2025-04-28
Top for what?
Top for cost, top for inefficiency, top for tax-payer subsidies, top for grid transmission costs, top for ecological destruction, top for government propaganda ... need I go on?
" ... a peer-reviewed analysis of full-system levelized costs of competing power sources shows wind power is seven times more expensive than natural gas power and solar power is 10 times more expensive ... "
Now I realise that I am likely preaching to the converted (converted as in realisation of the truth, as opposed to realisation of the heat-pump, whilst recognising that the former need not exclude the latter).
But it seems that there are still many global-warmists out there who implicitly believe everything that gets extruded from the vast networks of UN-WEF-affiliated think-tanks, charitable (as in untaxed) institutions, NGOs, and pseudo-populist lobby groupings that seem to have sprung from nowhere to persuade us that black is white, that 'expensive and ineffective' is 'inexpensive and effective', and "WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE" if we don't do as we are told - now including spraying our skies to block out all that nasty sunlight that keeps us cheerful, and (whisper it softly) used to provide power for all those wonderful solar panels.
Nevertheless, the government has its ways of ensuring the worst results:
"Utilities typically operate under a government-protected monopoly such that they don’t need to produce affordable power to gain an edge over competitors. Also, governments typically guarantee utilities approximately 10% profit on so-called green power projects and expenditures. As a result, utilities typically lobby for the most expensive power sources to boost their total profit"
Well that's just my two-pennyworth for today, but you can read more (much more!) here.
