10 thoughts on “They’ll change like the wind to stay in power.

      1. Well, she is known as the weathervane, isn’t she? But that’s what politicians do. I’m not at all sure that she has what it takes to learn from her earlier mistakes (like toadying up to Osborne). But I’ll wait for the evidence. That said, I’d prefer heating and lighting this winter, not chills.

      2. I’d prefer a strategy that did not rob us! The amount of profit these companies are making is obscene and they know it. They are expecting to be taxed. That’s where the cash should come from – along with a comprehensive plan to reduce our use and ensure that we are free of gas, coal and oil – that means green energy. You know that makes sense!

      3. You’re right about the profits, Opher. And the ones that are raking the money in are the Big Green “renewables” suppliers! They ought to be subjected to the same commercial disciplines as other energy suppliers. That would expose the lie that renewables are “cheaper” than other forms of energy.

        But you’re wrong about the future. In the current state of technology, solar and wind alone can never power a civilization. That’s because they don’t work 24/7. In fact, solar is pretty damn useless north of 45 degrees, except for very small scale applications. And wind only produces anything when the wind speed is about right – too slow or too fast, and you get niks. I notice you didn’t mention nuclear, but if you really did want to get rid of coal, oil and gas, you’d have to ramp up nuclear power so it can handle the entire base load. That’s not something that can be done quickly. And we have a winter to get through, and plenty of uncertainty beyond that. If Truss has even half an ounce of common sense, she’ll be making some enemies among the green blob in the next few days.

      4. I agree Neil – all companies need properly taxing whatever they are selling.
        However, the green levy has worked. It has created mass production and innovation that has resulted in far cheaper prices and more effective systems. Green energy is now cheaper than other forms. Intermittency is a problem but there are many ways of getting around that. There are many new storage systems being devised. The new battery systems are looking very promising. I see that there will be major breakthroughs on energy storage that will solve this problem. The other factors to bring in are hydroelectric and tidal power, which is, of course, not subject to the same intermittancy. It is predictable.
        I would be happy with nuclear if it was done responsibly and the waste handled properly. That has not happened in the past!
        The obvious way of solving the problem is to greatly reduce our use. That requires proper building regulations for conservation, retrofitting of conservation techniques and efficient new designs to cut down energy use.
        The best thing that could happen is to reduce the world’s population from 8 billion to 4 billion. That would make for a far better world for everyone and everything.
        Reducing the world’s population should be an abosute priority.

      5. It looks as if Truss has decided to make some enemies among the greenies. For this week, at least.

        I’ll believe the touted storage systems when I see them, and the cost-benefit analysis for them is clear. Hydro-electric power only works in certain places, and tidal power is intermittent (albeit predictably so) and expensive. Oil and gas have to be “it” for the next few decades at least. When we have enough nuclear power to be able to afford the losses associated with converting energy from one form to another, we’ll be able to synthesize high-power-density fuels, which can then replace oil.

        I’m afraid that “greatly reducing our use” of energy simply isn’t a liveable option for many people, particularly old people and those who live in older houses. How much have you reduced your energy use, Opher? And how much more could you reduce it? It’s hypocritical to expect other people to make sacrifices, when you’re not willing to make those sacrifices yourself. It’s even more hypocritical for anyone who has had children to call for others to have less children. Not to mention that the economic consequences of a population that is both falling and aging wouldn’t be good.

      6. I think that you would find that there is sufficient in wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal to produce our needs.
        As I said, insulating and heat retrieval systems can be fitted to old properties. Much more efficient products can be produced. Building regs can be updated. We could make our energy use much less without affecting our quality of life. Just needs a government with an ounce of intelligence.
        When we see the families in Pakistan and Africa with seventeen children we are seeing the problem. This is the problem. Unless we all reduce our populations substantially we are in trouble. I am not talking about not having children.
        With the advent of AI there is no need for a big work force. It doesn’t matter if the demographic changes. WE need people to take up careers in the caring industry when shortly they won’t be needed in factories, mines, fields, transport or even stacking shelves or working tills. A new age is nearly upon us.

      7. Unless we all reduce our populations substantially we are in trouble. I am not talking about not having children.

        Opher, what are you saying here? I assume you support euthanasia for those who choose it, and so do I. But what you say sounds like eugenics, and worse. Eugenicists like Churchill wanted to stop people they considered “inferior” from breeding. But do you really want to murder people for your “cause” of reducing the population?

        The rest of what you say is simply pie in the sky. On energy economics, show me the numbers, and show me how renewables will get us through this winter and the ones to come. And AI, whether designed for good or bad, cannot work without energy!

      8. No Neil. You are reading the wrong things into what I am saying. I’m not talking about eugenics or any forced means of population control. That is not necessary. We need to have a world-wide campaign – similar to what has been introduced in India – ‘Keep one or two which is good for you’. Couple that with free access to good birth control, educate and empower women and lo and behold the population starts coming down.
        This is an imperative. Too many families are having a dozen kids or more – mainly religious stupidities. It is not good for them and it is not sustainable.
        Neil – the change to solar, wind, tidal and geothermal cannot happen overnight. It will take time. I agree that for now we will need to supplement with nuclear.
        https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/Majority-of-New-Renewables-Undercut-Cheapest-Fossil-Fuel-on-Cost
        https://energypost.eu/5-charts-show-the-rapid-fall-in-costs-of-renewable-energy/
        https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jan/opinion-renewables-are-cheaper-ever-so-why-are-household-energy-bills-only-going
        https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/renewables-cheapest-energy-source/
        We need to start moving much more quickly to break being held to ransom by Russia, Saudi and world oil/gas prices.

I'd like to hear from you...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.