|
|
Post by sandypine on May 1, 2024 18:58:42 GMT
The In-depth Story Behind the 97% of Scientists Climate Myth. wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/01/the-in-depth-story-behind-the-97-of-scientists-climate-fraud/The whole is a quite long but enlightening read so I expect teh alarmist to give it a wide berth. Extract Another survey appeared in 2013, by Australian researcher John Cook and his coauthors, in which they claimed to have examined about 12,000 scientific papers related to climate change, and found that 97% endorsed the consensus view that greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for global warming. This study generated headlines around the world, and it was the one to which Obama’s tweet was referring. John But here again, appearances were deceiving. Two-thirds of the papers that Cook and his colleagues examined expressed no view at all on the consensus. Of the remaining 34%, the authors claimed that 33% endorsed the consensus. Divide 33 by 34 and you get 97%. But this result is essentially meaningless, because they set the bar so low. The survey authors didn’t ask if climate change was dangerous or “manmade”. They only asked if a given paper accepted that humans have some effect on the climate, which as already noted is uncontroversial. It could mean as little as accepting the “urban heat island” effect. So a far better question would be: How many of the studies claimed that humans have caused most of the observed global warming? And oddly, we do know. Because buried in the authors’ data was the answer: A mere 64 out of nearly 12,000 papers! That’s not 97%, it’s one half of one percent. It’s one in 200. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on May 2, 2024 6:47:23 GMT
The "97% of scientists..." (or 95% etc) claim cannot be substantiated. The nearest you can get to this blatant disinformation is that most scientists agree that man has affected the climate - which is vague enough to be pretty uncontroversial.
I've messaged (twice) the BBC's "More or less" (who ask for examples of dodgy statistics to investigate) to look into its origin but, apart from the automated reply, I've never had an answer. Maybe you could try Marianna Spring (the BBC's disinformation correspondent) - you might have more luck than me. This is an egregious example of disinformation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 2, 2024 9:00:02 GMT
The In-depth Story Behind the 97% of Scientists Climate Myth. wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/01/the-in-depth-story-behind-the-97-of-scientists-climate-fraud/The whole is a quite long but enlightening read so I expect teh alarmist to give it a wide berth. Extract Another survey appeared in 2013, by Australian researcher John Cook and his coauthors, in which they claimed to have examined about 12,000 scientific papers related to climate change, and found that 97% endorsed the consensus view that greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for global warming. This study generated headlines around the world, and it was the one to which Obama’s tweet was referring. John But here again, appearances were deceiving. Two-thirds of the papers that Cook and his colleagues examined expressed no view at all on the consensus. Of the remaining 34%, the authors claimed that 33% endorsed the consensus. Divide 33 by 34 and you get 97%. But this result is essentially meaningless, because they set the bar so low. The survey authors didn’t ask if climate change was dangerous or “manmade”. They only asked if a given paper accepted that humans have some effect on the climate, which as already noted is uncontroversial. It could mean as little as accepting the “urban heat island” effect. So a far better question would be: How many of the studies claimed that humans have caused most of the observed global warming? And oddly, we do know. Because buried in the authors’ data was the answer: A mere 64 out of nearly 12,000 papers! That’s not 97%, it’s one half of one percent. It’s one in 200.
The other 3% should be sacked. If we did not get global warming from greenhouse gases we would be about as warm as Mars
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 2, 2024 10:19:30 GMT
The In-depth Story Behind the 97% of Scientists Climate Myth. wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/01/the-in-depth-story-behind-the-97-of-scientists-climate-fraud/The whole is a quite long but enlightening read so I expect teh alarmist to give it a wide berth. Extract Another survey appeared in 2013, by Australian researcher John Cook and his coauthors, in which they claimed to have examined about 12,000 scientific papers related to climate change, and found that 97% endorsed the consensus view that greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for global warming. This study generated headlines around the world, and it was the one to which Obama’s tweet was referring. John But here again, appearances were deceiving. Two-thirds of the papers that Cook and his colleagues examined expressed no view at all on the consensus. Of the remaining 34%, the authors claimed that 33% endorsed the consensus. Divide 33 by 34 and you get 97%. But this result is essentially meaningless, because they set the bar so low. The survey authors didn’t ask if climate change was dangerous or “manmade”. They only asked if a given paper accepted that humans have some effect on the climate, which as already noted is uncontroversial. It could mean as little as accepting the “urban heat island” effect. So a far better question would be: How many of the studies claimed that humans have caused most of the observed global warming? And oddly, we do know. Because buried in the authors’ data was the answer: A mere 64 out of nearly 12,000 papers! That’s not 97%, it’s one half of one percent. It’s one in 200.
The other 3% should be sacked. If we did not get global warming from greenhouse gases we would be about as warm as Mars
I agree but then it depends what is meant by 'partly responsible'. I am 'partly responsible' for the upkeep of the NHS. My overall effect is miniscule and realistically if I stopped it would not have an effect worth talking about. It is a long way from that to AGW emergency status which is what the 97% is frequently quoted as endorsing. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 2, 2024 11:01:54 GMT
The other 3% should be sacked. If we did not get global warming from greenhouse gases we would be about as warm as Mars
I agree but then it depends what is meant by 'partly responsible'. I am 'partly responsible' for the upkeep of the NHS. My overall effect is miniscule and realistically if I stopped it would not have an effect worth talking about. It is a long way from that to AGW emergency status which is what the 97% is frequently quoted as endorsing. The thing is this argument is by the bye. Look at our own North Sea gas. it is mainly depleted and the remainder is getting more and more expensive to extract as we tap smaller reserves of gas. Look at our coal reserves. In Victorian times kids could dig it up from the surface and take it home and stick it in the fire. As our mining industry drew to a close pits would have to tunnel hundreds of feet deep and there were nasty accidents and the dust would eventually kill you anyway. This burning of carbon-based fuel is old school inefficient and often dirty.
We can get all the energy we will ever need from solar energy alone. I personally think windmills will be seen as old tech and the new tech will be vast solar arrays in deserts and high voltage transmission to where it is needed. The reason is simple to understand. It will be far cheaper, maybe ten times cheaper. Our solar arrays are only 20% efficient and they still beat the old each. Rather than use global warming to control everyone, which I understand is what the bastards are up to, one should celebrate the fact we could have energy so cheap it will be next to free in the future. For this to happen the plebs had better shut up complaining and get to work on the new tech. We will not get anywhere by complaining. We will only get somewhere by being constructive. The sun will not run out of energy anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 2, 2024 11:15:22 GMT
I agree but then it depends what is meant by 'partly responsible'. I am 'partly responsible' for the upkeep of the NHS. My overall effect is miniscule and realistically if I stopped it would not have an effect worth talking about. It is a long way from that to AGW emergency status which is what the 97% is frequently quoted as endorsing. The thing is this argument is by the bye. Look at our own North Sea gas. it is mainly depleted and the remainder is getting more and more expensive to extract as we tap smaller reserves of gas. Look at our coal reserves. In Victorian times kids could dig it up from the surface and take it home and stick it in the fire. As our mining industry drew to a close pits would have to tunnel hundreds of feet deep and there were nasty accidents and the dust would eventually kill you anyway. This burning of carbon-based fuel is old school inefficient and often dirty.
We can get all the energy we will ever need from solar energy alone. I personally think windmills will be seen as old tech and the new tech will be vast solar arrays in deserts and high voltage transmission to where it is needed. The reason is simple to understand. It will be far cheaper, maybe ten times cheaper. Our solar arrays are only 20% efficient and they still beat the old each. Rather than use global warming to control everyone, which I understand is what the bastards are up to, one should celebrate the fact we could have energy so cheap it will be next to free in the future. For this to happen the plebs had better shut up complaining and get to work on the new tech. We will not get anywhere by complaining. We will only get somewhere by being constructive. The sun will not run out of energy anytime soon. I do not broadly disagree and of course the AGW emergency is clearly a means of control. I have solar panels and they produce 400Wh in the summer but about 10Wh in the many miserable dull days we get in winter. My batteries hardly charge up between the beginning of November and the middle of February. Just when I need those kilowatt hours the most. Even with a very good multifuel stove if I want hot water and keep the house overall warm I need up to 20Kwh daily. Not a lot really but much more than even a completely covered roof would produce. The sun having energy is not the problem it is how to harness it, and store it, for when it is needed. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 2, 2024 11:48:13 GMT
The thing is this argument is by the bye. Look at our own North Sea gas. it is mainly depleted and the remainder is getting more and more expensive to extract as we tap smaller reserves of gas. Look at our coal reserves. In Victorian times kids could dig it up from the surface and take it home and stick it in the fire. As our mining industry drew to a close pits would have to tunnel hundreds of feet deep and there were nasty accidents and the dust would eventually kill you anyway. This burning of carbon-based fuel is old school inefficient and often dirty.
We can get all the energy we will ever need from solar energy alone. I personally think windmills will be seen as old tech and the new tech will be vast solar arrays in deserts and high voltage transmission to where it is needed. The reason is simple to understand. It will be far cheaper, maybe ten times cheaper. Our solar arrays are only 20% efficient and they still beat the old each. Rather than use global warming to control everyone, which I understand is what the bastards are up to, one should celebrate the fact we could have energy so cheap it will be next to free in the future. For this to happen the plebs had better shut up complaining and get to work on the new tech. We will not get anywhere by complaining. We will only get somewhere by being constructive. The sun will not run out of energy anytime soon. I do not broadly disagree and of course the AGW emergency is clearly a means of control. I have solar panels and they produce 400Wh in the summer but about 10Wh in the many miserable dull days we get in winter. My batteries hardly charge up between the beginning of November and the middle of February. Just when I need those kilowatt hours the most. Even with a very good multifuel stove if I want hot water and keep the house overall warm I need up to 20Kwh daily. Not a lot really but much more than even a completely covered roof would produce. The sun having energy is not the problem it is how to harness it, and store it, for when it is needed. Did you calculate the return on your investment and did it amount to more than if you had left it in the account and earnt the interest from the account?
Those panels you bought are likely to be a lot more expensive than if you had ordered a few million quid's worth. Also the money you would have to pay someone to come out and fit them on a roof is a lot more than those same panels being installed at ground level on a solar farm. You would have to pay for a small van to run out and fit them where on a solar farm they would arrive in a huge truck. Every smallest bracket used is marked up about ten times its bulk cost. And yet you still managed to beat the professionals!
Now considering this, consider we use a desert. Deserts are free land. no one lives there. The solar radiation in a desert is 3-4 times that of the UK. Using perovskites can double the efficiency. Doing it on an even larger scale than today can gain even higher economies of scale savings. There is also a bit of technology invented in the UK that extends the life of a pannel from 25 years to over 100, so that cuts the replacement costs significantly. We have a lot of work to do in order to get to this point, such as we need a global network of ultra high voltage transmission lines, but even though the UK is largely dragging its feet the rest of the world will build it if we don't. It's just those who build the most efficient systems will be the rich capitalists of the future, so it is better than cheaper energy, it is a way to make a fortune in business.
Chances are though this technology would not have come as far as it had without a panic, much like radar would not have been invented or possibly even computers if it were not for wars. It's the way with technology. People get stagnated and have no desire to move forwards and into better things. The only thing that motivates the plebs is to scare them, tell them they are all going to die. Why not just do a Greg dyke and "cut the crap" and then we can all be happy and prosperous.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 2, 2024 11:55:19 GMT
I do not broadly disagree and of course the AGW emergency is clearly a means of control. I have solar panels and they produce 400Wh in the summer but about 10Wh in the many miserable dull days we get in winter. My batteries hardly charge up between the beginning of November and the middle of February. Just when I need those kilowatt hours the most. Even with a very good multifuel stove if I want hot water and keep the house overall warm I need up to 20Kwh daily. Not a lot really but much more than even a completely covered roof would produce. The sun having energy is not the problem it is how to harness it, and store it, for when it is needed. Did you calculate the return on your investment and did it amount to more than if you had left it in the account and earnt the interest from the account?
Those panels you bought are likely to be a lot more expensive than if you had ordered a few million quid's worth. Also the money you would have to pay someone to come out and fit them on a roof is a lot more than those same panels being installed at ground level on a solar farm. You would have to pay for a small van to run out and fit them where on a solar farm they would arrive in a huge truck. Every smallest bracket used is marked up about ten times its bulk cost. And yet you still managed to beat the professionals!
Now considering this, consider we use a desert. Deserts are free land. no one lives there. The solar radiation in a desert is 3-4 times that of the UK. Using perovskites can double the efficiency. Doing it on an even larger scale than today can gain even higher economies of scale savings. There is also a bit of technology invented in the UK that extends the life of a pannel from 25 years to over 100, so that cuts the replacement costs significantly. We have a lot of work to do in order to get to this point, such as we need a global network of ultra high voltage transmission lines, but even though the UK is largely dragging its feet the rest of the world will build it if we don't. It's just those who build the most efficient systems will be the rich capitalists of the future, so it is better than cheaper energy, it is a way to make a fortune in business.
Chances are though this technology would not have come as far as it had without a panic, much like radar would not have been invented or possibly even computers if it were not for wars. It's the way with technology. People get stagnated and have no desire to move forwards and into better things. The only thing that motivates the plebs is to scare them, tell them they are all going to die. Why not just do a Greg dyke and "cut the crap" and then we can all be happy and prosperous.
In terms of value for money they are not worth the effort, in terms of keeping out of the dark when the regular power cuts hit they are invaluable. I intend to supplement the winter with a wind turbine that I have already purchased but not fitted yet and we live in a very breezy area. I have bought one rated at 400w even if I get one tenth of that but working for 24 hours it will be worth it |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 2, 2024 12:51:25 GMT
There's lies, damned lies and statistics.
The result of any statistical analysis is only ever as good as the questions asked.
However, I will also say that science is NOT a matter of consensus, it is a matter of fact.
There was a time when 97% of experts thought the world was flat, of that the sun revolved around the earth - they were wrong.
I am willing to bet that at one time there was around 0.5% of experts who believed the earth revolved around the sun - they were right.
All The Best
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 2, 2024 12:53:15 GMT
Did you calculate the return on your investment and did it amount to more than if you had left it in the account and earnt the interest from the account?
Those panels you bought are likely to be a lot more expensive than if you had ordered a few million quid's worth. Also the money you would have to pay someone to come out and fit them on a roof is a lot more than those same panels being installed at ground level on a solar farm. You would have to pay for a small van to run out and fit them where on a solar farm they would arrive in a huge truck. Every smallest bracket used is marked up about ten times its bulk cost. And yet you still managed to beat the professionals!
Now considering this, consider we use a desert. Deserts are free land. no one lives there. The solar radiation in a desert is 3-4 times that of the UK. Using perovskites can double the efficiency. Doing it on an even larger scale than today can gain even higher economies of scale savings. There is also a bit of technology invented in the UK that extends the life of a pannel from 25 years to over 100, so that cuts the replacement costs significantly. We have a lot of work to do in order to get to this point, such as we need a global network of ultra high voltage transmission lines, but even though the UK is largely dragging its feet the rest of the world will build it if we don't. It's just those who build the most efficient systems will be the rich capitalists of the future, so it is better than cheaper energy, it is a way to make a fortune in business.
Chances are though this technology would not have come as far as it had without a panic, much like radar would not have been invented or possibly even computers if it were not for wars. It's the way with technology. People get stagnated and have no desire to move forwards and into better things. The only thing that motivates the plebs is to scare them, tell them they are all going to die. Why not just do a Greg dyke and "cut the crap" and then we can all be happy and prosperous.
In terms of value for money they are not worth the effort, in terms of keeping out of the dark when the regular power cuts hit they are invaluable. I intend to supplement the winter with a wind turbine that I have already purchased but not fitted yet and we live in a very breezy area. I have bought one rated at 400w even if I get one tenth of that but working for 24 hours it will be worth it I think people say the payback period is no longer than ten years, and that was before the hike in bills so it is possibly 5 years now. The thing is if you look at all the price graphs and performance graphs they dropping and increasing respectively so you get a double effect on competitiveness and then as oil and gas run out and global shit reduces supply further then I'm confident it would naturally take over now, although without the scare I guess no one would have bothered perfecting electric technology. All we ever used to use electric power for were milk floats, but these days they are the fastest things on the road. I think back in the 70s if you had bought the same solar array as people buy today, the panels would be over half a million quid and more than the house is worth. It's thanks to the Chinese that today they are a good buy.
By the way I have heard people get respectable results out of wind turbines. However if you look at the power output it is not linear with wind speed, but rather you get a piddle unless you are over about 7 knots and if you want anything like the rated output you need double that. It's a steep exponential from memory. There are a few different designs as well with different performance characteristics. I think you can get data on average wind speed per geographical area. You are probably OK if you say it is windy. Our typical speed does not poke above 7 knots very frequently. The only way we can get these renewables to work properly is to use a large grid based on the idea it is always windy or sunny somewhere. The larger the grid the smoother the supply.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 2, 2024 17:05:50 GMT
In terms of value for money they are not worth the effort, in terms of keeping out of the dark when the regular power cuts hit they are invaluable. I intend to supplement the winter with a wind turbine that I have already purchased but not fitted yet and we live in a very breezy area. I have bought one rated at 400w even if I get one tenth of that but working for 24 hours it will be worth it I think people say the payback period is no longer than ten years, and that was before the hike in bills so it is possibly 5 years now. The thing is if you look at all the price graphs and performance graphs they dropping and increasing respectively so you get a double effect on competitiveness and then as oil and gas run out and global shit reduces supply further then I'm confident it would naturally take over now, although without the scare I guess no one would have bothered perfecting electric technology. All we ever used to use electric power for were milk floats, but these days they are the fastest things on the road. I think back in the 70s if you had bought the same solar array as people buy today, the panels would be over half a million quid and more than the house is worth. It's thanks to the Chinese that today they are a good buy.
By the way I have heard people get respectable results out of wind turbines. However if you look at the power output it is not linear with wind speed, but rather you get a piddle unless you are over about 7 knots and if you want anything like the rated output you need double that. It's a steep exponential from memory. There are a few different designs as well with different performance characteristics. I think you can get data on average wind speed per geographical area. You are probably OK if you say it is windy. Our typical speed does not poke above 7 knots very frequently. The only way we can get these renewables to work properly is to use a large grid based on the idea it is always windy or sunny somewhere. The larger the grid the smoother the supply.
I bought some panels and batteries myself and set it up (bit of a scare as I am no electrician. I have a location problem and I wanted two small systems so I could see what each produced and which batteries were the best. I am still assessing but realistically it will be more in the way of a legacy as opposed to a good way to run a house. We really object to smart meters so that may block it all together. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 2, 2024 18:14:23 GMT
I think people say the payback period is no longer than ten years, and that was before the hike in bills so it is possibly 5 years now. The thing is if you look at all the price graphs and performance graphs they dropping and increasing respectively so you get a double effect on competitiveness and then as oil and gas run out and global shit reduces supply further then I'm confident it would naturally take over now, although without the scare I guess no one would have bothered perfecting electric technology. All we ever used to use electric power for were milk floats, but these days they are the fastest things on the road. I think back in the 70s if you had bought the same solar array as people buy today, the panels would be over half a million quid and more than the house is worth. It's thanks to the Chinese that today they are a good buy.
By the way I have heard people get respectable results out of wind turbines. However if you look at the power output it is not linear with wind speed, but rather you get a piddle unless you are over about 7 knots and if you want anything like the rated output you need double that. It's a steep exponential from memory. There are a few different designs as well with different performance characteristics. I think you can get data on average wind speed per geographical area. You are probably OK if you say it is windy. Our typical speed does not poke above 7 knots very frequently. The only way we can get these renewables to work properly is to use a large grid based on the idea it is always windy or sunny somewhere. The larger the grid the smoother the supply.
I bought some panels and batteries myself and set it up (bit of a scare as I am no electrician. I have a location problem and I wanted two small systems so I could see what each produced and which batteries were the best. I am still assessing but realistically it will be more in the way of a legacy as opposed to a good way to run a house. We really object to smart meters so that may block it all together. The thing was when electricity was being sold at over 30p/kWh the panels were twice the price. Also just recently the cost of lithium batteries has plummeted along with the lithium commodity price. It's one of those markets developing so fast that your panels will probably look very outdated and expensive in comparison to new ones in five years.
Anyway, I'm fully satisfied this new technology now will replace hydrocarbons just on price and performance alone. It really is dumb of this country. Everywhere you look you see global warming being used to cost you more money and be a real pain for a million reasons. Over in China you get the diametric opposite, since as they develop solar and wind so energy gets cheaper and as they build EVs their cars get cheaper. Everything they do is cheaper and better than it was a few years back, so there is no need to barrage the public with reams of crap about global warming. Instead every new development is a better deal than that what goes before, so the whole thing is market-driven. We see costs go up instead of down because those good-for-nothing government people are PR-trained. They are not trained as engineers, who solve problems for living. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 2, 2024 19:28:36 GMT
I bought some panels and batteries myself and set it up (bit of a scare as I am no electrician. I have a location problem and I wanted two small systems so I could see what each produced and which batteries were the best. I am still assessing but realistically it will be more in the way of a legacy as opposed to a good way to run a house. We really object to smart meters so that may block it all together. The thing was when electricity was being sold at over 30p/kWh the panels were twice the price. Also just recently the cost of lithium batteries has plummeted along with the lithium commodity price. It's one of those markets developing so fast that your panels will probably look very outdated and expensive in comparison to new ones in five years.
Anyway, I'm fully satisfied this new technology now will replace hydrocarbons just on price and performance alone. It really is dumb of this country. Everywhere you look you see global warming being used to cost you more money and be a real pain for a million reasons. Over in China you get the diametric opposite, since as they develop solar and wind so energy gets cheaper and as they build EVs their cars get cheaper. Everything they do is cheaper and better than it was a few years back, so there is no need to barrage the public with reams of crap about global warming. Instead every new development is a better deal than that what goes before, so the whole thing is market-driven. We see costs go up instead of down because those good-for-nothing government people are PR-trained. They are not trained as engineers, who solve problems for living. Indeed I bought the Lithium ion batteries coming up two years ago and they are about 50% now of what I paid. I also bought a battery bank of AGM batteries just over a year ago and they are now 75% of what I paid. Sometimes education and experience are bought at a heavy cost.. The future may indeed belong to the green power but currently we need that fail safe of background fossil fuel/nuclear. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 2, 2024 19:42:55 GMT
The UK does not really, IMO, lend itself to Solar Power being the "golden bullet" solution. We excel at Wave Power, but that is hellish expensive to put in place. We are OK at Wind Power, but it can (pardon the pun) blow hot and cold. Meaning sandypine is correct - we need a fallback failsafe. We have been way too slow to invest in new generation nuclear, and have not been maintaining our Coal Fired Power Stations at a suitable level. What we could, arguably should, be looking at is small-scale (ie at the individual dwelling level) Geo-Thermal Power. You don't need to go deep to tap into enough heat to a) heat all the hot water you could need, and use that hot water (or steam if you go a bit deeper) to drive turbines to generate electricity. I saw a program on this a good few years back, it may have been Horizon or Panorama, and the big energy companies were so against it they had wrung concessions from the government that even if a person were to independently pay for and install such a system so as to be wholly off-grid they would still be required to pay an annual subsidy (couched as a "license") to Big Energy to ensure Big Energy got it's share of the pie, even for doing nothing. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 2, 2024 20:03:47 GMT
The UK does not really, IMO, lend itself to Solar Power being the "golden bullet" solution. We excel at Wave Power, but that is hellish expensive to put in place. We are OK at Wind Power, but it can (pardon the pun) blow hot and cold. Meaning sandypine is correct - we need a fallback failsafe. We have been way too slow to invest in new generation nuclear, and have not been maintaining our Coal Fired Power Stations at a suitable level. What we could, arguably should, be looking at is small-scale (ie at the individual dwelling level) Geo-Thermal Power. You don't need to go deep to tap into enough heat to a) heat all the hot water you could need, and use that hot water (or steam if you go a bit deeper) to drive turbines to generate electricity. I saw a program on this a good few years back, it may have been Horizon or Panorama, and the big energy companies were so against it they had wrung concessions from the government that even if a person were to independently pay for and install such a system so as to be wholly off-grid they would still be required to pay an annual subsidy (couched as a "license") to Big Energy to ensure Big Energy got it's share of the pie, even for doing nothing. All The Best A friend of mine who has a small workshop with no running water and has to go a hundred yards to use a portacabin toilet is still charged water rates. When he pointed this out to Southwest water their reply was that rain water was still landing on the roof of his workshop...Duh? |
|
