In order to save the planet, we have no choice but to destroy the planet

Two papers on how NetZero will destroy the UK economy.

New Paper: Decarbonisation Plans Fail Engineering Reality Check

“How can we hope to electrify transport when we would need to consume the whole global annual supply of several important minerals to do so, just for the UK?” asks Professor Michael Kelly, former chief scientific adviser to the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Professor Kelly warns that the costs of decarbonising will be ruinous of our current standards of living.

The cost of the wind farms and the batteries and rewiring the grid to cope with the all the extra demand would be folly for an economy at the best of times. In the current crisis it’s madness. It’s like coronavirus all over again.

Britain’s Electric Car Strategy Is ‘Doomed To Failure’

Professor issues the warning in a paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

He warns the Government’s ambitions for EVs and electric heating in buildings will end in damaging failure.

On battery electric vehicles, he says:

Consider Dinorwig power station, the biggest hydropower energy storage plant in the UK. If all UK cars were battery powered, the nine gigawatts of energy stored behind the dam would be capable of recharging about 60,000 of them, or about 0.25 per cent of the UK fleet.”

https://www.thegwpf.com/new-paper-decarbonisation-plans-fail-engineering-reality-check/
https://www.thegwpf.com/britains-electric-car-strategy-is-doomed-to-failure/
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/05/KellyDecarb-1.pdf

Thanks to Jeremy Poynton for these links

“To paraphrase,” says Jeremy, “in order to save the planet, we have no choice but to destroy the planet.”

Michael Kelly is the Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge.
He was a Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department for Communities and Local Government.
He is a fellow of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is a trustee of the
Global Warming Policy Foundation.


5 thoughts on “In order to save the planet, we have no choice but to destroy the planet”

  1. But only the little people will be hurt. The very wealthy will be protected and insulated. They could get rid of the surplus population that way.

  2. Net zero is an absurd proposition promoted by stupid people.

    The concept requires replacement of transport, agricultural and mining machines with electric ones but the gullibles who promote this lunacy only point to replacing current electricity generation with useless renewables.

    “Renewables” have a useful lifespan less than half that of fossil fuels.

    These gullible fools neglect the reality that net zero means generating about 10 times the current electricity generation capacity and that allows no room for lifting the poor out of poverty or any redundancy.

    They only ever model replacing current generation capacity.

    A year ago Roger Pielke wrote:- “Net-Zero Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 requires A New Nuclear Power Plant Every Day.” EVERY DAY !!!

    So far we’ve built NONE !!

    “I’ve found that some people don’t like the use of a
    nuclear power plant as a measuring stick. So we can
    substitute wind energy as a measuring stick. Net-zero
    carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment
    of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square
    miles, every day starting tomorrow and continuing to
    2050.”

    EVERY DAY !!!

    “What about net-zero by 2030, 3,746 days from today?
    Globally, such a target would imply, starting
    tomorrow, the deployment of >4 nuclear power plants
    per day, and for the United States, the deployment of
    a new nuclear plant about every other day.”

    The green gullibles always say it will be easy which only proves they are of very low IQ – the type of people PT Barnum fondly described – “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

    • Of course I am talking about the current world’s population above.

      Just how many do they want to kill and how is the real question ?

      One billion people would be too many for their stupid ideas – what about the 6+ billion excess ?

  3. If they were making such a stupid, gigantic MISTAKE, you would have the right to be puzzled or astounded. But you KNOW that it is no mistake: All aspects of the green plan, as devised by the Deep State or the Bankers Syndicate or Agenda 21 or whatever you want to call it has as “the final solution” the death of 6/7ths of global population and totalitarian rule of the remnant.

    Existence of a vibrant economy with a sufficient power grid cannot in all logic be an intermediate step. There is nothing puzzling or astounding about that.

    Propagandees who have been deluded by incessant propaganda by TPTB are irrelevant. Bought govts are more relevant, but we need to reach those who have set in motion the twin hoaxes– global warming & Covid-as-terror. Treason is the least of their crimes.

  4. a tally of the tonnes of RE required for the wind andbatteries alone should be a wakeup for the morons claiming electric cars n turbines are green.
    some data on the UNrecyclability of the same…even more so
    scaring stupid people is too easy and effective for the scammers to do.
    while our education systems keep producing non questioning bots it will stay that way
    sometimes…there ISN’T an “app for that”

Comments are closed.