Yet more proof.

[Scott777]

Electricity has 2 advantages. It's utility, it can be used for anything that requires power, whist fossil fuels cannot (for example) run your mobile phone.
The second advantage is that the basic resource (sunz wind, running water) is very commonly available.

This is irrelevant when we are discussing how your governemnt can control you more easily without any kind of fuel.  At the moment, we have both options.  We won't if fossil fuel is no longer available.

You argue that the government could track down if I had batteries and solar panels via shopping records etc.  True.

But fossil fuels are no better. They can not only track you done via your shopping records of buying a generator, oil tank or propane tank, but also every time you fill them up.

They could even track down your wood stove via your shopping records.

You don't need a wood stove.  You may have a fireplace, you may have some bricks to make a stove.  You don't need a generator, oil tank or propane tank.  You can buy petrol, oil or gas using cash, and keep it in bottles and cans.

The argument about wood is more or less moot regarding control .  The government doesn't have to fabricate a reason to move the population away from wood as an energy source because the population has already moved away.

Not moot.  We moved away from wood for convenience, not by necessity.  It is still available.

Mains gas is irrelevant as you can't store it at home.

You can store gas bottles.  Mains is irrelevant.

Again, whilst you can store some fuel you can't store much and people generally don't store any.  The fuel strikes showed that.

You are able to store lots of it, compared to electricity.  So what are you talking about?

A small electric car or (even better) ebike can be very much proof against any kind of fuel interruption, state sponsored or.otherwise.

Only if you produce your own electricity, and have plenty of storage which will cost you a fortune, and will not last forever.  I bet you could not run a car, and your heating, in winter, from solar panels, for even a day.

Not a single one of your comments are an effective counter argument to the disadvantage of having no access to fuel.  I don't know why you keep trying to defend the indefensible.  It is clearly vastly more flexible to have everything that we currently have - fuels, wood and electricity.  Reducing those options means more control by the state.  And that is why they have an incentive to fund pro AGW, and not denial of AGW.  I think your argument boils down to the establishment argument, and you must want the establishment to control you, as you love the nanny state.

[BeElBeeBub]

Not exactly.  Electricity is easier to control than the other forms of energy.  Not just "fossil fuels".

Solar panels and wind turbines are completely monopolised by governments and big corporation's.  Wood is not.  If they want to tax you more for your green tech, or your electricity, they could.  They have as much control as fossil fuels.

But the government might know, and has the potential to know, because you buy the tech to generate it, probably using a bank card, the company has your details, the government could look into your bank account, and they can see the solar panels on your roof.

So, all things considered, you have explained no advantage to you using electricity, but are advantaged by storage of "fossil fuel" energy, and availability of wood.

Electricity has 2 advantages. It's utility, it can be used for anything that requires power, whist fossil fuels cannot (for example) run your mobile phone.
The second advantage is that the basic resource (sunz wind, running water) is very commonly available.

This contrasts with fossil fuels where the basic resource(crude oil, coal, gas) is very centralised and requires large scale processing before it become useable to the household.

You argue that the government could track down if I had batteries and solar panels via shopping records etc.  True.

But fossil fuels are no better. They can not only track you done via your shopping records of buying a generator, oil tank or propane tank, but also every time you fill them up.

They could even track down your wood stove via your shopping records.

The argument about wood is more or less moot regarding control .  The government doesn't have to fabricate a reason to move the population away from wood as an energy source because the population has already moved away.

in fact with the exception of mains gas for heating and diesel /petrol for transport, the population has already moved away. Almost nobody still uses coal - the infrastructure to buy and deliver it is very sparse now. Heating oil and LPG are pretty niche.  Wood (as mentioned) almost zero for anything other than nostalgia.

So really, the argument is "are the government trying to move us away from gas boilers and ICE cars to make it easier to control us?"

Mains gas is irrelevant as you can't store it at home.

So we are down to fuel for transport.

Again, whilst you can store some fuel you can't store much and people generally don't store any.  The fuel strikes showed that.

A small electric car or (even better) ebike can be very much proof against any kind of fuel interruption, state sponsored or.otherwise.

I think your argument boils down to the clarkson argument - "I like my ICE car"

[Scott777]

You saying "fossil fuels are harder for governments to control than electricity"

Not exactly.  Electricity is easier to control than the other forms of energy.  Not just "fossil fuels".

It ignores the fact that fossil fuels are more or less a monopoly by governments and big corporation's.
Consider this every single liter or m³ of fossil fuel you use has been taxed multiple times

Solar panels and wind turbines are completely monopolised by governments and big corporation's.  Wood is not.  If they want to tax you more for your green tech, or your electricity, they could.  They have as much control as fossil fuels.

On the other hand there are thousands of people out there using electricity that hasn't been taxed that the government doesn't even know they are generating.

But the government might know, and has the potential to know, because you buy the tech to generate it, probably using a bank card, the company has your details, the government could look into your bank account, and they can see the solar panels on your roof.

So, all things considered, you have explained no advantage to you using electricity, but are advantaged by storage of "fossil fuel" energy, and availability of wood.

[papasmurf]

In the UK a falling down barn makes a field worth a fortune as it increases the chance of being able to get planning permission.

Different places 😁

Last building fitting that description near where I live sold for close to 1/2 a £million.

[BeElBeeBub]

I don't drive to the countries I work in, I always fly there and rent a car (not EV). I have worked in China a lot and they don't tend to drive EV's, why would they when patrol is half the price of the U.K. They do have millions of electric scooters though and yes they carry a spare battery, not something you can do with my car as it is huge, and costs £17K (it was replaced with only 9000 miles on the car).

Can I ask what brand car it is?

[Nick]

Sadly, I don't really get to see beautiful fields too often here in suburban Atlanta, that's another thing I miss from England - the fields I've seen here in Georgia are really quite barren in this part of the state.

For more beautiful areas you have to go into Marjorie Taylor Greene territory north in the state where the mountains are -

Savannah is nice, as is the area heading towards Chattanooga, Atlanta is not the best as I know full well, I was there 6 days ago. 3 hours to clear immigration, and this is supposedly the busiest airport in the world!!

[Nick]

You obviously drive around in many different countries, so I'm sure you know it's much easier to charge an EV in many other countries that have better suited infrastructure than the UK's.

As regards the charging, I'm not sure how much the battery costs in your EV, but in some cheaper Chinese models it might be economical to carry a spare battery if you can (relatively easily) swap it out, there are also battery swapping services. I don't think any of this is common in the UK but I could be wrong, maybe worth looking into if the performance of the EV is less than stellar.

I think that EVs are the future, but with Elon Musk in charge of one of the largest EV companies, it's no wonder they don't work as intended.

I think they just recalled every single Tesla truck due to faults, just like they have recalled almost every single Tesla ever sold in North America because they all have a serious software malfunction that can't be remedied with an update, also firmware issues, with a guy like that heading the "electric" revolution you have to wonder if it's being sabotaged on purpose

I don't drive to the countries I work in, I always fly there and rent a car (not EV). I have worked in China a lot and they don't tend to drive EV's, why would they when patrol is half the price of the U.K. They do have millions of electric scooters though and yes they carry a spare battery, not something you can do with my car as it is huge, and costs £17K (it was replaced with only 9000 miles on the car). 

[Borg Refinery]

Sadly, I don't really get to see beautiful fields too often here in suburban Atlanta, that's another thing I miss from England - the fields I've seen here in Georgia are really quite barren in this part of the state.

For more beautiful areas you have to go into Marjorie Taylor Greene territory north in the state where the mountains are -

[BeElBeeBub]

Why would they sell it cheap because it's abandoned? Likely they'd be sitting on the land as it gains value and trying to maximise profit on it if they're doing that and are thinking of clearing it, it will only be sold cheap if it goes at auction - or it was abandoned for a time until it passed down to someone else who wants shot of it quickly.

I'm not sure why you'd assume abandoned farms would be going cheap when owners sit on farmland in the USA purely for it to gain value.

That's exactly what Chinese corporations are doing right now across the USA - buying up land and selling it off at a profit, they're also more commonly buying up water rights so they control the water supply in vast areas, US corps are doing that too

I'm not trying to kick off an argument,  just repeating what the US focused book said.

It made me chuckle.at the time (2008 according to the publishing notes (though it does say printed in china which is also a little funny)

Edit: I just read the caption for the  pic of the abandoned barn at the bottom.

It reads "Some buildings like this one are beyond repair. However a dilapidated building may make a beautiful piece of property less expensive..."

In the UK a falling down barn makes a field worth a fortune as it increases the chance of being able to get planning permission.

Different places 😁

[BeElBeeBub]

You can't prove it.  That's a conspiracy theory.  Now I'm just saying, if politicians and corporations quite like to control people, by controlling energy, then they would have an incentive to fund AGW and not deniers.  My theory is common sense.  Yours is an appeal to authority, based on no evidence you have ever seen.

Your theory isn't common sense though.

You saying "fossil fuels are harder for governments to control than electricity" and your sole argument is the fact that the energy density of fossil fuels is higher than batteries therefore you can store more kWh in a given space

It ignores the fact that fossil fuels are more or less a monopoly by governments and big corporation's.

Consider this every single liter or m³ of fossil fuel you use has been taxed multiple times

I don't know how much more "government controlled" a commodity could be.

Christ, I've had my fuel tank dipped to check I wasn't using red diesel. People came to my house and sample the fuel from my vehicles. They had obtained the customer records of a local supplier and were spot checking people on the list

On the other hand there are thousands of people out there using electricity that hasn't been taxed that the government doesn't even know they are generating.

So if the push for AGW isn't for "control" (as FFs are.eaiser for governments to restrict access to) - why would governments be spending money on it again?

[Borg Refinery]

To be clear, the book wasn't advocating squatting. It was advocating finding an abandoned farm and buying it from it's owners cheap (because it's abandoned).

Why would they sell it cheap because it's abandoned? Likely they'd be sitting on the land as it gains value and trying to maximise profit on it if they're doing that and are thinking of clearing it, it will only be sold cheap if it goes at auction - or it was abandoned for a time until it passed down to someone else who wants shot of it quickly.

I'm not sure why you'd assume abandoned farms would be going cheap when owners sit on farmland in the USA purely for it to gain value.

That's exactly what Chinese corporations are doing right now across the USA - buying up land and selling it off at a profit, they're also more commonly buying up water rights so they control the water supply in vast areas, US corps are doing that too

[BeElBeeBub]

No one said it could, the point is that in the USA, if you occupy unoccupied land and tend to it long enough, as long as it's not challenged, ownership can automatically pass to you

Presumably, that is the point of Beeb's USA help book asking you to find an abandoned farm in the USA

Also presumably, if a farm is completely abandoned and the owner is long gone, then it won't be on sale to anyone, not that I advocate going and illegally squatting on property in the UK

To be clear, the book wasn't advocating squatting. It was advocating finding an abandoned farm and buying it from it's owners cheap (because it's abandoned).

[Scott777]

They already control access to wood and the equipment to use it.

Wood needs to be accompanied by a "ready to burn certificate" - for which the supplier must be scheme member (with an annual fee)

Stoves must be installed by a HETAS installer.

Environmental health can investigate and put restrictions on wood burning stoves

Try using wood as a fuel in a London tower block.and see how far you get.

Electricity, on the other hand, for less than £3k you can have a self contained solar system and battery. Enough to do basic communications, light etc with. Boil a kettle and so on.  These can be deployed from a window or balcony (Germans love these systems).

Put it this way, I have a wood stove that can heat my house and hot water. I have access to free wood and the place to store it. I can talk fairly knowledgeably about the coats of installing and running such a system.

Completely flawed argument.  If the government can change laws to prohibit wood burning, then they could also prohibit a self contained solar system and battery.  The law is not what matters.  It is easier to stop you using electricity than wood.  They do not physically control your access to wood.  You could buy solar panels and batteries, but they are expensive, and won't last forever.  We are not comparing how easy it is now.  We are talking about government control.  And if we compare oil/petrol to solar panels, it is easier to store the former than the latter, comparing like for like amount of energy.

[Scott777]

By it's nature the meddling will mainly be visible to the security services and that means the evidence can't be open sourced easily. However the parliamentary report did cite open source studies into the amount of russian activity around elections in the UK and abroad. Go read the report and it's links.

You can't prove it.  That's a conspiracy theory.  Now I'm just saying, if politicians and corporations quite like to control people, by controlling energy, then they would have an incentive to fund AGW and not deniers.  My theory is common sense.  Yours is an appeal to authority, based on no evidence you have ever seen.

[Borg Refinery]

Not that I advocate going and illegally squatting on property in the UK

Property ownership laws are different in the UK and the USA