The original post said that energy costs were high due to failed green policy. Do you have anything to add on that matter?
In the UK we have Drax power plant in Yorkshire burning wood pellets shipped from North American forests and calling it green. I don't think it has much effect on overall global energy prices.
That is the price you pay. Energy prices are higher, are more subject to geo-political issues, and it still isnt green. I dont know how you got to global energy prices, 'the uk is paying the price for a failed green energy policy', the policy failed to deliver green energy, and now you have to pay for it in higher prices and be subject to the whims of foreign political leaders.
Sure, energy is a ladder, energy production tuned for higher capital investment ventures have lower long term operating costs. There is an opportunity cost to investing in one policy, like green energy, versus another, like nuclear; they traded a cheap energy future for false advertising.
Anti-Nuclear has been the policy in Germany for decades. The UK has been investing massively in Wind for decades. The prices only went up after the war in 2021.
I appreciate that. Energy could be like 8 cents/kwh though, probably less. I generally consider societies ready access to cheap energy to be the engine that creates wealth, I think we probably agree on that; maybe I havent said enough to convince you that energy could be cheaper, but given that it seems clear to me that any policy which doesnt provide cheaper energy fails categorically.
I dont have a great read on why you are so committed to arguing that the green energy policy has not failed; considering we certainly agree divesting from nuclear was the wrong choice, that the energy wouldnt fit the connotation of green energy, and that we probably (I assume) agree that cheap energy is a critical aspect of developed nations, I am having trouble understanding where you are coming from.
