". . . cost more in energy to set up than it could ever produce" is not something the 'green energy' boosters have been highlighting.

https://theexposenews.com/2026/05/12/uks-renewables-energy-grid/

As the UK switches from an industrial base to a technological base, the real economy is being downsized.

Large-scale physical investments are higher risk and demand more confidence in the future viability of the nation as a good location to manufacture. Britain increasingly does not meet this benchmark.

We see Britain’s decline in the loss of sovereign capabilities like steel-making or the manufacture of ferro-titanium. We see it in the closing of refineries and chemical facilities. We see it in the decline of military shipbuilding capacity, or other defence-related debacles like Ajax.

The reasons for this are manifold: onerous regulations, lack of protectionism versus unfair trade practices, the struggle to build anything, and, of course, sky-high energy prices.

This last issue is ironic, because there has been an enormous investment in energy infrastructure – more specifically, “renewable” energy infrastructure, which is not productive and may consume more than it produces.

In short, after years of rolling out expensive renewable infrastructure, the British energy grid is “more wires for less power,” and possibly will have cost more in energy to set up than it will ever produce.

The following are two separate sources which complement each other.

The first is an interview with Dr. Lars Schemikau, who argues that “green energy,” in some cases, consumes more energy than it produces.

The second is an article by Rian Chad Whitton, who demonstrates that although there has been enormous investment in expensive “renewable” energy infrastructure, less has been produced.

Approaching the topic from different aspects, both sources highlight how expensive and unproductive “renewable” or “green” energy is.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐟 “𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲” 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐬?

(more)