Greenteeth DP logo

Greenteth Digital Publishing Free Speech and Censorship Catalog

Welcome to Greenteeth Digital Publishing

Many years ago low grade folk demon Jenny Greenteeth found her natural habitat was shrinking due to modern agricultural methods. It is a fallacy that folk demons are stupid creatures made of fear and superstition, they are actually highly intelligent and Jenny discovered a new habitat for herself in electricity, which is as fluid as water though not as substantial. Living in the electricity system she could do mischief but had no way of making herself known. Then came the internet. Now CEO (Chief Ectoplasmic Officer,) of Greenteeth Digital Publishing, she loves to cause trouble by spreading the information The Powers That Be would rather you remained unaware of.
Contact us: - edbuttuk@yahoo.com
Privacy policy: We don't track you or gather personal info, we do not sell data, we don't use cookies. End of. Enjoy our website.

UK Government Belatedly Discovers The Uselessness Of Sustainables In Relation To Energy Security

The policy that Boris Johnson's Premiership will be remembered for is nor 'getting Brexit done,' but the government's disastrous pledge to make Great Britain the first developed nation to achieve a 'net zero' national energy system. The neglect and running down of traditional energy systems (coal, gas, nuclear,) along with flushing money down the toilet by investing in intermitternt power sources (wind, solar,) rather than Putin's war in Ukraine is responsible for the current crisis.

Most recently updated 25 March 2024


Pcture soiurce: www.cpecinfo.com

 

UK Energy Secretary Jacob Rees Mogg, writing in the Daily Telegraph today set out the government's approach for dealing with the energy crisis brought about by decades of green wokery - wankery in the political and media communities but, conveniently, blameable on Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

 Mogg praised the Government (well he would, he's part of it,)  for last week belatedly launching a 'ground-breaking' scheme offering equivalent support to all UK businesses, charities, and public sector organisations to protect those at the beating heart of the economy against rising bills. Emotoive stuff, but WTF does it actually mean?

The Energy Secretary continued:

From the local fish and chip shop, to churches, schools, care homes and GP surgeries, we are stepping in to support growth, prevent unnecessary insolvencies and protect jobs.

The Energy Bill Relief Scheme provides businesses with the protections and certainty they need over the next six months, with savings to be first seen in bills for October.

This is supposed to reassure us that come April when the energy proce cap is due to be reviewed, businesses and other non domestic users will not fall over a cliff edge. While such temporary and short term schemes may be a lifeline to many families and businesses, it is not going to solve the problem created by our energy infrastructure being allowed to degenerate over decades as politicians, seeking kudos with the noisy but small and unrepresentative green lobby, chased green dreams like 'net zero' and the fatuous promises of scientists that wind could be persuaded to blow at a constant 18mph 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Successive UK Governments of all political colours have always lacked a cohesive, and publishable, long term Energy Policy, being more concerned with news headlines, TV airtime and short term popularity than the needs of future generations.

Until recent adventures in flushing money down the toilet of 'sustaiables', intermittent and high maintenance methods of generating electricity from wind and sunshine, UK Governments have, inevitably in the main, gone along with only incremental changes to the power grid to meet ever increasing demand.

The UK is a highly developed nation commercially and socially and Electricity and energy supply should always, as far as possible, be based upon 24 hour dependable Energy sources under the control of and available to be exploited within the UK by the government and iuts agencies; and this should not change radically, nor quickly, when necessity does not require it to be so.

Nuclear baseload, supplemented by “clean” utilisation of fossil fuels, will have their part to play in the UK Energy Policy within the foreseeable future but because the nuclear programme was abandoned in order to appease environmentalist lobbies which, when their wailing and gnashing of teeth is subjected to scrutiny, simply do not like any viable method of generating current.

UK Energy Policy should also make use of gaseous, liquid, and solid, hydrocarbon resources (gas, oil and coal,) sourced from under the UK mainland, and within UK territorial waters, however the coal kines have been closed and the oil and gas wells in the North Sea have been capped, again to appease environmentalists (the raffia mafia) who demanded a clean, green Britain but offered no suggestion as to how we might earn our living or feed and warm ourselves if the foreign sources on which their virtue signalling had made us dependent for energy needs should dry up.

It is time that the UK Government made a policy decision to provide positive support to the energy industry in the development of effective methods to environmentally cleanly obtain, and then utilise as a viable energy source, the hundreds of years of resource usage availability of coal beneath the UK, and UK offshore waters.

The first step in rebuilding our energy independence is the urgent need to pause - then stop - the drive to achieve 'net zero' the elimination of carbon emissions from all human activity. 

We are told that most scientists agree on climate change, but we can’t be sure of what question they were asked, how many were qualified to answer and how many might lose their funding by giving the “wrong” answer although we do know that significant statistical frauds were deployed in obtaining results from mathematical models predicting catastrophe, which are the only evidence to support the doomsday narratives of the green lobby.

However, since the climate has always changed over time, this is surely about what causes it and how much humans influence it. So here is an unambiguous question for British scientists.

“In 2020 the net global increase in atmospheric CO2 levels went up - from a 60 year average of 1.6ppm pa - to 2.5ppm. That was 4,600 times the U.K.'s average annual emissions over that time. *

It came after a FALL in human emissions showing just how insignificant the U.K.'s emissions are.

In 12 days, China emits the same amount of CO2 as the UK does in a year and is building 3 times more coal fired power stations than the rest of the world. 

So do you think that paying around £5 trillion (£200,000 per household) to win this global race to the bottom is justified - when more U.K. businesses will move overseas - only to emit more CO2 than before?”

Before answering, recall i) that there is no global warming model which factors in all drivers and feedback loops ii) that IPCC predictions have been flawed iii) that the sun is the primary driver of climate, iv) that natural CO2 levels folllow global temperature and v) that water vapour has a bigger greenhouse impact than CO2.

Power stations are closing/have closed,  - coal plants like West Drayton, Radcliffe, Fiddlers Ferry, nuclear plans like Hinckley B, Hartlepool, Heysham etc. even though it should be clear to everyone, the tunnel visioned retards we are obliged to call scientists included, that no matter how many windmills are installed they cannot generate a single watt of energy when there is insufficient wind. What is happening to replace that "guaranteed" generation capacity before next winter? Former Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng obviously thought it wasn't important enough to replace them before this winter. Well with an baseload requirement of around 30 Gw and installed potential generating capacity of 27Gw for wind and 14Gw for solar energy Kwasi probably thought, "What can possibly go wrong?" Someone should send him a dictionary with the word 'potential' heavily underlined and the page bookmarked. With a potential generating capacity about 150% of baseload, renewables regularly manage to contribute less than 10% of actual requirement, with gas, nuclear and coal (the latter two set to be phased out by 2028,) providing the bulk of our needs.

Ironically Kwarteng failed so conspicuously as Energy Secretary that he was promoted to an even more important job, Chancellor of the Exchequer, a position in which he has managed to destroy UK financial stability after less than a month in the job.

The problem with wind is it doesn't blow all the time (and you have to have equal back -up capacity ,online because a gas power station takes hours to crank up, coal takes days and nuclear takes weeks. This little fact which the green wankers and the politicians do kot allow public discussion of, destroys the economics of wind. It is a hugely expensive and wasteful energy source and ultimately does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions by one cubic nanometre. Of course the  Civil Servants at the Department of Energy did not tell Kwasei about that, and despite his degree in Classics (Cambridge) and Economic History (Harvard,) he is obviously not bright enough to work it out for himself, let alone ask someone to show him a graph of how little power solar produces in the winter. 

We are told that most scientists agree that climate change is an existential threat to something, but we can’t be sure of what question they were asked, how many were qualified to answer and how many might lose their funding by giving the “wrong” answer.

However, since the climate has always changed over time, this is surely about what causes it and how much humans influence it.

Here is an unambiguous question for British scientists. 

“In 2020 the net global increase in atmospheric CO2 levels went up - from a 60 year average of 1.6ppm pa - to 2.5ppm. That was 4,600 times the U.K.'s average annual emissions over that time. 

It came after a FALL in human emissions showing just how insignificant the U.K.'s emissions are.

In 12 days, China emits the same amount of CO2 as the UK does in a year and is building 3 times more coal fired power stations than the rest of the world. 

So do you think that paying around £5 trillion (£200,000 per household) to win this global race to the bottom is justified - when more U.K. businesses will move overseas - only to emit more CO2 than before?”

Before answering, recall i) that the only evidence that current changes in climatic conditions comes from mathematical models and there is no global warming model which factors in all drivers and feedback loops ii) that IPCC predictions to date have all been wrong  iii) that empirical evidence shows the sun is the primary driver of climate, iv) that natural CO2 levels folllow global temperature and v) that water vapour has a bigger greenhouse impact than CO2. 

Ordinary punters might like to consider that though the question has been asked thousands of times, the only answer ever offered is the arrogant, dismissive and totally disingenuous, "You're not a scientists so you can't possibly understand how science works." Well I'm   not a beefstock farmer either but I recognise bullshit when I smell it. And this latest load is no better smelling that all the previous shite from previous governments.