正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Chris Bowen – Australia has ZERO nuclear fallback! Renewables alone can't cut it. Honeywell CEO Vimal Kapur at Davos: data centres, steel, cement & heavy industry run on ENERGY DENSITY. Not headlines or green goals, PHYSICS. Solar won't smelt steel. Wind won't make concrete. Coal, gas & nuclear are... show more

katy 🌸

79,403 subscribers

17,314 次观看 • 5 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

New Zealand PM Chris Luxon rejects outright the suggestion that his govt might use nuclear power. Instead, Mr Luxon wants to double the supply of “renewables”. He says nuclear would be unsuitable because of NZ’s earthquake problem. However the threat of earthquakes in Japan is pretty similar to NZ and they are expanding their nuclear energy resources. In 2023, nuclear power accounted for approximately 8.5% of Japan's electricity supply. They intend to increase this to 20-22% by 2030. Partly to reduce CO2 emissions in line with Japan’s Net Zero obligations. So why is it OK for Japan but not New Zealand? IMHO the renewables obsessed Mr Luxon and the gormless CEOs running our mainly govt owned energy generation/ transmission companies are going to send NZ industry to the wall. Leaving aside the effect constantly rising electricity prices have on the man in the street. Through grocery prices and other everyday purchases. If we leave coal, hydro, gas and geothermal aside for the sake of the argument, nuclear may or not be a viable energy option for NZ. However it can’t be any worse than the fools errand we are presently on with wind and solar.

New Zealand PM Chris Luxon rejects outright the suggestion that his govt might use nuclear power. Instead, Mr Luxon wants to double the supply of “renewables”. He says nuclear would be unsuitable because of NZ’s earthquake problem. However the threat of earthquakes in Japan is pretty similar to NZ and they are expanding their nuclear energy resources. In 2023, nuclear power accounted for approximately 8.5% of Japan's electricity supply. They intend to increase this to 20-22% by 2030. Partly to reduce CO2 emissions in line with Japan’s Net Zero obligations. So why is it OK for Japan but not New Zealand? IMHO the renewables obsessed Mr Luxon and the gormless CEOs running our mainly govt owned energy generation/ transmission companies are going to send NZ industry to the wall. Leaving aside the effect constantly rising electricity prices have on the man in the street. Through grocery prices and other everyday purchases. If we leave coal, hydro, gas and geothermal aside for the sake of the argument, nuclear may or not be a viable energy option for NZ. However it can’t be any worse than the fools errand we are presently on with wind and solar.

The Redbaiter

15,329 次观看 • 11 个月前

Solar and wind are sold as cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear using a number called LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy). But LCOE is a junk metric. It pretends that one-megawatt-hour of intermittent power is the same as one-megawatt-hour of reliable power. It isn't. When the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, you still need electricity. So backup plants (coal, gas or nuclear) must run in the background, ready to fire instantly. LCOE fails to count that cost. It also ignores the miles of transmission lines for remote wind farms, the giant storage systems to cover lulls, the stabilizers to keep frequency steady, and the massive overbuild needed just to survive bad weather weeks.These hidden costs explode as wind and solar take over more of the grid. On paper, LCOE makes these renewables look cheap. In reality, they drive up costs system-wide. That's why nations with the most wind and solar have the highest electricity prices. LCOE isn't just misleading, it's a lie.

Solar and wind are sold as cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear using a number called LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy). But LCOE is a junk metric. It pretends that one-megawatt-hour of intermittent power is the same as one-megawatt-hour of reliable power. It isn't. When the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, you still need electricity. So backup plants (coal, gas or nuclear) must run in the background, ready to fire instantly. LCOE fails to count that cost. It also ignores the miles of transmission lines for remote wind farms, the giant storage systems to cover lulls, the stabilizers to keep frequency steady, and the massive overbuild needed just to survive bad weather weeks.These hidden costs explode as wind and solar take over more of the grid. On paper, LCOE makes these renewables look cheap. In reality, they drive up costs system-wide. That's why nations with the most wind and solar have the highest electricity prices. LCOE isn't just misleading, it's a lie.

Electroverse

13,445 次观看 • 5 个月前

China's renewable expansion receives endless Western applause. Its coal expansion, however, gets far less attention. At the start of 2026, China had 1,207 operating coal-fired power stations. In 2025 alone, it added 78 GW of coal capacity, the most in a decade, and began building another 83 GW, with a record 161 GW of projects either proposed or revived. China consumed more than 4.9 billion tons of coal during 2025 -- which is 56% of the global total. One country burned more coal than the rest of the world combined -- and green activists applaud it. China is building wind and solar, yes, but it is not gambling its industrial economy on intermittent power. AI is the next industrial age, but it requires colossal quantities of dependable electricity. China is securing this mainly via coal, gas and nuclear. Meanwhile, Net Zero governments are closing reliable power stations, raising energy costs and driving industry east. Nations that continue sacrificing power on the altar of Net Zero will not lead the AI revolution. They will watch the future being built elsewhere.

China's renewable expansion receives endless Western applause. Its coal expansion, however, gets far less attention. At the start of 2026, China had 1,207 operating coal-fired power stations. In 2025 alone, it added 78 GW of coal capacity, the most in a decade, and began building another 83 GW, with a record 161 GW of projects either proposed or revived. China consumed more than 4.9 billion tons of coal during 2025 -- which is 56% of the global total. One country burned more coal than the rest of the world combined -- and green activists applaud it. China is building wind and solar, yes, but it is not gambling its industrial economy on intermittent power. AI is the next industrial age, but it requires colossal quantities of dependable electricity. China is securing this mainly via coal, gas and nuclear. Meanwhile, Net Zero governments are closing reliable power stations, raising energy costs and driving industry east. Nations that continue sacrificing power on the altar of Net Zero will not lead the AI revolution. They will watch the future being built elsewhere.

Electroverse

12,640 次观看 • 24 天前

Germany has spent 1 trillion euros on its energy transition. "And what has it brought us," asks Evonik CEO Christian Kullmann. "Nothing," he says. Germany's global CO2 emissions have decreased only slightly, now accounting for 1.6% of global emissions. But its energy-intensive industries are struggling with some of the highest power costs in the developed world. Evonik itself is cutting 3,200 jobs. Kullmann adds that Germany's planned 2030 coal phase-out is unrealistic, pointing out that there are not enough gas-fired power plants, and that grid infrastructure is inadequate. He says coal will be needed until at least 2033 - probably longer. After 1 trillion euros spent, Germany still lacks the dispatchable power, grid infrastructure and affordable backup needed. It bet heavy on wind and solar, and that bet is losing.

Germany has spent 1 trillion euros on its energy transition. "And what has it brought us," asks Evonik CEO Christian Kullmann. "Nothing," he says. Germany's global CO2 emissions have decreased only slightly, now accounting for 1.6% of global emissions. But its energy-intensive industries are struggling with some of the highest power costs in the developed world. Evonik itself is cutting 3,200 jobs. Kullmann adds that Germany's planned 2030 coal phase-out is unrealistic, pointing out that there are not enough gas-fired power plants, and that grid infrastructure is inadequate. He says coal will be needed until at least 2033 - probably longer. After 1 trillion euros spent, Germany still lacks the dispatchable power, grid infrastructure and affordable backup needed. It bet heavy on wind and solar, and that bet is losing.

Electroverse

35,463 次观看 • 16 天前

Wind and solar look cheap on paper, but only because their true costs are hidden. Power grids must balance supply and demand every second. Wind and solar cannot do that. Their output follows the weather, which is variable. So every megawatt of wind or solar requires a matching megawatt of reliable backup. A 100 MW wind farm does not replace a 100 MW gas plant. The gas plant still has to be built, staffed, fueled and kept ready at all times. Consumers are effectively paying for two systems, but only one is accounted for. Think of it like hiring a worker who only shows up 30% of the time. The hourly wage looks cheap, but you still need a fully trained backup worker available 24-7 to fill in for the other 70%. That backup is required and still costs money even when sitting idle. But the extra cost is ignored. This accounting trick explains why renewables look inexpensive in charts, while electricity prices soar in grids that rely heavily on them. Globally, the renewable failure is clear. In 2024, solar supplied just 1.4% of global primary energy. Wind supplied about 1.5%. Fossil fuels still provided around 87%. This is not a global energy transition. It is a costly experiment played by a handful of Western economies.

Wind and solar look cheap on paper, but only because their true costs are hidden. Power grids must balance supply and demand every second. Wind and solar cannot do that. Their output follows the weather, which is variable. So every megawatt of wind or solar requires a matching megawatt of reliable backup. A 100 MW wind farm does not replace a 100 MW gas plant. The gas plant still has to be built, staffed, fueled and kept ready at all times. Consumers are effectively paying for two systems, but only one is accounted for. Think of it like hiring a worker who only shows up 30% of the time. The hourly wage looks cheap, but you still need a fully trained backup worker available 24-7 to fill in for the other 70%. That backup is required and still costs money even when sitting idle. But the extra cost is ignored. This accounting trick explains why renewables look inexpensive in charts, while electricity prices soar in grids that rely heavily on them. Globally, the renewable failure is clear. In 2024, solar supplied just 1.4% of global primary energy. Wind supplied about 1.5%. Fossil fuels still provided around 87%. This is not a global energy transition. It is a costly experiment played by a handful of Western economies.

Electroverse

20,738 次观看 • 3 个月前

Germany has just erased another symbol of its industrial strength. The demolition of the Gundremmingen cooling towers marks not only the end of a nuclear facility but the continued dismantling of Germany’s economic backbone. What began under the red-green coalition two decades ago, and was later accelerated by Angela Merkel’s panic-driven phaseout, is now being completed under Friedrich Merz. The same politicians who once promised “sustainability” are now presiding over energy dependence, deindustrialization, and the collapse of what was once Europe’s most competitive economy. Nuclear power was not Germany’s problem. It was its greatest asset: clean, efficient, and far cheaper than imported gas or unstable renewables. Yet ideological blindness turned success into guilt. The country that once built the best reactors in the world now imports nuclear energy from France and coal-based electricity from Poland. The political class calls this progress while businesses shut down and energy-intensive industries relocate abroad. Under the Merz administration, the absurdity has reached its final stage. While AI data centers, chip fabs, and future manufacturing all demand enormous amounts of reliable power, Germany is blowing up the very plants that could have supplied it. Instead of securing affordable electricity for innovation, Berlin is subsidizing wind turbines that stand still half the year and gas plants that rely on foreign regimes. This is not strategy; it is surrender disguised as virtue. The destruction of Gundremmingen is not about energy policy. It is about the decline of rational governance. Germany’s leaders are sacrificing economic sovereignty for ideology, while pretending it is moral necessity. The result is predictable: higher costs, weaker industry, and growing dependence on those who still value energy realism. What fell today in Bavaria were not cooling towers, but the last remnants of Germany’s common sense.

Germany has just erased another symbol of its industrial strength. The demolition of the Gundremmingen cooling towers marks not only the end of a nuclear facility but the continued dismantling of Germany’s economic backbone. What began under the red-green coalition two decades ago, and was later accelerated by Angela Merkel’s panic-driven phaseout, is now being completed under Friedrich Merz. The same politicians who once promised “sustainability” are now presiding over energy dependence, deindustrialization, and the collapse of what was once Europe’s most competitive economy. Nuclear power was not Germany’s problem. It was its greatest asset: clean, efficient, and far cheaper than imported gas or unstable renewables. Yet ideological blindness turned success into guilt. The country that once built the best reactors in the world now imports nuclear energy from France and coal-based electricity from Poland. The political class calls this progress while businesses shut down and energy-intensive industries relocate abroad. Under the Merz administration, the absurdity has reached its final stage. While AI data centers, chip fabs, and future manufacturing all demand enormous amounts of reliable power, Germany is blowing up the very plants that could have supplied it. Instead of securing affordable electricity for innovation, Berlin is subsidizing wind turbines that stand still half the year and gas plants that rely on foreign regimes. This is not strategy; it is surrender disguised as virtue. The destruction of Gundremmingen is not about energy policy. It is about the decline of rational governance. Germany’s leaders are sacrificing economic sovereignty for ideology, while pretending it is moral necessity. The result is predictable: higher costs, weaker industry, and growing dependence on those who still value energy realism. What fell today in Bavaria were not cooling towers, but the last remnants of Germany’s common sense.

Torsten Prochnow

75,877 次观看 • 10 个月前

Follow the money. If you want to know why the Australian Labor Party is indulging in a childish scare campaign against nuclear energy, follow the money. This pathetic Labor scare campaign is an insult to the intelligence of every Australian. If Labor was truly against nuclear energy on principle, it would cancel any arrangements to purchase nuclear-powered submarines and it would dismantle the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. However, we know Labor has no principles other than doing the bidding of the union thugs who fund them. This appears to be the ultimate reason behind Labor’s anti-nuclear scare campaign. Labor provides billions of dollars of grants, subsidies and incentives to support renewable energy investments. Between them and the Coalition, this has cost taxpayers $29 billion in the past 10 years. Labor enforces regulations and mandates which enforce a guaranteed market for renewable energy. Industry superannuation funds controlled by Labor’s union bosses invest heavily in these renewables projects, and why not? It’s underwritten by taxpayers thanks to Labor, guaranteeing a lucrative return for these union-controlled super funds. These lucrative returns are then used to support the Labor Party with large donations. It was no coincidence that in December 2023, union-controlled industry super funds demanded even more “favourable investment conditions” underwritten by taxpayers for the transition to net zero. These funds included CBUS, chaired by former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan, and AustralianSuper, with close ties to former Labor prime minister Paul Keating. I’ll highlight a few more union affiliations among the current Labor cabinet: • Bill Shorten and the AWU • Tony Burke and the SDA in New South Wales • Don Farrell and the SDA in South Australia • Katy Gallagher and the CPSU • Pat Conroy – the CFMEU and the AMWU • Richard Marles and the ACTU It’s insidious how much unions have infiltrated this Parliament, and how it compromises good government. This is a scam paid for by the Australian taxpayer with subsidies, and by Australian consumers with their record high energy bills. Labor and its union masters don’t want this corrupt gravy train derailed by nuclear energy. That’s why they’ve come out swinging against it, while once again showing their absolute contempt for the intelligence of the Australian people. Fortunately, Australians are smart enough not to fall for Labor’s pathetic scare campaign of three-eyed fish memes. Australians understand that nuclear power is safely used at 450 sites around the world in 32 countries. Australia is the only advanced economy in the world which doesn’t make use of this proven technology, despite having at least a quarter of the planet’s proven uranium reserves. This important natural advantage to Australia is being squandered. It makes absolutely no sense that Australia – one of the world’s most energy-rich countries – is facing energy shortages this winter and has some of the highest energy prices in the world. That is, unless you follow the money trail. Labor and the unions are orchestrating a massive scam on the Australian people, and the price of it will be our economy and our standard of living. This scam and the destruction it is causing must be exposed and stopped. Nuclear energy is a beginning, but uranium is just one of Australia’s natural advantages. We also have abundant reserves of coal and natural gas. All of these natural advantages should be utilised in an independent energy policy that prioritises affordability and reliability over climate change ideology. The Prime Minister’s inability to stand up to unions has been exposed by thugs like John Setka. The Prime Minister’s weakness has been further exposed by Senator Payman, who has escaped any serious sanction for crossing the floor against Labor policy last week. Why are we allowing this union-Labor renewables scam to happen? Is it to arrest climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Because if it is, that’s not working. Global emissions continue to rise, another indicator of the union-Labor renewables scam. They will rise no matter what Australia does, no matter how many coal mines and power stations we close, no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels pollute the Australian landscape.

Follow the money. If you want to know why the Australian Labor Party is indulging in a childish scare campaign against nuclear energy, follow the money. This pathetic Labor scare campaign is an insult to the intelligence of every Australian. If Labor was truly against nuclear energy on principle, it would cancel any arrangements to purchase nuclear-powered submarines and it would dismantle the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. However, we know Labor has no principles other than doing the bidding of the union thugs who fund them. This appears to be the ultimate reason behind Labor’s anti-nuclear scare campaign. Labor provides billions of dollars of grants, subsidies and incentives to support renewable energy investments. Between them and the Coalition, this has cost taxpayers $29 billion in the past 10 years. Labor enforces regulations and mandates which enforce a guaranteed market for renewable energy. Industry superannuation funds controlled by Labor’s union bosses invest heavily in these renewables projects, and why not? It’s underwritten by taxpayers thanks to Labor, guaranteeing a lucrative return for these union-controlled super funds. These lucrative returns are then used to support the Labor Party with large donations. It was no coincidence that in December 2023, union-controlled industry super funds demanded even more “favourable investment conditions” underwritten by taxpayers for the transition to net zero. These funds included CBUS, chaired by former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan, and AustralianSuper, with close ties to former Labor prime minister Paul Keating. I’ll highlight a few more union affiliations among the current Labor cabinet: • Bill Shorten and the AWU • Tony Burke and the SDA in New South Wales • Don Farrell and the SDA in South Australia • Katy Gallagher and the CPSU • Pat Conroy – the CFMEU and the AMWU • Richard Marles and the ACTU It’s insidious how much unions have infiltrated this Parliament, and how it compromises good government. This is a scam paid for by the Australian taxpayer with subsidies, and by Australian consumers with their record high energy bills. Labor and its union masters don’t want this corrupt gravy train derailed by nuclear energy. That’s why they’ve come out swinging against it, while once again showing their absolute contempt for the intelligence of the Australian people. Fortunately, Australians are smart enough not to fall for Labor’s pathetic scare campaign of three-eyed fish memes. Australians understand that nuclear power is safely used at 450 sites around the world in 32 countries. Australia is the only advanced economy in the world which doesn’t make use of this proven technology, despite having at least a quarter of the planet’s proven uranium reserves. This important natural advantage to Australia is being squandered. It makes absolutely no sense that Australia – one of the world’s most energy-rich countries – is facing energy shortages this winter and has some of the highest energy prices in the world. That is, unless you follow the money trail. Labor and the unions are orchestrating a massive scam on the Australian people, and the price of it will be our economy and our standard of living. This scam and the destruction it is causing must be exposed and stopped. Nuclear energy is a beginning, but uranium is just one of Australia’s natural advantages. We also have abundant reserves of coal and natural gas. All of these natural advantages should be utilised in an independent energy policy that prioritises affordability and reliability over climate change ideology. The Prime Minister’s inability to stand up to unions has been exposed by thugs like John Setka. The Prime Minister’s weakness has been further exposed by Senator Payman, who has escaped any serious sanction for crossing the floor against Labor policy last week. Why are we allowing this union-Labor renewables scam to happen? Is it to arrest climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Because if it is, that’s not working. Global emissions continue to rise, another indicator of the union-Labor renewables scam. They will rise no matter what Australia does, no matter how many coal mines and power stations we close, no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels pollute the Australian landscape.

Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺

189,674 次观看 • 2 年前

$Renewables are the key to preventing resource scarcity, argue European leaders, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, whose bestselling book Abundance became one of Barack Obama’s favorite books of 2025 and launched a political movement dedicated to what Klein calls “a politics of plenty.” The logic is straightforward and appealing. Solar panel costs have fallen more than 90% since 2010. Wind power costs have dropped by 70%. Battery storage prices have collapsed. If governments would simply clear the regulatory obstacles to building solar farms, wind turbines, and transmission lines, the abundance argument goes, clean energy would flow so abundantly that fossil fuel dependence would become a choice rather than a necessity. “The miracles of solar and wind and battery power,” Klein told the Long Now Foundation, “have given us the only shot we have to avoid catastrophic climate change.” But if renewables could prevent resource scarcity, then the world would not be in the midst of what the International Energy Agency’s Executive Director Fatih Birol called “the greatest global energy security challenge in history,” with global supply losses now totaling 12 million barrels per day, compared to about 5 million during each of the 1973 and 1979 crises. The United Kingdom is receiving its last shipment of jet fuel from the Middle East with nothing behind it. Australia saw over 500 gas stations run dry. And South Korea is considering driving restrictions for the first time since 1991. “In April,” warned Birol, “there is nothing.” It is true that solar and batteries have made enormous progress. Solar electricity costs roughly 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour at the point of generation, cheaper than any fossil fuel in most locations. Battery costs have fallen below $115 per kilowatt-hour. China produces more solar panels than the rest of the world combined. But the world has installed more than 1,600 gigawatts of solar capacity and over 1,000 gigawatts of wind, and still we are in crisis. Global green energy investment was $2.3 trillion in 2025 alone. And yet when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, none of that capacity mattered, because solar panels do not produce jet fuel, diesel, ammonia, or the petrochemical feedstocks that underpin modern civilization. Electricity accounts for roughly 20% of final energy consumption worldwide. The other 80%, the part that moves ships, flies planes, heats buildings, and makes fertilizer, runs overwhelmingly on oil and gas. Solar and wind cannot substitute for these fuels at any price, because the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons exceeds batteries by a factor of 40 to 80 by weight. Klein and Thompson, to their credit, also support some forms of nuclear power. Abundance opens with a vision of cities powered by “clean (nuclear) and renewable (wind and solar) energy sources.” They lament America’s nuclear stagnation compared to France’s successful buildout. Klein has said that he supports advancing nuclear power alongside renewables. But, the new nuclear power plants that Klein and Thompson support do not exist. The “small modular reactors” that populate the abundance fantasy have not produced a single commercial kilowatt-hour of electricity. NuScale, the most advanced American SMR developer, canceled its flagship project in 2023 after costs doubled. No SMR has received a commercial operating license anywhere in the world. The first commercially operating SMR, if all goes well, may produce power in the early 2030s, but SMR developers have for years said that their reactors are just a few years away. Scaling to a meaningful share of global energy supply would take decades, as opposed to building conventional nuclear plants, which Japan and China have shown they can build in just two years, so long as they are standardized and the same construction crews are used. Democrats, progressives, environmental groups, and left-wing parties across Europe diverted hundreds of billions of dollars over the last two decades from developing the new oil and gas production, pipelines, refineries, and LNG terminals needed to make energy cheap and abundant. California’s aggressive climate mandates drove residential electricity prices to 34 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly double the national average, while the state simultaneously blocked new natural gas infrastructure. And global investment in oil and gas exploration and production peaked at roughly $780 billion in 2014 and fell to approximately $350 billion by 2020, a decline driven by deliberate policy choices to restrict fossil fuel development. The European Union’s Green Deal, America’s Inflation Reduction Act, and climate policies across the developed world channeled subsidies toward solar and wind while imposing carbon taxes, windfall levies, and permitting restrictions on fossil fuel projects. The UK’s Energy Profits Levy, introduced in 2022, discouraged investment in the North Sea at precisely the moment when more domestic production was needed. The UK Labor government then banned new exploration licenses in November 2025. Germany’s Energiewende spent over €500 billion on renewables while shutting down its nuclear plants, leaving the country dependent on Russian gas and then, after the Ukraine war, on LNG that must now compete with Asian buyers for cargoes that can no longer transit Hormuz. And the UK has lost a third of its refineries in the last 18 months, meaning that even if crude oil arrived tomorrow, the country lacks the capacity to refine it into the jet fuel, diesel, and heating oil its citizens need. The only energy abundance solution that works at the scale of civilization right now is piped natural gas and oil. A pipeline delivers energy continuously, at near-zero marginal cost per unit delivered, with no exposure to shipping chokepoints, insurance markets, or geopolitical disruption. A ton of natural gas moved through a pipeline costs a fraction of what the same gas costs when liquefied, shipped by tanker across an ocean, and regasified at a terminal. The logical endpoint is a world powered by natural gas delivered through continental pipeline networks, eventually transitioning to hydrogen produced from natural gas and nuclear power. America built pipelines while Europe and Asia built LNG dependency. Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, which has ramped from 770,000 barrels per day to 2.9 million since the war began, is the emergency proof of concept. If the Gulf states had built sufficient pipeline capacity to bypass Hormuz before the war, the crisis would be a fraction of its current severity. So why do so many on the Left continue to preach renewables as the solution to a crisis that renewables manifestly cannot solve?... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!$

Renewables are the key to preventing resource scarcity, argue European leaders, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, whose bestselling book Abundance became one of Barack Obama’s favorite books of 2025 and launched a political movement dedicated to what Klein calls “a politics of plenty.” The logic is straightforward and appealing. Solar panel costs have fallen more than 90% since 2010. Wind power costs have dropped by 70%. Battery storage prices have collapsed. If governments would simply clear the regulatory obstacles to building solar farms, wind turbines, and transmission lines, the abundance argument goes, clean energy would flow so abundantly that fossil fuel dependence would become a choice rather than a necessity. “The miracles of solar and wind and battery power,” Klein told the Long Now Foundation, “have given us the only shot we have to avoid catastrophic climate change.” But if renewables could prevent resource scarcity, then the world would not be in the midst of what the International Energy Agency’s Executive Director Fatih Birol called “the greatest global energy security challenge in history,” with global supply losses now totaling 12 million barrels per day, compared to about 5 million during each of the 1973 and 1979 crises. The United Kingdom is receiving its last shipment of jet fuel from the Middle East with nothing behind it. Australia saw over 500 gas stations run dry. And South Korea is considering driving restrictions for the first time since 1991. “In April,” warned Birol, “there is nothing.” It is true that solar and batteries have made enormous progress. Solar electricity costs roughly 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour at the point of generation, cheaper than any fossil fuel in most locations. Battery costs have fallen below $115 per kilowatt-hour. China produces more solar panels than the rest of the world combined. But the world has installed more than 1,600 gigawatts of solar capacity and over 1,000 gigawatts of wind, and still we are in crisis. Global green energy investment was $2.3 trillion in 2025 alone. And yet when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, none of that capacity mattered, because solar panels do not produce jet fuel, diesel, ammonia, or the petrochemical feedstocks that underpin modern civilization. Electricity accounts for roughly 20% of final energy consumption worldwide. The other 80%, the part that moves ships, flies planes, heats buildings, and makes fertilizer, runs overwhelmingly on oil and gas. Solar and wind cannot substitute for these fuels at any price, because the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons exceeds batteries by a factor of 40 to 80 by weight. Klein and Thompson, to their credit, also support some forms of nuclear power. Abundance opens with a vision of cities powered by “clean (nuclear) and renewable (wind and solar) energy sources.” They lament America’s nuclear stagnation compared to France’s successful buildout. Klein has said that he supports advancing nuclear power alongside renewables. But, the new nuclear power plants that Klein and Thompson support do not exist. The “small modular reactors” that populate the abundance fantasy have not produced a single commercial kilowatt-hour of electricity. NuScale, the most advanced American SMR developer, canceled its flagship project in 2023 after costs doubled. No SMR has received a commercial operating license anywhere in the world. The first commercially operating SMR, if all goes well, may produce power in the early 2030s, but SMR developers have for years said that their reactors are just a few years away. Scaling to a meaningful share of global energy supply would take decades, as opposed to building conventional nuclear plants, which Japan and China have shown they can build in just two years, so long as they are standardized and the same construction crews are used. Democrats, progressives, environmental groups, and left-wing parties across Europe diverted hundreds of billions of dollars over the last two decades from developing the new oil and gas production, pipelines, refineries, and LNG terminals needed to make energy cheap and abundant. California’s aggressive climate mandates drove residential electricity prices to 34 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly double the national average, while the state simultaneously blocked new natural gas infrastructure. And global investment in oil and gas exploration and production peaked at roughly $780 billion in 2014 and fell to approximately $350 billion by 2020, a decline driven by deliberate policy choices to restrict fossil fuel development. The European Union’s Green Deal, America’s Inflation Reduction Act, and climate policies across the developed world channeled subsidies toward solar and wind while imposing carbon taxes, windfall levies, and permitting restrictions on fossil fuel projects. The UK’s Energy Profits Levy, introduced in 2022, discouraged investment in the North Sea at precisely the moment when more domestic production was needed. The UK Labor government then banned new exploration licenses in November 2025. Germany’s Energiewende spent over €500 billion on renewables while shutting down its nuclear plants, leaving the country dependent on Russian gas and then, after the Ukraine war, on LNG that must now compete with Asian buyers for cargoes that can no longer transit Hormuz. And the UK has lost a third of its refineries in the last 18 months, meaning that even if crude oil arrived tomorrow, the country lacks the capacity to refine it into the jet fuel, diesel, and heating oil its citizens need. The only energy abundance solution that works at the scale of civilization right now is piped natural gas and oil. A pipeline delivers energy continuously, at near-zero marginal cost per unit delivered, with no exposure to shipping chokepoints, insurance markets, or geopolitical disruption. A ton of natural gas moved through a pipeline costs a fraction of what the same gas costs when liquefied, shipped by tanker across an ocean, and regasified at a terminal. The logical endpoint is a world powered by natural gas delivered through continental pipeline networks, eventually transitioning to hydrogen produced from natural gas and nuclear power. America built pipelines while Europe and Asia built LNG dependency. Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, which has ramped from 770,000 barrels per day to 2.9 million since the war began, is the emergency proof of concept. If the Gulf states had built sufficient pipeline capacity to bypass Hormuz before the war, the crisis would be a fraction of its current severity. So why do so many on the Left continue to preach renewables as the solution to a crisis that renewables manifestly cannot solve?... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

129,394 次观看 • 4 个月前

$VON DER LEYEN’S WORDS AND THE REALITY 🇷🇺 Ursula von der Leyen did admit that rejecting Russian gas was Europe’s strategic blunder. Seems that GREEN ENERGY is indeed ZERO ENERGY ! In March 2026 she said that: returning to Russian fossil fuels would be a “strategic blunder.” Now we see the fact that discarding Russian fuel has destroyed the Economic industrial powerbase of Europe. The record is clear. Yet the deeper truth remains unchanged. Europe’s decision to cut itself off from reliable Russian energy, driven by green ideology and political posturing, has extracted a heavy price. Putin saw it coming. Europe is living the consequences. 🇷🇺 PUTIN LAUGHED IN 2010 — AND HE WAS RIGHT 🇷🇺 In Berlin in 2010 Vladimir Putin looked European leaders in the eye and mocked their energy fantasies. He asked how they planned to heat their homes if they rejected gas and nuclear. “From firewood?” he asked. “Even for firewood you will need to go to Siberia.” They smiled. They lectured. They continued dismantling reliable power and betting everything on intermittent renewables and moral superiority. SIXteen years later the joke is no longer funny. The Dutch face freezing winters and soaring bills. Factories across the continent are packing up and leaving for places where energy is still treated as an industrial input instead of a political sermon. The man they dismissed as a relic is the one who correctly described the physics of the situation. GREEN IDEOLOGY BANKRUPTED A CONTINENT 🇷🇺 Europe did not lose cheap Russian pipeline gas by accident. It chose to reject it. It chose sanctions, moral grandstanding, and the Green Deal over long-term contracts and industrial survival. The result is written in the flight of energy-intensive industry, the shuttered chemical plants, the empty steel mills, and the households choosing between heating and eating. Russian gas was abundant, pipeline-delivered, and priced for mutual benefit. Europe replaced it with expensive LNG that arrives by ship from distant continents, subject to every geopolitical gust and every Middle East flare-up. When prices spike, Brussels discovers that “homegrown renewables” cannot keep factories running when the wind drops. The ideology that promised clean prosperity delivered expensive decline. DUTCH FREEZE WHILE FACTORIES FLEE 🇷🇺 Look at the Netherlands. Once a prosperous industrial hub, it now watches manufacturing capacity migrate. Energy costs that once underpinned competitive industry now act as a tax on survival. The same pattern repeats from Germany’s chemical heartland to Italy’s industrial north. Capital and jobs do not care about Brussels press conferences. They follow affordable electrons and molecules. Putin did not force Europe to close nuclear plants. He did not force Germany to shut its last reactors. He did not force the continent to treat reliable baseload power as a moral failing. Europe did that to itself while lecturing the world about climate virtue. The cold houses and fleeing factories are the receipt. THE PRICE OF IDEOLOGY OVER REALITY 🇷🇺 Every time prices surge, the same voices insist the solution is more of the same: more wind, more solar, more targets, more independence from the very supplier that once kept the lights on at a fraction of the cost. They call it strategy. Putin called it madness years ago. The factories closing and the Dutch families turning down the thermostat are the proof. Truth does not require permission from the European Commission. Physics does not negotiate with green ideology. Europe rejected the energy that worked, embraced the energy that does not, and now pays the price in deindustrialization and cold. Putin warned them. They laughed. The continent is no longer laughing. 🇷🇺 is !$

VON DER LEYEN’S WORDS AND THE REALITY 🇷🇺 Ursula von der Leyen did admit that rejecting Russian gas was Europe’s strategic blunder. Seems that GREEN ENERGY is indeed ZERO ENERGY ! In March 2026 she said that: returning to Russian fossil fuels would be a “strategic blunder.” Now we see the fact that discarding Russian fuel has destroyed the Economic industrial powerbase of Europe. The record is clear. Yet the deeper truth remains unchanged. Europe’s decision to cut itself off from reliable Russian energy, driven by green ideology and political posturing, has extracted a heavy price. Putin saw it coming. Europe is living the consequences. 🇷🇺 PUTIN LAUGHED IN 2010 — AND HE WAS RIGHT 🇷🇺 In Berlin in 2010 Vladimir Putin looked European leaders in the eye and mocked their energy fantasies. He asked how they planned to heat their homes if they rejected gas and nuclear. “From firewood?” he asked. “Even for firewood you will need to go to Siberia.” They smiled. They lectured. They continued dismantling reliable power and betting everything on intermittent renewables and moral superiority. SIXteen years later the joke is no longer funny. The Dutch face freezing winters and soaring bills. Factories across the continent are packing up and leaving for places where energy is still treated as an industrial input instead of a political sermon. The man they dismissed as a relic is the one who correctly described the physics of the situation. GREEN IDEOLOGY BANKRUPTED A CONTINENT 🇷🇺 Europe did not lose cheap Russian pipeline gas by accident. It chose to reject it. It chose sanctions, moral grandstanding, and the Green Deal over long-term contracts and industrial survival. The result is written in the flight of energy-intensive industry, the shuttered chemical plants, the empty steel mills, and the households choosing between heating and eating. Russian gas was abundant, pipeline-delivered, and priced for mutual benefit. Europe replaced it with expensive LNG that arrives by ship from distant continents, subject to every geopolitical gust and every Middle East flare-up. When prices spike, Brussels discovers that “homegrown renewables” cannot keep factories running when the wind drops. The ideology that promised clean prosperity delivered expensive decline. DUTCH FREEZE WHILE FACTORIES FLEE 🇷🇺 Look at the Netherlands. Once a prosperous industrial hub, it now watches manufacturing capacity migrate. Energy costs that once underpinned competitive industry now act as a tax on survival. The same pattern repeats from Germany’s chemical heartland to Italy’s industrial north. Capital and jobs do not care about Brussels press conferences. They follow affordable electrons and molecules. Putin did not force Europe to close nuclear plants. He did not force Germany to shut its last reactors. He did not force the continent to treat reliable baseload power as a moral failing. Europe did that to itself while lecturing the world about climate virtue. The cold houses and fleeing factories are the receipt. THE PRICE OF IDEOLOGY OVER REALITY 🇷🇺 Every time prices surge, the same voices insist the solution is more of the same: more wind, more solar, more targets, more independence from the very supplier that once kept the lights on at a fraction of the cost. They call it strategy. Putin called it madness years ago. The factories closing and the Dutch families turning down the thermostat are the proof. Truth does not require permission from the European Commission. Physics does not negotiate with green ideology. Europe rejected the energy that worked, embraced the energy that does not, and now pays the price in deindustrialization and cold. Putin warned them. They laughed. The continent is no longer laughing. 🇷🇺 is !

𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙 🇷🇺🇮🇪

17,926 次观看 • 17 天前

It is very clear that we are poorly served by a growing class of arrogant and out of touch politicians, and Bowen is their mascot. Our politicians forget themselves. They forget that we don’t answer to them - They answer to us. They don’t pay us - We pay them. Chris Bowen has broken just about every promise that he has made. Industry is furious, electricity users are furious, and now motorists are furious. They promised that power bills would come down. Instead, power bills have gone up, while at the same time industry continues its exodus. The government is propping up a select few corporations with tax dollars and even taking over some directly. That is not the sign of a healthy energy market, or sustainable industry. It is not the sign of success that Bowen needs to maintain a modicum of credibility. So, Liam Bartlett calls him out, asks him real questions that cut to the viability of Bowen’s solutions to our real energy problems. But instead of answering Bartlett’s questions, the Minister responsible for the broken promises chooses instead to attack the journalist. Liam Bartlett is finally asking the questions that need to be asked. He is not just smiling and curtseying to the press corps - he is doing his job. Bowen shows us the answers, not by the words he says, but what he doesn’t say. It begs further questions. For me they are; Who does Bowen think he is? Followed closely by, who does he think he answers to? The answers are as obvious as the lack of answers he provides about our energy future. If it wasn’t so important, it wouldn’t really matter. But on a large and isolated continent like Australia, energy security is our life blood. Without an abundance of cheap and reliable energy, we will starve. Bowen might think his primary role is curating the swooning reporters he likes, but we all know that it is not his job. He answers to us. If he finds the questions uncomfortable, too bad. If the press required him to explain the truth of the storm we are really in - a storm that has been brewing for decades and is now spiraling out of control in front of us - then so be it. We can’t fix what we can’t see. Bowen must level with us. If he can’t fix the problems, get out of the way for somebody who can. Bowen should sit down with Liam Bartlett, and respectfully answer his questions. The people of Australia deserve nothing less. I just want Australia back.

It is very clear that we are poorly served by a growing class of arrogant and out of touch politicians, and Bowen is their mascot. Our politicians forget themselves. They forget that we don’t answer to them - They answer to us. They don’t pay us - We pay them. Chris Bowen has broken just about every promise that he has made. Industry is furious, electricity users are furious, and now motorists are furious. They promised that power bills would come down. Instead, power bills have gone up, while at the same time industry continues its exodus. The government is propping up a select few corporations with tax dollars and even taking over some directly. That is not the sign of a healthy energy market, or sustainable industry. It is not the sign of success that Bowen needs to maintain a modicum of credibility. So, Liam Bartlett calls him out, asks him real questions that cut to the viability of Bowen’s solutions to our real energy problems. But instead of answering Bartlett’s questions, the Minister responsible for the broken promises chooses instead to attack the journalist. Liam Bartlett is finally asking the questions that need to be asked. He is not just smiling and curtseying to the press corps - he is doing his job. Bowen shows us the answers, not by the words he says, but what he doesn’t say. It begs further questions. For me they are; Who does Bowen think he is? Followed closely by, who does he think he answers to? The answers are as obvious as the lack of answers he provides about our energy future. If it wasn’t so important, it wouldn’t really matter. But on a large and isolated continent like Australia, energy security is our life blood. Without an abundance of cheap and reliable energy, we will starve. Bowen might think his primary role is curating the swooning reporters he likes, but we all know that it is not his job. He answers to us. If he finds the questions uncomfortable, too bad. If the press required him to explain the truth of the storm we are really in - a storm that has been brewing for decades and is now spiraling out of control in front of us - then so be it. We can’t fix what we can’t see. Bowen must level with us. If he can’t fix the problems, get out of the way for somebody who can. Bowen should sit down with Liam Bartlett, and respectfully answer his questions. The people of Australia deserve nothing less. I just want Australia back.

Matthew Camenzuli

29,981 次观看 • 4 个月前

Watch the look on Ursula’s face as President Trump sets out the facts on wind power "It’s the expensive form of energy, the whole thing is a complete conjob" Yet, in Australia we’ve been deluded like a quasi-religious cult into thinking we can run our entire grid based on wind and solar. No wonder Australia is going backwards. And it’s pleasing to hear President Trump saying almost exactly what I said over a decade ago. From the Hansard 18th June, 2012 ….. "Wind turbines are ludicrously inefficient. Let us not lie about the costs. The electricity they produce is 500 per cent more expensive than electricity produced by coal-fired plants (when you factor in all the costs) "Simply because of their inefficiency, no one would invest in wind turbines unless they were guaranteed some type of government handout or special government privilege. "But these government handouts have to be paid by someone. That is something the Labor party does not understand. They are paid by families through higher electricity prices. They are paid by families, by factories, by hospitals, by schools, by offices, by churches and by retail shops. They are the people that pay the price of these policies. "We have beautiful country landscapes around our nation, from Beaudesert to Boorowa, magnificent horse-riding trails and picturesque vistas. We can desecrate these landscapes by covering them with giant steel industrial wind turbines for as far as the eye can see, but it is not going to do anything to change the temperature of the globe and it not going to have any measurable effect on levels of carbon dioxide. To do so would be a recipe for retarding economic growth, increasing poverty and harming human health."

Watch the look on Ursula’s face as President Trump sets out the facts on wind power "It’s the expensive form of energy, the whole thing is a complete conjob" Yet, in Australia we’ve been deluded like a quasi-religious cult into thinking we can run our entire grid based on wind and solar. No wonder Australia is going backwards. And it’s pleasing to hear President Trump saying almost exactly what I said over a decade ago. From the Hansard 18th June, 2012 ….. "Wind turbines are ludicrously inefficient. Let us not lie about the costs. The electricity they produce is 500 per cent more expensive than electricity produced by coal-fired plants (when you factor in all the costs) "Simply because of their inefficiency, no one would invest in wind turbines unless they were guaranteed some type of government handout or special government privilege. "But these government handouts have to be paid by someone. That is something the Labor party does not understand. They are paid by families through higher electricity prices. They are paid by families, by factories, by hospitals, by schools, by offices, by churches and by retail shops. They are the people that pay the price of these policies. "We have beautiful country landscapes around our nation, from Beaudesert to Boorowa, magnificent horse-riding trails and picturesque vistas. We can desecrate these landscapes by covering them with giant steel industrial wind turbines for as far as the eye can see, but it is not going to do anything to change the temperature of the globe and it not going to have any measurable effect on levels of carbon dioxide. To do so would be a recipe for retarding economic growth, increasing poverty and harming human health."

Craig Kelly:🇦🇺Foundation for Economic Education

113,351 次观看 • 1 年前

The experiment is over – we know what does and doesn’t work to address climate If we look at what has been proposed to address global warming, air pollution, and energy security during the past 25 years, only one solution – electrification of all energy sectors and generation of the electricity with wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro sources -- has made an impact. This solution has reduced enough world emissions and technology costs for the IPCC, to eliminate its worst-case climate scenario. What are the proposed climate solutions that never worked? (1) Fossil gas replacing coal, (2) ethanol replacing gasoline, (3) carbon capture, (4) direct removal of CO2 from the air by equipment, (5) blue hydrogen, 6) nuclear, and (7) geoengineering. We knew these were poor solutions back in 2009, when they were first evaluated. But, it has taken 17 years to overcome lobbyists pushing these techs. On the other hand, electrification of world transport, buildings, and industry and using clean renewables to provide the electricity while growing energy efficiency, also proposed in 2009, has worked, as evidenced by the world growth in electric vehicles, heat pumps, electric furnaces, and clean, renewable electricity generators. All-of-the-above policies, or let’s try everything and hope something works policies, have failed. Given the short time we have, we should never see another IPCC scenario that includes biofuels, carbon capture, direct air capture, nuclear, geoengineering or their derivatives, blue hydrogen, electo-fuels, or sustainable aviation fuels. We know what works. Let's focus on that going forward. References Elimination of most extreme IPCC scenario Components of a WindWaterSolar system 2009 paper evaluating energy technologies 2009 paper proposing to transition the world to 100% WWS More details here: "Still No Miracles Needed" Video

The experiment is over – we know what does and doesn’t work to address climate If we look at what has been proposed to address global warming, air pollution, and energy security during the past 25 years, only one solution – electrification of all energy sectors and generation of the electricity with wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro sources -- has made an impact. This solution has reduced enough world emissions and technology costs for the IPCC, to eliminate its worst-case climate scenario. What are the proposed climate solutions that never worked? (1) Fossil gas replacing coal, (2) ethanol replacing gasoline, (3) carbon capture, (4) direct removal of CO2 from the air by equipment, (5) blue hydrogen, 6) nuclear, and (7) geoengineering. We knew these were poor solutions back in 2009, when they were first evaluated. But, it has taken 17 years to overcome lobbyists pushing these techs. On the other hand, electrification of world transport, buildings, and industry and using clean renewables to provide the electricity while growing energy efficiency, also proposed in 2009, has worked, as evidenced by the world growth in electric vehicles, heat pumps, electric furnaces, and clean, renewable electricity generators. All-of-the-above policies, or let’s try everything and hope something works policies, have failed. Given the short time we have, we should never see another IPCC scenario that includes biofuels, carbon capture, direct air capture, nuclear, geoengineering or their derivatives, blue hydrogen, electo-fuels, or sustainable aviation fuels. We know what works. Let's focus on that going forward. References Elimination of most extreme IPCC scenario Components of a WindWaterSolar system 2009 paper evaluating energy technologies 2009 paper proposing to transition the world to 100% WWS More details here: "Still No Miracles Needed" Video

Mark Z. Jacobson

12,226 次观看 • 2 个月前

Chip Roy lost his bid for Texas attorney general last night. He was one of the solar industry's biggest opponents in Congress. And a group of clean energy investors decided there had to be a consequence. They ran hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of attack ads calling him "not MAGA enough." The ads never mentioned clean energy once. They forced Roy into a runoff, which he lost yesterday. I recently sat down with one of the lead donors to the campaign: Chris Larsen, the billionaire co-founder of Ripple, who is now investing heavily in climate. Chris was one of the lead investors in crypto's Fairshake campaign that turned the industry from a regulatory target into one of the most feared political forces in Washington. It spent nearly half of all corporate political dollars in the 2024 cycle and won over 95% of the races it engaged in. He thinks clean energy can do the same thing. And he does not mince words about what that requires: "This is political warfare. You talk about what works. You talk about what's going to take out that person." I also sat down with his co-founder at the Clean Break Fund: Mike Brune, the longest-serving executive director of the Sierra Club. "The next time someone votes against the solar industry, there's a lot of money that could come after them in the next primary or the next election," Brune said. The clean energy industry has been historically focused on making the affirmative case by highlighting economic benefits, building coalitions, and telling a positive story. But Chris and Mike think that the industry needs to get more serious about delivering political consequences. "The worst thing you want in a political fight is for your opponents to think you're weak," Chris told the room. There's still a massive spending gap between renewables and fossil fuels. In 2024, the entire renewable energy industry donated $2.5 million to political campaigns. Oil and gas donated $75 million just to elect Trump. That gap won't close quickly, but it's the first sign that the industry is serious about taking the gloves off.

Chip Roy lost his bid for Texas attorney general last night. He was one of the solar industry's biggest opponents in Congress. And a group of clean energy investors decided there had to be a consequence. They ran hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of attack ads calling him "not MAGA enough." The ads never mentioned clean energy once. They forced Roy into a runoff, which he lost yesterday. I recently sat down with one of the lead donors to the campaign: Chris Larsen, the billionaire co-founder of Ripple, who is now investing heavily in climate. Chris was one of the lead investors in crypto's Fairshake campaign that turned the industry from a regulatory target into one of the most feared political forces in Washington. It spent nearly half of all corporate political dollars in the 2024 cycle and won over 95% of the races it engaged in. He thinks clean energy can do the same thing. And he does not mince words about what that requires: "This is political warfare. You talk about what works. You talk about what's going to take out that person." I also sat down with his co-founder at the Clean Break Fund: Mike Brune, the longest-serving executive director of the Sierra Club. "The next time someone votes against the solar industry, there's a lot of money that could come after them in the next primary or the next election," Brune said. The clean energy industry has been historically focused on making the affirmative case by highlighting economic benefits, building coalitions, and telling a positive story. But Chris and Mike think that the industry needs to get more serious about delivering political consequences. "The worst thing you want in a political fight is for your opponents to think you're weak," Chris told the room. There's still a massive spending gap between renewables and fossil fuels. In 2024, the entire renewable energy industry donated $2.5 million to political campaigns. Oil and gas donated $75 million just to elect Trump. That gap won't close quickly, but it's the first sign that the industry is serious about taking the gloves off.

Stephen Lacey

58,363 次观看 • 3 个月前

Speaking in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill debate today, we should all focus on the requirement to save the jobs of those 3,500 people who have this threat hanging over them. China is pushing to shut down British steel industries, pushing forward to shut down the blast furnaces in the UK. Far too many countries like China have abused the rules of the free market, have subsidised their industries ridiculously, and have used slave labour to produce products. When that happens, the free market is dead. China now itself is suffering from an overproduction of steel. Their own housing industry has gone static on them, and they were one of the biggest users of the steel produced by China. Where is that steel going to go? It’s no surprise that a Chinese company Jingye is involved in this, because by pushing forward to shut down the blast furnaces in the UK, they know that we will have to buy slab steel from China. This is not a coincidence. This is all part of the plan. We must recognise that we will have to deal with those whom we trust and who do not break the rules. That means a whole rethink of the Government’s China policy. The previous Conservative Government should never have awarded it the contract, and I warned them about that. It is time for us to make sure that we deal with China at face value and do not accept the pretence that this company is private or in any way detached from its Government. That is a critical point. Cheap Chinese steel is a desperate problem for us, and we need to work with other countries in dealing with it. We also need to get our costs down. On Net Zero, I hope that the Secretary of State will tell the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero that we cannot go on like this. #BritishSteel

Speaking in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill debate today, we should all focus on the requirement to save the jobs of those 3,500 people who have this threat hanging over them. China is pushing to shut down British steel industries, pushing forward to shut down the blast furnaces in the UK. Far too many countries like China have abused the rules of the free market, have subsidised their industries ridiculously, and have used slave labour to produce products. When that happens, the free market is dead. China now itself is suffering from an overproduction of steel. Their own housing industry has gone static on them, and they were one of the biggest users of the steel produced by China. Where is that steel going to go? It’s no surprise that a Chinese company Jingye is involved in this, because by pushing forward to shut down the blast furnaces in the UK, they know that we will have to buy slab steel from China. This is not a coincidence. This is all part of the plan. We must recognise that we will have to deal with those whom we trust and who do not break the rules. That means a whole rethink of the Government’s China policy. The previous Conservative Government should never have awarded it the contract, and I warned them about that. It is time for us to make sure that we deal with China at face value and do not accept the pretence that this company is private or in any way detached from its Government. That is a critical point. Cheap Chinese steel is a desperate problem for us, and we need to work with other countries in dealing with it. We also need to get our costs down. On Net Zero, I hope that the Secretary of State will tell the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero that we cannot go on like this. #BritishSteel

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

24,259 次观看 • 1 年前

2026 Conservative Claire Coutinho claims the UK's pursuit of Net Zero is driven by ideology, and that using less wind and solar could save the equivalent of around £500 per household a year 2023: Conservative Claire Coutinho, "Nothing will distract us from achieving Net Zero or driving forward with renewables" The claim that less wind and solar would save every household £500 a year is deeply misleading. Coutinho is effectively taking the result of a model that changes almost the entire future electricity system—less wind and solar, much more nuclear and gas, different grid requirements and, crucially, no carbon price—and presenting the resulting £500-plus difference as though it were the cost of renewables. The research simply doesn't establish that. The figure does not come from evidence that renewables currently add £500 to household bills. It comes from a Conservative-backed modelling exercise comparing two hypothetical energy systems and turning £320 billion of estimated economy-wide savings between 2030 and 2050 into an annual equivalent per household. Crucially, the supposedly cheaper alternative doesn't simply build less wind and solar. It assumes far more nuclear power, substantially more unabated gas, lower spending on networks and balancing, and the removal of carbon pricing from electricity generation. Of the £320 billion headline saving, £137bn comes from assumed lower network costs, £67bn from balancing and ancillary services, £22bn from subsidies and capacity costs, and £94bn from lower wholesale prices. That £94 billion is particularly important because much of that supposed saving is created by changing the rules of the comparison. The existing-policy scenario assumes generators continue paying a carbon price which rises substantially towards 2050; the alternative effectively abolishes that carbon price from 2031. Unsurprisingly, a model in which gas-fired electricity no longer carries that cost produces cheaper wholesale electricity. But that isn't evidence that wind and solar made electricity £94bn more expensive. It is principally the consequence of assuming a major carbon-pricing policy is abolished. Nor is removing carbon pricing simply £94bn of free money. Carbon pricing is deliberately intended to make polluters account for their emissions, discourage fossil-fuel generation and encourage cleaner alternatives, while carbon allowances also generate government revenue. Removing it means accepting considerably greater emissions and losing those revenues and incentives. The alternative model consequently produces hundreds of millions of tonnes of additional CO₂. The model also assumes Britain can successfully build around 20GW of nuclear capacity, while retaining much greater dependence on gas. Whether nuclear can be delivered at the assumed cost and timetable is far from guaranteed, while greater reliance on gas leaves households more vulnerable to international gas-price shocks—the same exposure that played such a large role in Britain's recent energy-price crisis. There is a legitimate argument about the costs associated with large amounts of wind and solar. An electricity system dependent on intermittent generation requires substantial investment in transmission, balancing, storage, interconnectors and backup capacity, and those costs shouldn't be ignored. But that is very different from demonstrating that wind and solar cost every household £500 a year. Nearly £100bn of the supposed saving comes from the decision to remove carbon pricing, not from discovering that wind and solar are £100bn more expensive. Coutinho has taken a £500-plus headline generated by a Conservative-backed model containing a whole package of assumptions—less wind and solar, much more nuclear, more gas, less grid investment and the abolition of carbon pricing—and presented it to the public as evidence that Britain's reliance on wind and solar is costing households hundreds of pounds. That's misleading because the model doesn't establish that. It establishes that, if you change the entire future energy system and the taxes imposed upon it, its authors calculate a lower overall system cost. Turning that into “less wind and solar will save your household £500” strips away the assumptions that actually produce the number.

2026 Conservative Claire Coutinho claims the UK's pursuit of Net Zero is driven by ideology, and that using less wind and solar could save the equivalent of around £500 per household a year 2023: Conservative Claire Coutinho, "Nothing will distract us from achieving Net Zero or driving forward with renewables" The claim that less wind and solar would save every household £500 a year is deeply misleading. Coutinho is effectively taking the result of a model that changes almost the entire future electricity system—less wind and solar, much more nuclear and gas, different grid requirements and, crucially, no carbon price—and presenting the resulting £500-plus difference as though it were the cost of renewables. The research simply doesn't establish that. The figure does not come from evidence that renewables currently add £500 to household bills. It comes from a Conservative-backed modelling exercise comparing two hypothetical energy systems and turning £320 billion of estimated economy-wide savings between 2030 and 2050 into an annual equivalent per household. Crucially, the supposedly cheaper alternative doesn't simply build less wind and solar. It assumes far more nuclear power, substantially more unabated gas, lower spending on networks and balancing, and the removal of carbon pricing from electricity generation. Of the £320 billion headline saving, £137bn comes from assumed lower network costs, £67bn from balancing and ancillary services, £22bn from subsidies and capacity costs, and £94bn from lower wholesale prices. That £94 billion is particularly important because much of that supposed saving is created by changing the rules of the comparison. The existing-policy scenario assumes generators continue paying a carbon price which rises substantially towards 2050; the alternative effectively abolishes that carbon price from 2031. Unsurprisingly, a model in which gas-fired electricity no longer carries that cost produces cheaper wholesale electricity. But that isn't evidence that wind and solar made electricity £94bn more expensive. It is principally the consequence of assuming a major carbon-pricing policy is abolished. Nor is removing carbon pricing simply £94bn of free money. Carbon pricing is deliberately intended to make polluters account for their emissions, discourage fossil-fuel generation and encourage cleaner alternatives, while carbon allowances also generate government revenue. Removing it means accepting considerably greater emissions and losing those revenues and incentives. The alternative model consequently produces hundreds of millions of tonnes of additional CO₂. The model also assumes Britain can successfully build around 20GW of nuclear capacity, while retaining much greater dependence on gas. Whether nuclear can be delivered at the assumed cost and timetable is far from guaranteed, while greater reliance on gas leaves households more vulnerable to international gas-price shocks—the same exposure that played such a large role in Britain's recent energy-price crisis. There is a legitimate argument about the costs associated with large amounts of wind and solar. An electricity system dependent on intermittent generation requires substantial investment in transmission, balancing, storage, interconnectors and backup capacity, and those costs shouldn't be ignored. But that is very different from demonstrating that wind and solar cost every household £500 a year. Nearly £100bn of the supposed saving comes from the decision to remove carbon pricing, not from discovering that wind and solar are £100bn more expensive. Coutinho has taken a £500-plus headline generated by a Conservative-backed model containing a whole package of assumptions—less wind and solar, much more nuclear, more gas, less grid investment and the abolition of carbon pricing—and presented it to the public as evidence that Britain's reliance on wind and solar is costing households hundreds of pounds. That's misleading because the model doesn't establish that. It establishes that, if you change the entire future energy system and the taxes imposed upon it, its authors calculate a lower overall system cost. Turning that into “less wind and solar will save your household £500” strips away the assumptions that actually produce the number.

Farrukh

14,159 次观看 • 9 天前