“Protest parties” is dismissive from the start. Then you talk about UKIP, as though the Greens are equivalent. Here’s one difference: UKIP and Reform are both one-man-shows, with no policies with any specificity. You can go online and see the Greens’ policies, and their governance structure is far more member-driven than any other party but Corbyn’s rump YourParty (or whatever they’re calling themselves these days). They’re not perfect, but the alternatives are worse.
I’m sympathetic to the core Green mission but opposing the expansion of the grid we need to supply renewables is peek contraianism.
Policies that enourage greater energy efficiency, if successfully implemented, will mean that there’s less need to expand the grid further, though additional resiliency works would still be worth doing.
I guess it depends on how many of the newly minted green voters have moved across because they have carefully read their policy offering and how many just wanted to vote not-Labour because they were unhappy (i.e. protesting) with the government. Things will become clearer next month and finally at the next general election.
Energy efficiency is great but we still need to get the power from our new shiny off-shore wind farms to where the population centres are. The original grid was very much designed to radiate power from the big generators which are more central (modulo the nuclear generators which tend to be coastal).
Renewables naturally need a different grid structure (intermittent power means you need to draw from far away at least some of the time, and the grid has to be built for the worst day, not the best), but on top of that heat pumps and electric cars will be drawing a lot more power regardless of their greater efficiency, so the grid does need massive expansion, even if you assume people are boosting the efficiency of everything.
“Protest parties” is dismissive from the start. Then you talk about UKIP, as though the Greens are equivalent. Here’s one difference: UKIP and Reform are both one-man-shows, with no policies with any specificity. You can go online and see the Greens’ policies, and their governance structure is far more member-driven than any other party but Corbyn’s rump YourParty (or whatever they’re calling themselves these days). They’re not perfect, but the alternatives are worse.
Policies that enourage greater energy efficiency, if successfully implemented, will mean that there’s less need to expand the grid further, though additional resiliency works would still be worth doing.
I guess it depends on how many of the newly minted green voters have moved across because they have carefully read their policy offering and how many just wanted to vote not-Labour because they were unhappy (i.e. protesting) with the government. Things will become clearer next month and finally at the next general election.
Energy efficiency is great but we still need to get the power from our new shiny off-shore wind farms to where the population centres are. The original grid was very much designed to radiate power from the big generators which are more central (modulo the nuclear generators which tend to be coastal).
And what percentage of labour/con voters actually read their policies? That’s not a problem exclusive to the non-traditional parties.
Totally agreed on the grid though.
Renewables naturally need a different grid structure (intermittent power means you need to draw from far away at least some of the time, and the grid has to be built for the worst day, not the best), but on top of that heat pumps and electric cars will be drawing a lot more power regardless of their greater efficiency, so the grid does need massive expansion, even if you assume people are boosting the efficiency of everything.