There was a time, not so very long ago, when the orthodoxy surrounding net zero and its costs went along the lines of admitting that it was expensive, but claiming that the costs were worth it, because not adopting net zero would end up costing us here in the UK even more. For instance, on 9th December 2020 (yes, as recently as that) the Guardian ran an article under the heading “Ending UK’s climate emissions ‘affordable’, say official advisers”. The key paragraph in the article was possibly this one:

The Climate Change Committee’s analysis found that the future cost savings from no longer having to buy oil and gas almost offsets the £50bn-a-year investment needed in low-carbon power, transport and home heating across the next three decades.

The Institute for Government said something similar, albeit at greater length:

In 2019, the CCC estimated that the total costs of getting to net zero would be £50bn per year, less than 1% of projected GDP over that period. The Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) put the figure at £70bn per year, or over £1 trillion by 2050. The economic analysis of net zero will undoubtedly change in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, however.

Models that attempt to calculate costs have a degree of uncertainty because the underlying economics are constantly shifting. One example is the changing price of offshore wind, whose cost fell by over 30% in 2019 alone, greatly exceeding expectations. This suggests that the UK could potentially accelerate moves to electrify other parts of the economy that have previously relied on energy from fossil fuels, such as surface transport and heating for homes and offices.

Net zero will also bring wider societal benefits, for instance to human health as a result of improved air quality and a better-protected natural environment [sic]. The CCC says these could [that weasel word] “partially or fully offset costs”, for instance by reducing hospital admissions, and enabling people to be more productive.

But that was then. More recently, the narrative has shifted, first of all by moving to a denial that net zero is costing us anything at all. Our new Prime Minister has recently (rather unwisely in my view, since I believe the position should have been given to someone with no skin in the game) appointed “green” Tory, Chris Skidmore MP, to lead a net zero review, and to look for the quickest ways to reach the emissions target.

At the same time, he has (in the words of the heading to another Guardian article begun a “‘net zero tour’ of UK to highlight benefits of action” and has urged Prime Minister Truss “to ignore ‘tiny vocal minority in Westminster’ arguing against climate target”.

Specifically:

He told the Guardian: “Environment and net zero should be bigger than party politics but I wanted to get out of Westminster to show that net zero is not a cost – it’s a benefit…industry isn’t listening to the tiny vocal minority in Westminster that is claiming that net zero is costing money, which is just wrong…”

Am I alone in finding it worrying that the person charged with reviewing net zero can believe and state that it isn’t costing money?

But wait, things have moved on, even since then. The BBC has breathlessly reported (unquestioningly, as is its wont in such cases – no fact-checkers or climate disinformation teams required for these stories) that “Switching to renewable energy could save trillions – study.” Specifically, the BBC report tells us:

Switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy could save the world as much as $12tn (£10.2tn) by 2050, an Oxford University study says.

The report said it was wrong and pessimistic to claim that moving quickly towards cleaner energy sources was expensive.

Gas prices have soared on mounting concerns over energy supplies.

But the researchers say that going green now makes economic sense because of the falling cost of renewables.

“Even if you’re a climate denier, you should be on board with what we’re advocating,” Prof Doyne Farmer from the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School told BBC News.

“Our central conclusion is that we should go full speed ahead with the green energy transition because it’s going to save us money,” he said.

I think the bandying about of words such as “[e]ven if you’re a climate denier…” tells us all we need to know about the mind-set and approach of the people behind the report. Criticisms I have seen of it so far vary, starting with dfhunter’s comment on another Cliscep article:

“Since our study is not intended to be comprehensive, but rather to focus on cost declines for key green technologies, we do not consider liquid biofuels, geothermal power, marine energy, traditional biomass, co-generation of heat, solar thermal energy, or CCS (our results are nevertheless robust to these modeling choices; see Experimental procedures).”

[G]ave up after that.

In an email to me, Jit wryly noted “I have wasted a lot of time reading the SI about that green miracle energy transition to try to find out where the idea that intermittent electricity + storage + grid stabilisers + far-flung grid extensions turns out to be cheaper than just burning gas (or generating electricity from nuclear).”

Andrew Montford has written a scathing attack on it for Net Zero Watch in which he says:

The methodology is, in essence, extremely crude: it involves extrapolating historic cost trends out along an expected curve (Wright’s law, apparently), while jazzing it up a little with what they call a stochastic methodology, which seems to just generate an uncertainty window. The latter details are, for the purposes of this post, largely irrelevant, however – it’s all gazing at tea-leaves in my opinion. What interested me was that they were generating predictions of future cost reductions from historic falling cost trends. As already noted, lots of people find no such cost reductions in windfarm accounts (and in fact, I have some limited data on solar, which tells a similar story)…

… It’s all to do with the way currency is handled. IRENA’s work is all demoninated in USD (and as a result, so is the Oxford Martin paper). But the problem of using a single currency is that the final cost figures will be affected by any currency fluctuations. And boy, have there been some big currency fluctuations in the last ten years. In particular, against the dollar, sterling has depreciated by 30%, the Euro by 25%, the Yen by nearly half, and the Brazilian Real by two thirds. When reporting in USD the costs of operators in any of these places, any reduction of less than these values represents an underlying increase in costs. Take the UK for example. According to IRENA, onshore wind costs fell from 0.086c/kWh in 2010 to 0.071c/kWh in 2019…

…But during that time, the exchange rate went from roughly 1.60 to 1.28, so in Sterling terms the equivalent figures are 5.3p and 5.5p – a small increase!…

…the Oxford Martin School guys have picked it up without understanding it, and have extrapolated what is, in essence a foreign exchange fluctuation out to 2050 and have concluded that renewables will save the world.

Experts, eh?

And, finally, Paul Homewood has made separate criticisms of the claims:

This typifies everything that is wrong with the BBC’s climate reporting. It fails to challenge the study’s allegations, instead accepting them as gospel.

The study’s conclusions are solely based on the assumption that the cost of renewable energy will continue to rapidly fall. This assumption derives from “probabilistic modelling”, AKA guesswork. There is not a shred of evidence this will happen, and indeed all of the evidence points to costs increasing, thanks to the debilitating shortage of raw materials needed.

Needless to say, given the very obvious and very real costs of net zero, combined with the problems of unreliability, unpredictability, and no ability (yet) to meet those problems by some such solution as mass battery storage systems, I remain highly sceptical of claims that have moved over time from acknowledging the costs (but claiming that they’re worth it) to denying the existence of the costs, to claiming that net zero will generate real savings.

What, then, are those costs? This is where it gets very tricky. Net zero has become embedded in every aspect of life in the public sector, and also features prominently across swathes of the private sector. More than that, as explained by John Ridgway in a comment on another Cliscep article about a £70 billion public sector procurement contract:

The £70 billion is only the tip of the iceberg. Say, for example, you are a major stationery supplier to a company in such a supply chain. The ruling will apply to you also if you want to safeguard your customer base. From the acorn that is the small group of suppliers to the government, grows an oak tree that harbours most of industry.

Those who are waiting to ambush the government by standing outside the office labelled ‘Legislation room’ will miss the fact that the action is all going on in the room next door labelled ‘Procurement’. By the time they realise their mistake, Net Zero has entrenched itself via a web of commercial contracts that cannot be unpicked.

Mention of a £70 billion public procurement contract gives an indication of the size of the task and the scale of the problem that is encountered in trying to work out the true costs of net zero within the UK. In truth, I don’t think it can be done. Any attempt will fall short, and will end up being an extremely conservative figure, a significant under-estimate. However, I have noticed that as I have written articles here, many of them have picked up on some aspect of net zero costs, whether within the article itself or within comments on the articles. What follows, then, is nothing more than an extraction and listing of those costs, together with a few (often very expensive) “odds and ends” that I have noticed along the way, but which are rarely if ever discussed in the mainstream media or among net zero enthusiasts. It is not, nor does it purport to be, a comprehensive list and itemisation of the costs associated with the net zero agenda in the UK

Insulation

First, since I’ve just read it, an article from the Guardian. This one’s about insulation (obviously they haven’t read Jit’s article, Insult Britain or mine, Insulate or Ventilate). We are told:

The primary way to reduce bills is to properly insulate people’s homes.

Of course, there’s an upfront cost. The government’s climate adviser, the Climate Change Committee, estimates that the total cost of upgrading UK homes will be £250bn.

Good, we’re up and running. The first cost is the cost of insulation. Since it’s an estimate by the CCC, I’m guessing it’s an under-estimate. Let’s stick with it, nevertheless. £250 billion.

Climate Change Committee

Speaking of the Climate Change Committee, quite apart from the costs associated with its various proposals, the Climate Change Committee itself has an annual budget. In the scheme of things, I suppose it’s relatively cheap, its accounts revealing annual expenditure of less than £5 million. It’s the cost of the policies it insists on, rather than the direct cost of the Committee itself, that is the problem.

Emissions Trading Scheme

I mentioned Andrew Montford above, with his critique of the claims regarding renewables saving the world trillions of pounds/dollars. His Twitter feed is always worth following. According to it:

[T]he UK Emissions Trading Scheme currently costs the average UK household around £370 per year.

When the green levies are discussed, this one is usually conveniently overlooked. On those numbers, it works out at about £10 billion p.a.

Smart meters

Smart meters – of dubious benefit (despite the Government’s tortuous attempts to justify them in cost/benefit analyses, albeit their true purpose – rationing etc. – becomes increasingly obvious as the energy crisis unfolds). In 2016, the UK government put the cost at £12.986 billion. By 2019 that cost estimate had grown to £15.9 – £16.3 billion. For simplicity, let’s call it £16 billion.

Recycling Fires

In Burning Issues I discussed the huge numbers of fires at recycling centres up and down the UK, year in, year out. There is a cost associated with those fires – damage to buildings, the cost of the emergency services being in attendance, possible smoke damage to the health of nearby residents. There is an argument that the cost of all those fires is perhaps an indirect cost of net zero, given the reluctance of the “green” lobby to accept waste-to-energy power plants as a part of the solution. However, it’s arguable, and I can’t find an annual cost figure, so I won’t include one. Rather, I mention it as one more elephant in the room that is usually ignored.

Net Zero in Scotland

In More Greenhouse Gassing I drew attention to a few areas that involve costs. First, there is the cost of the Scottish Just Transition Commissions. Rather than single out the Just Transition Commissions (past and present) and their budgets, instead I draw attention to just some of the costs relating to net zero that the BBC reported on some nine months ago when the Scottish Finance Secretary presented the Scottish government’s 2022-23 budget:

The Budget sets cash for the decarbonisation of homes and buildings, transport and industry.

the first £20 million of a 10-year £500 million Just Transition Fund for the North East and Moray [note – just the North East and Moray – more costs must be incurred for the rest of the country].

for energy efficiency, and low carbon and renewable heat.

Those are just some of the costs associated with the net zero project in Scotland, but they’re worth identifying, nevertheless.

Energy Entrepreneurs Fund

I also mentioned “the ninth round of the Energy Entrepreneurs Fund – £10m aimed at encouraging the development of green technologies that can help cut the UK’s reliance on expensive fossil fuels.” Small beer in the scheme of things, but lots and lots of relatively modest sums do add up collectively to some very big numbers.

Shipping & Shipbuilding

The National Shipbuilding Strategy also received a mention from me in that article, along with over £4 billion of government investment to galvanise and support shipyards and suppliers across the UK, with new measures including better access to finance, vital skills-building, and funding for crucial research and development into greener vessels and infrastructure.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy also announced £206 million to establish a UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions, or UK SHORE. This, it is claimed, is a world-leading initiative showcasing our climate leadership and commitment to decarbonising.

Homes, Offices, Heat Networks & Public Buildings

The Scottish Government has announced £16.2m in funding for five zero emission heat networks to cut carbon emissions in homes and commercial properties. I am not sure whether that is within, or in addition to, the sums mentioned above.

£54m heat network funding from BEIS is to be split between four heat networks in England.

The £288m Green Heat Network Fund – running until 2025 – will go towards low carbon technologies to help deliver clean heating to homes, and commercial and public buildings

VAT on energy-saving materials, such as heat pumps and roof insulation, will be cut from 5% to 0% for five years. No number is put on this, but the effective subsidy it involves will be substantial.

“Green” upgrades for public buildings – up to £635m of funding will be made available to public sector organisations so they can install low carbon heating and energy efficiency measures.

“Green” levies

In Energy Through The Looking Glass – Part Two I observed that you might conclude that “green” levies will cost us £13.8 billion this year alone – (renewables obligation at £6.6Bn; CfDs at £2.1Bn; capacity market at £600M; Feed-in Tariffs at £1.6Bn; Green gas levy – assuming it goes ahead – at £100M; renewable heat incentive at £1.1Bn; and climate change levy at £1.9Bn). Although many of those costs might ultimately be borne by households only indirectly (via costs passed on to them as consumers of businesses who pay some of the levies directly) that works out at around £500 per household per annum, not the £150 claimed by the Guardian. In addition, the OBR anticipates that they will rise to £17.5 billion by 2026/27. This is in addition to the annual £10 billion or so under the Emissions Trading Scheme, mentioned above.

National Grid

In that article I also reported on claims by the National Grid that it “is at the heart of that energy transformation – investing around £1.3bn each year to adapt and develop our transmission network to connect new sources of low carbon and green energy to our homes and businesses.” Also, that “National Grid reveals £54bn wind power network upgrade plan”.

Failed “green” retail energy companies

I pointed out that another 3% of domestic energy bills is due to the collapse of multiple energy suppliers last winter. The cost of managing the customers of these failed businesses is being passed on to households via their bills (specifically by increasing the standing charge). Of course, almost without exception, those energy suppliers claimed to supply “100% renewable electricity”. Note well also:

The National Audit Office estimates this will add £94 per household to annual bills, some £2.7bn overall. This excludes the cost of bailing out major supplier Bulb, which could reportedly reach £2bn.

Gas storage

I noted that the closure of the Rough gas storage facility has undoubtedly left the UK seriously exposed, and a Government that wasn’t obsessed with net zero might surely have had a bit more to say about it at the time. I don’t attribute any particular cost against this failure of net-zero obsessed politicians looking the wrong way, but a substantial cost is undoubtedly associated with this massive failure.

Hydro storage

I mentioned another project, “[s]lated as the first large-scale pumped hydro storage scheme to be built in the UK for more than 30 years, Utility Week Innovate digs into plans to deliver up to 1.5GW and 30GWh of storage by 2030 at Coire Glas.” This one is at a cost of £1 billion.

Replacing gas boilers with heat pumps

The move to replace gas boilers with air or ground source heat pumps will be extraordinarily costly. And that’s before considering that ongoing running costs will be higher. I took the opportunity to report on a Guardian article which admitted as much, telling us:

Don’t believe some of the quoted prices that have appeared in recent days, someone with a family-size three-bed house and larger can expect to pay £8,000-£15,000 in total to install a complete air source system, while fitting out a bigger home will cost more. Alongside the pump, that price will include a new hot water tank and labour. The final bill will depend on whether your existing radiators are large enough or need to be replaced. You are also advised to upgrade your home’s insulation at the same time, which could add considerably to the final bill, depending on your home’s construction. Fitting a ground source pump will cost much more – typically upwards of £15,000.

Let’s be generous, and go with a total cost of just £15,000 per home. With around 27 million households in the UK, that’s an extra cost in excess of £40 billion.

Hydrogen

One of the obsessions of the net zero brigade is the idea that hydrogen (at least if it’s “green” hydrogen) might be an answer to many of the problems associated with “decarbonising” the UK economy.

The Green Disconnect unearthed only some modest costs:

BEIS said £25m would be made available to test using hydrogen to cut greenhouse gas emissions from heat. The money will fund research into whether existing gas pipes can be used for hydrogen, and what impact having a hydrogen boiler would have for consumers. A further £10m is being invested in “smart heating”.

Hydrogen Boom examined some more of the issues with this, but not the costs. However, after I wrote it, some costs information came to light, and I added this information in some comments:

A wind farm is to become home to a state-of-the-art hydrogen storage facility which could eventually produce enough clean energy to help power the next generation of public transport.

The UK government has awarded the project, based at Whitelee Windfarm in East Renfrewshire, £9.4m.

It said the project would help Glasgow reach net zero by 2030.

And:

A hydrogen fuel project is set to be up and running in Dorset later this year after securing £6.5m of funding.

Dorset Green H2 is being built at White’s Pitt – a former landfill site off Magna Road in Poole.

It is being funded with £3m from Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)’s Growing Places Fund loan scheme, a £1.5m grant from Low Carbon Dorset, along with a £1.7m bank loan and equity funding from Canford Renewable Energy.

And:

Aberdeen’s fleet of hydrogen buses is gradually returning to service after being taken off the road more than two months ago due to a “technical issue”.

First Bus said in February that an issue had been identified with the 15 buses and the vehicles had been taken off service until the problem could be better understood.

Replacement buses were instead brought in.

The green and white-liveried buses, built by the Wrightbus company in Northern Ireland, cost £500,000 ($658,000, 555,000 euros) each.

The city hopes the £8.3 million project, part-funded by the Scottish Government and the European Union, will help to develop a hydrogen industry in the region as demand grows.

And:

Under the SGN/Wood plan, the rest of Scotland’s gas network could be converted to hydrogen only 15 years later than the Aberdeen target, in 2045. Wood throws in an extended pipeline network to gather in carbon dioxide from around the country for treatment and storage.

The total cost, at today’s prices: £11.6bn. Of that more than £3.4bn is in continued and expanded blue hydrogen generation, and £2.6bn would be required for the green variety, most of that for electrolysis.

Some £1.1bn would prepare the SGN pipeline network for hydrogen, while £500m would buy a gathering network for carbon.

A further £3.3bn would pay for conversion of appliances in homes and business premises.

Public Sector procurement

I have already mentioned Everything Net Zero. Don’t forget John Ridgway’s words which I quoted above, as to how the effects of procurement contracts trickle down to huge swathes of the private sector which contract with, and support, the public sector. Suffice it to say that this is a contract for just four years, to provide a “compliant procurement vehicle to access a range of products, services, solutions and support to achieve public sector ‘Net Zero’ strategies across the whole range of fields in education and the wider public sector.” And that its value over that four year period is £70 billion.

Blackout Avoidance

In Information Blackout I drew attention to the huge energy costs paid by the National Grid to the Belgians to keep the lights on in London in July:

National Grid paid £9,724 per megawatt hour, more than 5,000% than the typical price, to Belgium on Wednesday to prevent south-east London losing power.

The article led to a comment from Joe Public, pointing out that this was not an isolated incident:

I took some screen captures last year. There may have been other occasions in 2021 when similar then-record prices were offered/accepted:

8th Jan 2021 20:00-20:30 £4,000/MWh
1st Feb 2021 17:53 £4,000/MWh accepted by Langage Power Stn
15th Mar 2021 19:22 £4,000/MWh accepted by Drax5
9th Sept 2021 16:30 £3,999/MWh accepted by West Burton Unit 02
24th Nov 2021 14:30 £4,000/MWh accepted by Drax5
24th Nov 2021 14:00 £3,750/MWh accepted by Shoreham Power Station
24th Nov 2021 11:30 £3,250/MWh accepted by Connahs Quay 3

These absurd costs can’t readily be reduced to an annual figure, but they are the prices already being paid before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, thus giving the lie to the oft-repeated claim that it is that conflict which is primarily responsible for the UK’s expensive energy. They do, however, represent the increased costs of a net zero policy which, relying as it does on inherently unreliable renewable energy sources, leads to the National Grid increasingly paying crazy prices to generators (ironically, often of the fossil fuel variety) to ramp up their activities at short notice in order to avoid blackouts.

Re-wilding, offsetting, tree planting

When Green Goes Bad touched on the Law of Unintended Consequences. I cited yet another Guardian article (there seem to be lots of them pointing out the downsides to all this “green” stuff without ever making those at the Guardian begin to question it):

…the average price of land, according to research by the estate agent Strutt & Parker, jumped by 87% in the last year. Some estates have seen a 333% price increase since 2018…

…Part of the issue lies in offsets themselves. Many activists demand the UK reaches negative, not net zero, emissions – which will require significant domestic rewilding as well as huge financial flows to the global south.

No specific cost was attributed to this unintended consequence of the drive to net zero (or even negative!) greenhouse gas emissions, but a significant cost there clearly is. And other aspects of this part of the story do come with firm price tags attached:

The Scottish Government aims to plant 18,000 hectares of trees a year by 2025 and forestry grants totalling around £72m will have to be handed out to wealthy landowners every year to ensure this happens.

The Forestry Grants Scheme has already awarded grants totalling £172m since it was set up in 2015. Ministers have also set aside £250m for grants aimed at restoring 250,000 hectares of degraded peat by 2030…

“Green” building regulations

After that article was written, I spotted yet another negative story in the Guardian, and I made reference to it in a comment:

Net-zero rules set to send cost of new homes and extensions soaring.

New building regulations aimed at improving energy efficiency are set to increase the price of new homes, as well as those of extensions and loft conversions on existing ones.

The rules, which came into effect on Wednesday in England, are part of government plans to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. They set new standards for ventilation, energy efficiency and heating, and state that new residential buildings must have charging points for electric vehicles.

The moves are the most significant change to building regulations in years, and industry experts say they will inevitably lead to higher prices at a time when a shortage of materials and high labour costs is already driving up bills.

Brian Berry, chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders, a trade group for small and medium-sized builders, says the measures will require new materials, testing methods, products and systems to be installed. “All this comes at an increased cost during a time when prices are already sky high. Inevitably, consumers will have to pay more,” he says.

Gareth Belsham, of surveyors Naismiths, says people who are upgrading, or extending their home, will be directly affected.

“The biggest changes relate to heating and insulation,” he says. “There are new rules concerning the amount of glazing used in extensions, and any new windows or doors must be highly insulated.”

The changes could mean an extra £3,000 added to the bill of an average home extension, according to Jonathan Rolande of the National Association of Property Buyers, a group of professionals aimed at raising construction standards.

Once again, it’s impossible to attach a firm price tag to this net zero policy, but a very real cost there is yet again to the long-suffering British public.

“Green” Quangos

How Many Acronyms Does it Take To Save The Planet concentrated on various Quangos and their not insignificant budgets associated with the net zero project. UK Research Partnership Investment Fund(UKRPIF) is a taxpayer-funded body, with a budget of £900 million awarded to 53 projects across six rounds since 2012. As I pointed out, it is underpinned by nine Councils who work to distribute those funds, and much of it goes on net zero projects. In a comment on the article I also mentioned something I spotted shortly afterwards on the website of my local newspaper: “Applications for Powering our Communities £75,000 fund now being accepted”. Here’s an extract from the website article:

One of the projects that have benefitted from the ‘Powering our Communities’ [POC] fund in Cumbria is ‘Farming Futures’ [FF] by Agrivoltaics, Cumbria Farmer Network [CFN] and Cumbria Action for Sustainability [CAS], which sought to investigate the demand for, and viability of, on-farm renewables in Fellfoot and unlock barriers to implementation.

Cumbria Action for Sustainability also had another project that received such funding last year, called ‘Accelerating Community Solar’ [ACS], which will extend their solar projects to new communities across Cumbria, focusing on Keswick and the Duddon Valley to increase the amount of community-owned solar power across the county.

There are hundreds if not thousands of projects like this up and down the country. Individually they cost relatively modest amounts of money, but collectively they add up to some very big numbers indeed.

“Green” NGOs, Government Grants & Climate Litigation

Biting The Hand That Feeds You was an attempt to highlight the nonsensical situation whereby the UK government regularly funds charities and NGOs which then turn round and sue the Government for “not doing enough” about the net zero agenda. ClientEarth is one such organisation, and as I observed, Note 7 to its accounts for the year ended 31st December 2020 shows the Department for International Development (DfID) to be among its top 10 donors, to the tune (that year) of £1,078,401. It is only one of many.

Balancing the Energy System

In Greenhouse Gassing I mentioned some discussion points in one of the numerous conferences associated with net zero: Next steps for energy storage in the UK -“expanding capacity – system flexibility, the role of small- and large-scale storage …”

That led to a very insightful comment by Joe Public once again (thanks, Joe):

The Briefing Note by Dr Keith MacLean of Providence Policy and Grant Wilson and Noah Godfrey of the Energy Informatics Group, Birmingham “NET ZERO -KEEPING THE ENERGY SYSTEM BALANCED” informs in its Executive Summary:

“What looks like an optimal energy mix based solely on levelised costs of energy production could look very different to one based on minimising total system cost. For example, replacing the current daily gas balancing capability of up to 3-4TWh with batteries would cost over £1trillion…”

Yes, that’s right – £1 trillion is the estimated cost of replacing daily gas balancing capability on the National Grid with batteries (even assuming such technology is available). This would not be necessary were it not for the net zero objective of replacing all fossil fuel power generation with renewable energy systems instead.

Greenhouse Gas Removal

In a further comment on the article, I noted one aspect of yet another conference:

Greenhouse Gas Removals: Summary of Reponses to the Call for Evidence – published by BEIS and HM Treasury and concluding that without engineered GGRs, 2050 net-zero targets will not be met “. So net zero is pie in the sky.

Strategic Priorities Fund Wave 2 Greenhouse Gas Removal Programme – UKRI will invest £31.5m in land-based GGR demonstrator projects.

Green Heat Network Fund

And in another comment about another conference:

Green Heat Network Fund – running until 2025, the £288m grant fund will go towards low carbon technologies to help deliver clean heating to homes, commercial and public buildings.

Remote Renewables, Transmission Costs & Constraints Payments

Putting The Cart Before The Horse looked at the costs associated with building windfarms in locations before adequate transmission mechanisms to energy users were in place. I think a couple of quotes stand out:

So bad is the situation, that only now is SSEN Transmission, together with National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET), submitting a Final Needs Case to the regulator, Ofgem, with a view to approval for the proposed £2.1Bn joint venture for an “initial 2GW link [which] will run from Peterhead in north east Scotland to Yorkshire (Drax)…

And:

The link is essential to alleviate constraints on the GB transmission system, enable growth in renewables and support the transition to net zero emissions…For every year this link is not in place, hundreds of millions of pounds of GB consumers money is paid out in constraint payments to electricity generators unable to export to the grid.

Constraints payments, of course, are another significant cost of net zero that is never mentioned by those who favour it. As we add more and more renewable energy it increasingly destabilises the National Grid, with the result that in times of over-production, renewables operators are being paid more and more to switch off and generate nothing. I believe they cost us £181 million in June 2022 alone. That might be a particularly bad month, and not typical, so let’s call it £1 billion p.a. (while noting that as more windfarms are added, that figure will only increase). For those interested, the Renewable Energy Foundation has interesting webpages here and here about this serious (but little discussed) issue.

Scotland’s Zero Emissions buildings

Scotland The Grave discussed some of the ironies and problems relating to the Scottish Government’s determination to drive that country off a cliff five years ahead of the rest of the UK. This was probably the main point:

All buildings are to be converted to “zero emissions” by 2045 at a total cost of £33 billion. However, the SNP-Green coalition has so far announced only £1.8 billion of support, raising fears that homeowners and businesses will have to meet the vast bulk of the cost.

Electric Vehicles

In The Big Bright Green Money Machine I looked at some of the financial largesse on the part of the UK government when it comes to trying to electrify traffic on our roads. Money here, there and everywhere, it seems.

The Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) is a team working across government to support the early market for ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEV). We are providing over £900 million to position the UK at the global forefront of ULEV development, manufacture and use.

In November 2017, £38 million was awarded to 27 projects involving 66 organisations addressing a range of technical areas from cell materials to pack integration, to battery management systems and recycling.

In June 2018, a further £22 million was awarded to 12 projects involving 40 organisations focusing on developments in solid-state batteries, understanding battery safety and advanced battery management systems.

A third round of funding will see up to £25 million awarded to collaborative research and development projects and feasibility studies.

The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution involves spending £1Bn to support the electrification of UK vehicles and their supply chains, including the development and mass-scale production of electric vehicle batteries and other technologies; £1.3Bn to accelerate the rollout of charging infrastructure, targeting support for rapid charge points on motorways and major roads; and £582M to extend the plug-in car, van, taxi, and motorcycle grants to 2022–23.

Then there’s the Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener funding – £620m for zero emission vehicle grants and EV infrastructure and £350m to support the electrification of UK vehicles and their supply chains.

What happens when the electricity goes off?

Capability Down looked at the aftermath of Storm Arwen on those poor benighted people whose electricity supply was cut off for days when the storm hit. It doesn’t look at financial costs, but rather the practical cost of relying entirely on a wholly electrified modern economy when things go wrong. I reproduce here some words I copied in a comment, from an article (headed “Net Zero Chance of Coping with Storms”) in the Conservative Woman.

…Consider this: after days without an electricity supply, many in the North East were still able to charge mobile phones in their cars, enabling them to call friends or authorities for help. They could still get to the shops to buy food, or even move in with friends and relatives who still had power.

How will this work in a net zero world? Would your electric car battery have any charge when you woke up the morning after the storm? If the power cut was in the evening, then almost certainly not – most people will schedule EV charging for the middle of the night, when power is cheapest (and indeed off-peak charging may soon be compulsory). Moreover, ahead of a major storm, grid managers are likely to switch off all EV chargers remotely. If they didn’t, the demand from millions of people worried about the possibility of power cuts, and all trying to top up their batteries at the same time, would bring down the grid.

So, after a future Storm Arwen, tens of thousands of people would wake up to find themselves stuck: no getting food or medicine from the shops, no escape to friends and relatives, no visits to emergency relief centres. Through policy foolishness, an entirely natural winter storm could become a manmade disaster….

COP26

The Party’s Over sought to analyse the failure in its own terms of COP 26. Of course, this took place in Glasgow under the leadership of UK officials, a ridiculous piece of posturing on the world stage, driven by devotion to “leading the way” to net zero. It was completely unnecessary for the bill for this international greenhouse gas spewing jamboree to be paid for by the British taxpayer, but it was. Even the BBC (which was a breathless cheerleader for COP26 for months in advance of it taking place) admitted that “COP26: Climate summit may cost ‘several hundred million pounds’”. Let’s be conservative and call it £200 million.

The National Health Service

I looked at this in An Unhealthy Obsession, albeit not with a view to assessing the costs associated with the NHS’ commitment to beat the rest of the UK to achieving net zero (those who run it are so very concerned about its approximately 5% contribution to the UK’s greenhouse gases). To be blunt, it is impossible to establish the cost of this move, though I think it’s safe to assume that it will run into hundreds of billions of pounds. The landmark glossy brochure “Delivering a ‘Net Zero’ National Health Service” which runs to over 70 pages, doesn’t bother to discuss the cost (a search reveals that the words “cost” and “costs” appear only three times in the entire document. It does discuss some substantial investments (costing £billions) across the physical estate, and makes some heroic assumptions about payback periods.

I did allude in the article to various on-costs (albeit without establishing exactly what those costs will be), such as the NHS Net Zero Plan; the Scottish Government’s lead for the NHS Climate Emergency Response; plans to replace gas boilers with solar panels and heat pumps etc. Comments (from myself and others) mentioned “NHS Scotland climate emergency and sustainability strategy 2022 to 2026 – draft: consultation”; “the NHS already spends £50m on “carbon permits””; “Dozens of staff at an ambulance trust claim they cannot drive its £54m fleet of new vehicles due to their height or body shape” (the fleet was bought to be lighter in order to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions); and job adverts for posts such as “Senior Net Zero Leadership and Workforce Development” (I imagine every NHS trust must have at least one) on a salary of up to £75,874 p.a. In that case “the post holder will be responsible for significantly contributing to the delivery of its ambitious and far reaching Greener NHS Programme of Work”.

The leakage of funds abroad

Where Power Lies took a brief look at the ownership of much of the UK’s renewable energy projects. Overwhelmingly they are foreign-owned. My object was simply to establish the extent to which UK taxpayers and energy users are sending money abroad, thus depleting the country’s already wretched balance of payments. The article elicited some helpful comments, from Joe Public (thanks again Joe) and Cliscep’s own Jit. First Joe:

Beatrice: Year ended 31st March 2020: 75% of revenue was from harvesting subsidies (£281.3m from CfDs), and only 25% (£91.2m) from generating electricity.

Sheringham Shoal: 2015: 70% of revenue was from harvesting subsidies (£98.2m from ROCs), and only 30% (£40.6m) from generating electricity.

And Jit:

Joe, I think I can trump you there with Dudgeon’s latest accounting: £242 million from CfDs and £51 million from selling leccy.

As so often, all this is very opaque, and short of sifting through the accounts of every foreign company that is hoovering up subsidies, it’s simply impossible to know how much money is leaching abroad in this year. However, it’s safe to say that it’s in the billions (possibly tens of billions) of pounds every year.

Red Tape and Bureaucracy

Green Laws Galore and Green Law, Red Tape looked at the stultifying effect of “green” legislation and edicts. This article is already long enough, so this is not the place to go into detail, save to note that red tape and bureaucracy is probably damaging business in the UK. In a comment against the latter article, Ron Clutz (thanks Ron) makes some excellent points in this regard, for anyone who is interested in pursuing this line of thought further.

Exporting Emissions, Exporting Jobs

Where Did All The Green Jobs Go? looked at the claims about “green” jobs that are repeatedly parroted by those pushing the net zero agenda, and found that they were distinctly lacking. I can do no better than repeat a quote I adopted then, from Magnus Linklater, writing in the Times:

On jobs, for instance, what is the prediction? Once we were told by the SNP there would be 130,000 green jobs by 2020. In fact, as Sir Keir Starmer inconveniently pointed out on his recent trip to Scotland, there are fewer direct jobs in the industry now than in 2014, with less than a fifth of the projected total delivered. Once a wind farm is created it is not a big employer. Even the construction period has limited potential. There is no major UK-based manufacturer of wind turbines, and much of the work is farmed out to cheaper plants in southeast Asia. Most of the big offshore projects are foreign-owned, such as the giant Neart na Gaoithe site off the Fife coast, owned and run by EDF Renewables, a wholly owned subsidiary of a Paris-based group.

It is idle to pretend that jobs lost in the North Sea oil and gas industry will soon be made up by employment in renewables.

Net zero doesn’t create jobs – it destroys them.

Interconnectors

20,000 Volts Under The Sea looked at the problems (logistical, ecological and financial) associated with HDVC cables running under the sea to connect remote wind farms with the UK mainland. The article was mostly concerned with the failures of, and problems relating to, such cables. However, some definite costs were established:

The failure of the high voltage undersea cable between west Scotland and north Wales last month resulted in National Grid ESO paying almost £31m for wind farm operators to curtail output.

Following the latest outage, Ofgem has opened a probe into the £1.3 billion Western HVDC connector, which links Highland wind farms via Hunterston to North Wales.

Between Jan. 1 and Feb. 15 National Grid reported daily average constraint costs of GBP0.5 million/day. This rose to GBP6.1 million/day from Feb. 16 to Feb. 25, before wind generation dropped.

Orkney – Pentland East cable:

This cable was replaced in late 2020 and the announcement of the completion of the work was welcomed with much publicity from SSE and others. However about 2 months later it was very quietly announced that the new £30 million cable had unexpectedly failed.

In April this year, Danish wind farm operator Orsted said it had put aside £350 million to repair or replace cables within its wind farms that had been damaged due to interaction with the sea floor.

And I added comments when further information came to light:

SSEN Transmission submitted its initial costs for delivering the Shetland Link to Ofgem in November 2020, amounting to £657.8m. As discussed and agreed with us, it provided further updates to those costs in May and August 2021, bringing the costs to £675.4m.

£28MILLION PROJECT TO REPLACE SKYE TO HARRIS SUBSEA CABLE COMPLETE

“North Sea Link (NSL) is also a great example of two countries working together to maximise their renewable energy resources for mutual benefit.”

National Grid said the €1.6bn (£1.37bn) joint venture with Norwegian power operator Statnett would help the UK reduce carbon emissions by 23 million tonnes by 2030.

£3.4bn undersea electricity superhighway between Scotland and north England moves forward.

Local Authorities

The Great British Turn Off was a meandering article in some ways, but it did hit on the fact that local authorities, as well as spending vast amounts of money in trying to turn declarations of climate emergencies into some sort of meaningful effort, are also funding various NGOs and charities who proselytise about climate change and net zero. I identified that Cumbria Action for Sustainability was funded by:

…grants from South Lakeland District Council, Lake District National Park, Eden District Council, Cumbria County Council, Cumbria Council for Voluntary Service (itself a registered charity), Historic England, Innovate UK (which, according to my friend Wikipedia, is “the United Kingdom’s innovation agency, a non-departmental public body operating at arm’s length from the Government as part of the United Kingdom Research and Innovation organisation), Electricity North West…and NHS North Cumbria Clinical Commissioning Group.

Note the NHS throwing grant money around too.

The National Lottery is also very generous with the public’s money:

On behalf of the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, Cumbria Action for Sustainability (CAfS) was awarded £2.5 million from the National Lottery’s Climate Action Fund for a five-year Zero Carbon Cumbria project.

Goodness knows what all the Councils spend on their climate change officers and initiatives, and grants to organisations such as this also add up. But as to what they add up to, it is impossible to say. An awful lot of money, no doubt.

Environmental Degradation

For Peat’s Sake was something of a case study, looking at the damage being caused by the Viking Energy Wind Farm to the beautiful, pristine, and environmentally precious landscape of Shetland. While the situation in Shetland is particularly egregious, it is being replicated all over the UK, but especially in Scotland. Although this article is about the financial costs of net zero, you can’t put a price on environmental damage. Some things are just too precious – and net zero is wrecking them.

Conclusions

1. The cost of net zero is running completely and utterly out of control.

2. It seems unlikely that anybody (least of all those in charge of the project) has a realistic handle on what all this is costing.

3. The British public hasn’t a clue how much money this is all costing. If they did, I strongly suspect net zero would be given the elbow very quickly.

4. The above costs may occasionally overlap, and to that extent be an exaggeration. On the other hand, the costs I have itemised are merely those that I have noticed, and in many cases I have identified that there is a cost, but have been unable to put a figure on them, and such costs are therefore not included in the final total. In addition, I strongly suspect that I have missed a great many (therefore please feel free to add examples in comments below the line). Anyway, multiplying the annual costs by roughly 30 (to give a run-out to the Nirvana net zero date of 2050 – south of the border, anyway) and adding them all up, it comes to £2.326 trillion. That’s around £86,150 per UK household. It’s probably an under-estimate, by dint of not being a comprehensive catalogue, and by virtue of the fact that these things almost always cost more than politicians and “experts” predict. If pushed, my suspicion is that net zero (if allowed to run to its conclusion) will end up costing the UK £3 trillion, or roughly £110,000 per household.

5. There are other indirect financial costs (such as money leaching abroad to foreign energy companies) and non-financial costs (such as the destabilisation of the National Grid, making the UK insecure in terms of its energy supply, and further insecure by virtue of reducing the diversity of energy sources). It destroys (or exports) jobs. And renewable energy sources such as wind and solar cause massive damage to the environment.

252 Comments

  1. I would have thought that the most obvious conclusion is that net zero cannot happen if the financial costs are anything like those you compute. At an averaged cost of £86,150 per household there is no way all but the very richest amongst us could afford to pay this and for what visible benefit? Already almost a third of the British population are suggested to be in imminent fuel poverty. We may face a difficult winter during which pie in the sky net zero will be seen as a wicked fantasy.

    Like

  2. Mark, I have not got to the bottom of the Way et al paper, whose title is “Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition,” but I think I’ll just call it “Trillions.”

    My reading of parts of the SI of Trillions did find a few potential problems. Looking to find how much they were predicting offshore wind to cost, I found that they had simply lumped offshore and onshore together. This is obviously a vast mistake because offshore is more productive and more expensive than onshore. And it is likely to get no cheaper as the newer farms will be located further and further offshore, raising construction and maintenance costs.

    Their current price point is supposedly $41/MWh for all wind. How does that compare with the reality? I’ve doctored one of Trillions’ figures (S33) below based on my earlier delving into Dudgeon’s 2020 accounts.

    While the amount actually paid for the leccy in 2020 was close to the Way et al figure, the amount the public were paying in total was nearly 6 times as high.

    Their approach to storage appears to be hydrogen, which is rational in one sense – as we know, there will be times when the electricity generated by wind etc exceeds demand. Unfortunately the electrolysis, storage and distribution of the hydrogen appears to be a little speculative.(That some electrolyzers can be used as fuel cells does not mean this can be widely adopted at scale, for instance.) The conversion of gas turbines to burning H2 is considered “free.” And I seem to remember that the hydrogen that leaks from pipes and storage etc will cause trouble in the ozone layer – another unintended consequence.

    Our friend Manhattan Contrarian has an analysis too: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-9-16-cost-of-the-green-energy-transition-who-you-gonna-believe-me-or-your-lyin-eyes

    ==

    Thanks for this epic compendium of Net Zero costs.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Jit, thanks for the link to Francis Menton’s latest at Manhattan Contrarian. I’ve been across and had a look, and I would encourage everyone to read it – it’s excellent stuff. The claim that piling on with renewables will save trillions is stuff and nonsense, IMO.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Mark,

    Just to place my comment that you quoted in its proper context, the problem is one of back-to-back contractual requirements that are seeded into the supply chain by the ultimate customer, i.e. the government. I explained it thus:

    “Getting back to the Everything Net Zero framework, the due diligence will be centred around ensuring that the whole supply chain commits to net zero targets. It’s a very effective way for governments to impose their will upon industry. No legislation is required, simply contractually binding conditions that are passed down the supply chain. In my day, it went no further than being required to have ISO 14001 certification… Now it involves the whole ESG circus.”

    The ESG circus is a very expensive form of entertainment involving much additional bureaucracy, the costs of which are, no doubt, overlooked by the likes of Oxford University.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Hello Mark,

    Your estimate of £3 trillion as the total cost to the UK for Net Zero is similar to that of Andrew Montford at GWPF:-

    Click to access NetZero-Costsheet.pdf

    Note, however, Montford indicates that McKinsey has estimated the cost to be much higher.

    You have clearly stated the uncertainty in the various cost estimates thus:-
    “1. The cost of net zero is running completely and utterly out of control.
    2. It seems unlikely that anybody (least of all those in charge of the project) has a realistic handle on what all this is costing.”

    You have also nicely summarised what we get for our money, “There are other indirect financial costs (such as money leaching abroad to foreign energy companies) and non-financial costs (such as the destabilisation of the National Grid, making the UK insecure in terms of its energy supply, and further insecure by virtue of reducing the diversity of energy sources). It destroys (or exports) jobs. And renewable energy sources such as wind and solar cause massive damage to the environment.”

    We are, indeed, in a deep hole (of unspecified depth!) largely of our various green zealots’ own making.

    Regards,
    John.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. John R, thank you for the amplification of the point. I should perhaps have pursued it further within the article, but I was conscious that it was already exceptionally long.

    John C, thank you for the praise. I had spotted that Andrew Montford also arrived at a figure of £3 trillion, but only after I had arrived at that figure, and then it was because I spotted a tweet in which he claimed it’s costing us £100 billion p.a. (which I assume gets us to £3 trillion, over an approximately 30 year timeline).

    Meanwhile, the FT is reporting on massive net zero costs, I believe, though since it’s behind a paywall, this will have to suffice:

    “Investment of $1tn a year needed for 2030 climate goals, report finds”

    https://todayuknews.com/economy/investment-of-1tn-a-year-needed-for-2030-climate-goals-report-finds/

    Annual investments of about $1tn in renewable power and up to $130bn in hydrogen by 2030 are needed to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change, a landmark report on behalf of 45 world leaders concludes.

    The report calculated the world would need to add four times the amount of renewable energy that was deployed in 2021 every year by 2030, and drastically scale up hydrogen production to reach net zero emissions and stem global warming from burning fossil fuels.

    Up to 8TW of additional renewable capacity will be required by 2030, from about 3TW last year, according to the research jointly published by the International Energy Agency, the International Renewable Energy Agency and the UN, ahead of the COP27 climate summit in November.

    The supply of “renewable” and “low carbon” hydrogen, the latter using carbon capture technology to trap emissions, would also need to increase to about 150 Mt by 2030 — implying a doubling each year from 2023.

    The paper was commissioned by the 45 governments making up 70 per cent of the global economy that signed a commitment, dubbed the “breakthrough agenda” at the UN climate summit, to make clean technologies affordable and accessible by 2030. They include the US, the EU bloc countries, Australia, Egypt and Nigeria.

    The findings were focused on the five key areas of power, road transport, steel, hydrogen and agriculture, that together account for more than 50 per cent of current global emissions.

    Recommendations for how to reach the goals included the negotiation of international standards for “low-carbon” hydrogen, higher minimum energy performance standards for energy-intensive appliances, and common target dates by which all new road vehicles must be zero emission….</blockquote?

    Like

  8. I hesitate to say this because it will probably just expose my extreme naiveté on this subject, but isn’t this all just about money changing hands? When it is the price of oil and gas, it is referred to as a cost to the economy and when it is the price of creating a renewables industry it is called an investment that stimulates the economy. But in both cases, there are those who pay and those who receive. I doubt if China will be fussed one way or the other because it looks like win-win for them. Our ‘investment’ in net zero stimulates China’s economy so that they can better afford the fossil fuel costs. Or am I just being stupid?

    I’ll get my coat.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Do not need so much.

    Lets put t like this. Net zero might mean the end of life as we know it.
    Carbon is in balance. Carbon in equals carbon out. Best estimates has man part at 28% so
    Carbon(nature in) + 28 (mans part) = Carbon out. If you make mans part 0 then you get this (remove 28 from both sides) Carbon (nature in ) – 28 (net zero) + 28 (mans part) = Carbon out – 28 (net zero)

    now instead of balance, we have a deficit. Plants need carbon to make oxygen. So less plants and less oxgyen. So less life. and unless you see some way to get back to balance then the deficit just gets worse and worse until no people and nothing using the oxygen and making carbon. Yes decay will provide carbon but as it no being replaced with time this will become a lifeless planet. That is where net zero will take us. the end of life on this planet!

    Like

  10. The most depressing part of this as far as I am concerned is that everything now takes for granted that we MUST be moving towards Net Zero. So at my lowly level of community politics I see a constant stram of stuff from our Council following this mantra. Latest example yet another fund open to bodies such as ours for various objectives, but one criteria to be met is “climate change/ Net Zero”. so any grant application will now probably pay lip service to the concept. It means that most ordinary people simply assume it must be right…
    At the same time my CC is dealing with three monstrous wind farm applications, which of course all stress the need for immediate approval to fight “climate change”. Naturally we get no financial help to attempt to assess the huge environmnetal impacts — on the other hand the EIAs inevitably cant hide all the consequences, so after 10 years of dealing with them, my responses almost write themselves… whether the Scottish government Reporter will any attention to my spiel is another question.
    And to be fair our Council, Scottish Borders is so overwhelmed with renewable applications they can barely cope. And the Scottish government has decreed that most of the s30 applications stay with the Energy Consents Unit, and dont go to the coucils, who do all the work assessing the applications. So they cant afford to recruit more staff.
    So is a juggernaut rolling inexorably along. But terrific to see you listing all the costs, which is even wrose than I imagined. I will try to use some of it at some point. A short summary (but thats hardly possible of course) would be very useful. I do use stuff from GWPF and REF (constraint payments for instance) quite regularly

    Like

  11. Heriotjohn,

    Sorry you were trapped in spam for a while. I have done a lot of hill-walking in the Scottish Borders, so you have my profound sympathy. The trashing by wind farms of that beautiful landscape is utterly disgraceful.

    Like

  12. “Ground heat pumps for Stithians homes in £6.2m project”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-63012174

    Work has started on a multimillion-pound project to fit homes in Cornwall with ground-source heat pumps that have been made in the county.

    About 250 homes are to benefit from the £6.2m project, with pumps being first installed in the village of Stithians, where many rely on heating oil.

    The pumps cost about £20,000 each, but the project by manufacturer Kensa is being paid for by European funding…

    That works out at just under £25,000 per home. Assuming (and it may well not be a fair assumption, but who knows?) that this turns out to be the average cost for converting the c. 27M UK homes, that would work out at £675 Bn.

    Like

  13. Why I still can’t return to the Labour fold:

    “Labour conference: Sir Keir Starmer backs net zero electricity to boost growth”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63023277

    Labour has set out plans to make the UK the first major economy in the world to generate all of its electricity without using fossil fuels.

    Sir Keir Starmer says achieving zero carbon energy by 2030 will be a key priority if he wins the next election.

    Labour is unveiling plans on green energy and policing as the annual party conference gets under way in Liverpool on Sunday….

    …Sir Keir, who will make his keynote speech to conference on Tuesday, is kicking off the week with a promise to turn the UK into a clean energy “superpower”.

    Labour says it will work with business to more than quadruple offshore wind power, triple solar, and double onshore wind by the end of this decade, while backing nuclear, hydrogen, and tidal power.

    “Our plan for clean power by 2030 will save the British people £93bn off their energy bills and break the UK’s vulnerability to Putin and his cronies,” said Sir Keir.

    “It will also support our drive for higher growth and rising living standards.”

    Labour claim their plan would also “reindustrialise” the UK, by creating more than 200,000 direct jobs and up to 260,000 to 300,000 indirect jobs….

    Good grief, and there was I thinking that Kwarteng has just demonstrated that he’s economically illiterate! Now Starmer goes and creates the same impression (except in his case it extends to a lack of comprehension as to how the energy system works).

    Is there anyone I can vote for? Is there anyone in politics who has any comprehension at all about how economics and energy systems work?

    …Labour has already unveiled plans to spend £28bn a year on making the UK economy more green.

    But the party believes it can win votes by promoting green energy as a way to generate economic growth, in contrast to Tory tax cuts for the well-off….

    Like

  14. Like

  15. The next general election won’t take place until summer 2024, in all probability. Six years to implement? I don’t think so.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. “Energy efficiency plan to help England’s low-income homes”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63069445

    Low-income homes in England are to have their energy efficiency improved under a £1.5bn government plan that will also address poor insulation.

    The funding is being made available to local authorities and social housing providers with the aim of upgrading 130,000 homes.

    Wall and loft insulation, double glazing, heat pumps and solar panels are all measures that could be funded.

    The UK currently has some of least energy efficient homes in Europe.

    The £1.5bn will come from £6.6bn that was announced in 2021 as part of the government’s Heat and Building Strategy.

    “By making homes warmer and cheaper to live in, we are not only transforming the lives of households across England,” said Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg in a statement.

    “We are creating huge growth in the economy, backing the green energy sector and supporting thousands of high-skilled jobs.”

    The government says the upgrades will help households save between £400 and £700 a year on their energy bills at current prices. Local authorities and registered social housing providers will bid for the money with the projects being delivered from early 2023 to March 2025.

    That works out at a bit over £11,500 per property. Scaled up for all 27 million households, that works out at over £310 billion. The estimate of savings is a bit broad, but let’s go for the mid-point and call it an average of £550 p.a. That’s about a 21 year pay-back. I’ve seen worse, but it’s not exactly a brilliant investment. And even then it depends on the estimates being accurate and on the project coming in on budget (they often don’t).

    Liked by 1 person

  17. “The UK currently has some of least energy efficient homes in Europe”

    have heard that repeated a few times now, but can’t find a link that backs it up.

    anyway, thought it was getting warmer, so why spent money when outside temps are set to rise !!!

    Like

  18. First I’ve heard of this: Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, or GFANZ
    From the Toronto Globe and Mail (paywalled). A bit of pushback on Net Zero. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-mark-carney-gfanz-banks/

    Canada’s big banks are growing uncomfortable about legal and governance risks stemming from their membership in a Mark Carney-led group of global financial institutions that has pledged to cut carbon emissions in line with the Paris Agreement.

    The banks’ qualms about the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, or GFANZ, are coming to light as some of their U.S. counterparts consider leaving the organization over fears they could face legal action stemming from antitrust concerns if they are required to divest from some high-emitting sectors in the imperative to decarbonize.

    JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America have signalled they could quit, according to reporting by the Financial Times and Bloomberg, which would deal a serious blow to the group’s credibility.

    Senior officials at Canada’s six largest banks also recently expressed misgivings about legal risks tied to their GFANZ membership. The banks were latecomers to the alliance in 2021, agreeing to sign on only after months of discussions to gain assurances they would not have to abruptly abandon high-emitting industries that make up a large portion of Canadian exports, including oil and gas and mining.

    One concern among financial institutions about membership in GFANZ is that its guiding criteria are set out by Race to Zero, a United Nations-sponsored climate campaign for entities below national government level. It has set targets for reducing emissions that suggest a need to eventually pull financing from fossil-fuel producers, said one of the banking sources and one senior official in Canada’s finance industry.

    Canada’s big banks have all taken the stance that they will help oil and gas clients with decarbonization efforts rather than halt financing to them. Tensions flared this month in response to an update the Race to Zero initiative, which sets the criteria for emissions cuts, published in mid-June. The updated text had more explicit requirements to “phase down and out” development and financing of new fossil fuel assets, and ban new coal projects.

    The Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), the GFANZ subsidiary to which the banks signed onto last year, also updated a set of frequently asked questions in August. The seemingly innocuous, 10-page FAQ document is important because it gave Canadian banks’ lawyers comfort when the banks signed on, serving as a reference explaining their obligations in detail.

    In a narrow sense, the banks worried that Race to Zero was moving the yardsticks without consulting NZBA members.

    Lawyers for the banks were concerned about potential legal exposure if environmental groups or regulators sought to hold companies responsible for UN criteria that appeared to be getting tougher without warning.

    Like

  19. potentilla, interesting info, thanks.

    Speaking of Mark Carney, while I agree with his comments yesterday to the effect that the UK government’s fiscal policies are undermining the Bank of England’s policies, my response is that it makes a change from the Bank of England (under Carney’s leadership) undermining our financial institutions and energy security with his net zero obsession, a matter that is – or IMO should be – completely outwith the BoE’s remit.

    Like

  20. I think we know where Mark Carney’s views/opinions are coming from – Mar 26, 2013 –
    “New Bank of England Governor Mark Carney’s wife: an eco-warrior who says banks are rotten,” screamed a headline in The Telegraph shortly after Mr. Carney was named to Britain’s highest bank last November.
    Diana Fox Carney was born in Britain to a wealthy pig farming family and was educated as an economist at Oxford, where she met Mr. Carney.
    Apart from her work at Canada 2020, she runs a website called ‘Eco Products that Work,’ which encourages people to switch to environmentally friendly products whenever possible.
    “I am a multi-tasking mother of four: I combine working on federal government policy issues with raising my children and running a busy household,” she writes on the site.”

    National Post”

    Like

  21. Been watching the grid production figures while we are having this windy spell, the range of power produced from wind must be driving the balancing guys mad. Looks like it peaks at about 15gw and can drop to 11gw. Nice smooth average figures show renewables sitting at 64% of demand but we are still importing 3.4 % must be for the channel islands.

    Like

  22. JamesS, the Crown Estate has a handy graph of the last month’s offshore wind production, which currently looks like this:

    The obvious conclusion to this climate denier is that anyone seriously planning to base the supply of electricity to a modern society on renewables is a fantasist. Note to politicians who have not studied maths: four lots of nothing is nothing, so quadrupling offshore wind will sometimes provide no electricity at all.

    See also my post from last year.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. “‘Staggering’ wind farm switch-offs cost energy customers nearly £1bn”

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/23008149.staggering-wind-farm-switch-offs-cost-energy-customers-nearly-1bn/

    Payments to power companies to change off primarily Scottish wind farm generators as a result of they produce an excessive amount of energy have value bill-payers approaching £1bn in simply over 5 years and are anticipated to soar to £500m a yr.

    It has emerged that households who’re seeing a doubling of power payments since final winter are set to face additional ache by the “absurd” constraint funds system which is predicted to dole out report quantities within the subsequent 4 years.

    In keeping with an evaluation seen by the Herald on Sunday by Nationwide Grid ESO, the corporate accountable for conserving the lights on, all UK constraint prices together with gasoline, wind and coal era are predicted to develop from round £1bn to an “eyewatering” £2.3bn by 2026….

    …As a result of electrical energy can’t be saved and must be generated on the time of demand, compensation is given to power companies after they have to cut back their output. With wind farms it entails turning off generators when the community is unable to deal with the facility they produce.

    The funds are made by the Nationwide Grid ESO however charged to shoppers and added to power payments….

    Like

  24. “London needs £75bn to meet net zero goal – mayor”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63125904

    An estimated £75bn of private sector investment is needed to ensure London meets its target to be carbon neutral by 2030, the capital’s mayor has said.

    Sadiq Khan said London needed to go “much further, much faster” to meet its net zero goal.

    Like

  25. “Economic impacts of the 2030 – 2040 bans on the sale of fossil fuel vehicles
    A Cebr report Funded by FairFuelUK, the Alliance of British Drivers, and the Motorcycle Action Group
    October 2022”

    https://fairfueluk.com/CEBR-2030-BAN/

    Key Points
    • This is a study that uses official government methodology to compare the projected
    environmental benefits from the proposed bans on the sale of fossil fuel powered
    vehicles with the likely costs.
    • The study shows that the environmental benefits from the proposed bans are dwarfed
    by the additional costs.
    • The study assesses economic impacts over the period 2022 until 2050. 2022 prices
    are used as a common baseline and all costs and benefits are discounted to a 2022
    base year (with selected values also presented on an annual/undiscounted basis).
    • Using the government’s values for reduced carbon emissions, the value of the
    environmental benefits add-up to £76 billion. In contrast, the assessed costs add up to
    £400 billion. These costs are FIVE times the benefits; even when using the
    government’s own valuations of the environmental benefits.
    • The study shows that the major costs from the proposed ban are likely to be additional
    costs of:
    I. New vehicle purchases of £188 billion (in extra costs).
    II. Increased time lost due to waiting whilst recharging EVs, valued at
    £47 billion.
    III. Infrastructure for electricity generation and additional charging
    points of £99 billion.
    Even the overall environmental benefits are rather lower than might be assumed since
    approximately 50% of any reductions in emissions from usage are likely to be offset by
    increased emissions in vehicle production.
    Furthermore, this analysis does not take account of the likely increased emissions and other
    social costs from the massive increase in mining likely to be required by EVs. These extra
    emissions will be transnational in nature, relating to the processing of raw materials and
    associated shipments across the globe.
    Finally, there is likely to be a loss of tax revenue of £5.8 billion per annum (£2.7 billion when
    discounted to 2022 base year terms), on average, in the scenario of a ban in comparison to a
    no-ban scenario, as fuel duty and VAT dwindle away. The annual revenue loss is £198 million
    in 2030 (£150 million when discounted to 2022 base year terms), rising to about £16 billion in
    2050 (£6 billion when discounted). We assess that replacing this revenue, for example, would
    require increasing the rate of VAT or the basic income by an increasing amount throughout
    the period of analysis, peaking at an increase of 0.8% for VAT or 1.1% for the basic rate of
    income tax in 2050.
    From the perspective of the average household, these additional costs over the period 2022
    to 2050 amount to a total of £14,700 per household in 2022 terms. Using undiscounted values,
    this is an impact of £27,400 per household, or just under £1,000 per household per year from
    2022 until 2050…

    Like

  26. “Mid Devon Council ‘jumped the gun’ with green energy project”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-63213879

    Work on large-scale renewable energy projects at two Devon leisure centres will not begin until planning permission has been granted.

    Mid Devon District Council had issued a press release on 4 October to say work had already begun.

    The next day a councillor, Les Cruwys, pointed out the announced work did not have planning permission and accused the council of “jumping the gun”.

    A council officer said there were “different stages” to the project.

    People have been encouraged to plan for disruption at both Exe Valley and Lords Meadow leisure centres.

    Work to install ground and air source heat pumps will involve drilling deep bore holes underground to access the heat….

    …The work is being funded by £2.8 million secured from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy as part of its public sector decarbonisation scheme.

    Like

  27. “Ouse Valley: Action group wins £2m to fight climate change”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-63214590

    A climate action group has been awarded more than £2 million to help tackle climate change.

    The National Lottery Community Fund awarded the sum to Ouse Valley Climate Action (OVCA) – an area in which 77,000 people live…

    The National Lottery is of course, by and large a form of taxation on poor people, since they are the ones desperate enough to buy multiple tickets week in, week out.

    Like

  28. In Canada, each province is responsible for power generation and because of net zero policies there is an expectation by many that there will be a huge upcoming demand for electricity. However engineers and planners in the provincial electrical utilities (the people who are the real decision makers) are sceptical that there will be a significant increase in demand. So sceptical that they are not planning for it. For example, TransAlta expects Alberta’s load will grow by 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent annually – a slower pace than the province has experienced so far this century.

    From the Globe and Mail (paywalled) Extracts below.
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-canada-electricity-expansion/

    Plans for widespread adoption of electric vehicles, heat pumps and electric arc furnaces imply surging demand for electricity. A recent report from Royal Bank of Canada predicted Canadian electricity consumption will rise by 50 per cent over the next decade alone. Earlier this year, one by the Canadian Climate Institute said the nation’s electricity generation capacity will need to grow between 2.2 and 3.4 times larger by mid-century than it is today. The investment required to build all that capacity has been likened to wartime spending.

    But Canada’s major utilities aren’t preparing for anything of the sort. Nor are major planning bodies such as Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) and the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) telling them to. That’s the main take-away from annual reports and planning outlooks published by these organizations and reviewed by The Globe and Mail, and interviews with decision makers within these organizations.

    “I don’t think you can point anywhere to any utility that is actually pursuing this in its system plans, or its capital plans,” acknowledged Jason Dion, mitigation research director at the Canadian Climate Institute, a co-author of the report his organization released in May.

    Not everyone believes buildings and vehicles will be rapidly electrified. Current government policies by no means assure that outcome. “So there’s a question on the part of the utility: is that demand growth actually really going to be realized?”

    Kevin Dawson, the AESO’s director of forecasting and analytics, said his organization doesn’t think electrification will proceed as quickly as aggressive think tanks assume.

    Like

  29. potentilla,

    The failures of Canadian planners is probably no different from what’s going on elsewhere in the world (including in the UK), though your quotes bring it home rather graphically.

    If “net zero” is to be achieved (however unlikely that might be), then electrification is going to be massive. In the UK, electricity represents only somewhere between 1/5 and 1/6 of our energy use. Depending on how you define it, being charitable, “renewables” provide maybe 40% of our electricity (unpredictably, expensively, and unreliably) – so at best, electricity from renewables currently provides maybe 10% of our energy needs. The idea that any of this is easy is beyond absurd. Those in charge seem to think it is quite easy, and that renewables are a panacea. They’re living in Cloud Cuckoo Land (which is why I wrote those two articles).

    Like

  30. I could have posted this on many threads, but this one seems as good as any:

    “Gloucestershire green hydrogen unit gets £2.5m from council”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-63300691

    A new facility to produce and store green hydrogen is set to receive £2.5m in council funding.

    The unit is being developed by Advanced Automotive Propulsion Systems in Emersons Green, South Gloucestershire.

    It aims to transform industries that are difficult to decarbonise, like aviation, shipping and haulage.

    Planes, ships and lorries are mostly too large to be powered by existing electric battery technology.

    The plant is due to be operational by spring next year.

    Green hydrogen is very expensive, and there are questions over whether enough hydrogen can be made from renewable energy to make it commercially viable….

    It doesn’t stop a Council wasting taxpayers’ money on it, however!

    Like

  31. “Warwick University given £1m towards electric car research”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-63380559

    Up to £1m has been awarded to the University of Warwick towards research and development around electric vehicles.

    The money will be used to launch a new programme called the Warwick Electrification Deployment (WELD).

    The project will help meet a national and international skills shortage within the technologies behind electrical energy, the university said.

    Professor Peter Gammon said they were “proud” to be leading the programme.

    The new initiative funded by Innovate UK will include industry workshops, outreach activity in school and increased teaching provision within the key technologies – power electronics, machines and drives (PEMD)…

    Like

  32. “Climate change: Decarbonising UK public buildings to cost £25-30bn”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63514562

    The cost of decarbonising UK public sector buildings is estimated to be £25-30bn, government figures show.

    The amount was revealed following a Freedom of Information request by the Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg show.

    The government said the “indicative” figure is based on today’s prices and should not be seen as the actual budget needed to move to low carbon heating.

    Translation – it will cost a lot more in reality.

    Like

  33. I should have added this from lower down the same article:

    It has estimated the total cost of decarbonising residential properties would require an investment of £250bn – equivalent to £9bn a year from the late 2020s to 2050.

    Like

  34. I suppose this could be described as the true cost of global net zero:

    “Developing countries ‘will need $2tn a year in climate funding by 2030’
    Report co-written by Nicholas Stern says figure required to switch away from fossil fuels and cope with extreme weather impacts”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/08/developing-countries-climate-crisis-funding-2030-report-nicholas-stern

    It’s not going to happen, is it?

    About $2tn (£1.75tn) will be needed each year by 2030 to help developing countries cut their greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the effects of climate breakdown, new data suggests.

    The cash will be needed so that poor countries can switch away from fossil fuels, invest in renewable energy and other low-carbon technology, and cope with the impacts of extreme weather, according to a report that was commissioned jointly by the UK and Egyptian governments, and presented at the Cop27 UN climate summit.

    The figures, which would cover the needs of all of the world’s developing economies except China, are far higher than any climate finance that has yet been forthcoming to help poor countries.

    Two observations. Why is the UK commissioning any report with a vicious Egyptian government that shows no respect for human rights? Secondly, this £2 trillion a year figure isn’t remotely the total global cost of global net zero, since it’s the funding the developed world is expected to divvy up to the developing world (excluding China). What does that make the total annual cost including China and the developed world? $3 trillion? $4 trillion? $5 trillion? I repeat – it’s not going to happen.

    Like

  36. “Bailing out bust energy supplier Bulb will cost taxpayers £6.5bn, figures show
    The company collapsed in November last year and was put into a special government-handled administration”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/17/bail-out-bust-energy-supplier-bulb-cost-taxpayers-65bn-octopus

    Bailing out bust energy supplier Bulb will cost taxpayers a “staggering” £6.5bn, official figures have revealed.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said that an extra £4.6bn has been spent on handling the company in 2022-23, bringing the total to £6.5bn.

    In March, the OBR said the rescue would cost £2.2bn over two years and the top end of previous formal estimates was about £4bn.

    Bulb, which has about 1.5 million customers, collapsed in November last year and was put into a special government-handled administration, before a sale to rival Octopus Energy was eventually agreed last month.

    It is expected to be the biggest government bailout since the nationalisation of the Royal Bank of Scotland during the financial crisis.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. maybe wrong, but heard Ofgem pushed for more green players in the energy market to bring down costs for consumers. wonder how that went.

    the web site blurb tells you all you need to know –
    “Ofgem is the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets.
    We are a non-ministerial government department and an independent National Regulatory Authority. Our role is to protect consumers now and in the future by working to deliver a greener, fairer energy system.”

    Like

  39. An interesting update on that Bulb Energy story:

    “What on earth is going on with the massive Bulb bailout?
    Nils Pratley
    £4.6bn is an eye-watering amount for consumers to stump up – transparency from the government is long overdue”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2022/nov/21/what-on-earth-is-going-on-with-the-massive-bulb-bailout

    The most startling number in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic outlook last week – aside from the gloomy big-picture forecasts – was found in a one-sentence footnote on page nine. “The total cost of the Bulb Energy bailout has reached £6.5bn, with £4.6bn of that in 2022-23 included in the autumn statement,” it stated baldly.

    Let those figures sink in. Since March, when the OBR forecast that nationalisation of the bust energy supplier would cost £2.2bn, the figure has increased by the equivalent of almost £3,000 for each of Bulb’s 1.5m customers. As one energy trader puts it, even under the April-to-September price cap of £1,971 and even with high wholesale prices, it ought it be almost impossible for Bulb to clock up losses of that size during the low seasonal period for consumption.

    What happened? What explains the £6.5bn figure? How has the government, via its special administrator Teneo, managed Bulb?

    We have half an answer to the last question: at administration in November 2021, the government did not put hedging contracts in place at Bulb to cover its purchase of energy for customers. The company was left to buy on the spot market…

    …Instead of facts, we have had only unsupported boasts from Grant Shapps, today’s business secretary, about how the sale to Octopus represents value for money for the public purse. Come on: the loss from Bulb is due to be shoved on to consumers’ energy bills eventually. If £6.5bn is correct, that’s more than £200 per household. These sums are too big to be dismissed without explanation in a footnote. Transparency is long overdue.

    Like

  41. Like

  42. “Lincoln Council warned going green will be costly”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-63810108

    Going green will be a tough challenge in the current financial climate, Lincoln’s councillors have been warned.

    A senior City of Lincoln councillor has admitted hitting its carbon net zero target by 2030 would be difficult due to the poor financial situation.

    Councillor Bob Bushell (Labour) faced questions on whether the council was still on track to reach this goal.

    Mr Bushell maintained he was confident of the council’s success – but warned it would be expensive.

    Net zero is the national goal of no longer adding to the amount of carbon emissions by 2050 to prevent the worst-case climate change scenario. Many governments and local authorities are aiming to get there much sooner, but inflation could slow this down.

    Note the hubris: “the national goal of no longer adding to the amount of carbon emissions by 2050 to prevent the worst-case climate change scenario.”

    As though unilateral UK action (or action by Lincoln Council) can make a blind bit of difference to anything climate-related. On the other hand, if we didn’t waste massive amounts of money damaging our economy and rendering energy more expensive and less reliable, we could use some of that money to adapt to whatever minor problems climate change might cause in the UK.

    Like

  43. Like

  44. Like

  45. There’s another £165 million of taxpayers’ money being bandied about:

    “Climate change: Household rubbish to be turned into jet fuel”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64054205

    Waste gases from a steelworks and household rubbish could be used to fuel aeroplanes for “guilt-free flying”.

    It comes as five projects have been awarded a share of a £165m UK government fund.

    The projects will cut CO2 emissions by an average of 200,000 tonnes a year, once fully up and running.

    The Department of Transport said the project will also produce 300,000 tonnes of sustainable aviation fuel a year….

    …UK government Transport Secretary Mark Harper said: “Using waste or by-products to refuel airliners sounds like a flight of fancy, but… it’s going to help us make guilt-free flying a reality.

    “It’s exactly this kind of innovation that will help us create thousands of green jobs across the country and slash our carbon emissions.”

    A Welsh government spokesman called it “great news”, adding: “We are committed to helping create green jobs in the new industries of the future, which will help us deliver our ambition of creating a stronger, fairer and greener economy. This is exactly the type of investment we want to see more of here in Wales.”

    We’ll see (or perhaps we won’t – I wonder if they’ll report back to tell us whether the scheme succeeds or fails? If the latter, I suspect not).

    Like

  47. “UK could face ‘banking crisis worse than 2008’ if City fails to prepare for fossil fuel collapse
    Report from climate activist groups says City is unprepared for potential collapse in value of fossil fuel assets”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/climate-regulations-could-trigger-banking-crisis-worse-than-2008

    The UK could suffer 500,000 job losses and be forced to spend £674bn of taxpayer cash to rescue its banks, unless the City prepares for the value of fossil fuels to collapse as a result of climate crisis regulations, research shows.

    The report, published by a collective of climate activist groups known as the One to One campaign, suggests those financial repercussions could eclipse those linked to the 2008 banking crisis, which forced the government to bail out major lenders including Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, and cost the UK roughly £560bn.

    It illustrates the risks that are likely to emerge if banks and insurers fail to hold enough capital to cover the potential losses they are likely to face as a result of climate regulations meant to achieve net zero emissions targets over the coming years.

    Those prospective regulations will probably make it harder for carbon-intensive companies to sell their products like oil and gas to customers, so they will instead be forced to buy greener sources of energy. This will reduce the value of carbon-heavy assets including shares or loans for fossil fuel projects or their related companies, which will in turn harm the institutional investors like bank, insurers and fund managers that hold them.

    Globally, the report estimates that banks would probably need a total of $4.9tn in international bailouts if fossil fuel assets collapsed in 2030, putting 13.6 million jobs at risk worldwide…

    As with so many reports like this, I’m far from convinced that I trust the numbers. However, it’s still shocking, if even remotely true. And the problem isn’t fossil fuel use – it’s “climate regulations meant to achieve net zero emissions targets over the coming years.”. Inevitably, the conclusion isn’t that the net zero madness is mad and dangerous, but instead is this:

    “Banks and insurers need to have buffers in place to absorb shocks arising from collapses in the value of oil, gas and coal assets as new regulation kicks in and demand falls as renewables scale up,” he explained. “Enhancing capital requirements for dirty assets should also encourage banks to shift their lending away from unsustainable activity, which in itself will reduce transition risk.”

    I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, given that the report is “published by a collective of climate activist groups.” No link is supplied, so I can’t readily investigate further.

    Like

  48. “How Much is Net Zero Really Going to Cost? The Government Has No Idea”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/25/how-much-is-net-zero-really-going-to-cost-the-government-has-no-idea/

    Net Zero. It sounded a noble objective. As Chris Skidmore, the Government Minister who introduced the bill to the House of Commons in 2019, observed, it would mean Britain becoming the first major economy in the world to make a legally binding commitment to eliminate greenhouse emissions. But what did it really mean, what was it going to cost, and did any of the MPs who had just nodded it through actually understand the implications?

    The Government’s case was based around a claim made some months earlier by the Climate Change Committee (CCC) – which advises the Government on climate policy – that achieving net zero emissions by 2050 would cost between 1-2% of GDP per annum by 2050 – roughly equating to an eventual bill of £1 trillion by that date. But this, said the Minister, was before you took into account the many benefits, such as increased air quality and what he called “green-collar jobs”. Moreover, he implied that falling costs would reduce the bill further. Forget the bill, in other words; it will be a modest fee given what we will gain.

    Not one MP pointed out the folly: how can you possibly estimate the cost of doing something when you have no idea how it can be done?..

    …When National Grid ESO – the company which runs the electricity grid in Britain – attempted to calculate its own estimate of the cost of reaching Net Zero by 2050 it came up with an answer dramatically different to that of the CCC. In 2020 it presented four different scenarios of how Britain might attempt the transition, involving different blends of renewable energy, changes in consumer behaviour and so on. Its estimated costings in each case came out at around £160 billion a year of investment, eventually reaching a total of around £3 trillion. That was three times the figure which the CCC had touted just a year earlier – and National Grid was only trying to price up the decarbonisation of the energy sector, not agriculture and difficult-to-decarbonise sectors such as steel and cement. To MPs who had treated the CCC’s figure as gospel, and nodded through the 2050 target, it was a sharp reminder that they had committed the country to an open-ended bill, the eventual size of which no one could reasonably guess – other than to say it was going to be huge….

    …But the Net Zero Strategy left more questions unanswered than it answered. How are we to establish security of electricity supply if we come to rely even more on intermittent renewables? How is one nuclear power station going to solve our problems when it – along with the one currently under construction at Hinkley in Somerset – won’t even replace Britain’s seven existing nuclear power stations, all of which are due to reach the end of their working lives by 2035? Does the Government really have confidence that it will turn out to be economical to produce hydrogen by zero-carbon means – as opposed to manufacturing it from coal and gas, as almost all the world’s hydrogen is currently produced? You can order us all to buy electric cars, but how are you going to make sure that the cars are themselves zero carbon, given that a hefty proportion of a vehicle’s lifetime’s emissions are tied up in its manufacture? If we are going to cover the countryside with woodland, where does that leave food production? Are we going to be even more reliant on importing it from overseas, with the consequence that our food might end up with a higher carbon footprint than now?

    On top of that was left dangling the biggest question of all: what is it all going to cost us, and who is going to end up paying the bill? On the same day that the Net Zero Strategy was published, the Treasury produced its own assessment of the costs of Net Zero. Did the Treasury agree with the Climate Change Committee’s assessment that it would cost no more than £1 trillion, or National Grid’s estimate of £3 trillion for the energy sector alone? It couldn’t say. It offered no estimate of the cost of Net Zero; arguing, rather, that it wasn’t possible to make such an estimate at this stage. As for who will pay, that was at least becoming clear. We were all going to be paying, either through our taxes or through supplements on our energy bills.

    Britain, in short, is to embark on an experiment unique in human history, in which it voluntarily rejects whole areas of established technology which currently make society and the economy function, and tries to replace them with novel technologies, some of which do not currently exist and others of which may exist on a demonstration level but have not yet been scaled up. And the whole project has to be completed in just 27 years, no allowances, no wriggle room….

    …All objection to the Net Zero Strategy has been brushed aside by Government ministers who insist there really is no alternative: so dire is the climate emergency that we simply have to decarbonise everything we do – fail to do so and we will be lashed by ever more dramatic weather: tossed, boiled, frozen and drowned. Behind it, though, lies a Little Englander fantasy: that somehow we can tackle climate change on our own, even if other countries do not follow our example….

    Like

  49. “Oxford: First buses in electric fleet set to arrive in September”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-64480908

    The first electric buses, set to form a fleet of 159, will be brought in on routes in Oxford from September.

    An area from Cumnor to the west and Wheatley to the east of the city, Kidlington to the north and Sandford to the south will be served by the fleet.

    Eight of the double-decker buses will be open-topped, to run on the city’s sightseeing tour route.

    The £82.5m scheme is being paid for by the government, the council and bus firms…

    That looks like a little over £0.5M each. I have only scanned the internet quickly, but I think that’s quite a bit more than a diesel bus.

    Like

  50. about the same price as the electric bin lorries that did’nt like rain on another thread.

    Like

  52. I appreciate that it’s chickenfeed in the scheme of things, but all this largesse (£1M here, £2M there) does add up:

    “Devon nature projects receive government funding”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-64602996

    Nature projects that aim to explore the possibilities of carbon capture have received government funding.

    Natural England confirmed projects based in Devon at Plymouth and Exmoor would receive nearly £2m for the restoration of natural environments.

    Funding was also announced for projects in Northumberland, Derbyshire, Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire.

    Carbon capture is the process of removing CO2, which contributes to climate change, from the atmosphere.

    The agency said trees, hedges and grasslands – that all absorb carbon and hold it in the soil – could help build resilience towards climate change.

    Plymouth City Council, in partnership with the National Trust, was awarded nearly £1m for its Natural Grid project, which involves the restoration of woodland pastures, grassland and salt marshes around the city.

    The National Trust was separately awarded nearly £1m for its Wild Exmoor Carbon Sequestration Project at the 670-hectare Watersmeet estate.

    “The charity will create a wetter and wilder landscape by restoring and protecting coastal woodland, heathland habitats, species rich grassland and wood pasture,” Natural England said of the Exmoor project.

    Almost £600,000 was awarded to the Wansbeck Restoration for Climate Change project in Northumberland and £645,000 for the Derwent Forest Landscape Recovery Project in Derbyshire.

    More than £780,000 was given to the Oxfordshire-Buckinghamshire Freshwater Network and more than £417,000 to Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust to restore a 500-hectare estate in the Severn Vale….

    If these projects really do benefit nature (and on a continuing basis) then perhaps all well and good, but the whole net zero project looks as though it’s doubling down on “carbon capture”, tree-planting etc, with the “net” part of net zero increasingly looking like the important word. They are just spraying money around in the hope that some of it might help to achieve the objective. In reality, they have no idea how they are going to get there. Meanwhile, the UK government is now well over £2Trn in debt and the country is falling apart at the seams. Talk about misguided priorities.

    Like

  54. Breaking news from the “You don’t say?” section of the news:

    “Net zero targets ‘may mean higher taxes”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64597981

    …Lord Stern told the BBC:…”I’m not arguing for delaying investment in health and education. We have to pursue those at the same time.

    “If we have to tax a little bit more, so be it. If we have to borrow a bit more for the really tremendous investments, then we should do that.”…

    “A little bit more”, “a bit more”? Make that £trillions, and you might get close. The cost is over £100,000 per household by my calculations. Remember, years ago, when Hammond was Chancellor of the Exchequer, even he cautioned that it looked as though it would cost at least£1 trillion (out by a factor of three, by my estimation, but rather more realistic IMO than Lord Stern’s calculations).

    …Lord Stern wrote a ground-breaking report in 2006 on climate change for the government, then led by Prime Minister Tony Blair. He delivered an updated version for former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2021.

    He is optimistic that a tipping point in key green technologies – including energy generation, car batteries and fertilizer manufacture – is achievable within a few years, with artificial intelligence playing a key role….

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    …”Government ministers are preoccupied with very simple things, which is a rediscovery of inflation and rediscovery of security,” he [Lord Brown] said.

    “It is first keeping the lights on, energy security. Secondly, affordability. And third is climate. Now, you should be able to do all three things at once but it’s very theoretical to say that people do focus on three objectives simultaneously. They just don’t in life.”…

    …Pollsters Ipsos found that while people are still very concerned about climate change, they are now more focused on inflation, the economy and public services.

    And when it tested several policy areas – including paying environmental levies for frequent flights or other products and phasing out fossil fuel heating – the level of support dropped.

    Voters are keen to do the right thing – but maybe less enthusiastic about funding change, especially at the moment.

    Liked by 1 person

  55. good old – “Lord Browne, a former chief executive of BP who now heads up a private equity fund that invests in firms that reduce greenhouse gases, wants more state help for businesses.”

    Like

  56. Net zero is expensive, not just in the UK:

    “Australia’s big emitters could cut CO2 by 90% by 2050 without offsets, report finds
    Report finds that supply chains for major industries, including iron and steel, could cut annual CO2 to 17m tonnes by mid-century”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/20/australias-big-emitters-could-cut-co2-by-90-by-2050-through-supply-chains-report-finds

    Here’s the bit the positive headline doesn’t mention:

    …The report, by the Australian Industry Energy Transitions Initiative (ETI), prepared over three years by Climateworks Centre and the CSIRO, found the industrial transition would cost the equivalent of $21bn a year over three decades if Australia were to play its part in trying to limit global heating to 1.5C…

    …Anna Skarbek, the chief executive of the Climateworks Centre, based at Monash University, said about two-thirds of the estimated required – equivalent to $20.8bn a year over a 30-year period – was needed in the energy system as it shifted to renewable sources, the rest in technology for industrial, electrification and energy efficiency….

    The article then goes on to downplay the cost, but it’s every year for 30 years (or so the article says) , so it’s well upwards of $600Bn or knocking on towards £400Bn at today’s exchange rate. At a rough guess, given Australia’s population of c. 26M people, assuming (say) 2.6 people per household on average, that’s a cost of c. £40,000 per household. And that assumes the figures are correct (experience suggests the real figure might well be higher in the end).

    Liked by 1 person

  58. Oh, so this is why energy is so expensive, despite repeated claims that renewables are cheap:

    “UK efforts to deal with energy crisis ‘raise risk of missing net zero target’
    Absence of long-term plan could deter investors or lead them to increase prices, says National Audit Office”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/01/uk-efforts-to-deal-with-energy-crisis-raise-risk-of-missing-net-zero-target

    Ministers’ efforts to tackle the energy bills crisis have left the UK at risk of missing a key target to source green power and are threatening the country’s net zero goal, the government spending watchdog has said.

    The government said in 2021 it wanted all electricity to be generated from low-carbon sources by 2035, a pillar in the plan to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

    However, the National Audit Office (NAO) warned on Wednesday that the energy crisis which began in late 2021 and was exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has meant the government has made little progress in producing a “long-term delivery plan” to boost clean energy sources.

    The NAO warned that “the absence of a clear plan and the perception that there could be changes in government policies could deter external investors from providing funds for new infrastructure or lead them to increase the rates of return they require, ultimately increasing costs for energy consumers”….

    …The government has estimated that £280bn to £400bn of investment is needed to decarbonise the power sector, excluding the cost of researching new technologies and constructing new networks…

    “Estimated”. They don’t know. They “estimate” a figure with a range of £120bn. That’s a range that exceeds £4,000 per household. They don’t know. It’s all on a wing and a prayer. The higher figure is almost £13,000 per household. My money is on it being a massive under-estimate (remember the early cost estimates for HS2, anyone?). And that’s just for decarbonising the power sector. Net zero involves one heck of a lot more expense (and disruption) than that.

    Liked by 1 person

  59. Mark – see the https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/02/28/germany-faces-1-trillion-challenge-to-plug-massive-power-gap/

    may not be that big for UK, but I would take a bet on £500bn at the least.

    ps – had to look up “National Audit Office” just to check who they are & who they are payed to work for.

    Snippet from the website –
    “Value for money, We report to Parliament on whether government is delivering value for money.
    We define good value for money as the optimal use of resources (economy, efficiency and effectiveness) to achieve the intended outcomes.
    We publish around 60 value-for-money reports per year. These reports are impactful, timely and relevant and respond to complex challenges facing government. We make recommendations in these reports on how government can achieve value for money and improve services.
    We also publish responsive reports to establish facts where there are concerns about emerging public spending issues.
    In delivering our work, our role is not to question government policy objectives. We look at how government has spent money delivering those policies and if that money has been used in the best way to achieve the intended outcome.”

    maybe some on this blog should apply for a consultant job – £100 to 200 per yr sounds about right.

    Like

  61. Is anyone n a position of authority adding all this up? Does anybody care?

    “Oxfordshire given £5m government cash to roll out heat pumps to homes”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-64821183

    Trial schemes to install heat pumps in homes in two neighbourhoods in Oxfordshire have been given £5m in government funding.

    The schemes will see 150 heat pumps put in homes in Rose Hill, Oxford, and a further 136 in the Cherwell area.

    They are both being funded through the government’s £60m Heat Pump Ready programme.

    The two heat pump projects are expected to be completed by the end of January 2025…

    Even assuming that the £5M includes not only the 150 heat pumps first mentioned, but also the 136 in the Cherwell area, so that it covers 286 installations, that’s still close to £17,500 per heat pump installation. Reading on in the article, it’s therefore difficult to see how this adds up:

    …Oxford City Council said the scheme in the city, which has been given £3.2m in funding, would be able to offer heat pumps from £7,600.

    It said that would be “roughly two thirds of the typical installation cost”.

    The authority said the Clean Heat Streets project would also offer a £5,000 subsidy for each air source heat pump installation – bringing the cost down further to “to £2,600 per heat pump”…

    Like

  62. Relatively small amounts in the scheme of things, but they do add up:

    “Energy storage firm awarded £9m for innovative project”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-65249501

    An innovative energy storage project developed in North Lanarkshire has been awarded £9.4m by the UK government.

    Synchrostor plans to build a 1MW demonstration plant which will have the ability to charge, store and discharge energy for a period of 10 hours.

    The Cumbernauld facility has been designed to outperform current battery technology.

    The funding has been awarded under the Longer Duration Energy Storage competition….

    …In November East Lothian-based company Sunamp received £9.25m to help trial its advanced thermal storage system in 100 UK homes.

    And StorTera in Edinburgh was awarded £5m towards a prototype demonstrator of its single liquid flow battery technology….

    Like

  63. “Northern Ireland’s electricity network to get £3bn upgrade”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-65372780

    It sounds great until you realise that it’s not actually an upgrade, rather it’s work that is necessary to facilitate net zero, and as always it will cost the customer:

    NIE Networks is to invest over £3bn in Northern Ireland’s electricity network over the next 10 years in order to facilitate climate change targets.

    It also plans to create more than 1,000 jobs between now and 2032 in an attempt to achieve net-zero carbon emissions.

    NIE Networks said the investment would help its 910,000 customers connect to low-carbon technologies like electric cars, solar panels and heat pumps.

    But it will mean an additional cost to customers of about £10 to £20 a year…

    Its managing director Derek Hynes said a “significant step change” was needed in the level of investment to “facilitate the scale of decarbonisation” required as a result of new climate change law…

    …The Centre of Advanced Sustainable Energy (Case) said Northern Ireland’s targets for dealing with climate change were “ambitious” but could not be met without major investment in energy infrastructure….

    Like

  64. “Wrightbus receives £12m to produce green buses”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-65526120

    Bus maker Wrightbus has received a £12m cash boost to produce green buses at its County Antrim factory.

    The NextGenZEBs project will develop battery-electric and fuel-cell-powered buses to replace diesel engines.

    It is part of a £77m joint government and industry-backed funding to develop zero-emission vehicles.

    Meanwhile, it’s been annouced two NI firms will split £3.6m in government funding to cut down on their use of fossil fuels.

    FP McCann Ltd is getting £3.39m to improve the energy efficiency of crushing and concrete manufacturing at its Craigall Quarry in Kilrea.

    Natural World Products in Dunmurry produces peat-free composts and soil conditioners.

    It will put almost £300,000 towards replacing diesel-powered equipment with electric-powered equivalents.

    The funding supports businesses which use high amounts of energy to clean up their manufacturing processes using low-carbon technologies.

    It’s a portion of a wider pot of £24.3m funding awarded through the UK government’s Industrial Energy Transformation Fund…

    It all adds up.

    Like

  65. “Lack of plan for green industry risks UK ‘falling behind’, top government adviser warns
    Influential economist Andy Haldane says dearth of coherent strategy means Britain isn’t in the new ‘arms race’ to reindustrialise”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/09/uk-needs-urgent-long-term-plan-to-develop-future-green-hi-tech-industries

    The stand-out bit for me from this article was this:

    …It comes as the US and the EU invest billions of pounds to support domestic production of everything from renewable energy to microchips and electric vehicles, with Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) pumping $369bn (£292bn) into America’s industrial base.

    Haldane, a former chief economist at the Bank of England, said: “China has been at this – green tech – for many, many years, and has stolen a march in many, many technologies, including solar and batteries.

    “The west has belatedly woken up. The IRA is throwing cash to the wall on that. The cost of that [is] almost certainly north of half a trillion dollars. Possibly north of a trillion. The EU is now playing catch up, [and] the UK currently is not really in the race at any kind of scale.”…

    Worth remembering next time net zero and renewables advocates suggest that all this is cheap (or even cheaper than “the alternative”) It isn’t – far from it.

    Liked by 1 person

  66. Thanks for the link Mark – love reading the plea for donations below the post –

    “The Guardian has spent the past 13 years tirelessly investigating the shortcomings of the Tories in office – austerity, Brexit, partygate, cronyism, the Truss debacle and the individual failings of ministers who behave as if the rules don’t apply to them.
    Our work has resulted in resignations, apologies and policy corrections. Our continued revelations about the conveyor belt of Tory dysfunction are the latest in a long line of important scoops. And with an election just round the corner, we won’t stop now. It’s crucial that we can all make informed decisions about who is best to lead the UK. Will you invest in the Guardian this year?”

    no bias there, wonder who they want to win next election?

    Like

  67. These sums keep adding up – and we’re paying:

    “Green energy projects awarded £91m in government funding”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-65571033

    Four green energy projects in Yorkshire have been awarded a share of £91m in government funding.

    The projects – in Bradford, Goole, Huddersfield and Rotherham – are among seven in the UK to receive cash from the Green Heat Network Fund.

    Bradford Energy Limited (BEL) has been awarded £20m to fund air source heat pumps to power buildings in the city.

    In Goole, a scheme to use waste heat from a manufacturing plant to power homes and businesses has received £12m.

    The government said investing in innovative heating projects would reduce carbon emissions and help to drive down energy bills.

    Green projects in Reading, Cornwall and east London will also benefit.

    In Bradford, BEL will use air source heat pumps to warm water which will be run through an underground network to customers.

    The company said the scheme could heat public buildings in the city centre, such as the Law Courts and Alhambra Theatre.

    In East Yorkshire, a £12m share of the investment has been given to the Goole District Energy Network, which the council hopes will provide heat to homes and businesses from 2024….

    Like

  68. Here’s another one:

    “University of Reading to install heat pump after £2.2m grant”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-65561273

    The University of Reading is to install a water source heat pump that it says will cut its overall carbon footprint by 10%.

    The scheme will provide half of the heating and hot water to 15 buildings on the Whiteknights Campus.

    It is being paid for with a £2.2m government grant, which has been match-funded by the university.

    The government’s Green Heat Network Fund provides capital funding to help decarbonise heat networks.

    University energy and sustainability director Dan Fernbank said: “Once the heat pump is fully operational, we expect to see savings of £150,000 per year.”

    A £4.4M spend to save a putative (I wonder if they’ll check back to see if the claimed savings materialise?) £150,000 p.a. That’s roughly a 3% return, at a time when base rate is at 4.5% p.a.

    Like

  69. It all adds up…but is anyone in a position of authority counting the cost?

    “Oxfordshire zero-emission fire engine project awarded £4m”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-65577815

    A project to develop zero-emission fuel cells for fire engines, ambulances and road sweepers has won a £3.9m government grant.

    Engineering firm Ulemco is working with Oxfordshire County Council on powering the vehicles by hydrogen.

    The firm said the award, matched by another £3.9m from the automotive industry, would fund research into how to extend the vehicles’ range.

    The council said it was a promising step towards net zero emissions….

    Like

  70. “Climate change: Most NI homes ‘need upgrade’ to meet net zero goal”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-65715957

    Most homes in Northern Ireland need to be upgraded to be more energy efficient if 2030 net zero targets are to be met, a report has found.

    It found, on average, the properties do not retain heat as well as those in the rest of the UK and Ireland.

    The Ulster University study is part of a report by the Forum for Better Housing Market NI, a group which looks at issues in the local housing market.

    The forum said “we need to act now” to cut emissions from the housing sector.

    In total, the report found that about 60% of homes need to improve their energy efficiency to help Northern Ireland towards reaching its net zero goal.

    The report also indicated that about 50,000 buildings a year must be improved in order to hit the target of a 56% reduction in energy-related carbon emissions from the housing sector in Northern Ireland.

    With the help of research from Ulster University, the forum’s report, called New Foundations: The route to low carbon homes, sets out recommendations to support the process of decarbonisation across the housing sector, which currently contributes to 14% of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions….

    Like

  71. Is there any aspect of net zero targets that doesn’t involve a hefty price tag?

    “Climate change: Farms face job losses without net zero support”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65764449

    Livestock farms need support to adapt to climate change targets or risk big job losses, government advisers have warned.

    Agriculture accounted for 14% of Welsh emissions in 2019 – two-thirds of which was methane from livestock and manure.

    A new report said livestock farms needed to “redirect” as society decarbonises to meet climate goals.

    The Welsh government said it was taking action to ensure a “just transition” to net zero.

    Wales, like the UK, has a legally binding target to reach net zero by 2050 which means dramatically cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

    But the body which advises ministers on climate change predicted these changes could have “significant impacts” on the farming workforce.

    Between 7,000 and 42,000 jobs could be lost across the UK unless livestock farms adapt the nature of their work, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) estimated…

    …Penri James, visiting lecturer in agriculture at Aberystwyth University, said there needed to be “changes to the way farms operate”.

    He urged “joined up thinking” in government strategies around climate change, farming, skills and employment.

    “There should be a huge amount of concern in government about how this transition is going to operate because if they don’t get it right there will be significant job losses in rural areas and the disappearance of viable businesses.”…

    I could just be paranoid by now, but I should have thought an appropriate headline might be one that pointed out the costs of net zero policies. Instead the BBC gives us a headline which I would argue creates the impression that farming job losses will result from climate change unless they receive support from net zero policies – thereby creating the impression that net zero is somehow a good thing, because it offers “support”, rather than being the thing that threatens to destroy jobs, which is the reality.

    Like

  73. “Undersea cable and renewables in Guernsey electricity plan”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-guernsey-65809550

    Guernsey’s environment committee has recommended the States looks at building an undersea electricity cable to France.

    It has also recommended the island invests in wind energy and increase the amount of solar generation.

    Environment and Infrastructure (E&I) Committee President Deputy Lindsay De Sausmarez said consumers were unlikely to see lower bills in the short term.

    Running the Electricity Strategy up to 2050 is estimated at £1.7bn….

    Admittedly this is about more than net zero, but renewables are a significant part of the plan. Note that “consumers were unlikely to see lower bills in the short term.” Guernsey’s population is around 64,000. This plan therefore works out at around £26,500 per person. Even over its projected timespan, it’s close to £1,000 per person per annum, every year until 2050. And that’s before the cost of the electricity, which isn’t likely to reduce in the short term.

    Like

  74. Published today:

    “Decarbonisation of the power sector: Government response to the BEIS Committee’s Eleventh Report of Session 2022–23
    Eleventh Special Report of Session 2022–23”

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmbeis/1698/report.html

    I’ve barely scratched the surface so far, but I did find this:

    The Government launched the Floating Offshore Wind Manufacturing Investment Scheme (FLOWMIS), worth up to £160 million, on 30 March 2023.

    So that’s up to another £160 million of taxpayers’ money, to add to all the rest of it, blithely given away to support the ongoing madness.

    Like

  75. “Welsh steelworks at breaking point over the cost of cleaning up its act”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/15/welsh-steelworks-at-breaking-point-over-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-its-act

    An interesting read, demonstrating that both jobs and the country’s supply chain are at risk from net zero, even if – despite that being where the logic of the article takes us – the Guardian/Observer don’t quite understand that. SOme interesting points to note:

    …Decarbonising Port Talbot’s two blast furnaces, and another two in Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, could cost £6bn, according to some experts. The UK industry insists it is unable to foot the bill. The government has offered £300m each to Tata Steel, the Indian conglomerate that owns the Port Talbot works, and China’s Jingye, owner of the British Steel plant at Scunthorpe. (Jingye bought it in early 2020 after the government had spent £588m on a temporary nationalisation while it sought a buyer.) But the companies are lobbying for more, and Tata has warned that the plant’s future is at risk without financial support….

    …To list the products that use steel is to list much of modern life. Port Talbot provided most of the steel in the Nissan Leaf electric car, built in Sunderland. Heinz baked beans “tins” are made of its steel, as are radiators in many homes. Construction is the plant’s biggest market: Tata made blue beams for Everton’s football stadium, and red beams for Liverpool’s Anfield on the other side of Stanley Park. Another crucial growth area – and one key for the UK’s energy security – is zero-emissions power: wind turbines sit on steel stalks, and nuclear reactors are encased in steel.

    The prize for the UK in carbon-free steel would be a modern, green industry. Failure would mean the loss of thousands of jobs and the UK’s ability to make its own steel – and would do nothing to reduce Britain’s contribution to global heating.

    “If we stopped manufacturing steel in the UK we would lose the supply chain that serves us,” said Russell Codling, Tata Steel UK’s director of marketing and business development. “Our customers’ supply chains will become less efficient too and some of them will eventually close or relocate to other countries. As the UK, we would effectively outsource our manufacturing and our economy diminishes.

    “We just export our carbon emissions to somewhere else, and lose the economic value that pays for our NHS and other national services.”…

    Then there is a very interesting chart, under this heading:

    “Chinese steel dominates while UK production lags far behind
    Crude steel production 2022, million tonnes”

    Interesting, because the volume of steel production by major producer nation correlates very closely with its proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously China is the biggest emitter and by far the biggest steel producer. US is the second biggest emitter, but in terms of steel production, has fallen behind India, Japan and Russia (all significant emitters too). Could the demise of US steel-making be linked to the fact that (unlike China, Japan, India and Russia) it is making strenuous efforts to reduce its emissions? It all adds up to the claim that all virtue-signalling countries like the UK is doing is exporting its jobs, its emissions, and the security of its supply chain.

    Liked by 1 person

  76. A very interesting long read at Spiked. While my article (above) concentrated on the financial cost to the UK taxpayer of net zero, the article that follows demonstrates that for many people in developing countries the costs are real, and not just measured in financial terms:

    “The human cost of Net Zero
    The war on fossil fuels is far more dangerous than climate change.”

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/07/16/the-human-cost-of-net-zero/

    Like

  77. More money for net zero:

    “Shapps announces £157m in grants at launch of new UK nuclear body
    Great British Nuclear created to deliver government’s commitment to boosting electricity generation, in part through smaller reactors”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/18/grants-of-157m-offered-in-support-of-uks-nuclear-power-industry

    The UK government is to offer grants of £157m as part of its launch of a new body to support the nuclear power industry.

    Great British Nuclear (GBN) will be tasked with helping deliver the government’s commitment to provide a quarter of the UK’s electricity from nuclear energy by 2050.

    The new body will help drive rapid expansion of nuclear power plants in the UK, boost energy security and reduce dependence on fossil fuel imports, said the energy security secretary, Grant Shapps.

    It is hoped that a competition to develop small modular reactors (SMRs) will drive billions of pounds of investment into the technology, which the government hopes will be cheaper and quicker to build than traditional large nuclear power plants.

    However, environmental campaigners and academics have argued that SMRs have no track record and that time and resources would be better spent on renewables such as more offshore wind….

    I’m not sure which lot is the most irresponsible.

    Like

  78. There are so many costs associated with net zero. This one is – as Brendan O’Neill points out, truly madly deeply barking mad:

    “The eco-elites’ insane war on farming
    Three cheers for the Irish farmers who’ve joined the revolt against Net Zero.”

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/07/17/the-eco-elites-insane-war-on-farming/

    Should we kill all cows? Amazingly, it’s a question the green elites are asking. ‘Cow burps’, with their methane, contribute 14.5 per cent of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions. Cow dung releases ammonia, a nitrogen compound that damages natural habitats. From both their mouths and their behinds, cows cause pollution. So let’s cull them. Earlier this year, the Irish government proposed the slaughter of 200,000 cows to help it meet its climate targets. The Dutch government has flirted with the idea of reducing livestock numbers by 30 per cent to ‘reduce damaging ammonia pollution’. ‘Should we kill trillions of animals to save the planet?’, headlines ask.

    So this is where environmentalism is at: slaughter the cows to save the planet. And you thought it was a happy-clappy, animal-loving ideology. ‘The complete eradication of cows and pigs… will eventually save the planet’, as one writer put it a few years ago. Of course, mad as our governments are, it’s unlikely they’ll take the stun gun to millions of cows anytime soon. And yet they are pursuing policies that will cause cow deaths. They have sworn themselves to climate targets that could lead to the decimation of livestock. They have, insanely, gone to war with farming. I’ve never been into animal rights, but I’m wondering if we need a ‘Save the Cows’ movement to counter the irrationalism of a political class that now puts eco-concerns ahead of everything, even food production….

    Like

  79. For a change, an interesting appreciation at the Guardian that net zero isn’t cheap, but expensive, though there’s still the same old belief that it’s absolutely essential, even though we aren’t told how the UK committing economic suicide makes any difference to anything if the rest of the world doesn’t follow suit:

    “”An inconvenient truth: you can’t sell the green revolution to people who can’t afford it”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/20/green-revolution-cost-of-living-crisis-heat-pump-car

    …There are some alarmingly big bills looming for millions of households in the name of saving the planet, and however clearly people might see the moral case for getting rid of their gas boiler or their old petrol car at a time when forest fires are ravaging Greece and flash floods are hitting Spain, money is money. If you genuinely can’t afford to switch, few things are more alienating than being made to feel guilty about that by people shocked at how hot it was on the beach in Sicily this year.

    So far, net zero targets have relied heavily on the eco-conscious middle classes willingly absorbing the upfront costs of doing the right thing. But for drivers who haven’t yet gone electric, the rocketing cost of living is creating a powerful incentive to hang on to your old car for a year or two longer. Heat pump sales are still worrying low, suggesting homeowners are either burying their heads in the sand or hanging back to see whether they’re really going to be forced to rip out the central heating. There’s a danger of progress stalling just when it needs to accelerate. Unsurprisingly, most politicians are keener to talk about shiny new green jobs or cheap solar energy than about where they’ll raise the money to fund new scrappage schemes and grants. But somehow we must find ways to spread the collective burden of what we all know needs to be done.

    For when the collective good collides with hard-headed self-interest, that’s when the left is perennially in danger of coming unstuck. When times are tough, people start listening to the devil whispering on their shoulder: sure, someone has to save the planet, but does that someone really have to be me?…

    Like

  80. “New energy grant for ‘greener and warmer’ Bristol homes”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-66290623

    One of the first households to benefit from a new green energy grant could see a reduction in their energy bills.

    Alex Bygrave and Meriwether Lewis said they struggle to heat their 1940s Bristol home as they rely on electric heating and a wood burner.

    Because of a new government grant their home will be soon be fully insulated – with a solar panel and air source heat pump – all installed for free.

    “Our home will be greener, warmer and cheaper to run,” said Ms Lewis….

    …”I used to have sit in front of the fire with a coat to keep warm,” said Ms Lewis.

    “These houses were not built with sustainability in mind, but with these changes, we can look forward to a much warmer and greener winter.”…

    Pure propaganda. The opening sentence contains a speculative “could” regarding the possibility that the energy grant will make the house’s energy bills reduce, but by the 4th paragraph there are no doubts – Ms Lewis asserts categorically that her home will be greener, warmer and cheaper to run. I suggest the BBC visits them next spring to see how they get on in the next winter that they’re so looking forward to.

    But here’s the rub:

    Over the next five years Bristol City Council says it will be investing nearly £500 million into low carbon energy infrastructure like solar, wind, and heat pumps.

    One Council, half a billion pounds in just five years. That’s probably just over £200 p.a. for every man, woman and child in Bristol, and that’s just the costs incurred by the Council. Add to that central government expenditure, plus the costs on our energy bills and taxes for all the subsidies…..

    Like

  81. “Tory PMs ‘systematically dishonest’ about £1 trillion cost of net zero, says Lord Hammond
    Former chancellor says there’s a ‘cross-party disease’ of politicians not being straight with voters about significant true cost of project”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/29/tory-pms-systematically-dishonest-1-trillion-cost-net-zero/

    Successive Conservative prime ministers have been “systematically dishonest” with the public about the trillion pound cost of achieving net zero, the former chancellor Lord Hammond has said.

    Lord Hammond said there was a “cross-party disease” of politicians not being straight with voters about the “significant” true cost of the project and the inevitable consequence of slower rising living standards.

    “In a democracy, you fail to take people with you at your peril,” he warned.

    As chancellor, Lord Hammond was in Number 11 in 2019 when Theresa May enshrined the 2050 target for net zero carbon emissions into law.

    He caused controversy at the time by telling Mrs May that the cost of the UK achieving the goal could exceed £1 trillion.

    A senior Conservative figure who asked not to be named said that the Treasury should now repeat the exercise to see if the figure had changed.

    ‘Both May and Johnson were not straight with the public’

    Speaking to The Telegraph, Lord Hammond said that both his former boss and her successor Boris Johnson had not been straight with the public on the issue and that there was currently no one in British politics “who is understanding those sort of numbers”.

    “Boris, basically through weaponising his economic ignorance, tried to pretend that this was not really a cost at all because it would be investment and it will create jobs,” he said.

    He said while it was true net zero would create jobs, it would be “in one part of the economy while failing to create them in another”, and although decarbonisation was “a necessary thing to do” it would cost “a significant amount of money… that we cannot invest in expanding consumption”.

    Across the private and public sectors, Lord Hammond said that money would have to be switched from lifting living standards to changing “the nature of that consumption to decarbonise it”.

    Liked by 2 people

  82. The chickens are coming home to roost. As I said at the time, May’s Net Zero parting gesture to the UK was pure poison. Johnson gave us fair warning in June 2019 that he was fully signed up to Green fanaticism and the pursuit of Net Zero newly signed into law by his less than illustrious predecessor, but it went below the radar of the electorate, who were spellbound by his foppish blonde mop charm and distracted by his promise to #GetBrexitDone, even though it was patently obvious that his slightly tweaked version of May’s utterly horrendous Withdrawal Agreement would still not give us the hoped for ‘clean break’ from the EU. The muddied waters of Brexit are the least of our worries now. Net Zero is a clear and present existential threat to the economic and social well-being of the nation. Pursued to its bitter end, it is in fact an existential threat to western civilisation which will leave us extremely vulnerable to the fossil-fuelled economies of China and Russia.

    Liked by 1 person

  84. “Lord Frost ridicules Whitehall renewables cost estimates”

    https://www.netzerowatch.com/frost-ridicules-renewables-cost-estimates/

    Lord Frost has called on ministers and civil servants to come clean about the cost of wind power, echoing last week’s statement by Lord Hammond. Frost’s comments come after new renewables cost estimates from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero were widely ridiculed on social media.

    Lord Frost said:

    Whitehall continues to obfuscate about the true costs of wind power. This time round we are supposed to believe it will get cheaper either because winds in the North Sea will conveniently grow in strength or windfarms will suddenly become at least 50% more efficient. It’s time the government produced fair comparable figures for the costs of different energy so we have a proper basis for a rational policy discussion.”

    Offshore wind is central to the Government’s Net Zero plans, which will be unaffordable without very cheap renewable energy.

    Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:

    People are openly calling these new figures lies. It’s clear that the green bureaucrats are trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. It’s so transparent as to be laughable. Grant Shapps needs to get a grip his department.”

    Like

  85. As part of the drive to net zero, we are constantly exhorted to eat less meat, and move to a more vegetarian or even vegan based lifestyle. No offence to our vegetarian contributor, or to any vegetarians who might be reading this, but it now appears that the diktat against meat may well involve poor people in yet more undesired and unhelpful expense:

    “Cost of living: Beyond Meat hit as shoppers shift to cheaper animal protein”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66435863

    Vegan food firm Beyond Meat has seen its sales plunge by almost a third as the rising cost of living pushes shoppers to buy cheaper animal protein.

    The plant-based meat substitute maker says net revenues fell by 30.5% for the three months to the end of June, compared to a year earlier.

    Shares of the company fell by almost 12% in extended trading in New York.

    Last year, it announced plans to cut almost a fifth of its workforce to save around $39m (£30.6m) of costs.

    On Monday, the company said it had been affected by “softer demand in the plant-based meat category, high inflation, rising interest rates, and ongoing concerns about the likelihood of a recession”….

    Like

  86. I’m veggie. I wouldn’t touch the expensive processed muck that they’re promoting as ‘plant-based food’ nowadays. I used to like Linda McCartney sausages occasionally, but they’re too expensive now, so most of what I eat is just freshly prepared vegetables and basic carbohydrates and proteins such as pulses and grains. But the price of real meat is ridiculous. I’d hardly call it a cheaper option. A Sunday roast for a family of four is going to set you back at least £20 for the meat alone.

    Like

  87. Jaime, fair comment. My mother is vegetarian also, and she is days away from her 90th birthday, and still going strong. Done right vegetarianism is a perfectly healthy option.

    Like you, I fail to understand the desire to eat heavily processed food, designed to look and taste like meat. Why would anyone who has chosen to be a vegetarian want their food to look and taste like the very thing they have made a conscious decision not to eat?

    Liked by 1 person

  89. Why would anyone who has chosen to be a vegetarian want their food to look and taste like the very thing they have made a conscious decision not to eat?

    Well, the reason is that vegetarians have not made a conscious decision to stop eating sausages – maybe Jaime has – they have made a conscious decision to stop eating bits of dead animal.

    Yes there is a price to pay in that such sausages, unless you make your own, are highly processed and have multiple ingredients.

    Like

  90. I used to cook occasional Nut Roasts too, in the early days, when I was still fixated on traditional British food, but minus the animal protein. I gave up on that pretty quickly after deciding they weren’t much of an improvement on eating processed cardboard. So now I’m living with the true cost of Nut Zero.

    Liked by 1 person

  91. At the risk of derailing this thread entirely, we always make a nut roast at Christmas and I would honestly say that it far outranks roast turkey on objective grounds. Mind you, it’s not vegan.

    Like

  92. Meanwhile, back on topic (no complaints – it was me who went O/T):

    “WHAT IS NET ZERO COSTING NOW?”

    Click to access NetZero-Costsheet.pdf

    The ultimate cost of net zero is very high. Although the Committee on Climate Change suggest a figure of £1.5 trillion, or 1–2% of GDP, their estimate is now seen as seriously flawed. My own estimate, covering only some key sectors of the economy, is double that, and numbers published by McKinsey suggest it could be more like ten times as expensive. This amounts to hundreds of thousands of pounds per household.

    But what is the drive for net zero costing now? This factsheet reviews the published cost for direct levies,
    spending programmes, and estimates the effect of renewables programmes on consumers, via their effects
    on wholesale and system costs…

    …Summary
    This paper suggests that the cost of net zero policies may already be more than £2000 per household
    (Table 4), with an annual cost to the economy of £58 billion. It should be noted that these are the costs for
    addressing the ‘low-hanging fruit’ of easy-to-decarbonise activities. The annual cost should be expected
    to rise sharply in future.

    Like

  93. “HS2 is the white elephant in the room. If the Tories won’t scrap it, Labour must
    Larry Elliott
    The vanity project is scandalously over budget. Finally cancelling it would show the party is serious about public finances”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/10/hs2-scrap-tories-labour-budget-public-finances

    Last month, the government’s infrastructure watchdog gave its assessment of how HS2 is progressing. Not at all well, was the answer. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) gave the project a red rating, by which it means successful delivery appears to be unachievable.

    There was more. “There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed,” it said. Other than that, everything is going swimmingly.

    In a sense the IPA report told us nothing that wasn’t known already. HS2 is a scandalous waste of money. It is a vanity project that has caused immense environmental damage. The pressure on the Department for Transport’s budget from cost overruns means spending on projects that offer bigger economic and social returns is being squeezed. Delays mean the first trains to Manchester won’t arrive – even assuming there is no further slippage – until the late 2030s at the earliest and perhaps not until 2043.

    There are still those who insist that HS2 is needed to boost capacity on the rail network, which even if true misses the point: that every pound spent on HS2 is a pound that can’t be spent on other rail projects….

    I agree with every word. Of course, the same applies (including the reference to causing immense environmental damage) with bells on to Net Zero. Unfortunately, this being the Guardian, he concludes with this:

    …it [scrapping HS2] will send out the signal that Reeves intends to secure value for money from Labour’s green prosperity plan, which will eventually involve a budget of £28bn a year. Announcing the intention to invest big in net zero is one thing. Delivering the promised benefits – as HS2 proves all too clearly – is altogether more challenging.

    Sadly, he has to run with the need to invest in net zero, but he does at least point out that investing is one thing, delivery is another.

    Like

  94. “The return of animal sacrifice
    Net Zero is a neo-pagan religion that is seriously harming people’s liberties and livelihoods.”

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/17/the-return-of-animal-sacrifice/

    …Surely nothing better sums up the irrationalism of the 21st century’s eco-elites than their cavalier attitude to the rights and happiness of the people who make our food. Ritual sacrifice to mollify the heavens is once again all the rage among the rulers of Earth. Sacrifice not only of animals this time, but also of livelihoods and even liberty. Dairy farming, food production, pesticide-use, cheap flights, our right to drive – all are being offered up at the apologetic altar of Net Zero. ‘Forgive us our hubris’, cry the elites as they sacrifice, one by one, the things that make life good and tasty. It is time for a rational pushback, surely, against this modern paganism.

    Liked by 1 person

  95. “Anyone who thinks renewable wind and solar energy will be cheap is dreaming
    Sunshine and breeze are indeed free, but vast amounts of subsidised infrastructure are not”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/25/renewables-wind-solar-energy-cheap/

    …Even if the wholesale price of electricity fell to zero to reflect the short-run marginal cost of producing renewable electricity, the price paid by consumers would simply be more disconnected from the wholesale price than it is today. Consumers pay the wholesale price, plus a network cost (including congestion costs), plus a balancing cost, plus a subsidy cost, plus the retailer/supplier operating costs, plus some profits for everyone in the chain from the generator to the network owner to the network operator to the retailer. And then some taxes on top.

    And to hit net zero the whole electrical system – expanded renewables, expanded grid, backup fossil, balancing, subsidies, curtailment payments and all – will have to be expanded to multiple times its current size, as fossil fuels used directly in such things as heating and transport are replaced with electricity.

    Anyone who thinks all this is going to mean cheaper energy is dreaming. …

    Liked by 1 person

  96. “Scottish firm wins contract to build SSEN Transmission warehouses”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-66536187

    A Scottish civil engineering company has won a multi-million pound contract to design and build two storage facilities for SSEN Transmission.

    Beauly-based Global Infrastructure (Scotland) Ltd will construct the warehouses in Dundee and Inverness.

    SSEN said the facilities were needed for the expansion and maintenance of Scotland’s electricity network.

    Work on the unit at Inverness Airport Airport Business Park has begun, with work in Dundee set to begin in January.

    The Dundee warehouse will be based at Claverhouse East Industrial Estate.

    The 7,500 sq m (80,729 sq ft) warehouses will include heavy lifting facilities and storage areas.

    Global Infrastructure managing director David MacDonald, said: “The new strategic warehouse facilities which we will deliver in early 2025 will be vital to the build-out and maintenance of the electricity network as part of the government’s drive to net zero.”

    More expense that wouldn’t be incurred if it weren’t for the net zero project.

    Like

  97. “warehouses will include heavy lifting facilities and storage areas.”

    Wonder if the “heavy lifting” is for big battery containers that sometimes catch fire?

    Like

  98. “Over £3.5 million funding from Government to reduce the impact of offshore windfarms on UK Air Defence”

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/over-35-million-funding-from-government-to-reduce-the-impact-of-offshore-windfarms-on-uk-air-defence

    …Funding worth £3.2 million has been awarded by the Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA), in partnership with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), to two projects aiming to demonstrate technologies which can mitigate offshore windfarms’ impacts and their interference on defence radar.

    Alongside this a new £500,000 competition has been launched which will help companies find solutions to accurately model and test the effectiveness of these technologies.

    This will help ensure the UK remains on course to reach its ambition of 50GW in offshore wind by 2030, whilst supporting and co-existing with our air defence capabilities.

    The Windfarm Mitigation for UK Air Defence: Phase 3 Programme is funded by the government’s £1 billion Net Zero Innovation Portfolio (NZIP) and is undertaken in partnership with the Royal Air Force (RAF), the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), and DASA….

    Like

  100. “Lord King: Net zero obsession ‘has fuelled inflation’
    It should not be in the Bank’s remit to help world fight climate change, former governor warns”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/08/mervyn-king-net-zero-distracts-bank-england-inflation-fight/

    The Bank of England has weakened its ability to fight inflation because of the amount of time and effort it has dedicated to net zero, Lord King has warned.

    The former Bank governor, who led Threadneedle Street from 2003 to 2013, said it made “absolutely no sense” to add net zero to the Bank’s growing list of responsibilities, warning that climate change had become the “straw [that] breaks the camel’s back”.

    It comes after Andrew Bailey, the Bank of England’s Governor, admitted in May that the it had made errors in its UK inflation forecasts, conceding it had some “very big” lessons to learn….

    …In an interview with The Telegraph, Lord King said Britain’s influence on achieving global net zero emissions was negligible and that the Government put too much emphasis on “arbitrary dates” banning petrol and diesel cars as well as gas boilers.

    He said: “The Bank of England can do nothing about climate change. It’s not even obvious that the biggest and most immediate risks to the stability of the banking system are coming from climate change, as opposed to pandemics or cyber security or excess lending to commercial property. So to have a special focus on that doesn’t in my view, make any sense.”…

    Liked by 1 person

  101. “Households face £2,300 bills under net zero plans
    The cost of shutting down Britain’s gas grid could reach £65bn”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/09/household-energy-bills-britain-gas-grid-shut-down-net-zero/

    The cost of decommissioning the grid could reach a total of £65bn, according to a draft National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) report.

    It is the first time a public body has examined the future of the 176,000-mile network of buried pipes, which serves eight in ten homes but risks becoming obsolete under plans to reach net zero carbon emissions. Unused pipes must be removed or they risk decay and experts fear the potential collapse of roads.

    Households could be left to foot the bill through higher energy bills or taxes since there is no provision for decommissioning in current government budgets, and energy companies are not obliged to cover the costs.

    The NIC did not dispute the figures when contacted, although an insider insisted the report was a draft and could change before final publication next month.

    The NIC believes the grid could theoretically be converted to carry hydrogen, which is cleaner, but that would also come at cost of “tens of billions of pounds” and there are doubts over the suitability of hydrogen as a mass heating solution.

    Senior Conservatives said the figures raised serious questions about the Government’s plan to reach net zero by 2050….

    Like

  102. Good news for jobs, if we must go down this crazy road:

    “BMW investment secures future of Mini factories”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66745660

    However, at every step of the way it costs the taxpayer. Tucked away, well down the article, is this:

    The UK investment will be backed by funding from the government’s Automotive Transformation Fund – understood to be worth £75m//..

    Germany-based analyst Matthias Schmidt believes car firms have been exploiting what he sees as the government’s weak position, as it tries to secure new investment in the industry after Brexit.

    “I would see this as BMW unashamedly playing the subsidy card, which many have done before them and many will follow, trying to squeeze out some fiscal buoyancy aids from the UK government, which holds terrible cards,” he says….

    The Guardian article reporting on this story doesn’t mention what it’s costing the taxpayer:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/11/bmw-u-turns-on-plans-to-move-electric-mini-production-from-uk-to-china

    Like

  103. “Portsmouth to introduce port shore power system”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-66767987

    Ships docking in Portsmouth are set to be able to plug into the National Grid, in a bid to reduce air pollution.

    The new government-funded Sea Change system means vessels in three berths at Portsmouth International Port will not have to rely on running engines….

    …Funding for the project has come from a £19.8m award from the government’s Zero Emissions Vessels and Infrastructure competition.

    Portsmouth aims to become the first net carbon-neutral port in the country by 2030.

    Recent efforts to improve the port’s climate credentials include the installation of 2,660 solar panels, which it is claimed can meet about a third of its demand for electricity.

    With the BMW investment above, and this, that’s close to £100M of taxpayers’ money. It’s being thrown around like confetti.

    Like

  104. I used to live in Portsmouth and still fondly remember being up on top of Portsdown Hill on New years Eve, listening to the ships blasting their fog horns to welcome in the New Year. Now though, it will be: ‘Washing machine and dishwasher are dead. Yep, ship must have docked at the port.’
    Not much liking this Brave New World.

    Liked by 1 person

  105. You could call it another abuse of power by our politicians. Suppose we had a whip round to see how many people thought it was a good idea that they should donate a quid to BMW to help them build cars that they would try to sell at a profit. What proportion of the public would say, yes, I cannot think of something I would rather do with my quid than give it to a massive international corporation’s shareholders?

    You could badge this as purchasing jobs with that cash, but better surely to have a country in which companies wish to do business rather than demand bribes to do so?

    Liked by 1 person

  106. “Dumfries dairy innovation centre hit by financial pressures”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-66774330

    A rather coy article from the BBC:

    Plans for a dairy innovation centre near Dumfries have been revised due to financial pressures.

    Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) said the original proposals at its Barony Campus at Parkgate had proved too expensive.

    It blamed a range of factors including Brexit, inflation and the Covid pandemic for the decision….

    No explanation is given as to how any of those affected rendered the plans more expensive (though it’s obvious that inflation might be an issue, I accept). Then we learn:

    The “digital dairy” project landed more than £21m in funding support in 2021.

    We aren’t told where the funding came from, but I’ve a shrewd idea it’s from the taxpayer, especially given what follows:

    As well as looking at creating new products and new ways of working, it planned to help reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced by the industry…

    …Professor of dairy nutrition John Newbold said: “On completion, SRUC’s dairy nexus will be a flagship facility that will help to decarbonise the dairy industry and boost productivity throughout the region….

    Like

  107. “Scrapping Net Zero is Equivalent to Giving Every U.K. Family Free Food and a £2,800 Gift Every Year”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/28/scrapping-net-zero-is-equivalent-to-giving-every-u-k-family-free-food-and-a-2800-gift-every-year/

    By the way, I’m as suspicious of these numbers as any others (they exceed my own back of a fag packet calculation by 50%), but it’s still worth a read, IMO:

    An excoriating report from the Civitas think tank has raised the official estimated cost of Net Zero from the U.K. Government’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) by a factor of at least three to £4.5 trillion. The author of the report, the economist Ewen Stewart of Walbrook Economics, puts the figure into context by noting that the resulting £6,000 annual charge per family would enable every family in the U.K. to have free food and £2,800 spending money every year until 2050. It can be additionally noted that removing such a large sum from family budgets might dent the incomes of well-paid liberal elites, but millions of people on or below average wages will find themselves pushed into grinding poverty.

    The author charges that the Government has “grossly underestimated” the economic costs of Net Zero. At the same time it has adopted one of the most stringent and legally binding Net Zero frameworks in the world. The U.K. is one of only six countries to have made legally binding Net Zero targets, although it contributes less than 1% of global emissions of carbon dioxide. Despite a modest shifting of some deadlines last week, “the U.K.’s approach remains one of the most legalistic and prescriptive, globally risking both economic prosperity and the U.K.’s competitive position”. Last week’s announcement by the Prime Minister “does not amount to any material change in policy or economic cost”.

    The U.K. may wish to maintain an aspiration of Net Zero, states Civitas, “but to drive a potentially four and a half trillion pound project, based on technology that in many cases is unproven, risks the very fabric of the U.K. economy and genuine societal hardship”….

    Whatever the true cost is, it’s difficult to disagree with that final paragraph. The Civitas report can be downloaded via this link:

    https://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/net-zero/

    Like

  108. Never let it be said that at Cliscep we cherry pick data. Here, for the sake of balance, is a critique in the Guardian of the Civitas review of the costs of net zero:

    “How a thinktank got the cost of net zero for the UK wildly wrong
    Simon Evans
    Civitas’s deeply flawed report was timed to follow the PM’s speech in which he called for an honest approach to the issue”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/29/how-a-thinktank-got-the-cost-of-net-zero-for-the-uk-wildly-wrong

    Some of the criticisms may be valid (I don’t know, as I haven’t yet had time to read the Civitas report), but this sounds pretty poor on the part of Civitas:

    An extremely hastily issued “update” on the Civitas website says: “There has been criticism on social media of two paragraphs on page 47 of this report, where capacity and output are confused. These paragraphs will be amended and updated. The author is happy to acknowledge this and correct the report.”

    Some of the assertions made do seem to suggest some howlers in the report., but some seem to be based on belief systems rather than a hard-headed analysis, e.g. this:

    The Civitas report claims to offer a “realistic” £4.5tn estimate of the cost of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 and says “the government need to be honest with the British people”.

    This estimate is much higher than the figure produced by the government’s official adviser, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which has said that reaching net zero would require net investments of £1.4tn by 2050. Note the difference between Civitas’s “costs” and the CCC’s “net investments”. The CCC also found that reaching net zero would generate savings in the form of lower fossil fuel bills worth £1.1tn, resulting in a net cost of £0.3tn.

    It doesn’t criticise the costs figure, but says we should look at net investments instead (money spent on net zero is never a cost, it’s always an investment). This (and the highly speculative, indeed risible, claim of lower fossil fuel bills worth £1.tn) are taken as holy writ because they were produced by the CCC.

    In his report for Civitas, Stewart adopts the well-worn climate-sceptic tactic of simply ignoring these savings. He also ignores what the Office for Budget Responsibility has called the potentially “catastrophic economic and fiscal consequences” of unmitigated climate change.

    And he is right to ignore them. Neither Simon Evans nor the CCC have convincingly explained how those costs can be avoided by unilateral GHG reductions by the UK if the rest of the world doesn’t join in. Nor have either, to my, mind, ever convincingly explained those supposed costs stack up.

    Citing claims such as contained here:

    https://eciu.net/media/press-releases/2022/407-added-to-2022-food-bill-by-oil-gas-prices-and-climate-change-new-research

    regarding costs of food is every bit as fantastical as the claims in the Civitas report about the costs of food that Simon Evans criticises, as is citing an ECIU report as “actual evidence” (well, it’s evidence of some numbers spouted by a pressure group with an agenda).

    It’s disappointing that the Civitas report contained what seem to be some glaring errors, but this critique is pretty unconvincing. And I can’t help remembering that Simon Evans and his outfit, Carbon Brief, were behind (much-repeated) claims that led me to write this:

    The Lies Have It

    Like

  109. Meanwhile:

    “Britain is Leading the World in Committing Economic Suicide”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/29/britain-is-leading-the-world-in-committing-economic-suicide/

    …A picture is emerging which suggests that the more a country relies on renewables for its electricity, the higher are its energy costs and the lower is the percentage of its GDP made up by manufacturing.

    Economist Richard Salsman wrote: “The science of economics is clear: the production of money and debt is not equivalent to the production of real wealth. To claim otherwise is to follow fantasy, not reality – or science.”

    As we in Britain enthusiastically print money and increase national debt in pursuit of our Net Zero goals, we seem to be wrecking U.K. manufacturing with high energy prices thus committing economic suicide as U.K. manufacturing moves to countries with lower energy costs. It’s more than astonishing that not a single one of our politicians and media supposed ‘experts’ seem to understand or are willing to admit what is actually happening and how the U.K. is committing an extraordinary act of self-mutilation by cutting the country’s CO2 emissions….

    Liked by 1 person

  110. In the spirit of openness and comprehensive reporting of issues, I won’t shy away from this:

    “Report claiming net zero will cost UK trillions retracted due to ‘factual errors’
    Rightwing thinktank Civitas mistakenly cost onshore wind power 10,000 times higher than reality and claimed bill would be £4.5tn”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/02/report-claiming-net-zero-will-cost-uk-trillions-retracted-due-to-factual-errors

    A report that hugely overestimated the cost to the UK of reaching net zero emissions has been retracted by the rightwing thinktank that published it.

    The Civitas pamphlet published on Thursday claimed to offer a “realistic” estimate of the cost – £4.5tn – and said “the government needs to be honest with the British people”. However, factual errors were quickly pointed out after publication.

    The most serious error was the confusion by the report’s author, Ewen Stewart, between power capacity in megawatts (MW) with electricity generation in megawatt hours (MWh). As a result, he presented an unrealistic “£1.3m per MWh” figure for the cost for onshore wind power. The true number is more than 10,000 times lower at about £50 to £70 per MWh. Another error was mixing up billions with trillions.

    A statement on the Civitas website said: “This report has been taken down from the website because it was found to contain factual errors, it is undergoing revision and a fresh process of peer review. A revised report will be released when this process is completed.”…

    We’ll see what the revised report says, if and when it surfaces. I’m sure it will still come with a higher figure than officialdom acknowledges, but let’s hope it’s done much better next time. In my defence I did say when I first noted it above, that:

    By the way, I’m as suspicious of these numbers as any others (they exceed my own back of a fag packet calculation by 50%)…

    Like

  111. “The true cost of net zero? Ruinously high bills, for decades
    Abandoning gas will leave us exposed to the expensive pitfalls of renewable energy”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/net-zero/ruinously-high-electricity-bills-decades-true-cost-net-zero/

    Household electricity bills will rise relentlessly and then stay high if Britain sticks to its net zero ambitions.

    This is the inevitable consequence of the shortcomings of all current means of generating clean electricity – and demand for electricity is certain to soar if we scrap gas boilers and force people to buy electric cars.

    The Government has committed to net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 and this pledge survived the Prime Minister’s recent watering down of the Government’s green agenda.

    One of the pillars of emissions reduction is a continuous increase in the use of zero-carbon electricity.

    There are four large-scale sources of zero-carbon electricity: nuclear, hydro, solar and wind. All are technologically quite mature, so we can judge how well they will be able to meet the country’s need for zero-carbon power.

    It’s important to understand that electricity is a carrier of energy, not an energy source, and is currently not storable at grid scale at affordable cost. To give an example, the largest grid-storage battery in the world would power Britain’s peak demand for two minutes and 24 seconds.

    Now to those four sources of green power.

    Nuclear power is very, very expensive. To build plants safe enough by today’s standards, construction costs have rocketed, and the result is that no new nuclear plants are being commissioned without heavy subsidies. Nuclear power is too expensive to be competitive with other sources.

    On the plus side, nuclear power plants supply continuous, reliable energy. It is not easy to adjust their output quickly, but modern economies have a base load that can be well served by nuclear plants.

    Hydro-electricity has many attractive characteristics, but Britain has very few sites (mostly in Scotland) with sufficient height gradients to allow the construction of dams, and most of these already have hydro in operation. There is little opportunity to increase hydro capacity in the UK.

    Moving to solar, central southern England sits at a latitude of about 52 degrees north, which means that sunlight falls at a very slanting angle for much of the year.

    We also live in a cloudy country. The result is that solar is not competitive without subsidies. Solar also cannot be turned on at will; it supplies energy randomly, but more in the summer when it is least needed.

    Finally wind, currently seen by the Government as the principal route to the decarbonisation of the grid.

    Wind-generated electricity is now a very well established technology and wind farms can be built more quickly than nuclear stations, but their major drawback is that they don’t supply power on demand.

    Wind generation cannot be relied on to supply electricity when it’s needed, and electricity generated when it’s windy cannot be stored with current technology.

    This creates a major problem. With an ever-increasing wind fleet, Britain is experiencing long periods when wind dominates electricity supply.

    Gas-fired generators, which currently make up the supply/demand gap, are forced to continuously adjust their output, and can often be idle. Increasingly this is rendering gas an uneconomic generation method.

    The result is that gas generators are retiring their fleets, only recently the mainstay of Britain’s generation capacity, or recovering their much higher costs by increasing significantly the price at which they sell electricity to the grid in times of wind shortage. But while gas produces half the carbon of oil or coal, it is not zero-carbon.

    Without gas, and with the near extinction of coal and oil generation in Britain, how are we going to get continuous zero-carbon electricity? Doubling, trebling or even multiplying by 10 the number of wind turbines cannot solve the problem, since a much larger wind fleet still cannot fill the supply-demand gap when there is no wind.

    Here’s an example. At 9am on December 12 last year, a very cold, grey, still winter morning, electricity demand was (predictably) very high at 42GW. 60pc of that demand was met by gas, 14pc by nuclear, 2pc by wind, and nothing from solar. The remainder was from biomass, hydro, hydro storage or coal, or imported.

    Since with current technology we have no means to store electricity at grid scale, how can we keep the lights on if we abandon gas? Gas, the ideal transition fuel, is currently the sponge that soaks up supply and demand changes and, given the intermittency and unreliability of wind and solar, there needs to be enough “on demand” capacity to supply all peak demand.

    But if we also have enough renewable capacity to fully supply the grid when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, we will need to have nearly twice the capacity we actually require to keep the lights on when they’re not. This is going to enormously and permanently increase the cost of our electricity.

    If gas is to be replaced by electricity to heat homes and offices, and if petrol and diesel vehicles are to be phased out, peak electricity demand is estimated to treble, even if Rishi Sunak has now delayed both initiatives.

    The scale of this rise will require not only a huge increase in electricity supply but also a complete upgrade of every single transmission cable, including those to our homes, and of the associated equipment, plus double or treble the current number of pylons.

    And still we will face the problem of a grossly inadequate supply of reliable zero-carbon energy sources to convert into electricity.

    So net zero by 2050 for Britain’s electricity supply is so difficult as to be practically impossible with current technology.

    If net zero remains the goal, the price of energy will be forced to rise and rise, and stay at ruinously high levels, as electricity generating capacity is massively increased to at least twice what we need on average, and then underused.

    Like

  112. “Thousands Face Being Unable to Get a Mortgage Under Bank Net Zero Rules”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2023/10/05/thousands-face-being-unable-to-get-a-mortgage-under-bank-net-zero-rules/

    Banks are sticking to green pledges that will see thousands turned down for mortgages if they don’t spend a small fortune making their homes more energy efficient, despite Rishi Sunak saying the public should not be burdened with the cost of Net Zero. The Telegraph has more.

    Last month Mr. Sunak removed targets for mortgage lenders that would have forced them to ensure the properties on their loan books have Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) ratings of C or better by 2030. He said he wanted to “ease the burden” of Net Zero on families and working people.

    EPC rating rules were brought into law in 2018 and required all privately rented properties in England to be above a certain standard of energy efficiency.

    On top of this, the Government proposed introducing voluntary targets for mortgage lenders to ensure properties on their loan books have ratings of C or better by the end of the decade.

    But, despite Mr. Sunak scrapping or pushing back a string of Net Zero requirements, including the looming rules for landlords, large lenders including Nationwide Building Society and NatWest are still sticking to pledges to make 50% of their mortgage customers’ homes EPC rating C or more by 2030.

    It means mortgage customers whose homes do not meet the standard face spending thousands on upgrades such as insulation, double glazing and heat pumps.

    According to the Department for Levelling up, Housing and Communities English Housing Survey, published last year, 18% of private rental properties would require more than £10,000 to bring up their homes to an EPC rating of C. Those who do not meet these standards, face being turned down for loans.

    Like

  113. “Solar panels: Call for new homes to have renewable energy”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67123811

    Aye, but there’s the rub:

    …A climate-friendly cul-de-sac at Pen y Ffridd Road in Bangor, Gwynedd, has two and three-bedroom properties being built for housing association Adra which come complete with enhanced insulation, solar panels, air-source heat pumps and charge points for electric vehicles.

    “You’re looking at maybe £20,000 more per property to install these measures,” explained Adra’s director of development Daniel Parry.

    Grants available for social housing made it a viable and attractive option for the company, but it would be “more challenging for the private sector” and would make those homes more expensive, he added….

    Like

  114. “MATT RIDLEY: The official true cost of net zero is the same as spending £1 a SECOND for the next 31,000 years!”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12646841/MATT-RIDLEY-official-true-cost-net-zero-spending-1-SECOND-31-000-years.html

    The truth is out. An official report has admitted for the first time the scale of the cost of reaching net zero by 2050.

    A study by the National Infrastructure Commission, released on Tuesday, concluded that hitting the 2050 target will roughly double the amount of money we would have spent anyway on infrastructure over the next 27 years to £2 trillion: an additional £1 trillion spent on the green agenda.

    For a word that skips off the tongue so easily, a trillion is mighty big. Imagine you were to spend a pound a second: how long would it take you to spend £1 trillion? The answer is more than 31,000 years.

    So to have spent a trillion pounds by today at the rate of £1 a second, you would have to have started when woolly mammoths roamed free….

    …Oh, and £74 billion would be spent on closing down the gas grid: the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC), which was set up to promote economic growth, has been so captured by the green lobby that it is now a National Dismantling Commission.

    With the exception of home insulation, very little of that £1 trillion would actually improve your lifestyle in any practical way. It does not promise to give you cheaper or more reliable electricity. It would not save you any money or give you any more spare time — or make you more productive.

    It would generally replace smaller things with bigger things — more pylons, heavier cars, bigger radiators, wind farms instead of gas turbines — so it would actually clutter the world more.

    It’s not like the fortunes we spent setting up the railways in the 1840s or the electricity grid in the 1950s or the internet in the 1990s. These gave us something new and useful. Net zero merely gives us exactly the same product in a different way….

    …it’s like replacing all the UK’s coffee shops with more expensive, bigger ones that serve exactly the same coffee and have slightly longer queues. The £1 trillion spent on this, of course, is money we would not be able to spend on schools and hospitals.

    This point seems to be lost on almost all our politicians who persist in implying that somehow building a lot of larger coffee shops to replace all the Starbucks and Costas would make us all richer….

    Like

  115. “Dutch Energy Minister Admits That Wind Power Agenda Is Pricier Than Anticipated”

    https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/Dutch-Energy-Minister-Admits-That-Wind-Power-Agenda-Is-Pricier-Than-Anticipated.html

    Reality has returned to the European offshore wind sector, bringing financial challenges to the forefront. These challenges are not solely due to higher interest rates but are increasingly driven by supply chain constraints, Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) issues, and investor caution. In a surprising announcement, Dutch Minister of Climate and Energy, Rob Jetten, has informed the market, government, and parliament that the costs of offshore wind projects in the North Sea will be significantly higher than previously assessed. Minister Jetten, a member of the left-wing liberal democrat D66 party, has also indicated that consumers should expect substantially higher electricity prices than initially anticipated.

    This news has come as a shock to mainstream political parties and renewable energy sector operators. They had been advocating offshore wind and other renewables not only as a means of addressing climate change but also as a progressively cost-effective alternative. In the coming years, the development of hundreds of gigawatts of offshore wind capacity is required to establish a comprehensive renewable energy supply capable of significantly reducing or eliminating the reliance on fossil fuels. While some major projects have already been completed, many are still in the construction phase or awaiting investment decisions.

    The increased costs are not primarily linked to global market developments but rather to the extra €10 billion required for connecting offshore wind farms at sea to onshore infrastructure. The Dutch state-owned company, TenneT, now faces higher financial burdens and increased risks. Previous assessments of TenneT’s plans indicated financing needs of approximately €2 billion per year for the next several decades. However, new assessments reveal investment requirements of €3.6 billion per year, equivalent to €0.04 per kWh. In reality, these costs will ultimately be passed on to consumers through net tariffs, the fees for the delivery or transport of energy. The average Dutch household consumes 2,800 kWh per year….

    Like

  116. A problem with Matt Ridley’s ‘£1 a SECOND for the next 31,000 years!’ article is that, according to Michael Kelly , net zero would cost the UK a lot more than £1 trillion. (His comments are about the US – divide his figures by about 8 for the UK.)

    Like

  118. My reading of Professor Kelly’s article indicates even more than that – if indeed it’s possible to have any idea as some of the required technology doesn’t yet exist. His concluding paragraph:

    ‘The idea that net zero can be achieved on the current timelines by any means short of a command economy combined with a drastic decline in standards of living – and several unlikely technological miracles – is a blatant falsehood. The silence of the National Academies and the professional science and engineering bodies about these big picture engineering realities is despicable.’

    Like

  119. Robin,

    That may well be true. The terrifying thing is that all the MPs, Lords, Committees, Quangocrats and the rest of them don’t really have a clue what this will cost, nor do they care. So wrapped up are they in the cult-like beliefs that we (a) have to do this to save the planet, and that (b) the putative (and largely imaginary) benefits will exceed the (very large and very real) costs, that common sense and logic have long since left the room.

    Like

  121. “UK must offer businesses certainty over green energy, says boss of FTSE 100 firm
    Miles Roberts of packaging-maker DS Smith warns manufacturing will decline unless government provides clarity about decarbonisation”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/oct/22/uk-must-offer-businesses-certainty-over-green-energy-says-boss-of-ftse-100-firm

    How easily a headline can disguise the truth. What it means is – we want the same subsidies as are now available in the EU and the US or we’ll take our business elsewhere. It looks as though it’s nothing to do with “certainty over green energy” and everything to do with subsidies.

    The UK risks seeing its manufacturing sector fall behind rival economies if the government does not offer certainty over policies on shifting to green energy, according to the head of FTSE 100 packaging maker DS Smith.

    Miles Roberts, the company’s chief executive, said British government decarbonisation policy has lacked the clarity of European rivals, meaning DS Smith has moved ahead with a €90m (£78m) investment in a paper mill in Rouen, northern France, while waiting for more clarity from government before investing in upgrades in the UK.

    The EU’s Green Deal and the US Inflation Reduction Act have offered enormous subsidies to help industries to reduce their own carbon emissions as well as to manufacture the technology needed for the transition away from fossil fuels….

    Like

  122. “Climate fatigue isn’t a sign that Europeans are in denial – it’s a sign of their fear
    Francesco Grillo
    While Europe is battered by the climate crisis, governments must reassure voters that green costs will be fairly shared”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/08/climate-fatigue-europe-voters-green-costs

    Their very justified fear:

    …people are also terrified of what they believe will be the cost to individuals of the required energy transition. According to the consulting firm McKinsey, the global transition to net zero will require additional investments in fixed assets of $3.5tn a year until 2050. That’s about a quarter of all the tax raised worldwide. There is still no convincing mechanism for financing this in ways that reassure families, individuals, small firms and farmers that they are not going to be bankrupted. Increasingly, ordinary citizens know that many of them will have to foot crippling bills for such things as renovating homes to make them comply with energy efficiency rules.

    Just look at the European Commission’s plan to upgrade the energy performance of buildings by 2050 (2030 for new buildings). Buildings account for more than 40% of energy consumed and 36% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. But in a country such as Italy, more than half of existing homes need to be adapted to the new standards. Italian families would have to pay out about €500bn over the next decade, an average of €40,000 per affected household, according to a study done for the Vision thinktank I am affiliated to. No wonder many families, impoverished by years of economic stagnation and more recent inflation, view the green deal not as a transition to a more just model of distributed energy production, but as a waking nightmare.

    The experience with subsidising the retrofitting of homes offers clues as to what has gone wrong with existing green policies. Italy’s finance minister, Giancarlo Giorgetti, recently admitted that three successive Italian governments have spent €109bn in three years on updating residential buildings, but have still only reached 3% of the country’s housing stock. The Italian national subsidy scheme was generous: initially, the state reimbursed 110% of the cost of retrofitting a home. This created an incentive for both landlords and builders to inflate their invoices….

    Like

  123. “Giancarlo Giorgetti, recently admitted that three successive Italian governments have spent €109bn in three years on updating residential buildings, but have still only reached 3% of the country’s housing stock. The Italian national subsidy scheme was generous: initially, the state reimbursed 110% of the cost of retrofitting a home. This created an incentive for both landlords and builders to inflate their invoices”

    somebody is doing well from the subsidy scheme, wonder what Italian tax payers think?

    Like

  124. Clever, and interesting, but still…:

    “Floating factories of artificial leaves could make green fuel for jets and ships
    Cambridge University scientists develop a device to ‘defossilise’ the economy using sunlight, water and carbon dioxide”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/12/floating-factories-artificial-leaves-green-fuel-jets-ships-carbon-dioxide

    Automated floating factories that manufacture green versions of petrol or diesel could soon be in operation thanks to pioneering work at the University of Cambridge. The revolutionary system would produce a net-zero fuel that would burn without creating fossil-derived emissions of carbon dioxide, say researchers.

    The Cambridge project is based on a floating artificial leaf which has been developed at the university and which can turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into synthetic fuel. The group believe these thin, flexible devices could one day be exploited on a industrial scale….

    We are told this positive:

    A crucial advantage of this technology is the fact that it floats and so does not occupy the large amounts of land needed for crops and woodlands. “Clean energy and land use would not be competing with each other,” he added.

    But we are not told how much surface space on water would be needed for commercial production levels, nor what impact that would have on the environment and on the ecology dependent on the water in question. Then of course, there’s money (isn’t there always?):

    The team have now created a startup company to commercialise these inventions. “We have taken the science of these systems as far as we can and it is now up to engineers to scale them up so that they can be used on scales large enough to have an impact on carbon emissions,” Reisner told the Observer.

    “We need to take solar chemistry from the laboratory and take it to a large-scale industrial level, and that will take millions of pounds of investment.”

    Like

  125. Why are they thinking of making “green” petrol? Haven’t they heard? Combustion engines are being banned.

    I can tell them for free that this system is not going to work. Its production will not pay for itself. But I do think synfuel has potential if done properly.

    Like

  126. “Net Zero is Driving Inflation, Says Bank of England Rate Setter”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2023/11/14/net-zero-is-driving-inflation-says-bank-of-england-rate-setter/

    …Climate change policies including carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes risk raising costs for families as companies pass the extra costs on to their customers, said Catherine Mann, a member of the interest rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee.

    Economists have found “that carbon taxes, public investments, and subsidies are all inflationary”, she told an audience at the University of Oxford.

    Ms. Mann added: “Evidence has suggested upward pressure on inflation [and] downward effects on output.”…

    Like

  127. It just keeps getting worse. First the news about the money to be thrown at CfD AR6, now this:

    “Jeremy Hunt to pledge millions to woo electric car firms”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67443156

    The chancellor is to announce hundreds of millions of pounds more in funding for companies wanting to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles.

    In a signal aimed at attracting EV manufacturers, including the likes of Tesla and Chinese firms, Jeremy Hunt will pledge more subsidies and grants.

    The existing Automotive Transformation Fund has helped to lure Nissan and Tata to the UK.

    But industry sources say much of the £1.2bn pot has been committed.

    The announcement will be part of a wider package aimed at stimulating growth in advanced manufacturing….

    What will it take to mke the madness stop?

    Like

  128. There was an acronym in popular usage during the Cold War years – MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). It meant that no single country would dare to take the decision to launch nukes against another country in the knowledge that they would respond in kind and therefore everyone would be annihilated. We now have Unilateral Assured Destruction (aka Net Zero), where individual countries make the decision to destroy their own economies in the knowledge that their demise will ensure the continued prosperity and growth of competing economies which are not mad enough to embrace the utter insanity of Net Zero. The UK leads the way. Our politicians are going full speed ahead with the destruction of UK plc with the consequent immiseration and impoverishment of millions of innocent citizens, and nothing is going to stop them. Bombs, bullets and missiles are not being rained down upon us, but they may as well be, because our own governments are waging a very real war against us.

    Liked by 1 person

  130. Those costs are just as real in the EU as in the UK. IMO this is a very revealing and interesting read:

    https://www.politico.eu/article/does-the-architect-of-europes-green-deal-truly-understand-what-hes-unleashed/

    …Timmermans has been candid about the cost of his revolution, warning that the journey will be harder on some than on others. He has said repeatedly that no one should be left behind. But does he really believe that is possible? Or will the forces he has set in motion guarantee that Heerlen is as much a part of Europe’s future as it is of Timmermans’ own past?

    “This is going to be bloody hard to do,” he told the European Parliament in 2020. “We will ask sacrifices of everyone.”…

    Like

  131. Another hint that the dial might be moving slightly, as the Guardian recognises that net zero policies hurt the poor very badly (remember they always used to tell us that they would make us all benefit off – cheap fuel and all that; they were ‘aving a larf):

    “Five years on, the world is failing to learn the gilets jaunes’ lesson about class and climate
    From the reaction to Ulez in London to heat pumps in Germany, eco-policies are still too often felt as sanctions on working people”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/17/five-years-gilets-jaunes-class-climate-ulez-london-heat-pumps-germany

    It began with a petition. In May 2018, Priscillia Ludosky, a gently spoken French-Martinique small-business owner who sold natural cosmetic products, launched a call on Change.org for lower prices on petrol at the pumps. It gathered steam and she was contacted by Eric Drouet, a lorry driver. Together they organised a protest against a carbon tax on petrol that was due to be implemented the following year (notably, this was not long after Emmanuel Macron cut taxes for the ultra-rich). The call was eventually answered by hundreds of thousands of people across France, in rural areas and cities. The gilets jaunes (yellow vests) movement was born.

    Its participants are now celebrating the fifth anniversary of a movement that politicised many people across France, uniting them in rage at the “president of the rich”. I remember the first protest in Troyes in the Champagne region, where I was living at the time. I was taken aback by how angry people were as they banged at the gates of the town hall in their hi-vis jackets, venting their frustration at the daily struggles of life in post-2008 France, where average disposable incomes had dropped over several years. French protests are always lively, but as the journalist John Lichfield observed, “the white-hot anger” of the gilets jaunes was “something new and different”. As it turned out, Macron was surprised too. He abandoned the tax after just over three weeks of protest, leaving the French political class in total shock at what had just happened….

    …In his 2022 book Climate Change as Class War, the geographer Matthew Huber argues that most policymaking in the US and similar countries comes from a fairly homogeneous professional class that believes climate policy is about internalising the negative externalities – greenhouse gas emissions – into the market by imposing costs on the consumers of fossil fuels. What this ignores, Huber argues, is questions of power and the distribution of pain….

    …Policymakers, take note: if you want to tackle the climate crisis, and we must, then any idea you propose needs democratic input – and the pain should not disproportionately burden the working and lower-middle classes. Impose it from above, and in a regressive way, and you may just find your countrymen donning their yellow vests.

    Like

  132. “Starmer says £2.5bn renewables jobs fund will help North Sea oil workers
    Labour leader aims to set up ‘British jobs bonus fund’ to challenge oil firms to accelerate shift to clean energy”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/16/starmer-plans-renewable-jobs-fund-north-sea-oil-workers

    Keir Starmer has challenged the oil industry to dramatically speed up its shift to clean energy by offering up to £2.5bn to subsidise new jobs in renewables for North Sea workers.

    The Labour leader has told executives from firms including Shell and BP that the UK is in a global race to move away from oil and gas, with competitor countries such as the US investing billions in climate-friendly technologies.

    Starmer and Ed Miliband, the shadow climate secretary, hosted a roundtable with executives from 20 energy firms in Aberdeen on Thursday during a two-day visit to promote the party’s plans to decarbonise UK energy supplies by 2030 – a target date the oil industry is vigorously resisting.

    Starmer will announce on Friday that if Labour wins the next election, it would set up a £2.5bn “British jobs bonus” fund to prioritise investment in three clean energy technologies, in regions heavily dependent on North Sea oil, including around Aberdeen and north-east England.

    The technologies would be: carbon capture to support industries that still need oil and gas to pipe their waste CO2 into depleted North Sea oilfields; building floating windfarms for deep-water sites; and in green hydrogen – a zero carbon fuel needed for energy-intensive industries such as steelmaking, railways and chemicals production….

    I despair.

    Like

  134. We have had 2 days of low wind with only 1.5Gw being produced by the wing fleet at its lowest point. The wind is to return for 1 night then back to less than 10 mph levels for 4 days. What is the cost of having a huge and increasing wind fleet that can only produce 3.7% of requirement in November ?

    Like

  135. “Growing number of Tory MPs join push for carbon levy on UK imports
    Charges said to be needed to prevent UK companies being undercut by overseas manufacturers”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/17/growing-number-of-tory-mps-join-push-for-carbon-levy-on-uk-imports

    If politicians are serious about reducing GHG emissions globally, this makes sense, or at least has the potential to make sense, given that we in the UK have partly reduced our GHG emissions (by replacing coal-fired power stations with gas-fired ones) and partly exported them (by largely shutting down manufacturing in the UK and importing huge swathes of products from China, which still uses the coal-fired power stations the UK has largely given up on.

    On the other hand, tariffs inevitably cost the poor benighted UK consumer more money. But then our climate-worrying elites don’t care about that:

    The prospect of higher taxes is not usually viewed with joy by British businesses, or Conservative MPs – but when it comes to carbon, that is precisely what many are asking for.

    A growing number of manufacturers, Tory MPs and experts are calling for charges to be levied on the carbon emissions associated with imports. They believe the levy is needed to create a level playing field that would enable UK companies to invest in cutting their greenhouse gas emissions, without finding themselves undercut by lower-cost but higher-carbon imports from overseas.

    Jerome Mayhew, a Tory member of the environmental audit committee, is convinced the charge will prove popular in his party, despite misgivings among some of his colleagues. “Applying a cost to carbon unlocks the power of the free market to find cheaper, lower-carbon production techniques,” he told the Guardian. “As Conservatives, promoting free trade and free markets is within our DNA.”

    Manufacturers will face higher costs for investment in new equipment and processes as the UK moves to net zero greenhouse gas emissions. Without a carbon levy, those companies trying to do the right thing would see their costs rise while imports from countries lacking stringent green regulations prospered, resulting in higher emissions overall and damaging the climate and the UK economy….

    …“The great strides we have made in decarbonising have boosted the UK’s international standing and given us a headstart in developing green industries,” he [Tim Loughton, a member of the home affairs select committee] said. “However, we are not the only country that recognises the economic opportunity of decarbonising. Without a CBAM, we risk offshoring manufacturing to China, where huge amounts of carbon-intensive goods are still being produced using their coal-dominated power gird. Chinese goods previously intended for the EU could flood into our country as a result of [the EU’s] CBAM.”…

    We risk offshoring manufacturing to China? Where has Mr Loughton been these last few years? The stable door has been wide open for a long time, and that horse bolted years ago.

    Like

  136. “How will Scotland’s £33bn greener heating bill be paid?”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-67496897

    The excellent Douglas Fraser is on the case again:

    The time is coming when you’ll be expected to replace your gas or oil boiler with something a lot greener. It won’t be cheap, and may require extensive new cladding to your home to reduce heat loss.

    The total bill for Scotland has been estimated at £33bn, including public buildings and business premises. The total UK bill for homes is about £250bn.

    That’s a long way beyond the reach of government capital budgets. So who pays for this huge part of the transition to greener energy, and how is the finance raised?…

    Like

  137. The Guardian and I see things differently again. After the tens (hundreds? of £billions spent on net zero, and yet to be spent, I see today’s announcement as another frivolous waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere. The Guardian, and it’s “go-to” cronies, by contrast, think it’s pitiful:

    “Autumn statement leaves UK lagging on green investment”

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/22/autumn-statement-green-investment-energy-climate-environment

    Climate experts lament a lack of boldness in Jeremy Hunt’s measures, which made no mention of energy efficiency…

    …Hunt’s response? A £960m investment by 2030 for a new “green industries growth accelerator” programme. On this, BusinessGreen’s James Murray said: “The support will be welcome, but two things to note: the funding won’t come online until 2025; and the support is orders of magnitude smaller than what is on offer in the US and EU. £960m to support five different clean tech sectors is not really going to move the dial.”

    The consensus by environmental groups is that the UK will not, at this rate, catch up with the rest of the world on green investment. Peter Chalkley, director at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, described Hunt’s measures as inadequate. He said: “With the US, EU and China already powering ahead, does this risk looking too little, too late? The government will likely need to do more in the coming months to calm investor nerves.”…

    …These measures have failed to impress climate experts. Rebecca Newsom, head of politics at Greenpeace UK,said: “Today, we needed to see bold leadership and a big vision for a green industrial strategy, but all we got was tinkering at the edges. These small reforms will do nothing to tackle the scale of the problems our economy and climate face. The US, EU and China are already light-years ahead of us in supporting investment in green technology, and investors have been left ‘shaken’ by our government’s recent U-turns on net zero. This statement has done nothing to change that.”…

    Like

  138. “Britain is broken. What will fix it? Lots and lots of money
    George Monbiot”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/22/britain-money-bank-bailouts-state-failure

    …While this catalogue isn’t comprehensive, it amounts to a conservative £65bn a year. This, very roughly, is the difference between continued, predatory chaos and a functional, inclusive country. Once items such as shortfalls in NHS grants to the devolved parliaments are added, and errors in my estimates corrected, it could rise. We could be looking at £100bn….

    …Either way, it’s a ton of money, but is it impossible? No. The current budget is £1.2tn. During the bank bailout, the government issued £124bn in loans and share purchases. It spent between £310bn and £410bn across two years on the pandemic. Tens of billions were squandered on corrupt contracts, fraudulent support claims and such failures as Nightingale hospitals and test and trace. The fact that this spending did not cause an economic crisis (though some elements were inflationary) is a partial vindication of modern monetary theory, which states that the government does not have to raise all the money it spends. And £100bn costs a lot less than state failure.

    The obstacles are not economic, but political. We need a government that seeks to improve our lives rather than to save an abstraction called money. Throughout the neoliberal era, the people have served the money. Let the money serve the people.

    George, I have an idea. Stop net zero, and the money you (and I) would like to use to fix the country could be available. The obstacles are not economic, but political. We need a government that seeks to improve our lives rather than to “save the planet”. Throughout the ecofascist era, the people’s money has served the Green Blob. Let the money serve the people.

    Like

  139. I’ve just got an email from British Gas saying that energy prices are due to increase in January because Ofgem will be raising the price cap.

    Like

  140. Jaime, yes indeed:

    “Energy price cap will rise in January adding pressure on households”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67484090

    Household energy prices will rise in January putting more financial pressure on billpayers at the coldest time of year.

    Energy regulator Ofgem said the typical annual household bill would go up from £1,834 to £1,928, a rise of £94 or 5%.

    It said the rise in bills would be “worrying” at a difficult time for many people, but was the result of higher wholesale costs faced by suppliers….

    Liked by 1 person

  141. Good news, but at what cost to the taxpayer? And all this does is preserve existing jobs, not create new ones:

    “Nissan to commit to making new Qashqai and Juke electric models in Sunderland”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67506050

    Nissan is to commit to making future electric versions of its two best selling cars in Sunderland.

    The Japanese car maker will announce on Friday that its new electric Qashqai and Juke models will be made at the site, helping to preserve 6,000 jobs.

    The investment is thought to be in the region of £1bn and will be supported by a government contribution from the Automotive Transformation Fund (ATF).

    The ATF received a £2bn top-up in the Autumn Statement on Wednesday.

    Nissan is the only carmaker in the UK with its own dedicated battery plant located close to the car plant. It is owned by Chinese company AESC with Nissan as its only customer.

    The battery plant was expanded last year with contributions from the ATF and Sunderland Council, involving about £100m in public money….

    Like

  142. “Net Zero Electricity Fantasies to Cost British Consumers £100 Billion Over Next Six Years”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2023/11/25/net-zero-electricity-fantasies-to-cost-british-consumers-100-billion-over-next-six-years/

    Net Zero electricity taxes and levies are set to cost British consumers almost £100 billion over the next six years, according to the latest official figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). The ‘environmental levies’ total includes a variety of green rackets from paying suppliers to produce uneconomic energy to persuading consumers to install inferior technologies. As the insane dash towards Net Zero continues in elite political circles, the costs have started to spiral out of control.

    Almost all green technologies seem to require huge amounts of public subsidy with no end in sight to constant demands for cash. Recently, offshore wind generators refused to take further Government licences in the North Sea unless the U.K. Government complied with their demands for higher guaranteed prices. In real terms the Government is now prepared to pay over £100 per megawatt hour, a price more than the current estimated cost of gas-powered electricity.

    The investigative climate journalist Paul Homewood has been digging into the figures for years, and notes the offshore wind business is already being subsided to the annual tune of £4.8 billion. This despite the fact that we have been promised ‘rapidly falling’ wind power costs that would bring our bills tumbling down. “Now we know that was always a lie,” observes Homewood. Looking at the financial accounts, Homewood concludes that there is “no prospect” that costs will decline in future. On the contrary, he continues, they are likely to continue increasing as supply chain and manufacturing problems mount.

    “We are therefore now locked into permanently high electricity prices, with contract prices guaranteed for 15 years,” he notes….

    …But it might be asked, what is £100 billion when an almost complete dismantling of modern economic society is being planned? A mere down payment on wealth destruction on an unimaginable scale. At a time when the political will to control immigration has withered, massive deindustrialisation is being planned in Europe, with unimaginable effects on the less affluent members of society. On the basis of an unproven hypothesis that human-produced carbon dioxide controls a climate headed for disaster – now deemed ‘settled’ and beyond debate – small, well-funded elite groups in society are planning to remove 85% of the world energy supply within less than 30 years. How far they will get in this madcap, nightmarish scheme before being repelled by gathering rational and democratic forces, only time will tell.

    Like

  143. “…But it might be asked, what is £100 billion when an almost complete dismantling of modern economic society is being planned? A mere down payment on wealth destruction on an unimaginable scale. At a time when the political will to control immigration has withered, massive deindustrialisation is being planned in Europe, with unimaginable effects on the less affluent members of society. On the basis of an unproven hypothesis that human-produced carbon dioxide controls a climate headed for disaster – now deemed ‘settled’ and beyond debate – small, well-funded elite groups in society are planning to remove 85% of the world energy supply within less than 30 years. How far they will get in this madcap, nightmarish scheme before being repelled by gathering rational and democratic forces, only time will tell.”

    That is an ethics question. Did this government or previous governments even bother to set up an ethics advisory panel on Net Zero? If they did, we know that they will almost certainly side-line it, ignore members’ recommendations and then disband them if they begin coming to conclusions which detract from official government policy, just like they did with Covid, where the science was also ‘settled’ and they were just ‘following’ it.

    https://www.thefreemind.co.uk/p/press-silent-on-suppression-of-governments

    Liked by 1 person

  144. I think I know which of the two is hurting households more, and which can be demonstrably established to be the case. I’ll leave you to decide. Is it?

    “Climate crisis and energy costs fuel £600 rise in UK household food bill, analysis finds
    Extreme weather contributing one-third of all food price inflation with worse to come in 2024, warn climate researchers”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/27/climate-crisis-energy-costs-fuel-uk-household-food-bill-rise

    Or is it?

    “Net zero policies are pushing up inflation, says Bank of England rate setter
    Households facing costs of climate change policies such as carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/11/13/net-zero-policies-inflation-bank-of-england/

    Like

  146. Another £60m to fund the settled science of climate change and its mitigation, policy written into law in many countries. Climate change just keeps giving if you’re an academic.

    Like

  147. “Can’t Our Politicians See the Damage They Are Doing to Our Country With Their Headlong Pursuit of Net Zero?”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2023/12/05/cant-our-politicians-see-the-damage-they-are-doing-to-our-country-with-their-headlong-pursuit-of-net-zero/

    …While our politicians all claim to know exactly what needs to be done to put Britain firmly on the path of economic growth, their economically-suicidal Net Zero policies are actually driving us towards economic decline and bankruptcy.

    Sadly, when Starmer, Rayner and Miliband take over, our country’s plight will be even worse….

    Liked by 1 person

  148. “The Black Lie at the Heart of Net Zero Energy Fantasies”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2023/12/05/the-black-lie-at-the-heart-of-net-zero-energy-fantasies/

    Temperatures plunged last week across Europe and the wind stopped blowing for a number of days. Without gas- and coal-fired turbines coming immediately to the rescue, thousands of people could have perished in the bitter cold. Yet natural gas is being legislated out of existence as a source of electricity across the continent. The black lie at the heart of Net Zero energy fantasies is that there are workable back-ups for intermittent wind and solar. Apart from oil and gas, there are none. Once politicians remove them from the mix – if elected, the British Labour party plans this in barely 60 months – the old and the infirm will shiver and die when a windless electricity grid produces negligible amounts of crucial power.

    Exaggeration? Not really. Earlier this year, Lord Frost delivered the annual GWPF lecture on Net Zero which he titled ‘Not Dark Yet, But’s It’s Getting There’. He felt that members of Western governments “actively prefer to live in complete cognitive dissonance rather than confront what they know in their hearts: that they are pursuing unfeasible and internally contradictory policies”. There can be no excuse for what Lord Frost describes as “high status” opinions on Net Zero. The lack of ‘green’ back-up for intermittent power is becoming obvious to all but the most blinkered and boneheaded. But a wilful refusal to confront the issue is the current default ‘settled’ position. If the grid collapses in a few years’ time, the politicians and all their trusted messengers in the media will have a great deal of explaining to do. As the frozen bodies pile up, their trite, pseudoscientific, ‘saving the planet’ political slogans will be found somewhat wanting….

    Liked by 1 person

  149. They’re not deluded, they’re not incompetent, they can see what they are doing. They’ve just voted to destroy the vehicle manufacturing industry in the UK, push up the price of cars and severely limit access to affordable personal transport. As one commenter says:

    “They hate the country and they hate humanity, the damage is wholly deliberate.”

    Liked by 1 person

  150. “Planet Normal: Net zero ‘violates all the laws of engineering’ says leading Cambridge Professor”

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/planet-normal-net-zero-violates-all-the-laws-of-engineering-says-leading-cambridge-professor/ar-AA1l88qM

    “Net zero is not going to happen because, although it might not violate the laws of physics, it certainly violates all the laws of engineering projects…And the people who say it is going to happen are simply kidding themselves.”

    On the latest Planet Normal podcast, which you can listen to using the audio player above, columnists Liam Halligan and Allison Pearson are joined by Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University, Michael Kelly to discuss the realities of the UK achieving net zero by 2050.

    When asked for an estimation on what it would cost to upgrade the UK electrical grid to incorporate more electric cars, Professor Kelly has some eye watering numbers.

    “I’m quite comfortable that the expansion of the grid to cope with the electrification of heat and ground transport is about £1.4 trillion, which is about 30 HS2s a year… we only have 40 thousand electrical engineers in the country today, so we need another 20 thousand and another 20 thousand civil engineers. And they take about ten years to train”

    Like

  151. “Subsea project to bring renewable power from Scotland to England awarded £1.8bn
    Eastern Green Link 1 has been designed to carry enough clean electricity to power 2m UK households”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/12/subsea-eastern-green-link-1-project-renewable-power-scotland-england-clean-electricity

    There are some truly staggering statistics in this report, none of which seem to phase Guardian journalists one little bit:

    …The UK is under pressure to deliver a power grid overhaul as it prepares to double its demand for electricity by 2040 as part of a plan to cut the use of gas and other fossil fuels.

    The Guardian revealed last month that Britain would need to roll out more than 100km of electric cabling every day until 2040 if the government hoped to power the UK towards its climate goals.

    The International Energy Agency has forecast that 600,000km of electric lines will need to be either added or upgraded across the UK by the end of the next decade to meet its climate targets, amid a global race to secure supplies of high voltage cabling and other electrical infrastructure components….

    …The upgrades are expected to cost tens of billions of pounds, according to National Grid. The FTSE 100 energy company has warned that five times as many pylons and underground lines need to be constructed by the end of the decade than in the past 30 years, and four times more undersea cables laid than there are at present….

    Like

  152. Thanks for the “Guardian journalists” update.

    quote from your comment –
    “The International Energy Agency has forecast that 600,000km of electric lines will need to be either added or upgraded across the UK by the end of the next decade to meet its climate targets, amid a global race to secure supplies of high voltage cabling and other electrical infrastructure components”

    Don’t understand the “will need to be either added or upgraded” bit, but even the Guardian seem to be realising how impossible this will be.

    Like

  153. “ACHIEVING NET ZERO
    A REPORT FROM A PUTATIVE DELIVERY AGENCY
    Michael Kelly”

    Click to access Kelly-Net-Zero-Progress-Report.pdf

    …Summary
    With extra costs comfortably in excess of £3 trillion, a dedicated and skilled workforce, 70% of that of the NHS, and key strategic materials demanded at many times the supply rates that prevail today, and all for no measurable attributable change in the global climate, the mitigation of climate change via a net-zero emissions UK economy in 2050 is an extremely difficult ask. Without a command economy, the target will certainly not be met….

    Liked by 1 person

  154. Allison Pearson in the Daily Telegraph makes the point even more starkly:

    “It is morally wrong to blindly adhere to net zero – we must abandon it before it’s too late
    At Cop28, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman was right to call out delusional Western leaders with their pie-in-the-sky nonsense”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/12/12/cop28-failure-net-zero-aims-climate-change/

    …Among his [Professor Kelly’s] horrifying conclusions: the cost of the UK reaching net zero by 2050 will comfortably exceed £3 trillion (at least £180,000 for every household), a workforce comparable to the entire NHS will be required for 30 years, including a doubling of the present number of electrical engineers. The country would effectively have to “go on a war footing and a command economy will be essential, as major cuts to other forms of expenditure, such as health, education and defence. will be needed”. The electricity supply will have to increase by about 67 per cent in order to maintain transport at today’s level. The national grid needs to be 2.7 times bigger in 2050 than it is currently if the UK economy as we know it now is to continue to function. That is eight times the rate at which new capacity has been added over the past 30 years, including all the renewables to date.

    Oh, and every home in the country will have to be rewired, plus all street distribution and local sub-stations. It has been estimated it will cost £700 billion to carry out this work, and we don’t have the manpower to do it. Without that spending, we will have to live with frequent circuit breaks, and suboptimal performance of domestic appliances. Folks, do your washing at 3am and buy a battery-powered torch for the blackouts.

    If this sounds mad it’s because it is mad. To use Prof Kelly’s starkest image, if we take the cost of HS2 now as being about £100 billion, then achieving net zero will require 36 HS2s or more than one a year until 2050. You may recall, we tried to deliver just one HS2. And failed.

    The struggle to reach agreement at Cop28 is a harbinger of growing international resistance to this folly. Now is the time for a complete rethink on net zero. It is morally wrong to stubbornly adhere to a goal which will cost trillions of pounds, and isn’t even achievable. Not in the timeframe. The damage to peoples’ lives from this misguided target will be incalculable, and civil unrest a likely consequence. We need to start again with proper cost-benefit analyses. Engineers of the calibre of Prof Kelly should be given the task of working out what is feasible with a longer horizon, and be free to express their honest view. The Climate Change Committee, which exerts a powerful hold over the thinking of clueless MPs, should be scrapped. Enough with the Green grandstanding….

    Liked by 1 person

  156. Very good that Kelly now has this level of visibility. He has to be right that Net Zero will fall apart and that we don’t when and what precisely will trigger this.

    Like

  157. Yes, Richard, you and Kelly must eventually be correct because sound engineering principles have been utterly ignored or broken. However, much societal damage will be wrought before then – and so we must do all we can to stop the wreckers and their naive accomplices as soon as possible. The big question for me is therefore this: what can we do which will effetively undermine (and ideally reverse) the wreckers’ policies with both minimal damage and immediate effet?

    Regards, John.

    Like

  158. John,

    Five years of Labour accelerating Net Zero policies and the damage will be immense. Of course Net Zero can never work but the wreckers are sure going to have fun proving it. My guess is that the damage to the nation will stretch into future generations and may never be fully reversible.

    Liked by 1 person

  159. So much for renewable energy bringing prices down. Expect more sad news like this as net zero continues:

    “Bakery set to close after 70 years”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c25y1yep0v8o

    The owners of a bakery have said an emotional thank you to their customers as they prepare to close after 70 years.

    Harry’s Bakery of Bedworth, Warwickshire, will switch off the ovens for the final time at 15:00 GMT on Saturday….

    …But referring to a £1,100-per-month increase in the business’s electricity bill, he said the venture was “not really worth doing anymore”….

    Like

  160. With all due respect to the Isle of Man and its inhabitants, the idea that anything it does can make any difference to the climate is beyond ridiculous:

    “Important island ‘not left behind’ on climate”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p1p5v47k0o

    It is vital the Isle of Man is not left behind when taking steps towards renewable energy, the environment minister has said.

    The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture’s (Defa) Energy Strategy 2023 was backed by Tynwald on Wednesday.

    Defa Minister Clare Barber described the document as a framework for “a more sustainable future” and said future annual updates would provide “much more detail” on the “road map towards net-zero”.

    But some MHKs criticised the plans for not including budgets or precise outcomes.

    The government’s green energy targets include decarbonising the island’s electricity supply by 2030, by introducing a second interconnector cable to the UK to import and export energy and the generation of an extra 30 megawatts of renewable electricity locally by 2026….

    At least some people in Tynwald are awake and asking pertinent and sensible questions:

    …Debating the plan during the January sitting of the Manx parliament, some politicians called for greater clarity on the benefits and challenges of a second interconnector.

    Stu Peters MHK said while he was in favour of “clean and green energy”, policy should focus on affordability and “not an ideological and completely unachievable desire to save the planet”….

    Meanwhile:

    …But chairman Manx Utilities John Wannenburgh said although the targets were “challenging” the government-owned firm was “resolute in delivering high quality energy infrastructure” for the island.

    He confirmed the company, which has been tasked with progressing green energy projects including plans for an onshore wind farm, would be seeking funding from the court for “some of our programme” in 2024….

    Yes, I bet he did.

    Like

  161. This story really should be posted against “Saving the Planet by Trashing it”, but as it’s a continuation from my last comment here, and as its about environmental, as opposed to financial, costs, I’ll leave it here:

    “Resident [sic] raise fears over affects [sic] of onshore wind farm on wildlife”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-68017894

    People living near the site earmarked for the first Manx onshore windfarm have voiced fears for local wildlife.

    Manx Utilities (MU) is investigating an area at Earystane and Scard to build several turbines designed produce 20 megawatts of electricity by 2026.

    It forms part of government’s commitment to decarbonise the island’s electricity supply by 2030.

    But John Corteen of Bee and Blossom Farm holiday cottages said the project could be “hugely damaging”.

    Mr Corteen, who keeps bird of prey and cares for and rehabilitates injured birds, said he was speaking out because the local ecology “doesn’t have a voice”.

    Plans for the area include up to five wind turbines, each of which would be at 492 ft (150 m) high, which is nearly the height of Blackpool Tower at 518 ft (158 m)….

    …Mr Corteen said the area was home to owls buzzards, hen harriers and other rare birds including woodcock and it was “not by accident that wildlife has done well here”.

    “If we put huge infrastructure on the hill with roads and the cement that’s required to put in a turbine, which is hugely damaging on the environment, there’s no coming back from that,” he added….

    …Neighbour Sara Elliott echoed concerns that the development would “destroy what we ought to be protecting”….

    Which is the point about these things almost everywhere.

    PS What about that headline? BBC standards slipping again…

    Like

  162. “Questions over £22bn in UK billpayer cash handed to wood-burning firms”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/24/questions-22bn-uk-billpayer-cash-wood-burning-electricity-firms-biomass-subsidy

    “Energy companies have been handed £22bn in billpayer-backed subsidies to burn wood for electricity despite being unable to prove the industry meets sustainability standards, the government’s spending watchdog has said.

    The head of the National Audit Office (NAO) has called on the government to toughen the environmental requirements of its biomass subsidy schemes, which have handed about £1bn a year to generators, because the assurances do not provide confidence that they have been met.”

    Like

  164. “COSTING THE GREEN GRID
    CURRENT AND FUTURE TECHNOLOGY”

    Click to access Montford-Cost-of-renewables-grid-7.pdf

    From the press release:

    It has recently been revealed that almost all major studies on Net Zero contain serious modelling errors, and thus have grossly underestimated the cost.

    A new paper from Net Zero Watch presents a new model of the 2050 electricity system that corrects these errors. It thus supercedes [sic] all the erroneous official studies.

    The new paper also reveals that official studies have suppressed the apparent cost of Net Zero still further by using extreme speculations about the costs and efficiencies of all the equipment required in the 2050 grid.

    According to Andrew Montford, the director of Net Zero Watch:

    “The Royal Society, for example, assume that the cost of almost everything will halve, and the efficiency of almost everything will soar. It’s not impossible, but it is imprudent to assume that it will happen. If you correct the modelling errors, and use known costs and efficiencies rather than speculation about what might be available in 2050, you get a very different picture of the future.”

    The report warns that with current technology, the cost of a Net Zero grid would approach £8,000 per household per year.

    Mr Montford says:

    “The costs may come down somewhat, but policymakers need to be told what it would cost if they don’t. The numbers are staggering. The failure to explain the extreme nature of the underlying assumptions is culpable.”

    As a result of these problems, Net Zero Watch is calling for the Royal Society to withdraw its recent report on electricity storage because it is so misleading for policymakers.

    Liked by 1 person

  165. Even NZW’s corrected cost analysis may underestimate the actual costs because the Royal Society’s 37 year period coincided with an especially stormy (and windy) winter period coincident with a positive NAO phase. In the 50s, 60s and 70s there was likely a multidecadal winter wind drought and it seems likely that we are headed into another such phase as winter NAO turns predominantly negative, as I pointed out on my substack.

    Like

  167. Paul is republishing the post, giving me credit. He has also found in the link to the supplementary info proof that the Royal Society knew that their chosen period was probably inadequate as a benchmark because it was less windy during 1960-1980 due to the increased fequency of blocking highs associated with NAO. But they went ahead and published, minus this caveat in the main study, as far as I can see.

    Liked by 1 person

  168. Seems I was wrong about that. Must have been somebody else commenting at my substack. All that person has done is left a comment on the original Homewood post.

    Like

  169. “Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Green shipping projects share £33m”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-68104154

    Electric shipbuilding and other projects aimed at cutting maritime emissions are to share £33m of government funding.

    A total of 33 green shipping schemes across the UK will receive the money in the latest round of the Clean Maritime Demonstration Competition.

    There are 13 organisations across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight involved in the projects.

    Maritime minister Lord Davies announced the winners on Friday….

    …This is the fourth round of the Clean Maritime Demonstration Competition, which offers money for demonstrations, factory trials and feasibility studies….

    Like

  170. At last, a Guardian writer who recognises that the costs of net zero are “vast”. The downside is that he remains undeterred – apparently we just have to do it:

    “To get to net zero, we may have to sell off the UK’s future
    Phillip Inman
    The cost of decarbonising is vast. Something like the privatisations of the 80s may be needed to raise enough funds”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/27/to-get-to-net-zero-we-may-have-to-sell-off-the-uks-future

    …Transforming the economy will come at an outsize cost. Worse, it’s an escalating cost that is way beyond the public finances of Britain and possibly even the EU….

    …The subsidies demanded by the owner of British Steel, China’s Jingye Group, and the Port Talbot steelworks owner Tata to switch from coal to electric furnaces have been eye-watering, and give a taste of what is to come.

    Green bonds and infrastructure bonds, which generate money for projects that aim to reduce emissions, are seen as a significant funding source, but have proved to be very expensive and the price is likely to stay high, limiting their attraction….

    …There is even less state cash to play with these days if we accept that entrenched political interests prevent reform of the tax system and that state borrowing has limits. It leads politicians of all colours to consider innovative ways to raise finance.

    Infrastructure credits might work, but they can’t disguise the huge effort needed – expended today or tomorrow – to reach net zero.

    Liked by 1 person

  171. “UK’s record energy transition investment needs to double to hit net zero targets”

    https://www.cityam.com/uks-record-energy-transition-investment-needs-to-double-to-hit-net-zero-targets/

    The all-time high energy transition investment levels seen in 2023 will need to triple and remain consistent through the next six years to meet net zero targets, a new report has warned.

    BloombergNEF’s Energy Transition Trends report, released today, shows that global investment in the transition hit $1.8tn last year – up 17 per cent on the year prior….

    …But BloombergNEF‘s research suggests that energy transition investment would need to average $4.8 trillion per year from 2024 to 2030 in order to align with BNEF’s New Energy Outlook Net Zero Scenario – nearly three times the total investment observed in 2023.

    The UK needs to double the $72bn spent in 2023 every year from 2024 to 2030, the report contends….

    Needless to say, as reported, it’s an investment opportunity, not a cost.

    Like

  172. Seems the “investment” figure needed for the West & UK to meet the NZ target could repurpose Mann’s iconic hockey stick graph.

    Liked by 1 person

  173. Grid figures this morning – wind and solar 13.5% : Imports / Interconnectors 27%. Solar has gained 1.5% as the day has opened up so even greater difference earlier. Balancing price £50.35/MWh quite low because it is Sunday ??

    Like

  174. Even now the interconnectors are supplying 24.6 per cent of the UK’s electricity. So much for energy security.

    Like

  175. Wind and solar have limped up to a combined 14.6 per cent and coal is providing 2.3 per cent.

    Like

  176. This is refreshing – and from a central banker, too:

    “Belgium central bank chief: Going green won’t make you richer
    And people will get angry if you don’t come clean about that, Pierre Wunsch says.”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-central-bank-chief-going-green-wont-make-you-richer/

    The head of Belgium’s central bank urged EU lawmakers to tell the truth about the real costs of “greening” the economy and the loss of wealth that will follow ― because they will face public anger if they don’t.

    “This transition is not going to make us collectively richer,” Pierre Wunsch told the European Parliament in Brussels. “We should be more candid … don’t lure people into thinking that greening carries positive opportunities that could augment GDP and create millions of well-paid jobs.”

    Some European political parties have made opposition to green policies one of their rallying calls ahead of June’s EU election. They’re harnessing what they see as opinion turning against measures aimed at helping the environment among businesses that are struggling to compete with Chinese and American rivals.

    Wunsch said the majority of Europeans were aware of the need to act but that it was important they were told the truth. The green transition represents a negative supply shock with costs similar to the energy shock witnessed in the 1970s that caused a huge rise in the price of oil, he said.

    Carbon prices and the cost of greener sources will make energy in Europe five to eight times more expensive than in the U.S., he said.

    Authorities should stop living in denial and explain who will have to pay for these higher costs if they want to retain credibility, Wunsch said. “Without credibility, the first concrete signs of emerging problems will encourage popular anger and protest.”

    They should focus on cutting the regulatory burden in the case of climate rather than calling for more funding, Wunsch said. “Throwing massive amounts of money problems just to mitigate their effects is not a panacea.”

    Liked by 1 person

  177. Refreshing indeed, Mark. Thanks for posting that. Let’s hope he spreads the word to his business circle.
    It’s the corrollary of “Go woke, go broke” but I’m struggling to think of a snappy phrase: “Go green, go ????”.

    Like

  178. “Net zero will be far more expensive than public thinks, Lords warned”

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/net-zero-will-be-far-more-expensive-than-public-thinks-lords-warned/ar-BB1iBiBX

    Net zero will be far more expensive than the public has so far been led to believe, top economists have warned the Lords Economic Affairs Committee.

    Transitioning to a low-carbon economy is “necessary” but will be “much more expensive than people imagine”, Olivier Blanchard said.

    The former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund said there was a “substantial fiscal cost to achieve anything close to net-zero”.

    Mr Blanchard, who is now a senior fellow at Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington DC, said the exact cost of the transition was unknown.

    However, he told the Lords committee: “The public does not believe, or has not been made to understand, that is going to be costly for them. It is going to be costly and that message has to be sent out.”…

    Like

  179. “Europe Faces Industrial Wipeout From Net Zero, 73 Major Companies Warn”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/22/europe-faces-industrial-wipeout-from-net-zero-73-major-companies-warn/

    …Instead of sparking a manufacturing renaissance in Europe, the pursuit of Net Zero is leading instead to imminent deindustrialisation. It might be starting with the mighty automotive industry, in which the continent once led the world, but it is being repeated again and again elsewhere.

    Indeed only this week a group of major European industries launched the ‘Antwerp declaration’, calling on the EU to relax regulations, lower energy costs and increase investment, while it still has some industry left.

    Signed by 73 major companies, from 17 sectors including chemicals, pharmaceuticals and engineering, it argued that “sites are being closed, production halted, people let go… Europe needs a business case urgently”.

    Here’s the problem, however. All the major European Governments, including the U.K. of course, are still fanatically committed to Net Zero, and that stops them from responding properly. …

    We have allowed energy prices to soar, planned to close down our own offshore oil fields, and held back the growth in fracking even as it has delivered economic booms in North America.

    We have ignored the fact that these choices are putting companies out of business – and are allowing Chinese rivals with far lower power costs to trample all over European businesses.

    The harsh truth is that China has weaponised Net Zero, and turned it into a way of seizing industrial leadership. America is responding, admittedly perhaps too late, and with too much state control. But Europe has been left floundering, and it is about to get wiped out. …

    Like

  180. “Net Zero is a war on the working class
    We are sleepwalking towards a social and economic catastrophe.”

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/02/27/net-zero-is-a-war-on-the-working-class/

    It’s official. Net Zero will make us poorer. A new report finds that the British government’s climate-change policies are likely to ‘make the poor poorer, and push struggling communities further into deprivation and exclusion’.

    Our Journey to Net Zero, by the Institute for Community Studies (ICS), shows that the transition to Net Zero will cause a rise in unemployment, as carbon-intensive industries are forcibly restructured. Food will become more expensive. And the eco-friendly changes we’ll all be forced to make, such as insulating our homes or switching to electric cars, will be extremely difficult ’for low-income households’. The ICS concludes that the poorest 40 per cent of households are at risk of falling into ‘transition poverty’.

    As shocking as this statistic is, the report is no rant. A team of researchers from ICS, Trinity College Dublin, and the universities of Leeds and York have thoroughly reviewed the policy changes and instruments – subsidies, taxation and so on – most likely to prove effective in reducing emissions of CO2. And they have concluded that these Net Zero measures will push down living standards for a lot of people in the UK….

    I haven’t yet found time to read the report referred to, but if you’re interested, it can be found here:

    Click to access Our-journey-to-net-zero-full-report-February-2024.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  181. There are so many places I could have posted this:

    “Somerset gigafactory: ‘It’s going to be a wild ride'”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-68927224

    I settled for here, because of this:

    It is understood that the government is providing subsidies worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

    Those big numbers are continually ticking up.

    Like

  182. “China-owned British Steel said to have requested £600m of taxpayer support

    Company is looking for help from next government to upgrade to less polluting technology”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/23/china-owned-british-steel-requested-600m-taxpayer-support

    Chinese-owned British Steel has reportedly submitted a request for a package of taxpayer support worth £600m as it looks for assistance from the next government to upgrade to less polluting technology.

    Government officials are due to review plans that set out the costs of switching from blast furnaces to electric arc furnaces at the company’s steelworks in Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, the Sunday Times reported.

    The steel industry is one of the UK industries that could be most affected by a change of government at the general election. The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, who is heavily favoured in polls to be the next prime minister, has stuck to a pledge to invest £3bn in decarbonising the steel industry despite rowing back on other environmental spending plans.

    Ministers will have the final say over any support for British Steel after the election. Any deal is likely to receive close scrutiny because of the Chinese ownership. China produces more than half of global steel, and has previously been accused of dumping steel in other countries to win market share.

    Ministers in the new government would also have final say on whether an already agreed £500m subsidy for Indian-owned Tata Steel would go ahead….

    …One option for producing near-zero-emissions steel is making direct reduced iron (DRI). The DRI process removes oxygen from iron ore using gas. If green hydrogen is used no carbon is released into the atmosphere, and the iron can be used in an electric arc furnace.

    However, neither Tata nor British Steel are thought likely to consider investing in a DRI plant without major government support. The companies have previously argued that their loss-making operations make it difficult to invest without this. A DRI plant could cost as much as £1bn to build, according to some industry estimates….

    Like

  183. “It doesn’t make sense: why US tariffs on Chinese cleantech risk the green transition

    Global demand for renewable energy is surging so why make solar panels, wind turbines and EVs dearer for western consumers?”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/26/it-doesnt-make-sense-why-us-tariffs-on-chinese-cleantech-risk-the-green-transition

    I could have posted this in lots of places, but here will do for this reason:

    While estimating the cost of the clean energy transition is a difficult task, even conceptually, the global electricity sector alone is projected to require $3.5tn in capital investment annually between 2021 and 2050.

    This is where I struggle hugely with the “logic” of the piece:

    To be sure, while historically low labour costs and economies of scale have helped reduce the price of Chinese solar panels and EVs, generous government subsidies – often in the form of cheap credit – have also played a significant role. But it remains unclear how blocking these low-cost imports, as many western politicians propose, would benefit workers and consumers in the US and the EU. Do American and European policymakers prefer that their own taxpayers, instead of Chinese citizens, bear the costs of clean-energy subsidies? Recall that western countries wanted China to pay its fair share of the energy transition.

    Admittedly, promoting climate policies by emphasising their potential to create green jobs for domestic workers could be an effective political strategy. But we should recognise that these arguments are political, not economic.

    Historically low labour costs, economies of scale and Chinese government subsidies play a role in enabling the Chinese to flood western markets with products at prices that are lower than can be achieved in the west. However, they are not the only factor. The elephant in the room is the fact that China also enjoys cheaper energy, because it relies massively on fossil fuels, especially coal. Does the Guardian want the west’s “green revolution” to be powered by coal? That would represent a supreme irony.

    Another elephant pushing its way in to the room is the abuse of human rights in China, and the role played by Uighur slave labour in producing solar panels. Does that not matter? It seems not. Nor does the author seem much interested in protecting the jobs of workers in developed countries, who are losing out thanks to net zero and imports from abroad. No, it seems “the project” trumps all moral factors. As well as firmly believing that we sceptics have logic on our side, I am also confident that we are the ones on the moral high ground. The Guardian, and many of the people who write for it, have lost their way, due to the lack of a moral compass, IMO.

    Like

  184. “Labour’s net zero target could cost ‘hundreds of billions’, leaked audio reveals

    Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury’s answers at public event suggest party’s spending could go far beyond public declarations”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/labour-net-zero-plans-hundreds-billions-darren-jones-audio/

    I hope, despite the article being behind a paywall, the link is sufficient to enable listening to the audio clip. It’s very revealing.

    Like

  185. Thanks for the link Mark. Here’s the text of the Telegraph article:

    Reaching Labour’s target for decarbonising the economy will cost “hundreds of billions” of pounds, a shadow minister has disclosed in a recording obtained by The Telegraph.

    Darren Jones, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said the £28 billion per year originally allocated to Labour’s green investment plan was a “tiny” amount.

    He said the fact that Sir Keir Starmer had downgraded his investment plans from £28 billion to £4.7 billion “made it sound as if we basically junked the whole thing but we definitely haven’t”.

    Mr Jones told a public meeting in Bristol that private capital would have to be used to upgrade infrastructure, but “public subsidy” would still be needed alongside that.

    Liked by 2 people

  186. The FT has just picked up the story:

    Net zero target will cost ‘hundreds of billions’, Labour MP says in leaked recording
    Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury indicates £28bn a year not enough to achieve Britain’s decarbonisation goal

    This is most important – I hope this a sign that it’s getting widely noticed.

    Liked by 2 people

  187. Well, there’s a week to go to get the message out there! It would be nice if the BBC would pick it up, but I won’t hold my breath.

    Liked by 1 person

  188. I’m currently watching the ‘leaders’ debate’ on BBB1. The issue came up very early on when Sunak raised it as an example of Labour not being honest about the true costs of their programme. It was interesting that Mishal Husain, who’s chairing the debate, had the figures on her notepad – but, because it wasn’t raised by a member of the audience, it was barely discussed. Nonetheless it is out there.

    Like

  189. “The true cost of Labour’s net zero plans is slowly being revealed – and the sums are staggering

    Electricity bills would have to double by 2030 to achieve Labour’s goal of decarbonising our grid”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/27/labours-net-zero-plans-are-a-fantasy/

    Sir Keir Starmer has promised that a new Labour government would decarbonise the UK’s electricity system by 2030 and would, at the same time, reduce average energy bills by up to £300 or roughly 20 per cent of their current level. We know that senior politicians and lawyers see visions that not granted to mere mortals. But is there any connection between this vision and reality?

    Accelerating the current decarbonisation strategy would imply building about 35 GW of new offshore wind plants, 10 GW of new onshore wind plants, and 55 GW of new solar capacity in six years. As context, between 2009 and 2023 the UK built 14 GW of offshore wind, 12 GW of onshore wind, and 16 GW of solar plants. The vision implies building new plants at rates between two and six times what was achieved in the last 15 years. Where would the skills, other resources and finance come from?

    Recent experience tells us that crash programmes of this kind incur costs that are anything from 50 per cent to 100 per cent higher than “normal” costs. Since Britain is not alone is trying to build lots of new wind and solar plants in next five years, it is a certainty that the costs will be much higher than claimed. Even at current costs, such a program is likely to require investment of £200-£250 billion. Adjusting for probable cost inflation, actual costs are likely to be £300-£350 billion. The sum of £8 billion promised for GB Energy is a rounding error in such a programme.

    This is only the start. Huge investments are required in both transmission and distribution to deliver the large increase in electricity generation. National Grid has announced that it needs to spend £50-60 billion over five years in England and Wales to enhance its transmission network to meet decarbonisation targets. Scaling that up to cover the rest of the UK and allowing again for cost inflation yields an estimate of investment in transmission at least £150 billion by 2030. Roughly the same amount will be required to expand the distribution network.

    Financing such investments will only be possible with strong government guarantees which means that, setting aside accounting fictions, real public debt will increase by 20-25 per cent of GDP for the decarbonisation programme. The cost of servicing that debt under current arrangements plus operating and maintaining the assets will about £40 billion per year for generation and about £25 billion per year for transmission and distribution.

    Households account for a little more than one-third (36 per cent) of final electricity consumption. The same share of the cost of decarbonising the electricity system would be about £23 billion per year. To put that sum in context, in mid-2024 there are about 28.7 million households in the UK with an average electricity bill of £850 per year giving a total cost of electricity for households of about £24 billion per year.

    In broad terms, electricity bills would have to double by 2030 to achieve Labour’s goal of decarbonising our electricity system with the costs incurred being passed on to electricity customers…...

    Like

  190. This article – the text of a talk Gordon Hughes gave yesterday – is I believe important. Called ‘Can the UK afford Net Zero?’ it can be found HERE .

    An early paragraph:

    To make this more concrete I want to use the Labour Party’s goals as an example. This is not intended as a political commentary, since the differences between parties are small. The Labour Party claims that it will decarbonize the UK’s electricity system by 2030. Of course, anyone with even slight knowledge of electricity systems and projects knows that this is pure fantasy, but this is typical of political virtue-signalling.

    His concluding paragraphs:

    It is hard to avoid clichés. If the painful choices implied by pursuing Net Zero are not addressed, then British economic growth will continue to stagnate. Many aspects of public and private life will get greyer with increasing levels of discontent. Borrowing ever greater sums, whether against the security of tax revenues or energy bills, is at best a temporary fix. Since the lenders know that all too well, the cost of postponing choices will become higher until borrowing becomes self-defeating. This is a path taken by many countries in the past. When the inevitable crash happens, the consequences of the shock to the political and economic system will be profound and unpredictable.

    The UK cannot reasonably afford the costs of Net Zero over the next 5 or 25 years. Sadly, policymakers are likely to continue digging themselves into an ever deeper hole for some time before that realisation sinks in. All too often, policy changes are only possible after some exceedingly painful collision between blind hope or ignorance and reality.

    I urge people to read it. It’s most unfortunate that this extraordinarily important topic has hardly been mentioned in the election.

    Liked by 1 person

  191. Robin,

    The UK cannot reasonably afford the costs of Net Zero over the next 5 or 25 years. Sadly, policymakers are likely to continue digging themselves into an ever deeper hole for some time before that realisation sinks in. All too often, policy changes are only possible after some exceedingly painful collision between blind hope or ignorance and reality.

    Screeching handbrake turn by Labour during the first 6-12 months looks unlikely. Real pain lies ahead and not just on energy policy. We will all get our “fair share” of that pain.

    Liked by 1 person

  192. Yes, Robin – essential reading. The tragedy is that even though politicians may be too busy, stupid, or ideologically opposed to the message to bother reading it, if they had decent advisers they should be aware of these issues and flagging them up. Unfortunately they are all residents of Cloud Cuckoo Land.

    Like

  193. Jaime: I suggest being halted by an unmovable obstacle may be a better analogy. But you and Hughes are surely right: there’s real pain ahead.

    Like

  194. Do you remember when heat networks were the answer?

    “Affordable home families hit by 450% gas price rise”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmm2n3527m4o

    Residents of affordable housing developments in Edinburgh have said they are “living in a horror story” after being hit with a massive rise in their gas bill as costs are beginning to fall across the rest of the country.

    The Harvester’s Way development has 180 properties which are all connected to a district heating system, where one huge gas boiler provides heating and hot water to all the homes.

    It is billed as a greener and more efficient way to heat their homes but it also means residents are unable to shop around for the best prices.

    Places For People Scotland, which operates about 1,000 homes across five sites in Edinburgh, has told residents the tariff for gas will jump 450% from 1 August, meaning people in a two-bedroom flat could be paying as much as £400 a month....

    ...The low carbon heating and hot water district heat network has a smart valve in each home linking payments to access to heating and hot water.

    As long as their account is in credit, the valve will remain open and they have access to heating and hot water.

    If an account runs out of credit, the valve closes until a top-up payment is made.

    Mr Parulski said he would not be able to sell his house because no-one would buy a property with such a high gas tariff.

    “We are absolutely devastated. We are going to be locked in properties we cannot afford,” he said.

    “People will lose their homes. Some of us are looking at being homeless, some of us are nosediving into poverty.

    “It is impossible now for us to sell our properties. We feel trapped and this is beginning to be a horror story and is no joke for a lot of us.

    “It is really desperate.”….

    Like

  195. Here are a few more billions being casually spaffed on net zero-type projects:

    “What is the national wealth fund and what will it invest in?

    A key pledge in the Labour manifesto, the fund was launched by the new chancellor, Rachel Reeves”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/09/what-is-the-national-wealth-fund-and-what-will-it-invest-in

    …The fund will seek to deploy £1.8bn of public funding to ports, £1.5bn for gigafactories (including for electric vehicles), £2.5bn to clean steel, £1bn for carbon capture and £500m to green hydrogen….

    I’m so reassured to learn that “Mark Carney…[has] been providing advice and recommendations since March this year.“

    Liked by 1 person

  196. “This is Why Electricity Costs Twice as Much in Britain as in the USA”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/19/this-is-why-electricity-costs-twice-as-much-in-britain-as-in-the-usa/

    The peak electricity demand in Britain is in the winter when we need to heat our homes, offices, shops, warehouses, factories etc. But in the winter solar farms produce almost no electricity in Britain. This is because it is dark for around 16 hours a day and when the Sun does appear it is weak and usually hidden behind thick cloud. Solar energy may make sense in some countries, for example the countries of North Africa, but building solar farms in Britain is completely brainless.

    The new Energy Secretary Ed Milliband has just given the green light to the biggest solar farm in the U.K. He claims that building the Sunnica solar farm in East Anglia will “cut bills for families”. As is often the case with politicians, the opposite is true. Because solar farms produce almost no electricity in the winter there will need to be back-up electricity generation. So essentially two electricity generation facilities will have to be built and operated, one for the summer and one for the winter. This will increase electricity bills for families not cut them.

    Subsidies to companies operating solar farms and wind farms is one of the reasons electricity bills in Britain are already amongst the highest in the world. We pay five times as much for our electricity as China and twice as much as the USA. The pain that these high bills cause British families is of no concern to the small group of eco-zealots in Government and the TV news who peddle scare stories about global warming and tell half-truths about the cost of renewables. They want Britain to be a world leader in Net Zero and don’t care about the price the rest of us have to pay for this utterly pointless ambition. Britain is responsible for only 1% of global CO2 emissions so even if we achieved Net Zero tomorrow it would have no measurable impact on global temperatures.

    Meanwhile the big CO2 emitters, like China (30% of global CO2 emissions) and the USA (10% of global CO2 emissions), move far more slowly towards Net Zero. They continue to build and operate fossil-fuel power stations. Unlike solar farms and wind farms, these power stations are both cheap and reliable, they work every hour of every day summer and winter. This is why the electricity bills for Chinese and American families are so much lower than the bills for British families.

    Liked by 1 person

  197. “The climate scaremongers: Miliband’s mania will cost us a trillion”

    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-climate-scaremongers-ed-zeros-mania-will-cost-us-a-trillion/

    ...Subsidies for renewable energy mandated by the Act have already added more than £100billion to our energy bills. Thanks to Miliband’s obsession with wind and solar power, the annual subsidy bill will have risen to £30billion in five years if Labour’s plans are carried out.

    These subsidies are just the tip of the iceberg. The National Grid has committed to spending another £100billion expanding the transmission network over the next decade so that it can transmit all the renewable electricity generated hundreds of miles from where it is actually used. And as more intermittent renewable capacity is added, the greater the grid’s balancing costs become. They already stand at £3billion a year, and could easily double in just a few years.

    All in all, renewable power could end up costing us £400billion extra over the next decade in subsidies and other costs.

    The costs imposed by Miliband don’t stop there….

    Liked by 1 person

  198. “Solar and wind ‘will miss 2030 clean energy target without £48bn funding

    ’Hitting target for zero-carbon electricity system will require ‘step-change’, says analyst Cornwall Insight”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/22/solar-wind-uk-clean-energy-cornwall-insight

    Solar and wind power generation will fall well below the target needed to decarbonise Great Britain’s electricity grid by 2030 without an injection of £48bn, according to a forecast from one of the UK’s leading energy analysis companies….

    Liked by 1 person

  199. Mark – thanks for the link. I notice the Guardian post header “Solar and wind ‘will miss 2030 clean energy target without £48bn funding'” is just a tad misleading.

    As you note that £48bn is “an injection of £48bn” to an existing £18bn “Cornwall said an additional £48bn would be needed, on top of £18bn that scheduled energy infrastructure projects are expected to cost, to meet the government’s goal for renewables.”

    So “according to a forecast from one of the UK’s leading energy analysis companies” £66bn needs to be found/spent or UK, the world leader on net zero, might not be able to pick up the “2030 clean energy target” medal from António Guterres for stopping the world from boiling.

    PS – in that article we also get other “fuzzy” statements, like this –

    “The Cornwall principal modeller, Tom Edwards, said: “International competition for project development coupled with material shortages are challenging issues that often lie beyond a government’s control.”

    Liked by 1 person

  200. “Janet Yellen Calls For $78,000,000,000,000 To Tackle Climate Change”

    https://dailycaller.com/2024/07/27/janet-yellen-78-trillion-climate-change/

    U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said during a speech in Belem, Brazil, on Saturday that the price tag for a global transition to a low-carbon economy amounts to $78 trillion in financing through 2050.

    Yellen said that in order to achieve the goal of net-zero global carbon emissions, there would need to be $3 trillion globally in annual financing for the cause, which she said is a top priority for the Biden administration, according to the speech. In order to contribute to this, Yellen vowed to finance green initiatives in developing countries through multilateral development banks and develop “clean energy technologies.”

    “The transition will require no less than $3 trillion in new capital from many sources each year between now and 2050,” Yellen said during the speech…

    Like

  201. “a global transition to a low-carbon economy amounts to $78 trillion“

    From that article –

    “During her speech, Yellen advocated for these climate initiatives to be implemented “beyond our borders.”

    “Our ambitions at home are matched by our ambitions abroad,” Yellen said during the speech. “We know that we can only achieve our climate and economic goals — from reducing global emissions to adapting and building resilience, from strengthening markets to bolstering supply chains — if we also lead efforts far beyond our borders.”

    The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.”

    What can you say, another “a global transition to a low-carbon economy” that seems to live in a dream world.

    Liked by 1 person

  203. Bear in mind that Scotland has less than 10% of the UK@s population, then do the maths for the UK as a whole…:

    “The ‘astonishing’ £130 billion bill for SNP Government’s green buildings target”

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/the-astonishing-ps130-billion-bill-for-snp-governments-green-buildings-target-4723035

    The cost of decarbonising Scotland’s homes and buildings could be as much as £130 billion, a report has warned – four times more than the Scottish Government’s official estimate.

    Stephen Good, of the Just Transition Commission (JTC), said Scotland needed to “get real” about the costs involved. He also suggested the country was hugely behind on its ambition to decarbonise at least one million homes by 2030, and needed to be doing “about 30 times as much as we do at the moment”. 

    The Scottish Government said it would carefully consider the report as it seeks to reach net zero emissions by 2045….

    ...Mr Good, a construction expert who addressed the latter area, said “we need to get real about the costs”.

    He said: “The Scottish Government has estimated £33bn is needed to decarbonise Scotland’s homes and buildings. We have approximately 2.6m homes and 230k non-domestic buildings, so if you do the basic maths, that’s about £11.5k/building. 

    “That might just about cover the installation cost of a heat pump in an easy-to-treat property. To meet the tougher end of the net zero objectives, we’ll need likely four times that investment, so circa £45k/building to do it once and do it properly, which is more like £130bn, not £33bn. So we need to get really serious about the costs of achieving net zero, who’s going to pay, and how.”…

    ...Elsewhere, Mr Good said the ambition to decarbonise at least one million homes by 2030 was only six years away.

    “We’re currently installing around 5,000 zero carbon heating systems per year – that’s just heating systems and doesn’t include building fabric energy efficiency works,” he said. “That’s 19 per day or about 2.5 per hour. So we need to be doing about 30 times as much as we do at the moment.”…

    Like

  204. Utterly delusional:

    “‘This is the future’: why turbines that float could be the new wave in British wind power”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/aug/24/this-is-the-future-why-turbines-that-float-could-be-the-new-wave-in-british-wind-power

    …Expanding offshore wind power is a key element of ministers’ plans to reduce the cost of energy by expanding renewable production. …

    …The industry’s trade association, Renewable UK, believes that by the 2040s, floating offshore windfarms will represent well over half of the UK’s offshore wind generation….

    …For floating offshore wind, the greatest challenge is cost. This is laid bare in the guidelines for the government’s upcoming auction for clean energy subsidies. That sets the maximum price for developers of fixed offshore windfarms at £73 per megawatt hour; for floating offshore developers, the figure is £176 per MWh….

    NB Those aren’t at 2024 prices. Paul Homewood translates those prices into “real” money:

    New Offshore Wind Prices 17% Higher Than Market Price

    In 2024 prices, then, that’s £101.69 per MWh for fixed offshore wind and £245.17 for floating offshore. I should be grateful if someone could explain how , given those costs (which don’t take into account the extra grid costs associated with getting the electricity to the end consumer and dealing with their unreliability and intermittency) “Expanding offshore wind power is a key element of ministers’ plans to reduce the cost of energy.” Somebody isn’t very good at maths, and I don’t think it’s me.

    Liked by 1 person

  205. Truly the cost of net zero is staggering. None of us really understand just how many billions (trillions?) are being thrown at this. Today the BBC reported this:

    “Bus depot goes net zero with all-electric fleet”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg5ddpkmy0o

    …The nine [electric] buses were paid for with a £1.9m investment from the Department for Transport’s Zero Emission Bus Regional Area (Zebra) project…..

    No big deal, I hear you say. It’s just £1.9M. True, but I hadn’t heard of Zebra, so I looked it up:

    “Apply for zero emission bus funding (ZEBRA 2)”

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-zero-emission-bus-funding-zebra-2/apply-for-zero-emission-bus-funding-zebra-2

    …We are now launching ZEBRA 2, which will provide £129 million to support the introduction of ZEBs in financial years 2023 to 2024 and 2024 to 2025. This will be a single-stage funding competition to award funding over both financial years.

    £25 million will be initially reserved for proposals to introduce ZEBs in rural areas, recognising the additional challenges this may bring. All applicants will also be able to seek funding for zero emission minibuses that are used on local bus services.

    We want to help LTAs and bus operators that have little to no experience with ZEBs benefit from this funding. Therefore, LTAs that did not receive ZEBRA funding will be prioritised over LTAs that did….

    ...The funding of ZEBs cannot be considered in isolation. Since March 2020, we have provided over £2 billion funding to support bus industry. We want to ensure that funding for ZEBs is aligned with investment to support bus services. Therefore, in line with the principles set out in the NBS, funding will only be awarded to LTAs that have made an enhanced partnership or have begun following the statutory process to decide whether to implement franchising….. [my emphasis].

    Like

  206. This time it isn’t a financial cost, although that too is very real. It isn’t great to make a point out of a tragic incident in which many dozens of lives were lost, but there is, sadly, an all-too-real point here:

    “Why was Grenfell covered in cladding? Climate targets

    There is a refusal to acknowledge the role green policy played in this tragedy.”

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/09/05/why-was-grenfell-covered-in-cladding-climate-targets/

    ...Yesterday’s phase-two report from the inquiry, led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, rightly highlights Rydon and Harley Facade’s evasion of basic safety oversight, and the complicity of both Kensington and Chelsea council and the UK government’s housing ministry. What it does not do is ask the obvious question – why was the cladding installed in the first place?

    In December 2021, Stephanie Barwise QC, acting for the survivors and relatives of those who died in the disaster at the public inquiry, said that the fire was the ‘predictable yet unintended consequence’ of a ‘laudable desire to reduce carbon emissions’, coupled with the cost-cutting greed of the building industry.

    What she meant was that the decision to put the flammable cladding around the Grenfell Tower in 2012 was taken to meet the targets of the Climate Change Act 2008, which committed local authorities to take action to reduce carbon emissions. In 2010, then minister for climate change Ed Miliband published the document, Warm homes, greener homes. That document identified social housing as critical to saving energy and reducing carbon emissions. ‘Social housing has the potential to make a big contribution in reducing carbon emissions from homes’, he wrote. Here, he set out his aim to ‘kick-start the installation of more ambitious eco-upgrades, with social housing providing particular leadership to stimulate the industry and reduce costs’….

    As well as the Climate Change Act, London councils also have to follow the mayor’s London Plan. This development strategy, first published in 2004, is updated at semi-regular intervals, with each new iteration focussed on making London greener, more energy efficient and ‘resilient’ to climate change.…

    …Since the Grenfell Tower fire, no new cladding has been put on to tower blocks to reduce climate change. Presumably, those CO2 targets were never quite as important as they seemed. Indeed, millions of pounds have since been spent removing dangerous cladding from these blocks. Billions more has been earmarked to complete the de-cladding of more than 500 buildings that are still considered dangerous.

    There is no doubt that 72 lives were lost mainly because unscrupulous companies and legislators cut corners to slap cheap and dangerous materials on the sides of large working-class estates. But as wicked as the cost-cutting surely is, we cannot ignore why it was felt at the time that this cladding was necessary. This was a disaster fuelled by climate targets.

    Liked by 1 person

  209. “Investment Summit to Increase Energy Bills

    Over half of the summit announcements are energy related and all will increase our energy bills through subsidies”

    https://davidturver.substack.com/p/investment-summit-to-increase-energy-bills

    Conclusions

    Overall, the investment summit was a damp squib, mostly re-announcing projects that were already in existence. Not only that, the energy projects that were declared will only increase our already extortionate electricity costs, making the country less competitive and act as a drag on growth.

    However, it is revealing that the Chancellor declared her government to be “pro-business.” We can see this means distorting the market to give corporations guaranteed returns at the expense of the consumer and taxpayer. It is astonishing that the Labour Party, supposedly the party of working people, is actively encouraging corporatism. Labour has become a kind of reverse Robin Hood, robbing the poor to give even more to the already rich.

    Liked by 2 people

  210. “Rail, water, energy: the big projects likely to be in Rachel Reeves’ budget”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/22/rail-water-energy-the-big-projects-likely-to-be-in-rachel-reeves-budget

    …The government has tasked the National Energy System Operator with providing the first blueprint for Great Britain’s infrastructure up to 2050, including plans for more low-carbon electricity projects and a rewiring of Britain’s power grids.

    The multi-billion-pound buildout of renewable energy is supported by a subsidy auction, which is ultimately paid through energy bills, so it does not affect the central government budget.

    To connect new renewable projects to the grid, the companies in charge of running Britain’s power lines and electricity grids are expected to invest £22bn in electricity distribution networks between 2023 and 2028 and almost £11bn in high-voltage transmission lines between 2021 and 2026.

    Again, the investment will be supported by energy bills rather than Treasury handouts.…

    I would love to read the explanation as to how this reduces energy bills.

    Liked by 2 people

  211. Net Zero Watch press release

    London: 24 October 2024

    “Net Zero could cost £300,000 per household
    Costs exceed benefits many times over”

    New study from Net Zero Watch corrects significant flaws in earlier estimates.

    With current technology, cost to 2050 is £10 trillion, and costs are ten times the benefits.

    With most optimistic assumptions, cost is £7 trillion and costs are double the benefits.

    Net Zero Watch has published a new study that encompasses the first empirically based estimate of the costs of Net Zero, and the first cost-benefit analysis. Official estimates have been criticised as hugely overoptimistic and for failing to present a formal cost-benefit analysis.

    The study is the first to consider the full variability of the weather and its effects on both supply and demand for energy, and finds that much larger capacities of wind solar and energy storage will be required to deliver Net Zero than suggested in any previous Net Zero cost estimate.

    It is also the first to base its cost figures, where possible, on empirical data. Previous estimates have assumed that a renewables cost revolution has already taken place, a position that is refuted by the accounts of wind and solar farms.

    The study takes in different scenarios of how technologies and their costs might develop as we head to Net Zero, as well as a scenario in which we abandon renewables and return to fossil fuels. Each also incorporates estimates of the harms caused by any remaining carbon dioxide emissions – the so-called social cost of carbon – to each scenario, so that the optimal approach can be identified.

    In all cases, the cost-optimal approach is to return to fossil fuels, even once global warming harms are taken into account.

    With current technology, the spend to 2050 would be nearly £10 trillion pounds, amounting to over £300,000 per household. The costs would be double the benefits – the reduction in global warming harms.

    In the most optimistic scenario – in which Net Zero technologies are assumed to become very cheap and very efficient compared to today, fossil fuel prices are assumed to rise steadily, and a high cost is assumed for each tonne of emissions – the costs are still double the benefits. In this scenario, the UK still needs to pay out £7 trillion, or £250,000 per household.

    Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford, the author of the report, said:

    These figures are horrifying, but should still be seen as conservative, because the study makes no attempt to find costs for hard-to-decarbonise sectors, such as aviation and shipping. It’s clear that the UK is on the road to economic ruin.”

    In his foreword to the study, Lord Mackinlay said:

    Britain’s political consensus, it seems, is to tax CO2 emissions at a higher rate than the damage they do and then spend trillions more subsidising technologies that the public would not choose without compulsion. This cannot be sustainable.”

    Liked by 1 person

  213. “Firms given multi-million pound heat pump funding”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04ly5ne4qqo

    Two businesses, in Hull and Blackpool, have been awarded multi-million pound government funding to increase the production of heat pumps.

    Ideal Heating, based on National Avenue, has been awarded £5.2m alongside cylinder manufacturer Gledhill. Both are subsidiaries of Groupe Atlantic….

    …The funding announcement is the first to come from the government’s Heat Pump Investment Accelerator competition, which aims to unlock private sector investment in the UK.

    Liked by 1 person

  214. Mark; Groupe Atlantic is a French company so any profits from the two UK subsidiaries will flow abroad. I’d guess the same will apply to any useful technical developments as well. It’s a sad inditement of the state of British Industry that, apparently, there are no domestic outfits making even fairly basic stuff like this.

    Like

  216. That David Turver article is well worth a read, but to summarise it, here’s the conclusion:

    We must exercise some caution when drawing conclusions because of the obvious howlers in the data. Of course, we are not going to spend £2,960bn on tax relief for the film industry. However, when it comes to the energy related items, it does appear as though the mistakes tend to under-estimate the cost of subsidies. The RO scheme will obviously cost much more than £1 and the Capacity Market will cost more than £16bn.

    We see that a truly surreal arrangement of subsidy schemes of ploughing hundreds of billions into renewables, alongside additional tens of billions of additional subsidies to industry to mitigate the impact of the resulting high energy prices. It is completely insane. All this renewable energy largesse contrasts markedly with just £24.6m allocated to the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, mostly capital funding for housing.

    Imagine what society would look like if we stopped subsidising incompetent and expensive forms of energy and their parasitic cheerleaders. Bills would be lower; taxes could be lower and more companies would have the confidence to invest in Britain and create jobs. Expensive energy and the accompanying subsidies are killing the economy. We must ditch the Net Zero madness now.

    Liked by 2 people

  217. This relates to the global cost of net zero, rather than the cost to the UK, but it is still staggering. One might think it would give a sane person pause for thought:

    “UK ‘needs to play catch-up’ in global race to rewire electricity grids

    For every £1 spent on renewable energy projects, only 25p was invested in connecting them to grid, report finds”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/09/uk-renewable-energy-grid-connection-infrastructure

    …Adapting the global electricity grid for a net zero future could require investment of $21.4tn to roll out 152m km of new cables, or enough to stretch from Earth to the sun, according to the report…

    Even allowing for the fact that it is a puff piece generated by a report commissioned by Scottish Power, it’s still staggering. Staggering, but also special pleading:

    ...The report was commissioned by ScottishPower, a company which invests in renewables and power grids as well as supplying gas and power to customers. In addition to low investment, the report blamed the sluggish process of connecting wind and solar capacity to the transmission system for the UK’s low position in the global league table.

    Keith Anderson, ScottishPower’s chief executive, said the UK had been a victim of its own success in rolling out renewables faster than other countries, which had strained the grid….

    Liked by 1 person

  218. Mark – love the “Adapting the global electricity grid for a net zero future could require investment of $21.4tn to roll out 152m km of new cables, or enough to stretch from Earth to the sun, according to the report” quote, wonder what materials would/will be required?

    Like

  219. “Energy firms to spend £70bn to rewire Great Britain’s electricity grid

    National Grid, SSE and ScottishPower submit plans amid global race to shift from fossil fuels to clean electricity”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/18/energy-firms-rewire-great-britain-electricity-grid

    Energy companies have promised to spend almost £70bn over five years to help rewire Great Britain’s electricity infrastructure in the global race to shift from fossil fuels to clean electricity.…

    Yeah, that’ll reduce energy bills.

    Liked by 1 person

  220. “Feed-in-Tariff Fit to Bust the Country

    Costs of the Feed-in-Tariff scheme reach record levels in latest report from Ofgem”

    https://davidturver.substack.com/p/feed-in-tariff-fit-to-bust-country

    …In the run up to Christmas, Ofgem published its latest report on the Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) scheme. Despite falling electricity generation, payments under the scheme reached a record £1.84bn and the total cost of the scheme reached £1.86bn.…

    …As shown in Figure 2, the total value of the scheme increased 7.2% to £1,858m, new record. This is the equivalent about £65 per household. These charges disproportionately impact the poorest in society and benefit the rich who could afford to put solar panels on their roof.

    The total cost of the scheme has now reached £16,389m since inception. Interestingly, the second largest licensee under the scheme is Good Energy that paid out a total of over £260m in 2023/24. This means that Good Energy is probably one of the largest recipients of the FiT administration fees. By pure coincidence, I am sure, the CEO of Good Energy is Nigel Pocklington who just happens to be the brother of Jeremy Pocklington who is the Permanent Secretary at DESNZ.…

    …The total cost of generation (generation plus export) rose 14.5% to £221/MWh. This is because the FiT payments are index-linked and go up each year in line with the Retail Price Index. [RPI, which is higher than CPI].

    …This latest cost per MWh compares to the cost of currently active Contracts for Difference (CfDs) for offshore wind at about £150/MWh, onshore wind £113/MWh and solar at £110/MWh. The average market reference price so far this financial year is about £69/MWh. We are being forced to pay >3X the market rate for uncontrollable mostly solar power.

    Conclusions

    We can expect the cost of the Feed-in-Tariff scheme to continue at very high rates for the foreseeable future. The duration of FiT contracts is 20-25 years and if the rate of inflation stays above rate of decay of generation, then the overall cost will continue to increase.

    However, we can expect the cost per MWh of generation to keep on going up and we will continue to pay over the odds for electricity until the country goes bust. We really need our politicians to prioritise cheap energy over almost everything else instead of signalling their green virtue on the world stage.

    Liked by 1 person

  221. “To Infinity and Beyond

    There is no limit to our electricity bills as new spending on renewables has diminishing impact on emissions intensity.”

    https://davidturver.substack.com/p/to-infinity-and-beyond

    I am grateful to a subscriber for drawing my attention to the trajectory of the emissions intensity of UK electricity generation compared to the scale of spending required to achieve Miliband’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan.

    As we shall see, each extra wind turbine and solar panel is delivering progressively less reduction in the amount of CO2 emitted by our electricity generation system, which implies that our bills are going to infinity and beyond....

    ...If we believe the Government and assume that the massive acceleration of wind and solar installation is achievable, we can speculate about what might happen to electricity prices. NESO said their plan would cost £44-48bn per year and the Government has rounded down their estimates to “around £40bn per year for the next 6 years.” The technical annex explains that the Government figures are rounded to the nearest £10bn and exclude financing costs and operations expenditure. If we take the NESO estimate of £48.4bn/year for six years, that is a total expenditure of £290.3bn. If we assume an 8% cost of capital and 2% operational costs, then we can expect our bills to rise by £29bn per annum by 2030, or the equivalent of more than £1,000 per household.

    However, all this spending will only reduce emissions intensity to 51g/kWh. The extra spending on wind, solar and grid expansion will achieve much less emissions reduction than earlier spending. Looking beyond 2030, any further spending on wind, and solar will likely have an even smaller impact on emissions intensity per pound of spending. If the Government wants to achieve the true “zero-carbon electricity” promised in its manifesto, then our bills going to infinity and beyond.

    Liked by 2 people

  222. “Hundreds of homes to get solar panels under trial”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy4l2ejy81o

    The story, per se, isn’t what caught my interest. This line is why I have posted the link here:

    ,,,The authority received £5.3m from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero for the scheme, which runs until April….

    One Council, one small scheme, at a cost of £5.3M to the taxpayer. Just what is this costing us nationwide?

    Like

  223. Mark – I notice the “One Council, one small scheme” just happens to be Oxfordshire County Council.

    Is it just me or do the £ figures quoted in the BBC article for the Hall’s seem very vague/not make sense?

    Anyway, the only link they give is Energy Saver app | Oxfordshire County Council

    The blurb – “Energy Saver App is a new, free mobile app from Oxfordshire County Council that will help you save money on your home energy bills (on average 8% or over £200 a year) and reduce your household emissions.  

    The app uses clever technology to analyse your home energy usage data. It can then provide you with highly personalised insights to help you use less energy, save money on your bills and reduce your emissions. 

    Energy Saver App is available to all residents of Oxfordshire with a smart meter. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a homeowner or a renter, or which energy supplier you use. 

    For more information visit the Energy Saver App website.”

    So straight away you have to have “a smart meter” to save “over £200 a year”

    To find out more I went to above website and the solar tab – the blurb

    “As part of a government-backed research trial, we’ll be offering some lucky Energy Saver App users energy saving appliances (like solar panels, batteries and heat pumps) for a low monthly fee.

    As a thank you for participating, you’ll be entered into a prize draw to win vouchers.

    This trial aims to find the best ways to price energy in the future, ensuring consumers get the best deals.

    It runs until March 2025, at which point you can continue using the Energy Saver app and the appliances to enjoy the ongoing benefits.

    By taking part in the trial your smart meter data will be anonymised and then analysed.”

    It has a vid which explains the cost, but can’t link to for some reason!!!

    Like

  224. “Net zero primary school will never open because of lack of children

    DfE pulls funding from project as only ‘a handful of families’ live in new 350-home development”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/12/net-zero-primary-school-department-for-education-nottingham/

    A “net zero school” designed to reduce carbon emissions has closed before admitting a single pupil because of low demand.

    Waterside Primary Academy in Nottingham was set to open last September and promised to host up to 210 pupils and 30 nursery-age children across its newly-built campus.

    The project, overseen by the Department for Education (DfE) and set to be operated by the Greenwood Academies Trust, had been hailed as one of the first schools in Britain built according to net zero guidance.

    In October 2023, a statement from the school said it would be designed to reduce the amount of carbon emitted during the building process….

    …Greenwood Academies Trust has also withdrawn from the agreement and said it will now try to find an “alternate use for the site”.

    It was hoped that children living in the new 350-home Nottingham Waterside Trent Basin development nearby would attend the school.

    But residents said most people who have moved into the properties, which cost up to £500,000, are older couples and young professionals without children….

    ...The total spend on the 1,400-square-metre project – to be delivered as part of the DfE’s “offsite schools framework” – is not known.

    The £3 billion project, launched in 2020, aims to build 30 schools each year using low-carbon construction methods….

    Liked by 1 person

  225. “Ministers pledge record £410m to support UK nuclear fusion energy

    Ed Miliband says funding pledge means Britain within ‘grasping distance’ of ‘secure, clean, unlimited energy’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/16/ministers-pledge-record-410m-to-support-uk-nuclear-fusion-energy

    The UK government has promised a record £410m investment in nuclear fusion which could help construct a world-leading fusion power project on the site of an old coal plant in Nottinghamshire.

    Ministers hope the funding, which will be made available for the coming financial year, will support the rapid development of the UK fusion energy sector and deliver “a future powered by limitless clean energy”.

    The funding will include the development of the prototype power plant at the now decommissioned West Burton coal-fired power plant in Nottinghamshire by 2040, and repurposing the UK’s pioneering fusion machine at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in Oxfordshire.

    It follows the government’s promise of “significant support” for nuclear fusion research in its first autumn budget statement since coming to power last year.

    Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, said the investment meant that Britain was “now within grasping distance of unlocking the power of the sun and providing families with secure, clean, unlimited energy”….

    It would be nice to think it were true, but as it’s Ed Miliband saying it, I fear it’s just another £410M of taxpayers’ money being wasted (note the terminology in the article – as always, it’s not a cost, it’s an investment).

    Like

  226. “Ed Miliband’s net zero plans branded ‘fantasy’ in damning letter from top scientist”

    https://www.gbnews.com/politics/ed-miliband-net-zero-plans-fantasy-letter-michael-kelly

    A former Government scientist has written to Ed Miliband after branding the UK’s net zero plans an engineering “fantasy” with the challenges and costs massively underestimated.

    Michael Kelly, Emeritus Professor of Technology at Cambridge University, has used the letter to the Energy and net zero Secretary to explain why he believes plans to decarbonise Britain’s energy system by 2050 are doomed to fail.

    Professor Kelly has conducted detailed analyses of the costs involved in the Labour Government’s net zero plans, which he says will cost at least £4.4trillion – equivalent to £100,000 per household, just to electrify ground transport and all heat, and to retrofit all buildings....

    ...Professor Kelly described the Government timeline as “moonshine” and warned delivering such targets would require an engineering workforce that Britain doesn’t have.

    “It has taken 20 years for renewables to supply 50 per cent of our electricity,” Professor Kelly said.

    “Labour’s plan would require us to do the other 50 per cent in just five years. That’s a fourfold increase in pace. Where are the engineers and skilled tradespeople coming from to make that happen?”

    In his letter, Professor Kelly described Labour’s net zero plans to the Biblical Tower of Babel, a legendary attempt to build a tower to heaven that was doomed to failure because the architects had no idea how to define when they had reached heaven or how much it would cost.

    He warned that the project risks becoming an over-ambitious disaster due to a lack of proper planning and public debate.

    He highlighted costs associated with key engineering projects required to reach the goal of net zero, including a £1.4trillion expansion of the National Grid and a £3trillion building retrofit program to improve energy efficiency.

    These figures, he claims, have been ignored or downplayed by policymakers….

    Liked by 1 person

  228. Another load of taxpayer dosh is about to be thrown at net zero:

    “Schools and hospitals get £180m solar investment”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80y2j8d92no

    Hundreds of schools and hospitals across the UK are set to receive £180 million for solar panels from the government’s new state-owned energy company.

    The first major investment from Great British Energy was announced on Friday as part of government efforts to reduce the country’s planet-warming emissions….

    The part of the story that annoyed me was this:

    ...”Right now, money that should be spent on your children’s education or your family’s healthcare is instead being wasted on sky-high energy bills,” said Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.

    “Great British Energy’s first major project will be to help our vital public institutions save hundreds of millions on bills to reinvest on the frontline,” he added....

    If his words have been reported accurately, then the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is guilty of disinformation. There is no way an “investment” of £180 million will save hundreds of millions on bills. Furthermore, the decarbonisation of the grid is making electricity more, not less, expensive.

    I’m also peeved (though not remotely surprised) that the BBC chose to end the article thus:

    …But the acting shadow energy secretary disagreed that the government’s approach would save money.

    “Labour’s Net Zero zealotry is still set to make us poorer. The government is putting our very energy security at risk with their attacks on North Sea Oil and Gas – surrendering our energy independence to foreign powers like Russia,” he said.

    Clearly such views couldn’t be allowed to go unchallenged, so the BBC followed them with this:

    …However, energy experts have said that investing in renewable energy could reduce this reliance on imports.

    Jess Ralston, energy analyst at the think tank Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said: “This GB Energy funding is an investment into energy security as solar panels lower the amount of gas we need to import from people like Putin.”...

    Jess Ralston may indeed be an energy expert, but the ECIU is not remotely objective and is basically a lobby group for net zero. Jess Ralston is just one of nine “net zero analysts” who work there. Her short biography on the ECIU website says:

    Before joining the ECIU in April 2020, Jess worked for Ecuity Consulting LLP where she specialised in energy policy and communications and the Sustainable Energy Association where she held a policy advisor role particularly for energy efficiency and low carbon heating.

    I think readers of the BBC article should have been told that.

    Like

  229. “Britain on fast track to net zero with early access to £4 billion infrastructure investment”

    https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-release/britain-fast-track-net-zero-early-access-ps4-billion-infrastructure-investment

    However, conscious of the significant impact that the transition to net zero has on customer bills, the regulator is clear in its governance rules to ensure that the APM (Advanced Procurement Mechanism) is used only for the intended purposes and any unused funding will be returned to consumers.

    Recognition implicit in that statement that its the customer who pays for all this. It’s going to reduce our bills by making them more expensive. Genius.

    Like

  230. Another £37.5M of taxpayers’ money casually given away:

    “Councils given funding for zero-emission buses”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9vdde0n1yo

    Two councils in Surrey and East Sussex are among 12 local authorities to receive a share of £37.5m of government funding for new zero-emission buses...

    …The money is set to fund 319 new vehicles across England, which should be functional by Spring 2027.…

    Like

  231. “Cornish hospitals get funding for solar panels”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9l2dv4kp4o

    Plans are under way to install thousands of solar panels at hospitals across Cornwall.

    Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust said it had received a national funding grant of nearly £2.2m to install 2,725 solar panels across 11 sites.

    The trust said it was one of 78 to be awarded funding, adding it expected to save £6.5m over the lifetime of the panels.

    Alan Bean, sustainability programme manager for the trust, said reducing reliance on the grid by about 30% could save hundreds of thousands of pounds per year.

    The funding is part of a £100m Great British Energy scheme to help the NHS drive down energy costs through solar power and battery storage….

    The rate of return on capital seems, on the face of it, to be reasonable, and I would much prefer them to put solar panels on the roofs of hospitals in Cornwall than to covers hundreds of acres of agricultural land in Cumbria with them. In principle, then, I have no objection. But I note that the overall costs are immense, and I am not aware (I may be wrong) that the government has carried out a number of trial runs first to ensure the savings claims are justified before spending so much money. I hope they have enough sense to carry out post-completion reviews to check whether the optimistic claims are justified, before throwing lots of money at something that might not do what is claimed for it.

    Like

  232. The insanity continues, apparently unabated:

    “UK scientists to launch outdoor geoengineering experiments
    Blocking sunlight could temporarily slow the climate crisis but the technologies remain highly controversial”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/22/uk-scientists-outdoor-geoengineering-experiments

    UK scientists are to launch outdoor geoengineering experiments as part of a £50m government-funded programme.

    The experiments will be small-scale and rigorously assessed, according to Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria), the UK government agency backing the plan, and will provide “critical” data needed to assess the potential of the technology. The programme, along with another £11m project, will make the UK one of the biggest funders of geoengineering research in the world. [my emphasis].

    Geoengineering is controversial and some previous planned outdoor experiments have been cancelled after strong opposition. Most geoengineering proposals aim to block sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface, for example by launching clouds of reflective particles into the atmosphere or using seawater sprays to make clouds brighter.

    If successful, this could temporarily reduce surface temperatures and the harm the climate crisis is causing, giving more time for the deep cuts in global carbon emissions needed. Given the failure of the world to stop emissions rising to date, and the recent run of record hot years, backers of solar geoengineering say researching the issue is vital in case an emergency brake is needed.…

    I could advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer about a very quick scheme to eliminate the “black hole” in the nation’s finances – stop spaffing taxpayer money on nonsensical and wasteful projects associated with climate change.

    Liked by 1 person

  233. “Power plant bosses concerned as subsidy cuts loom”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c861q2gld1xo

    Bosses of a biogas power plant in Warwickshire say they are worried about its future after the government revealed subsidies for the industry are to be axed.

    Cotesbach Landfill Gas Project, near Rugby, traps methane from rotting organic rubbish in landfill and uses it to generate green energy.

    David Rice, managing director of Melton CLP – which runs the site – said that when the renewable energy subsidy is withdrawn in 2027, it will force 87% of sites like this plant to “close overnight”.

    The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said it was exploring options to support the sector meeting net zero targets as well as addressing the interests of bill-payers....

    That will be a first!

    Liked by 1 person

  234. “British Sugar given £7.5m to help cut carbon emissions”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg7jgvzq0do

    British Sugar has been given £7.5m in funding to help overhaul crop drying processes with the aim of cutting carbon emissions by 25%.

    The company, which operates a factory in Wissington, Norfolk, plans to use the money to install emission-cutting technology including heat pumps and carbon capture.

    The government funding is part of a £37m project to revolutionise the on-site drying process with gas dryers replaced by steam dryers to save 193,000 MWh a year in energy usage.

    Terry Jermy, Labour MP for South West Norfolk, said: “This is excellent news as British Sugar is a pillar of our country and region with regards to production and innovation.”...

    …In recent years British Sugar has also invested in an evaporation plant at the Wissington factory.

    It was awarded the money as part of the Industrial Energy Transformation Fund….

    I think the local Labour MP might have done better to ask what the spending has actually achieved. It will make no difference to the climate. It doesn’t make British Sugar more profitable or efficient. It hasn’t saved any jobs. Would it not have been better to save the money (remember the supposed black hole) or to have spent it on something productive?

    Like

  235. “Solar mats installed on waste and recycling trucks”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2qw2ey3gqo

    Solar mats have been installed on 20 refuse and recycling trucks across the Warwick district.

    The technology had been installed in a bid to reduce energy consumption, and it could reduce carbon emissions by about 1.3 tonnes per vehicle per year, Warwick District Council said.

    The mats work by powering electrical components and equipment in the vehicle, such as air conditioning and radio.

    Councillor Will Roberts said the authority was committed to further reducing carbon emissions from its fleet of waste collection vehicles.…

    The BBC omits the rather important information as to what this cost, but it does tell us:

    …The council said the project had been funded by the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, external, with the solar mats installed by transport company TRAILAR.…

    How many of these funds are there? I hadn’t even heard of this one. Click on the link and learn that it’s another £2.6Bn. It’s supposed to be about levelling-up, but if this story is anything to go by, it’s been hijacked by net zero proponents. Today we also learn this from the BBC:

    “TfL now has 2,000 zero-emission buses in London”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0j72d2x7zpo

    This may or may not be a good thing, but we don’t learn enough from the BBC report to assess the merits or demerits of this news. For instance we don’t learn what it has cost, how much more that is than if the new buses hadn’t replaced conventional ones, nor are we told anything about ongoing running costs and efficiencies. What is the job of a BBC journalist? Is it to provide BBC readers/viewers/listeners with useful information, or is to propagandise net zero? We do get this:

    …Lorna Murphy, TfL’s director of buses, said “decarbonising” the public transport network was essential.…

    Liked by 1 person

  237. “New wind farms’ impact to be ‘felt for generations'”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd78xze3qyzo

    The whole article is a puff piece for offshore floating wind farms. Funnily enough, the one rather important piece of information it doesn’t mention is their extremely high cost under the latest CfD round. Quite how this is going to help to bring bills down is a mystery:

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0108/

    …The government’s main support mechanism for commercial-scale low carbon electricity generation, including floating wind farms, is the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme. CfD contracts are awarded at yearly auctions, or allocation rounds, with the sixth allocation round (AR6) currently underway. Projects awarded CfD contracts are guaranteed a fixed ‘strike price’ for any electricity they generate.

    The budget for AR6 includes up to £105 million (in 2011/12 prices) for emerging technologies, including floating wind. The maximum strike price government are willing to pay for floating wind, the administrative strike price (ASP), has been set at £176 per megawatt-hour (in 2011/12 prices and up from £116 in the previous round). …

    Like

  240. “OBR Falls for Fake CCC Numbers

    OBR uses fake CCC Numbers to estimate cost of Net Zero”

    https://davidturver.substack.com/p/obr-falls-for-fake-ccc-numbers

    I read the OBR report with growing disbelief, so I’m very grateful to David Turver for this:

    …The OBR also looks at the whole economy cost of Net Zero. However, they simply parrot the numbers from the CCC. This shows the overall net cost of Net Zero for the whole economy to be just £116bn by 2050 with overall benefits from 2041 onwards.

    They do not quite explain how the whole economy costs can be so much lower than the cost to the public purse, especially when so much of the cost is supposed to be borne by private investors and billpayers. However, what is more worrying is that they do not seem to have challenged the numbers from the CCC. Yet, the OBR has admitted that it is the CCC numbers that have driven most of the reduction in public expenditure estimates.…

    …From the numbers they have published, we know the CCC made some highly implausible assumptions about the shifting the costs of renewables on to gas bills as well as the cost and take up rates of heat pumps. However, the most obvious egregious errors are in the CCC’s erroneous estimates of the cost of renewables.

    They assume that offshore wind in 2030 will cost less than half the value of contracts awarded for fixed bottom offshore wind in last year’s Allocation Round 6. They totally ignore the need for floating offshore wind that cost six times more than their 2030 estimate. The CCC estimates for the cost of solar for 2030 delivery were less than half the prices awarded in AR6 too. They did not even bother to estimate the cost of onshore wind, despite needing to more than double the installed capacity by 2050.

    The OBR is supposed to be an independent fiscal watchdog. It should be challenging the CCC and running its own due diligence, not simply carrying out a cut and paste exercise. It does not take much effort to compare CCC assumptions to the reality of auction data. The OBR estimates of the cost of net zero have carried forward the errors embedded in the CCC’s Seventh Carbon budget. The OBR is asleep at the wheel and our fiscal position is even worse than the dire straits they describe.

    Liked by 2 people

  241. “Labour to spend millions on electric car handouts

    Government outlines £700m scheme offering EV grants and charging upgrades to combat sluggish sales”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/07/12/labour-spend-millions-electric-car-handouts/

    Behind a paywall unfortunately, but no doubt all will be revealed before long.

    “…to combat sluggish sales”. What part of “we don’t want EVs” does the government not understand?

    Liked by 2 people

  242. It says that the grants will be skewed towards UK-built EVs and cheaper EVs. The latter group are the ones that people don’t want, as they tend to have the worst ranges. There is also money for yet more chargers – funding for local authorities to connect terraced houses to chargers in front of them (a policy that hasn’t been thought through, as usual), and new signs on the motorway to alert drivers of an upcoming charging station. Of course, drivers are currently unaware of where the charging stations are, which is why you see them driving up and down country lanes, asking the locals whether there is one nearby. They do not have GPS or mobile data, or apps that display the location and status of every chargepoint in the universe.

    Your taxes at work.

    Liked by 1 person

  243. From that Telegraph article, EVs are not just a bit more expensive, they are hugely more expensive to buy than petrol/diesel cars, plus depreciation costs are very steep and they are less reliable, prone to burst into flames and generally not as user friendly as ICE cars because of range/charging issues.

    Labour has kept Conservative plans to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030, which will force motorists to switch to electric-powered vehicles.

    But many drivers have been put off by high upfront costs, with battery-powered models typically costing thousands more than their petrol counterparts.

    The average price of a new EV in Britain is just under £50,000, more than double the cost of a typical petrol car at £22,000.

    Electric vehicles have also been plagued by high depreciation, losing their value faster than petrol and diesel cars because their batteries degrade.

    Ms Alexander told The Telegraph: “We do know that the high upfront purchase cost of EVs is something that people are wary about.

    “I think we’ve got to be honest and say there are a lot of people out there who think that EVs are just for the very wealthiest.

    “We also want to really move away from people having range anxiety, to people having range awareness and knowing that they’re going to be able to make the journeys that they want to make.

    “It’s right that the Government thinks in the round about what we can do to tackle both of the issues, on charging and on the upfront cost of purchase.”

    This week, ministers will announce two new taxpayer-funded schemes to make it cheaper to buy an electric car in an attempt to stimulate sluggish demand.

    Ms Alexander is expected to unveil a new £640 million grant scheme to reduce down payments on new EVs.

    The Telegraph understands that the plan, to be published on Tuesday, will give the highest levels of grants for UK-manufactured vehicles.

    It will favour Nissan in particular, which is planning to make the next generation of Leaf EV at its plant in Sunderland from next year.

    So what does our Marxist government do? It spaffs another £700m of taxpayers’ money to subsidise yet more well off, virtue signalling ‘save the planet’ wannabes to drive around around in EVs and worry less about doing so. BTW, Labour brought forward the petrol and diesel ban to 2030, after Sunak moved it back to 2035. misinformation from the Telegraph.

    Liked by 1 person

  244. “I think we’ve got to be honest and say there are a lot of people out there who think that EVs are just for the very wealthiest.“

    At £50,000 on average for a new one, they are just for the wealthiest. I suppose second hand ones might be affordable if you’re poorer (but not if you’re poor), given their rapid loss of value, but the older they get the more worthless they are, given the massive cost of replacement batteries and the limited shelf life of said batteries. Not much of an investment. Poor people certainly can’t afford to write off such a high-cost investment in this way. It’s worth noting that SMMT data shows people hanging on to their diesel and petrol cars for longer. I guess this is the reason, or at least part of the reason.

    Liked by 1 person

  246. “Podcast Episode 70”

    https://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/articles/podcast-episode-70

    In the face of climate change, the urgency for decarbonisation in public sector estates has never been more critical. With public sector estates producing over 9 million tonnes of CO2 annually, the journey towards achieving net zero by 2050 is a shared responsibility that demands immediate action and innovative solutions.

    In this panel discussion, experts from the NHS, local councils, and housing groups gathered to explore how local authorities can future-proof their estates through low carbon heating, energy efficiency retrofits, and the deployment of smart technologies. The conversation highlighted the vital role of funding, particularly through the public sector decarbonisation scheme, which has committed over £2 billion to support these initiatives.…[My emphasis].

    Liked by 1 person

  247. Mark – how you find these links never ceases to amaze me.

    Had a look at the website expecting a “about us” tab, explaining who they are and who funds them with no luck.

    Did find this – DOWNLOAD YOUR FREE GUIDE NOW

    “With over £300 billion spent annually on goods, services, and works, the UK public sector offers consistent and lucrative business for suppliers of all sizes.

    Whether you’re a small business breaking into the market or an established supplier looking to scale your public sector presence, this guide is designed to give you the insights and strategies you need to succeed.

    Submit your details below and download your free guide DOWNLOAD YOUR FREE GUIDE NOW“

    Also noticed this article –

    Community facilities to save millions thanks to Great British Energy | Public Sector News

    Partial quote – “The funding will support rooftop solar, battery storage, and EV charging infrastructure in key public buildings, helping to cut energy costs, boost local services, and create green jobs — all part of the government’s clean energy superpower mission.”

    It ends with – “UPCOMING ONLINE CONFERENCES

    All our conferences are CPD accredited, which means you can gain points to advance your career by attending our online conferences. Also, the contents are available on demand so you can re-watch at your convenience.”

    Like

  249. “Solar panel switch on for ambulance service”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3drmml8l7do

    Solar panels installed at an ambulance building could save more than £32,000 a year, South Central Ambulance Service (SCAS) has said….

    …Earlier this year it secured £1m of funding for solar panels on four of its buildings….

    They secured funding of £1M, so presumably the installation cost that or more. The BBC article is (deliberately?) coy about the actual cost. Then we are told this:

    …With the panels and batteries having a 25-year performance guarantee, over the lifetime of their use, SCAS said it would save an estimated £842,000 in energy costs….

    That estimated saving over the life of the panels and batteries is less than their cost of installation. Presumably there will also be a cost attached to removing and disposing of them at the end of their lives. The BBC doesn’t mention that cost.

    And it gets worse. The £1M capital cost isn’t free. Either there’s an opportunity cost for the alternative uses of that money or, perhaps more to the point, the government will have borrowed that money. The interest rate on it is probably more than 3.2%, in which case the annual savings are less than the annual cost associated with the project. It makes no economic sense at all to the British public even if it’s good news for the Ambulance Service finances. And it gets worse still:

    …The funding was part of a £100m investment in solar and battery installations in a scheme run jointly by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Great British Energy (GBE) and NHS England.

    GB Energy is a state-owned company that was set up by the Labour government to invest in renewables, such as solar power.

    It is spending about £200m on rooftop solar for 200 schools and NHS hospitals across the country.…

    A decent reporter might point out some of the flaws in all this rather than acting as a cheerleader.

    Liked by 1 person

  250. “SSE to invest £33bn in upgrading Scotland’s electricity grid”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7mk5np141o

    This is a negative story in so many ways:

    …Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) has set out plans to spend two-thirds of that to upgrade wiring and increase high-voltage grid capacity to get power from the north to customers in the south.

    However, the Perth-based company faces strong criticism of some its plans, for the impact they will have on the Highlands and rural Aberdeenshire.

    The plans include erecting tall pylons and and building large sub-stations....

    That’s north of £20Bn being spent (perhaps £700-800 per UK household) purely because of the need to enable electricity from far-flung renewables to be brought to the centres of demand. Of course, it represents only a fraction of the total cost of this exercise.

    Liked by 1 person

  252. “Mitchell Library gets £2m funding to upgrade heating”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3v1r2ply4go

    Glasgow’s Mitchell Library, one of Europe’s largest libraries, is set to receive more than £2m in funding to replace its existing heating systems.

    The cash from Scotland’s Public Sector Heat Decarbonisation Fund will see the existing gas boiler replaced with a new system of air and water source heat pumps....

    Decent journalism, I suggest, might have investigated whether the existing heating system needed to be replaced at this stage at all; assuming it did, might then have asked how much it would have cost to replace it with a new gas boiler instead; and might also have sought to analyse the costs and benefits of a new gas boiler -v- air and water source heat pumps.

    ...The library project is one of 10 schemes that will receive grants totalling £12m from the Scottish government fund.

    Climate Action and Energy Secretary Gillian Martin said the projects “show the scale of ambition on our journey to net zero”….[And also its costs!].

    ...The other projects include grants being given to:

    Orkney Islands Council – £120,000 to install three air source heat pumps in the Library and Archive building….

    University of St Andrews – £950,000 for works to three buildings in the Madras College

    Perth and Kinross Council – £41,052 for building management and insulation upgrades at Arngask Primary School and Nursery

    Clackmannanshire Council – £2,200,000 for future heat network connections at Alva and Banchory Primary Schools

    South Ayrshire Council – £1,718,998 for the installation of roof/wall cladding at Troon pool

    Midlothian Council – £2,500,000 to replace gas boilers at Midlothian House

    Stirling Council – £415,506 to install new air source heat pumps at Cornton Primary School

    Shetland Islands Council – £167,873 to install loft insulation at Lerwick Town Hall

    Fife Council – £1,591,468 to replace existing gas boilers at Aberhill, St Agatha’s and Carnegie Primary Schools.

    More poor journalism, IMO. Were the gas boilers at Midlothian House and the schools in Fife being replaced with gas boilers, or with some “green” alternative? Looks like a lazy cut and paste of a press release to me.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.