Professor Gordon Hughes from the University of Edinburgh is an economist, formerly with the World Bank, is not one of transition advocates’ favourite people. That’s because they don’t like their myths debunked with facts and hard data, which is exactly what Professor Hughes has been doing with wind and solar.
The world is made of individuals all of whom have their own interests. Everything leads back to the almighty dollar. The lobbyists lobby on behalf of an industry! The people are being sold a lie and want to be seen as virtuous. The government just wants to be re-elected. Where are the engineers and economists? The professor here should be praised for his willingness to state the obvious as visibly as he is… i hope we are not too late. Mass and velocity will defeat those without backbones and i think optimism is far too generous. Thanks Irina, good guest and good discussion
I am really fond of Dr. Gordon Hughes - he was one of the first people I listened to when I started this energy journey. So practical, so sensible and so knowledgeable, he has been my benchmark for sanity in this absurd world..
Here in Texas the voters (they know not what they have done!) have just approved a proposition (7) for the government (PUC) to become a banker for gas peaker plants, (and they know nothing of risk assessment) - just like he said - the next step in the process of complete break down in the energy system as we know it and as a useful market. So now taxpayers will be paying for grants and low interest loans.
Next on the horizon is the ever increasing chatter of needing transmission lines (also some included in the Pop. 7) That lobbying market is really ramping up across the country. Everything that Dr. Hughes says leads to the breakdown of our electrical systems.
On a side note we NIMBY's here are stepping back into the fray as a local 2,400 acre site is making noise about starting construction - we are using every tool in our tool box, but with no regulations they can do what every they want and get away with it .... then we have to fix (sue) later. Soon it will be solar superfund graveyard sites across the state and the US once their revenue streams run out.
Great interview... thanks. So nice, for a change, for the interviewer to let the interviewee speak without constant interruption. I learned quite a bit, particularly about levelised costs. We have noticed in the UK that as the number of wind turbines increases, and the cheaper renewables get, the less electricity is available, and the more it costs. Contracts are being offered to business and domestic users, to accept payments in exchange for reduced use at certain times - but a Smart Meter is needed. (So the power company can control your supply.) One point he made is interesting. The move away from paying by GWh because generating companies will have to be paid by some other method, some fixed fee probably to be on standby and with uncertain revenue stream. I think the ‘solution’ to this will be nationalisation of electric systems, otherwise it is unlikely private investment will be forthcoming. Consumers will then pay twice, once via taxes to fund the inefficient State run system, second time on the bills the State run business will charge them. It will still end in disaster, but delay it and hide the true cost from consumers.
Mankind has always adapted to change in climate, even adopted it into their routines. It is why Man has survived Ice Ages and Tropical Ages and is top of the food chain.
Here’s a video you might like - hope the link works. . The end section about plants and CO2, I found informative. Although I knew plants did better with more CO2, I wasn’t sure how. Thanks again for a great video.
Breaking News: “The use of fossil fuels is not the primary target that will be eliminated in achieving net zero, the UK’s net zero minister Graham Stuart has said, but the carbon emissions arising from them.
It could indicate that the government may prioritise carbon capture technologies in its emissions agenda ahead of the COP28 summit.
“We want to get the maximum ambition but what you’ve got to remember here is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with oil and gas, it is the emissions from that which are the critical point,” Mr. Stuart stated during an evidence session of the Environmental Audit Committee on Wednesday.”
(Net Zero brains Minister - Ye gods!)
What does the Team think? A manoeuvre to back away from the transition from fossil fuels madness, now that the idiots realise that’s not going to be possible - as wind/solar will always need back-up, and reality about grid infrastructure has raised its ugly head? So more taxpayer cash hosed down the drain on a non-workable technology that we don’t have except on the wish list.
Ultimately, our self-anointed superiors are trying to move the world's nations from superior sources of power (oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear) to an inferior sources (wind, solar).
Reason? A Malthusian panic.
We've already gone thru this process of separating the wheat from the chaff a long time ago. We already found out that hydrocarbons are superior to wind as a source of energy.
But our self-anointed superiors are panicking, just as Malthus did.
The solution? Just don't buy it. And tell governments "No."
Interview: Gordon Hughes and how transition's labor's lost
The world is made of individuals all of whom have their own interests. Everything leads back to the almighty dollar. The lobbyists lobby on behalf of an industry! The people are being sold a lie and want to be seen as virtuous. The government just wants to be re-elected. Where are the engineers and economists? The professor here should be praised for his willingness to state the obvious as visibly as he is… i hope we are not too late. Mass and velocity will defeat those without backbones and i think optimism is far too generous. Thanks Irina, good guest and good discussion
I am really fond of Dr. Gordon Hughes - he was one of the first people I listened to when I started this energy journey. So practical, so sensible and so knowledgeable, he has been my benchmark for sanity in this absurd world..
Here in Texas the voters (they know not what they have done!) have just approved a proposition (7) for the government (PUC) to become a banker for gas peaker plants, (and they know nothing of risk assessment) - just like he said - the next step in the process of complete break down in the energy system as we know it and as a useful market. So now taxpayers will be paying for grants and low interest loans.
Next on the horizon is the ever increasing chatter of needing transmission lines (also some included in the Pop. 7) That lobbying market is really ramping up across the country. Everything that Dr. Hughes says leads to the breakdown of our electrical systems.
On a side note we NIMBY's here are stepping back into the fray as a local 2,400 acre site is making noise about starting construction - we are using every tool in our tool box, but with no regulations they can do what every they want and get away with it .... then we have to fix (sue) later. Soon it will be solar superfund graveyard sites across the state and the US once their revenue streams run out.
Thank you for sharing this wonderful man with us!
I use Dr Hughes' data, with chart, in a recent post about wind technology. Here's the link:
https://open.substack.com/pub/willbates/p/the-pending-divorce-of-wind-and-solar?r=1y32b&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Irina, great discussion as always!
Great interview... thanks. So nice, for a change, for the interviewer to let the interviewee speak without constant interruption. I learned quite a bit, particularly about levelised costs. We have noticed in the UK that as the number of wind turbines increases, and the cheaper renewables get, the less electricity is available, and the more it costs. Contracts are being offered to business and domestic users, to accept payments in exchange for reduced use at certain times - but a Smart Meter is needed. (So the power company can control your supply.) One point he made is interesting. The move away from paying by GWh because generating companies will have to be paid by some other method, some fixed fee probably to be on standby and with uncertain revenue stream. I think the ‘solution’ to this will be nationalisation of electric systems, otherwise it is unlikely private investment will be forthcoming. Consumers will then pay twice, once via taxes to fund the inefficient State run system, second time on the bills the State run business will charge them. It will still end in disaster, but delay it and hide the true cost from consumers.
Mankind has always adapted to change in climate, even adopted it into their routines. It is why Man has survived Ice Ages and Tropical Ages and is top of the food chain.
Here’s a video you might like - hope the link works. . The end section about plants and CO2, I found informative. Although I knew plants did better with more CO2, I wasn’t sure how. Thanks again for a great video.
https://youtu.be/v2nhssPW77I?si=_j1-dcf1-VCB-aBm
Breaking News: “The use of fossil fuels is not the primary target that will be eliminated in achieving net zero, the UK’s net zero minister Graham Stuart has said, but the carbon emissions arising from them.
It could indicate that the government may prioritise carbon capture technologies in its emissions agenda ahead of the COP28 summit.
“We want to get the maximum ambition but what you’ve got to remember here is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with oil and gas, it is the emissions from that which are the critical point,” Mr. Stuart stated during an evidence session of the Environmental Audit Committee on Wednesday.”
(Net Zero brains Minister - Ye gods!)
What does the Team think? A manoeuvre to back away from the transition from fossil fuels madness, now that the idiots realise that’s not going to be possible - as wind/solar will always need back-up, and reality about grid infrastructure has raised its ugly head? So more taxpayer cash hosed down the drain on a non-workable technology that we don’t have except on the wish list.
In summary, E = mc2 always wins.
Ultimately, our self-anointed superiors are trying to move the world's nations from superior sources of power (oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear) to an inferior sources (wind, solar).
Reason? A Malthusian panic.
We've already gone thru this process of separating the wheat from the chaff a long time ago. We already found out that hydrocarbons are superior to wind as a source of energy.
But our self-anointed superiors are panicking, just as Malthus did.
The solution? Just don't buy it. And tell governments "No."
Fascinating interview with Professor Gordon Hughes, thank you, Irina