How will we meet power needs of the future without fossil f

It's not the govt that are charging us for wind energy - it's the wind energy providers. And the reason they charge the same as the fossil fuel companies is because they CAN. That's the market. What's more they are also subsidised by the govt - unlike the fossil fuel industry which is now being taxed at the rate of 75%. You should listen to Richard Tice on Sunday. He has done quite a lot of research into the wind turbine scammers and has knowledgeable people like Andrew Montford on (who the BBC never talk to).

As for China, you're as gulliible as BvL  Isn't it interesting that China's "target" for net zero is 10 years later than everyone else. When the rest of the more stupid nations, like the UK, fail to hit their net zero commitment by 2050 it'll all get quietly dropped, but we'll have spent vast amounts in the pointless attempt to reach net zero - and broken our economy - while China has quietly made vast profits from it by making the solar panels and turbines using cheap energy from coal-fired power stations. China probably started all this net zero nonsense so that they could create a market for their goods. Remember how they made a killing out of selling us PPE at inflated prices after they'd started the Covid pandemic? 

Not really. Last June several companies agreed to build new wind farms at a guaranteed sale price of £38. Now they are saying that those projects might not go ahead without Government subsidy as the projects are not viable at that pricing level.




Less than a year later, however, and that optimism has all but evaporated, with developers warning that rising costs are making planned new projects unviable.

Orsted warned last week that its £8bn Hornsea Three development was no longer viable under the terms agreed with the Government and threatened to mothball the project without tax breaks to offset rising costs.

In the CfD auction in June, developers agreed to build a massive 11GW of projects by 2027 at a guaranteed price of £37.35 per MWh. That was 70pc cheaper than contracts accepted by developers in 2012 and well below today's wholesale rates of around £150 per MWh.

However, industry leaders now fear that the price is too low, with cost increases outpacing inflation and higher interest rates also damaging investment cases.

This is a very interesting read. 

www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jan/opinion-renewables-are-cheaper-ever-so-why-are-household-energy-bills-only-going#:~:text=The%20last%20fixed%2Dprice%20government,set%20to%20face%20in%202022.

..What would electricity markets appropriate for renewable energy look like? In research I led with colleagues on electricity prices, we proposed a green power pool which would aggregate long-term contracts with renewable energy generators and sell the power on to consumers. The price would mainly be set by the actual investment costs of generators, rather than gas-driven wholesale markets.



When there isn’t enough renewable power being generated or stored – like on cold and calm winter days – the green power pool would buy electricity from the wholesale market for limited periods and quantities. To minimise those costs (and emissions), contracts could give discounts to customers who can use electricity outside of peak times, or those with two-way electric vehicle connections who can sell power back to the grid.

Ever since civilisation took over from hunter gathering, humans have accepted restrictions on their freedoms for the greater good. 

You don't want laws removed that you agree with, just ones you don't. In this case the majority agree that we must stop or slow global warming and folks will accept a certain amount of change to do so. 

As for. 
"You cannot build an energy system if nobody makes a return in doing so” We did it when we banned coal fires from Cities and Towns, we did it again when we stopped using coal for energy because of its terrible pollution. We will do it again with electric cars and renewable energy. 
We already are. 57% of UK energy produced by green energy in 2022. And the price held high because of FOSSIL FUEL prices not Renewables. 

I understand the need as stated in the OP to separate out the arguments over EVs from overall power needs

However

Every mile driven requires about 250-300kwH

Multiply that by the number of cars on the road and the number of miles they drive

If we banned EVs look how much electricity infrastructure we would avoid needing.

Anyone who has ever seen the explosion in the substation that happens when the vietnamese skunk growers in the houses up your road turn on all the lamps knows exactly where i’m going with this.

The Cult of Thunberg has royally screwed you

I didn't intend to separate out the need to supply enough power for EV's. I wanted a separate thread to the stuff about recharging points and battery life etc. 
I agree we will need more generation as EV usage grows, of course we will need less oil and all that infrastructure. No more fuel tankers (1500 of them I think) constantly carrying petrol to those service stations. 
And once again we come up against why we are doing this and unless you believe AGW is happening then it must seem pointless. 

Yes. There was an ascertainable cost of implementation and an ascertainable (you can see it out your window) cost of non implementation.

Now take forced transfer to EV cars and attempt to make the same calculation.

The downsides are huge and the upsides are so small and tentative they are lost in noise.

I guess you could call it a bold, thrusting and symbolic exercise of raw power - letting the serfs know that any future objections they have will be totally ignored as they are folded bodily into their new boxes.

When you are breaking in a new servant, it's always a good idea to give them a good whipping for nothing, just so they know where they stand.



My conclusion comes from observing their contradictory, self-serving behaviour