That's £143,000 per job "created".
That's a very expensive make-work scheme.
That's a very expensive make-work scheme.
https://twitter.com/LBGAmbSthWest/status/1354760997135937542
I'm guessing here, but I don't think the authors of this article have much experience in engineering or installing home heating systems, and I don't get the impression that they are particularly interested in hearing criticisms from those that do, either. 
These are wonks.
They 'research' 'innovation', but ultimately believe that R&D is just a question of policy and funding.
It's political will alone that will make airsource heat pumps viable, you see. And you'll have one, whether or not you want one, or you will freeze.
They 'research' 'innovation', but ultimately believe that R&D is just a question of policy and funding.
It's political will alone that will make airsource heat pumps viable, you see. And you'll have one, whether or not you want one, or you will freeze.
I occasionally meet people who were involved in designing, building, maintaining and operating Britain's energy infrastructure in the '60s onwards.
They are invariably grammar school boys, who later got degrees & PhDs.
They are invariably grammar school boys, who later got degrees & PhDs.
https://twitter.com/clim8resistance/status/1354769822962352129
I can't help noticing the transformation of the gender balance, and the difference in educational background and so on, between then and now.
What do 'policy analysts' and 'inclusivity experts' know about the principles of thermodynamics?
What do 'policy analysts' and 'inclusivity experts' know about the principles of thermodynamics?
https://twitter.com/clim8resistance/status/1354766666467581953
Today, the policy agenda seems to be driven by women, who do not have STEM degrees, but they got them all (BA>MA>PhD) before they had worked a day in their life.
Then they work for quangos, universities, think tanks, NGOs, not in labs, factories, R&D departments...
Then they work for quangos, universities, think tanks, NGOs, not in labs, factories, R&D departments...
I'm not joking, this is standard...
It's a thing, I promise you...
I am categorically NOT sexist... What I am saying is 100% correct.
None of these women have any background in anything resembling innovation, yet they all work in "innovation policy", towards a particular policy agenda, with implications for energy infrastructure.
None of these women have any background in anything resembling innovation, yet they all work in "innovation policy", towards a particular policy agenda, with implications for energy infrastructure.
I broke the thread. It continues here...
https://twitter.com/clim8resistance/status/1354773288094937090
Read the article.
They can only think in policy terms.
I.e. 'when you've only got a hammer'.
They don't think people are resistant to 'green' tech because they know it's crap, because they can't conceive of people making independent choices -- people must be 'nudged'.
They can only think in policy terms.
I.e. 'when you've only got a hammer'.
They don't think people are resistant to 'green' tech because they know it's crap, because they can't conceive of people making independent choices -- people must be 'nudged'.
But this is why people aren't forking out upwards of £13,000 on "retrofit":
* They haven't got £13K.
* They don't want to borrow such a large amount of money for the empty promise of savings.
* They have done the calcs, and can see they won't save any money.
* It's a liability.
* They haven't got £13K.
* They don't want to borrow such a large amount of money for the empty promise of savings.
* They have done the calcs, and can see they won't save any money.
* It's a liability.
You can't nudge the bottom line. And most people are starkly aware of the presence of the bottom line in their lives.
It is only invisible to Eng Lit MA graduates, who specialise in 'inclusivity' -- because the bottom line is that much further away for them.
It is only invisible to Eng Lit MA graduates, who specialise in 'inclusivity' -- because the bottom line is that much further away for them.
Footnote, to the discussion about gender...
I once had a very good friend, who went very, very green.
He had a physics degree.
We had discussions about how to produce energy (in the sense of generation), if we got rid of coal/gas.
I once had a very good friend, who went very, very green.
He had a physics degree.
We had discussions about how to produce energy (in the sense of generation), if we got rid of coal/gas.
He was convinced that we were surrounded by recoverable ambient energy.
One of his suggestions was that we could perhaps fit mini turbines in drain pipes, to capture ambient energy.
I asked him to work out what energy could be recovered from falling water inside a drain pipe.
One of his suggestions was that we could perhaps fit mini turbines in drain pipes, to capture ambient energy.
I asked him to work out what energy could be recovered from falling water inside a drain pipe.
Environmentalism rots the brain, you see.
Even his physics degree counted for nought. He simply hadn't done the calculation that he could have otherwise done in his sleep: f=ma.
It was a great idea, apart from the detail.
Even his physics degree counted for nought. He simply hadn't done the calculation that he could have otherwise done in his sleep: f=ma.
It was a great idea, apart from the detail.
I suspect that this is in microcosm what we will discover about 'green' retrofitting.
I will be revealed that engineers were commissioned to develop proof-of-concept heat pumps. They worked in a number of limited scenarios.
People with expertise noted the limitations.
I will be revealed that engineers were commissioned to develop proof-of-concept heat pumps. They worked in a number of limited scenarios.
People with expertise noted the limitations.
But the limitations were put down to a mere learning problem that would be resolved by 'investment' and scale, and practice, because the wonks involved in preparing policy briefings are policy advocates who did not understand the technical issues.
And just as they did not understand the thermodynamics, they did not understand the economics.
This is because, even if they had any grasp of economics whatsoever, they were force-fed the notion that climate change would be more expensive than retrofitting.
This is because, even if they had any grasp of economics whatsoever, they were force-fed the notion that climate change would be more expensive than retrofitting.
They made policy recommendations based on best-case performances in optimal conditions, mostly out of ignorance, and ideological blindness.
And because they could simply call anyone who challenged their findings a "climate change denier".
And because they could simply call anyone who challenged their findings a "climate change denier".
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
