Every Briton should stockpile water and food supplies, government advises

You "think" that based on your irrational hate of all new technologies and that hate forced you to ignore the very real case study of Texas, doing one of the biggest Renewable build outs at the time Trump and the Federal govt are providing no support and actually paying tax payer money out to shut such programs down and roll them back.

I don't hate new technology. I want new technology to be workable and cost effective. What works for generating clean, cheap, electrical power in mass quantities is nuclear backed by natural gas. Hydrogen or aqueous ammonia can replace gasoline. These are portable, storable, and really no more dangerous than gasoline is.
You IGNORE what the very Conservative State of Republican says is their success both in generation, storage and tax payer savings on the cost of energy. You IGNORE what the STUDIES show. You IGNORE the actual RESULTS of the grid now more stable and able to rapid deal with energy spiking needs. You ignore the INVESTORS putting in massive amounts of money for great profitable returns.

Everywhere--EVERYWHERE--solar and wind have been heavily pushed, worldwide, the cost of energy has risen and shortages start to appear. That's a fact, your cherry-picked exceptions notwithstanding.

Solar and wind are also not very profitable in operation. Companies that operate such plants have had a high bankruptcy rate as a result.



Neither can survive without continuous government subsidy.



Even sites that favorably wants solar and wind grudgingly admits they need subsidization.




And instead you quote old data and you do so wrongly from a time when everything was more expensive.

Texas is the model that answers all your questions and proves everything you say wrong at each stage.



That Texas' grid had difficulty coping with unusually cold weather for a short period of time doesn't make a good argument that solar and wind are the answer. On the whole, day-to-day, solar and wind are problematic as generation sources and that's true everywhere, not just Texas.
 
You "think" that based on your irrational hate of all new technologies and that hate forced you to ignore the very real case study of Texas, doing one of the biggest Renewable build outs at the time Trump and the Federal govt are providing no support and actually paying tax payer money out to shut such programs down and roll them back.

You IGNORE what the very Conservative State of Republican says is their success both in generation, storage and tax payer savings on the cost of energy. You IGNORE what the STUDIES show. You IGNORE the actual RESULTS of the grid now more stable and able to rapid deal with energy spiking needs. You ignore the INVESTORS putting in massive amounts of money for great profitable returns.

And instead you quote old data and you do so wrongly from a time when everything was more expensive.

Texas is the model that answers all your questions and proves everything you say wrong at each stage.
Texas only implemented wind generators for political reasons, dope.
 
That Texas' grid had difficulty coping with unusually cold weather for a short period of time doesn't make a good argument that solar and wind are the answer. On the whole, day-to-day, solar and wind are problematic as generation sources and that's true everywhere, not just Texas.
Texas is making imprpvements in the natural gas supply lines and in handling power plant maintenance scheduling. The Winter of 2025 rather educated them that they too should not be so careless in laying natural gas plumbing.

They've fixed a fair amount of it already.
 
Every Briton is being urged to stock up to nine litres of bottled water and three days’ worth of food in new government guidance designed to ensure that households can survive a weather, cyber or other serious emergency.

The Be Ready campaign is aimed at persuading people to stock up with supplies to last 72 hours, amid growing official concern about the impact of the climate crisis, technological dependency and hostile state threats.


Dan Jarvis, the security minister, said that “those who can follow this advice should follow this advice”. It amounted to “simple steps to be ready for everyday emergencies” as part of a wider, community-oriented effort “to improve our resilience as a nation”, he said.

Wes Streeting, the defence secretary, added that Britain also needed to prepare for the threat of “state-sponsored terrorism” by Russia or other hostile powers targeting everyday infrastructure.

“Terms like ‘hybrid warfare’ and ‘grey zone threats’ do not accurately capture or convey to the general public what I prefer to describe as ‘state-sponsored terrorism’,” he said.

“So in the face of those threats, which are not hypothetical but real, and not somewhere else but increasingly here, we have to step up and take seriously our national resilience as well as our national defence.

“It’s really important that we ask households and businesses, are they prepared? Are they ready? Do they know how they would respond in the event of everyday challenges that might manifest themselves?”

It’s always good to be prepared for both a natural or manmade disaster. Cyber-attacks are a very real possibility in this day and age. Same goes for a terrorist attack against a major electrical or water facility.
 
Back
Top