Gas is Dirt Cheap. Only Politicians Make Energy Expensive
The first homes in the UK to be supplied with electricity from a public network were connected in the 1880s. Over the next century, electrification became something we rightly took for granted but marked an entirely new epoch in human history. Then progress began to falter. The high point of civilisation was in fact its darkest turn, claimed environmentalists, whose ideas began to erode the very fabric of the grid. The primary fuels of electricity – coal and gas, in turn – had turned the skies against us. The idea of a continuous source of abundant and cheap power has become unfashionable in decision-making centres. And fundamental to their claim is that gas is too expensive and too environmentally damaging. We must accept greater cost and lower levels of service if the planet is to be saved, claim greens. When it is unpicked, what this mythology shows is that the virtues of the grid have already been dismantled.
This year marks the century since the grid was conceived by William Douglas Weir in a report to Parliament. The following year, Viscount Peel opened debate in the House of Lords for the second reading of the Electricity (Supply) Bill with the words, “The object of this Bill is to secure the production of electrical power on the largest possible scale at the lowest possible price in this country.” Though beset by war, by the mid-1960s Britain’s electrification had reached 95% of the population, with even the most remote rural regions fully connected over the next decade.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The truth is bindingly obvious.
Great post, thanks.
Sort of related, I noticed my energy supplier (Octopus) had included a moan about the government abandoning zonal pricing in the email I get confirming the amount of my monthly bill. I tried to follow their arguments but it didn’t make much sense- if you are as they are obsessed with wind, and the windmills are in Scotland where nobody lives, then zonal pricing is not going to solve that problem- unless it pushes you to accept that wind is a stupid idea and you build more gas and coal power stations in the south. Perhaps I am missing something.
Supposedly – mark “supposedly” – zonal pricing will encourage a rush of grifting windmill companies to build their idols to Net Zero in the high price zones to make lots of loot out of the high prices caused by high demand.
It’s not clear how this helps the situation in low demand Scotland with its glut of windmills, unless the idea is to have them uprooted and replanted in the high price zones.
Of course the siting of windmills is determined by available and suitable land, land rent, and atmospheric conditions – favourable air-flow, which may not exist in the high demand zones otherwise the subsidy harvesters would have built their windmills in the high demand zones in the first place instead of building them three fields off China in windswept Scotland’s desolate lands.
But maybe, like you, I’m missing something.
Thanks – glad it’s not just me
As I understand it, under the present system of subsidies, they get paid the same whether they can actually supply power or not, so I assume therefore planning is easier in the middle of nowhere so why not build there and get paid anyway? (Via subsidy farming)
They might be betting on increased transmission capacity – say using undersea HV cable from north to south, in a way that they could flog it to the south when the prices are higher than supplying it locally.
I have just left Octopus for the cheaper Fuse on a 12 months fixed rate.
I assumed they were all more or less the same. How much cheaper are Fuse?
The first grid was completed in 1928 completed within two years, ahead of shedule (yes I know its schedule, but I’m helping some with pronunciation) and under budget.
How times have changed
Gas power is expensive by design. An entire network of power stations on standby, fully manned and maintained and at the ready for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Of course each unit of electricity that they produce is going to be needlessly expensive when you consider those overheads. Then they track the price of renewables against the price of gas. It’s all to make renewables look more competitive, but it’s just one big con.
Gas power is expensive by design. An entire network of power stations on standby, fully manned and maintained and at the ready for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
If this network really only exists to cope with inherent deficiencies of so-called renewables, this means it’s wind and solar which are expensive and not gas as a backup facility to maintain the illusion that wind and solar were viable electricty sources wouldn’t be needed if this illusion simply wouldn’t be maintained.
Yet so many people (especially Politicians and their bought and paid for media) keep telling us renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels. But ofcourse government truth does not depend on facts or evidence or reason, it depends on REPETITION. Joseph Goebbels himself would just love the climate change scam.
All across the western world we are governed by eco socialists. (Except Trump) They keep a check on capitalism and economic growth by pricing the people out of using energy. The UN Sustainable Development Agenda and Net Zero is essentially Anti Capitalist. It is about control of the worlds wealth and resources. The excuse for this is “Climate Change”. Which is probably the greatest pseudo scientific fraud ever perpetrated. Nations now organise their grids not around affordability or reliability, but around emissions targets. We are all to use wind and sun regardless of how much it is costing us, and if depending on the weather for our energy is unreliable and expensive then so be it. But despite no noticeable difference to global climate the answer from politicians and their bought and paid for media is always to have more and more pain and sacrifice and more and more money chucked at the scam. We now have Political Dogma that cannot be challenged. It has become an ultimate truth but with NO EVIDENCE, and to question it means you will be shunned and name called till you comply. ——-A latter day scam of epic proportions.
The truth that renewables can never work has always been totally clear to Engineers. We have explained this endlessly to politicians and other innumerate idiots, but they simply cancel the explainer! The entire system is now so corrupted that truth is now considered to be lies, and knowledge is considered to be propaganda. This is interesting in that it was exactly predicted by George Orwell in 1984! He wrote a warning, but it is being used as a textbook by Governments to cause disaster. The only bit Orwell failed to predict is the importation of many thousands of foreign soldiers with a religion of warfare against all comers and medieval practices of punishment and governance.
Essentially Britain as we know it is already completely eliminated, and nothing good is going to happen in the future. The future is predicted by “The Hitchhikers Guide”, the first against the wall will be the leaders who got us to this point, they just don’t realise it yet! The real question has to be “why are our political class so ignorant and stupid” particularly as many of them probably studied at least some history and literature some time in their miserable lives?
“Why are our political class so ignorant and stupid”.
Because they fear the consequences of failing their controllers directions more than the displeasure of those who elected them?