I am often criticised for being too certain over my statements, but imagine you went to a doctor or solicitor and they said things like 'well maybe, possibly, it depends' etc. how much confidence would you have in them. It then splits into facts vs opinions, and then finally how certain the facts are.
So basically I would only present what some see as opinions as facts when I am certain enough they are from my own research. The list so far, with reasons, includes:
Wind turbines are worthless. This is because overall the bottom line does not make a profit. Why? 1) Wind blows randomly so can never supply a constant source as provided by a power station using any fuel. 2) They consume power to reduce the total when removed from the power produced. 3) Much power is produced when not required so vanishes and is wasted. There are many other costs and depreciations involved, including the cost of grids and maintenance and short life, but when all these factors are presented as a profit and loss account, they are worthless. As I spent months looking for this information and confirmed it twice over then it is accurate to say 'Wind turbines are worthless and should never exist beyond for a single building'.
Inflation is bad: If you have £1000 in the bank at zero interest (as in current accounts), if inflation is 2% a year (as planned by our wonderful government), that means if nothing else changes your £1000 is worth £20 less a year. Every year. Yes, they try and avoid it being higher than that (with varying success), but they actually deliberately manipulate the economy to maintain a 2% floor. All your money is always worth less every year as a result. That's theft.
Road humps: You are driving along a normal road, residential or main, and they put lumps of concrete on them (even where the speed limit has not been reduced), which normal cars were not designed to handle. They force the wheels to fall vertically, something not designed in the suspension for normal usage, and as a result wears and damages the car far faster for absolutely no known reason, as if you really want to slow traffic down there are many other ways of doing so physically. The possible real reason (I think Kingston Council Liberal Democrats or another nearby group have now finally admitted it) is to put people off driving cars and use public transport, the same reason many ban car parks in new flats. But of course public transport and emergency vehicles use the same roads, and Barnet Council published in the local paper the number of deaths per year caused by ambulances either not reaching the patients in time or the hospital in time once they'd collected them. There is not a single reason to spoil road surfaces and the results are well known and documented, and councils put aside hundreds of thousands a year to pay for the damage caused to vehicles.
House price rises are bad: If you pay £10,000 for a Nissan in 2000, and earn £15,000 a year, then if you sell it in 2005 and buy a new one for £15,000, while your pay is only £17,000, your car has gone up more in percentage terms than your earning, inflation has reduced your purchasing power, and as a result you are poorer. Imagine the difference spending ten times plus more on a house. They can easily go up 10% a year over a five year period, while wages have barely risen in the same period to 2014. Of course this applies to your own house if you already have one, but unless you want to swap for one no better, that % means the more you want the more you'll pay, so the difference between the one you're selling and the one you're buying has grown by that much. £100,000 in 1990 for £150,000 would require an additional £50,000. fast forward to say 1997 at maybe 50%, and your £150,000 house will be up against the identical house then which is now £175,000, a difference of £75,000. You can never catch up as the gap gets wider every year ad infinitum. Now imagine you have nothing to sell and are saving up for a deposit. You'll need maybe 8-10X your annual income in total for a mortgage, opposed to 3-4 times maximum (enforced by internal policies) in the 70s. Therefore (unless you do not live in it but have extra ones as a business, which a small percentage of owners do) rising house prices are a bad thing for every homeowner, as even property barons own their own home as well and suffer the same consequences trading up.
Positive discrimination is discrimination: Turd polishing. It is like talking about fragrant faeces, or an honourable death. But it's still shit and the person is still gone. If you put a woman or ethnic minority up for a job instead of anyone else, it's just discrimination. Don't shit me trying to call it anything else.
Not fit for purpose: I've already covered wind turbines, and the principle I call the 'Hutchison Rabbit', where a new product is created which doesn't do more than something already in existence, but less, and even costs a lot more, then it should never have existed. They are a con, and the only difference between a privately manufactured product and one forced on us by law is the customers have eyes to see the dubious private product (ie the Hutchison Rabbit) and not many people will buy it so it will die a rapid death, as it obviously did. They sold a mobile phone which could only be used near an antenna, couldn't receive calls, and cost a bomb for rental and use. Or you could use a phone box which at the time cost about 20p and you could be called back, and there were a lot more than Rabbit points. What would you expect if instead of the glossy adverts you were listed these genuine examples? Run a mile probably.
Now this principle is bloody simple, all you need are the basic facts. So, I will do the same for solar panels now, which are the equivalent of leaving your food in the garden instead of the refrigerator. Some days it will be just right, while some nights it will be fine but not during the day. You'll know roughly when it will be suitable or not, but because of government benefits you will leave it out every single day and night anyway as the government will pay you if some of it goes off anyway.
Now I don't think many people would suffer randomly chilled food for any amount of money as apart from anything else it's a health hazard, and as they need a refrigerator anyway it wouldn't save any money taking the food out and leaving it outside when it was cold. Even though it's free. So that's your cooling taken care of. Buy a fridge and don't be silly messing around with nature to do the job it wasn't designed to do. Now what's the opposite of cold? Warmth. And what causes it? The sun. When does that come out? Sometimes, but unlike the cold, ONLY during the day. An average of half the time, but only 8 hours in the cold winter and 16 in the hot summer. Except you really need heating and light when it is cold and dark, but there is no sunlight whatsoever, and every single night when there isn't either. Yes, you can, on a very long sunny day, if you all work and are out during the day not cooking or watching TV, store that in a battery so you can do so after dark, but how many time? A few months a year maximum. The rest of the time the batteries are not operating a surplus so all power the sun produces is so little it is used just turning on a few bulbs a day. Unlike satellites that can whizz around on solar panels for years, the earth's atmosphere reduces sunlight by 25 times. It's diffused by clouds and dust and is so weak you can only ever convert the remaining energy into low voltage not suitable for domestic use but only individual low powered items like watches and calculators. That is the nature of solar, and they say they are around half the maximum possible conversion factor currently, but double not much is still not a lot and never could be. Plus once you reach outside the tropics the angle of the sun is so low most of the year the rest is lost as it can't clear the horizon. At the peak at midday you get 100% for a couple of hours, but only in summer. The rest of the year outside the tropics it won't get 1/2 the height for most of the time so you lose even more exactly when you need it. Therefore even the little they can produce is done in the exact opposite proportions to when you need it.
Therefore, black and white, solar panels for domestic power are not (and can never be) fit for purpose. I have done the figures.
Electric cars may work one day if and when they can be charged in minutes. There are however insurmountable problems even if they do. One is that they use the same source for traction and power, so rather than do miles per gallon and have a fuel gauge telling you how much is left, if it's cold, dark or wet you need the electricity for lights, heating and wipers. That uses as much power as moving, and will wreck your predicted mileage. Of course you could always drive as if it will be dark and wet but you'll never be able to go very far if you do. And unlike ordinary cars, if you can charge in minutes and still run out (as cars often do, and you can predict when they'll run out of fuel) what exactly do you do if one of them does? Get a breakdown truck to get you there, maybe an hour or two later. But unlike the ordinary car, you can't work out how to get fuelled before this is even possible, and is impossible to change. So the single issue which could be fixed, the charging time (unless you're at home) all the others are in their nature (like relying on random wind) and therefore unfit for purpose. If you don't believe me just buy one and wait till it snows. And till then what about if you run our in town and want to park up at one of the growing number of free charge points? If you're clever enough to catch one before you really need it, what exactly would you do for the few hours it's trickle charging? And what would your employers think?
Ponzi schemes: These are any mechanism where a sum of money is taken, nothing is produced, and some people are given a profit which is taken from the losses of the rest. Of course normally this is illegal (but not always if run by a government who can legalise whatever they like) but Bernie Madoff did it for years unnoticed and only got busted during the crash when scared 'investors' started trying to withdraw their money and of course it was long gone paying everyone else's interest.
Solar panels sell because the users are offered ten times more than market rate for any unused power, and although this can still often take many years to break even it sucks millions of useful idiots in, but all they are doing (considering I have hopefully just demonstrated domestic solar panels are not fit for purpose) is moving money from the taxpayers to the customers to fulfil EU and domestic laws requiring people to switch to renewables or be heavily fined as a government. So it costs them less (nothing actually, as we pay through higher prices directly) than the money they'd have to pay if they didn't offer subsidies. It's a con. Carbon trading is a legalised Ponzi scheme, economics and contract law mean you must have a product or service which can be delivered and owned, and you can't do that with carbon credits, they do not actually exist in any physical way, or represent a physical commodity such as gold, part of a company or rights to future benefits such as currency or interest rates. The derivatives market, as I have just described in part, still represents a share of a solid commodity, cash, even something as intellectual as an insurance policy or mortgage, which is a contract with strict requirements to pay the bearer under specific circumstances. But not carbon credits. They are issued by governments, given or sold to companies, who then sell them on the stock market. In a circle. Like a Ponzi scheme. Nothing is created, nothing is produced, no value is added and all it does and can ever do is move the same money around, like a Ponzi scheme, therefore carbon trading is a Ponzi scheme.
Overall, if you know something, it's a fact, black and white, right or wrong. Some, like the global warming story, are uncertain in their status, but are still able to take the facts they provide and pass them through the system of logic and weight, and come out with a reasonable factual assessment. And 99% correct is the conclusion that taxing poor people for their energy to possibly save people 100 years ahead from slightly warmer temperatures would sound so ridiculous if in a film then why is it any less ridiculous in real life? So that again I'd say is 99% wrong, very slightly grey maybe, but making old and poor people die of cold for a totally unknown and uncertain future to me also seems pretty definitely bad. Use your own logic and it soon becomes second nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment