Sceptic Geoff (haircut with unacceptable fringe)

We are being played, on all fronts. Divide and conquer. Problem. Reaction. Solution. From the things that have erupted: - Trans Olympics - Southport - Stabbed soldiers - Princess Kate's reappearance - Manchester Airport - Leeds - Biden's reappearance - Southend-on-Sea - Mass illegal immigration - Huw Edwards - AI & deep fakes - NHS collapse - Climate "crisis" - and so on... The presented solution to these manufactured events will be... Digital ID You'll be required to use it for everything, including for anything you post on the Internet, to counter "misinformation". It'll be linked to your health records to control your vaccine status. It'll be linked to travel to control your carbon footprint. It'll be linked to CBDCs to control your money. It'll be linked to everything you buy to control your food intake. It'll be the ultimate enslavement via carbon & social credits. Do not believe what you see in the media, it is manipulative and divisive, it is a psyop that has been decades in the planning and execution. Step back. Remain calm. Do not comply.

One Wind Turbine, the largest in the world, produces the same electricity as burning 750,000 tonnes of coal. By 2050 wind turbines will have produced the same energy as burning 300 BILLION tons of coal. A figure nearly 10,000 times yours.

@RARohde When you say "chose", I think you actually mean the government left them no viable financial alternative.

Sure, put solar panels on carparks. It's a good idea. But the insinuation that farmers are being forced to put solar panels on "prime farmland" is such nonsense. Nearly all solar panels being erected on farmland occurs because the land owner chose to do that.

Reformed ex-climate alarmist, Tom Harris: “Wind turbines require a backup fossil fuel plant that continues burning 90% of the time, making the wind turbine largely unnecessary and, in essence, just for show”. This is a far cry from the environmentally friendly image presented.

@dorfman_p But it still cannot meet 100% of demand 100% of the time, and so it incurs all the costs of the generation that can.

Renewables are now 53% cheaper than nuclear for total system cost - not just generation cost. That includes all the costs of ‘firming’ renewables and ensuring a stable power supply. Offshore wind and solar achieves significantly lower generation costs in a coupled energy system than nuclear. And the stunning growth of battery storage puts it at centre of global energy security. At a time when so much looks grim, the renewable evolution holds out real hope. In 2025, more power was generated worldwide from renewable energy than from coal, and 91% of new renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels. Renewables made up 85.6% of last year’s new global power capacity additions. Each year nuclear adds only as much net global power capacity as renewables add every two days.

@rosemeyer1939 @DrSimEvans Is an air conditioner more complex than a fan? youtube.com/watch?v=kz_YJs…

@ScepticGeoff @DrSimEvans Are they more complex? My heat pump dryer doesn't seem to have a lot going on in it... Been running it for 6 years without drama, no servicing and cleaning it is a literal 5 minute job...

THREAD: A heat-pump tumble dryer could save households more than £700 Lots of overblown reaction to govt phasing out standard dryers – reminds me of when 2009 Mail frontpage wailed about "beloved" incandescent bulbs But heat pump dryers are just a much better technology 1/5

The reality of UK's 'Wind Power' The chart shows what percentage of our total electricity was generated by 'wind power' throughout April. 'Wind Power' remains, fickle, unreliable and completely unfit for purpose. Needing reliable backup 24/7/365. As mariners knew when they abandoned it 200 years ago

@DrNeilStone Nothing to do with sanitation and nutrition of course.

Most of you will never have had: Measles Mumps Rubella Tetanus Diphtheria Polio And none of you will ever have had Smallpox Why? Because vaccines work

But it's a question of scale. Wind runs an average of around 35% of capacity, whilst nuclear/gas etc can run 24/7 at full capacity. Meanwhile the electrical infrastructure that connects the widely dispersed windmills needs to be sized for those rare times that they hit 100%, so you need far more infrastructure. And then there's batteries.... And then there's inertia.... The reality is far more complex and costly than most people understand.

@theobjectivist "It requires hundreds of tons of steel, concrete, fiberglass, and rare earth minerals mined largely in China (his favorite country). " And that would be true for basically any power plant.

No one should be surprised but what he left out is that this turbine costs an estimated $50-80 million to build and install. It only produces power 35-45% of the time because wind is intermittent. Its output degrades 12-16% over its 20-25 year lifespan. It requires hundreds of tons of steel, concrete, fiberglass, and rare earth minerals mined largely in China (his favorite country). The other 55-65% of the time you need backup power, which comes from natural gas. And it exists only because of massive government subsidies. A natural gas plant of the same 26MW capacity costs $26-39 million, produces more than double the effective output, runs on demand 24 hours a day regardless of weather, and lasts 30-40 years. Half the price. Double the output. No weather dependency. No subsidies required. But this was never about the environment. If it were, you would care that rare earth mining for wind turbines devastates landscapes across China and Africa, that thousands of birds and bats are killed annually by turbine blades, that the blades themselves are non-recyclable fiberglass rotting in landfills, and that natural gas produces half the emissions of coal with none of these problems. You ignore all of this because environmentalism was never your goal. It is your vehicle. The destination is what it has always been: government control of energy production, which means government control of the economy, which is socialism. Rand identified this decades ago. The green movement is not a scientific movement. It is a political one, and its target is not pollution. It is capitalism.

@Josernan @theobjectivist Some privileged people may be able to survive on solar and wind, with battery backup - if you have enough to cover those days that run in to weeks of insufficient wind and sun - but it doesn't scale to the demands of a nation.

@theobjectivist You can't get hydrocarbons without government and regulation. You can absolutely live of solar and/or wind. Please explain how renewables - the only electricity source you can depend for behind the meter - make you dependent on government.

The environmental movement has been the biggest single contributor to CO2 emissions, through its discouragement of expanding nuclear power: euractiv.com/news/germany-e… "Greenpeace, at the heart of the anti-nuclear movement, organized a celebratory party at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin." Nuclear has been by far the most promising substitute for fossil fuels for the last 80 years. This is the level of intellect at work in the environmental movement, from the Climate Justice Alliance: x.com/CJAOurPower/st… "Nuclear Energy is NOT a solution to #ClimateChange. "Nuclear Energy is Uranium Mining. #NuclearEnergy is Unending Waste" - Leona Morgan, during the disruption action against the US' Dirty Energy panel at #COP24 in Poland by youth and frontline community leaders"

@YossarianLocker @theobjectivist @DaveBoulder And yet it makes no sense on a nation scale until you solve the problem of meeting 100% of demand 100% of the time.

@theobjectivist @DaveBoulder I’ve never seen a connection between this stupidity and government control and I still don’t (you just said it, you didn’t make an argument). My assumption has always been that its proponents are stupid and “sun” or “wind” just sound clean and healthy to them.

@peterkyle No one can afford to work under your sh1tshow of a government.

We’re called the party of working people for a reason.

@PhilMyers53 Thing is, none of us wants or can afford the differences Starmer and his barmy army are making.

There IS a difference! 𝙊𝙣 7𝙩𝙝 𝙈𝙖𝙮 #𝙑𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙇𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙧

Germany built one of the largest wind and solar fleets on Earth. It dismantled its nuclear power stations and retired its coal, with the promise that green energy would power its future. The country spent billions transitioning. Then winter arrived, and "Dunkelflaute" hit - the dark windless dead zone. Wind and solar fell to barely 5% of demand. The grid staggered. And Germany was forced to fire up old coal plants it said had closed forever, and import expensive nuclear from France. This is the physics politicians fail to mention, and a point many people still fail to grasp. When the wind dies and the sun sets, renewables disappear. And the only way the grid survives, the only reason countless millions don't freeze to death, is thanks to oil, coal, nuclear and gas.

@Electroversenet "Oh but batteries!" People really need to understand how none of this scales to a nation's needs.

@DrNeilStone All vaccines? How did pandemrix work out?

I can't figure out if vaccines work or not. Tough one. Need Sherlock Holmes on this one.

@ZackPolanski Except they will be ex-workers as their former employers will no longer be able to afford them.

The Mail doesn't think seem to think workers, of all ages, are worth £15 an hour. That's fair pay for a fair day's work, with money workers will put back into the economy. We are the party for workers. Vote Green on 7th May.

@JamesMelville There's very little sense in solar panels for nation-scale generation, no matter where you put them.

Switzerland 🇨🇭 Solar panels on train tracks. A hell of a lot more logical than plastering over prime farmland.