Mad Dictators

[Spinny]

Mad man at work...

 

https://dailysceptic.org/2026/07/11/miliband-overrules-his-inspectors-to-approve-britains-second-largest-solar-farm/

 

 

https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/a-few-graphs-say-it-all-for-renewables/

 

That should get things going this weekend.

 

Come on England ⚽

[Andeh]

But with batteries, smart grid, vehicle charging, vehicle2load, import/export and smart tariffs.... The peaks and troughs of weather dependant generation can be smoothed out quite easily.

 

Why form a strong judgement, when you only understand part of the topic?

Edited 6 hours ago by Andeh

[JohnMo]

18 hours ago, Spinny said:

Mad man at work...

 

https://dailysceptic.org/2026/07/11/miliband-overrules-his-inspectors-to-approve-britains-second-largest-solar-farm/

 

 

https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/a-few-graphs-say-it-all-for-renewables/

 

That should get things going this weekend.

 

Come on England ⚽

On a personal level my weather dependent renewables cut my electricity bill dramatically.  So what's mad about it. I use a battery to load shift.

 

Commercial level, use battery, stored hydro, make hydrogen. Use home grown hydrogen to power gas generators to provide back fill electric when weather dependent electricity isn't available. All pretty easy and well understood technology.

 

@Spinny your sort sighted and blinded by idiots you seem to follow. Unfortunately people like you become the next NIMBY and slow progress, instead wanting to live a life a denial and zero progress, plus a dependency on imported oil/gas and volatile markets.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by JohnMo

[Spinny]

A little strong I think.

I am quite happy with mixed energy generation, and with people having their own solar panels and batteries if they wish, and insulating their homes and other energy efficiency measures. What I don't see is any proper hard scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming which remains an uncertain unproven theory, and in particular for the UK sacrificing it's own economy on the back of the highest electricity prices in the world when we account for 0.8% of CO2 emissions even if the theory turned out to be correct.

We have most of the population really having no knowledge of their own but being fed a constant stream of anthropogenic climate change propaganda. We have active censorship and cancellation, and even calls for criminalisation of anyone that wants to question 'the narrative' and NO mainstream TV debate or presentation of the uncertainties and complexities. We have Ed on a personal crusade to 'save the earth' as he knows with evangelical certainty what is the greater good and is going to force it onto the country regardless of costs and economic damage. Such extremism is not neccessary or remotely wise.

 

I am not a luddite and I am all for developing energy technologies of all types. They will and do all have a place in a sensible and diverse energy infrastructure.

 

There are very real issues with implementing a renewables only energy system, and with its economic and security wisdom. I don't believe we should ignore those issues. And generally speaking when debate is cancelled and censored rather than taking place, it is never a good sign. I believe in the wisdom of free speech, constant doubt and questioning, and following the truth as it emerges and is understood, and always being open minded and willing to change your mind according to realities.

 

The problems of intermittency and unreliability with renewables are hugely significant and not to be trivialised. Engineering a cost effective national energy infrastructure which is reliable, secure, and highly cost effective is quite a different problem from an individual householder going off grid.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/07/11/battery-storage-for-grid-backup-better-keep-working-on-it/

 

 

[JohnMo]

2 minutes ago, Spinny said:

What I don't see is any proper hard scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming

No one mentioned net zero except yourself. To have renewables within the energy mix makes perfect sense for our energy supplies. It's pretty cheap, secure and could be all UK made with some law changes. 

 

Using additional measures to store otherwise wasted spinning reserve is sensible.

 

Strike price of solar is one of the lowest for any generation methods. So why not use it. Line all the fields with vertical panels! Great for winter production and zero impact on the usable field. Fields with animals can co exist very happily with PV so fill those fields.

 

Renewables can be in the form of hydrogen from excess renewable energy, this then back fills any gaps caused by clouds and no wind.  But offshore Scotland no wind days are rare, hence lots of turbines.

[Ed_]

7 minutes ago, Spinny said:

What I don't see is any proper hard scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming

To an extent, outside of a very small number, none of us, no matter how well read are able to be experts on any particular topic, so we have to take our views from those who we see as experts. I have not read all of the source material, conducted my own experiments or submitted my theories to scientific challenge so any assertion I make is potentially a call to authority. The same is true for the other side of the argument.

All any of us can do is weigh the situation in front of us, which seems to be following a common playbook. First - deny. Next, obfuscate - its not anthropogonic etc. Finally, fatalism - we cant do anything anyway.

 

Some things are clear however:

1. It is hot. Much hotter than when I was young, and hotter every year. 
2. There is a physical mechanism for this heat being caused by C02 emissions
3. Modelling and predictions of the C02 effect are matching reality
4. If it is C02 and if we don't do anything we are in for a very bad time
5. If it isn't C02, and we reach net zero, we are in for a pretty good time still

 

18 minutes ago, Spinny said:

the UK sacrificing it's own economy on the back of the highest electricity prices in the world

It does make me laugh (cry) when people blame renewables for high prices. The UK spent at least £75 billion on supporting energy prices just during 2022-23 due to gas prices. It is also the case that renewables knock out the most expensive conventional electricity generators, so the wholesale price of electricity is reduced by renewables, which gives the impression of a subsidy but the reality is the reverse - https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/oct/wind-power-delivers-ps104-billion-net-benefit-uk-consumers

 

28 minutes ago, Spinny said:

There are very real issues with implementing a renewables only energy system, and with its economic and security wisdom. I don't believe we should ignore those issues

I do get frustrated with people who just raise problems like there will never be a solution. The nature of progress is you don't always have all the answers, if you never started a journey unless you knew how it could be done then nothing new would ever be invented. 

It is also a demonstrable fact that renewables are more suitable from a security perspective. More distributed generation, less reliance on critical things like pipelines, LNG facilities and so on - we're literally right in the middle of 2 wars that are being defined by attacks on energy infrastructure.

 

33 minutes ago, Spinny said:

even calls for criminalisation

Really?

[saveasteading]

34 minutes ago, Spinny said:

What I don't see is any proper hard scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming

I think you may be choosing to reject it.

I won't go further into that.

 

What do you favour then as our source of energy? Now and in say 20 years or whenever you consider that carbon fuels will be too diminished, esp if the burning  regimes succeeded in banning renewables.

[Nickfromwales]

2 hours ago, JohnMo said:

your sort sighted and blinded by idiots you seem to follow. Unfortunately people like you become the next NIMBY and slow progress

Ouch.

1 hour ago, Spinny said:

A little strong I think.

Agreed.

 

People, let’s play the ball and perhaps avoid direct insults, please.

 

If the subject matter induces emotion / provokes / annoys, it’s best to ignore or not comment at all, as per the T&C’s of Buildhub membership.  
 

“As you were folks!”  

[SteamyTea]

Maybe we need a new term for anthropogenic climate change. Rebranding works wonders for the non technically minded.

How about:

Climate understanding: not tecnical

[Spinny]

2 hours ago, saveasteading said:

What do you favour then as our source of energy? Now and in say 20 years or whenever you consider that carbon fuels will be too diminished, esp if the burning  regimes succeeded in banning renewables.

Mixed sources - fossil fuel gas and coal, renewables both wind and solar and others hydro/geothermal where economic, nuclear (both fission and fusion when it comes).

I think we should have a national energy infrastucture designed to meet demand including variability in demand. I don't believe in charging people 3 times as much to cook their tea at 6.30pm. We need ample and growing energy supplies available as required by demand.

[Spinny]

2 hours ago, Ed_ said:

It is also a demonstrable fact that renewables are more suitable from a security perspective. More distributed generation, less reliance on critical things like pipelines, LNG facilities and so on - we're literally right in the middle of 2 wars that are being defined by attacks on energy infrastructure.

As long as you ignore a need to fight a war during winter anti-cyclonic gloom.

[Spinny]

I am not rejecting renewables, they have their place. Going all in on something when we don't have robust answers to all the questions is foolhardy.

 

I don't think we can or should wear rose tinted glasses when looking at renewables. There are pros and cons as there is with everything. I don't want UK farms shutdown and  paved over with (chinese made) solar panels. I don't want to look out at views ruined by thousands of wind turbines. I don't want pylons everywhere. Etc.

 

Anyone that thinks it is all pros with no cons or issues is treating it as a religion not on a rational basis.

[Nickfromwales]

17 minutes ago, Spinny said:

I don't want UK farms shutdown and  paved over with (chinese made) solar panels. I don't want to look out at views ruined by thousands of wind turbines. I don't want pylons everywhere. Etc.

In a world steaming towards an ‘all electric’ future, this is inevitable.

 

I do, however, believe strongly that the grid / government should be subsidising attaching 2-3 panels to the roof of every home in the UK, feeding into the grid, to bolster micro-generation and reverse feed a struggling grid.

Look at the volume of area of commercial buildings that are just bare paint?!? No need to attack the greenbelt tbh, other than cost-convenience.

 

People who cry about mandatory PV panels going on to their roofs should talk to their future grand / great grandchildren, who will call them idiots for not doing this sooner.

 

If the entirety of the UK are generating throughout the day, this would make a huge impact; subsidy could be then offset by not needing new substations / such aggressive or major nationwide reinforcement of the grid etc, and it’s blisteringly high cost to implement (which will always come out of the public purse, howsoever).

 

But, what do I know…..  🤷‍♂️

[saveasteading]

2 minutes ago, Nickfromwales said:

2-3 panels to the roof of every home in the UK, feeding into the grid,

Agreed, and lots onto industrial roofs: vast areas of metal just sitting there.   Just look on Google Earth at a commercial estate near you, and the amount of roof as seen from above can be shocking.  Plus they are usually in or near the towns that can take that amount of power into existing cables.

They aren't designed for the extra loading but most will have enough if we look at whether snow load allowance is excessive. However if required at planning then the cost of the extra steel and suitable detailing is relatively small.

 

When you and I are asked to sort the world out will you agree that price structuring can also help for both power and water.?

Reduced rates for less than the reasonable need per head. Then it increases for anything above that, by enough to subsidise the lower use. And then a curve to make excessive use (car washing, swimming pools, hose use) an expensive matter.   This rate can change at times of shortage, so right now we would be charged a lot for uneconomic use of water.

The rich will simply pay but that's normal and at least it can be used for infrastructure. The middle ground is where habits can be changed, and I think that is fundamental.

The formula will alter according to region and water resources.

Sorted.