windpower, I am confused by these lines in Morton’s report here.https://www.netzerowatch.com/content/uploads/2023/03/True-cost-of-Wind-2023.pdf
“Industry bodies that have insisted for the last six years that offshore wind can deliver power at less than £50/MWh now expect us to believe that they cannot make a profit. This doesn’t so much strain belief as blow it to smithereens. Market prices have averaged over £130/MWh this year, so even if input prices had doubled, windfarms should still have operating margins of 25%, a extraordinary level of profitability”
Almost all Windpower is provided under a CfD contract which in essence means they get the same amount per MWh whatever the market price. For the recent Hornsea 3 contract the agreed price (which they bid at an auction) is inflation-indexed €37.35/MWh. They were obviously confident that actual costs would come down.
they have been made exempt from windfall taxes
Under a cfd contract the only way you can have a windfall is if the cost of renewables falls far below the contract price – right? i.e, renewables becomes extremely cheap.
“The Deception is even worse than Covid.”
From a financial/ economic standpoint, probably yes. But the cover up of deaths from the mRNA injection side effects is an unprecedented evil.
Just ignore folks. Hancock’s litany of WhatsApp messages have told us the way they “really” think in Eliteville.
It should be noted that, although written some years back, that Andrew Montford’s book “The Hockey Stick Illlusion” is still one of the best in pointing out the absolute nonsense of Michael Mann’s famous fraud, still influential with GangGreen promoters today.
Also outlining the blatant fraudulence of HMG’s three “Enquiries” into Climategate.
if the U.K. got all of its energy from wind turbines it would cost £49,000 per man, woman and child. There would be one 600ft behemoth wind turbine for every 180 people, 360,000 turbines total. The entire whale population would probably be belly up with all the sonic soundings. The £49,000 cost per man, woman and child would recur every 10 to 25 years (maintenance and replacement costs). The £49,000 per man, woman and child cost would not include necessary conversion to hydrogen as backup power (on calm days) and to power cars, boats, trains or planes. https://cutmyheatingbill.com/how-much-for-100percent-wind-energy
Yes maybe we should stop subsidising renewables but also oil and nuclear?