Chris Skidmore, in his Chairman’s foreword to the “independent” Review of Net Zero, wrote that “[t]he Review has sought to engage, listen, and learn from businesses, organisations, industries, and communities from across the UK.” I’m guessing that one of those businesses was SSE. Certainly its Chief Executive, Alistair Phillips-Davies, seems very pleased with it. But then he would be, since it might as well have been written by him. So much for the independence of the review. Jit has already written about this, and I have nothing to add. Instead I want to draw attention to a puff piece that appeared on SSE’s website about a week ago under the heading “It’s time to ‘build, build, build’ to deliver sustainable energy independence”.
It starts with a positive reference to the Net Zero review, which apparently “neatly describes the clean energy transition as “the growth opportunity of the 21st Century” creating almost half a million jobs in what could be a £1Trillion market.” But there’s a small problem – in order to realise this “vast potential” we must move quickly and act decisively in order to seize the opportunities in a global race.
I’ve always been rather dubious about this “logic”. Being first, or an early adopter, with regard to new technology, often involves making mistakes, which can be expensive. It may be better to wait until others have refined the technology, made and recovered from mistakes along the road, and generally smoothed the way for those who follow. However, when the energy user and the taxpayer are picking up the tab, we can throw caution to the winds. Mr Phillips-Davies agrees with Mr Skidmore that we have to move quickly and act decisively. But then – as Chief Executive of a company making lots of money from renewables thanks to a generous subsidy and planning regime, especially in Scotland – he would say that.
The problem, we are told, in a looking-glass sort of way is “an over-reliance on expensive imported gas and the regimes that control it.” The solution, also in a looking-glass sort of way is apparently not to reduce reliance on imported gas by extracting our own, but is to “build a homegrown energy system that is cheaper, cleaner and more secure.” By this, obviously, he means building lots more unreliable wind farms, which have the disadvantage of being expensive, environmentally destructive, and introduce insecurity, due to their inherent unreliability, into the UK’s energy system. The irony of talking about “cleaner” energy in a paragraph that is followed (evidently for illustrative purposes) by a photograph of a once pristine moorland now being covered in environmentally destructive wind turbines and new access roads is evidently lost on Mr Phillips-Davies. But then, as the Chief Executive of a company which is busily destroying the once pristine landscape of much of Mainland Shetland in its search for profits, I don’t suppose that should surprise us.
Next we are told that there are three steps to sustainable energy independence. First “[w]e need to speed up construction of homegrown renewables to end our reliance on imports.” Of course, this is predicated on the obviously false assumption (in the absence of affordable and practicable at-scale energy storage solutions) that renewables can supply energy independence (they can’t). Secondly, as for “speeding up” construction of home-grown renewables, we have barely started, and SSE isn’t helping. The turbine blades currently being landed at Shetland for the Viking Wind Farm monstrosity have been imported.
Secondly, “We need to upgrade our electricity networks to meet the massive increase in demand coming in the years ahead.” That’s a bit of an under-statement. The last time I looked, I saw a figure of £54 Billion mentioned for the planned upgrade of the National Grid. That represents a cost of around £2,000 per UK household. And, so far as I can see, that’s just for starters. Once we are all forced to drive electric cars, heat our homes with electric heat pumps, and cook our food using only electric ovens, I would guess that the necessary upgrade will make £54 Billion look like a drop in the ocean.
Third (and this is where one might expect reality to kick in, but apparently not) “[w]e need to develop cleaner forms of flexible power generation technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen plants and pumped hydro storage to keep the lights on when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.”
I suppose I should be grateful for the recognition that the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine (especially, as it happens, during a cold winter spell when an anticyclone sits over the country and the sun barely crawls above the horizon). However, clearly pumped hydro storage can only ever provide a tiny part of the storage solution, and the hydrogen solution remains at the moment little more than science fiction, certainly at the scale required to make intermittent energy generation a feasible option for an advanced economy. As for the cost, don’t even go there. Have you seen a realistic cost estimate for this stuff? I haven’t. Last time I looked, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one of many currently impracticable and unfeasibly expensive pipe dreams, but one that is supposedly a solution to “carbon” (i.e. CO2)-emitting forms of energy production (i.e. fossil fuels). It isn’t a “power generation technology” and I am baffled as to why it would be necessary in the La-La Land of “clean” renewable energy supplies.
But back to SSE’s puff piece. What, we are asked, is holding us back? (Apart from common sense and a dose of reality?). Well, apparently it’s absolutely ridiculous that we have in place (in England at least – I know many Scots who aren’t happy about a planning system rigged in favour of wind farm developers) a planning system that takes too long. For goodness’ sake – we need to cut in half the time it takes to put planning consents in place! All those delays must be delaying receipt of subsidies, I suppose. As a sop we are told that “As we reform [i.e. tear up the existing limited planning constraints], we also need to work in partnership with communities who will be vital to delivering the energy system we need at pace. Yeah, right. Tell that to the people of Shetland, and to the inhabitants of many other beautiful places whose landscapes have been industrialised by SSE and the rest of them.
Almost incredibly, the other part of the jigsaw puzzle, apparently, is this: “we should also build a fleet of CCS and hydrogen power plants alongside the storage assets that will be needed to deliver a net zero electricity system.” If we are to show we are serious, we have to do these things and not just talk about them. The fact that all we can do at the moment is talk about them, because there are no costed and feasible options currently available, is apparently neither here nor there.
All this is necessary because we need to send a strong signal to investors. And here we’re let into a little secret – “a single percentage point increase in the cost of raising capital will add around £50bn to the cost of the energy transition”. Other than the fact that we need investors, and they need to have confidence (that they will make oodles of money out of this, presumably), the implications of this aren’t really discussed. But I see an immediate implication. If one percentage point adds £50 Billion to the cost of the energy transition, it implies (very simplistically) that the cost of the energy transition is around £5 Trillion (before financing costs).
So I have a suggestion. Instead of the rousing rallying cry at the end of the puff piece (“Let’s make 2023 the year when we move from what some have described as ‘blah, blah blah’ to ‘build, build, build’.”), let’s stop and think, think, think. It’s bad enough that SSE wants to destroy our wild places by industrialising them, leaving us with an intermittent and unreliable energy system theoretically to be backed up by as yet impracticable and uncosted storage “solutions” that are unlikely ever to be available at the necessary scale. I’m not in favour of spending lots of money on this folly either.
Climate Scepticism 
The trouble of course with “creating jobs” is that it sounds great as a soundbite. But there are two fat flies in the ointment.
The first is that as far as domestic energy is concerned, the fewer jobs there are in it the better. Energy is not an end in itself. It is a resource for other features of our civilisation, and (of course) the more people involved in the delivery of that resource, the less efficient it is. We could propose returning to a primitive pre-industrial lifestyle: it has high employment rates to recommend it.
The second is that if instead we are suggesting that we are planning to export green machinery to other countries, then we are talking about an idea that no-one believes. The notion that our energy system will enable us to undercut manufacturing of anything in the developing world is flat-out ludicrous. No-one seriously believes that we will be exporting batteries or turbine blades – ever.
Jobs in the first scenario are a net cost. Jobs in the second are fantasy jobs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jit, elegantly put, and that comment goes right to the heart of the matter.
Meanwhile, some kind people have posted links to my article at various Facebook pages, one of which produced this comment:
There is a link to an article on the Siemens website under this heading:
“We are partnering with SSE to deliver Keadby2 Power Station”
https://www.siemens-energy.com/uk/en/offerings-uk/keadby2-power-station.html
This is for Siemens’ customer, SSE. So, are SSE hedging their bets? Talking big about wind, but still ploughing ahead with an energy source that is reliable? Maybe it explains all the references in the puff piece to carbon capture and storage? Perhaps it does. This is from the accompanying press release:
https://press.siemens-energy.com/global/en/pressrelease/keadby-2-power-station-contribute-over-ps1bn-uk-economy
LikeLike
The CCS references begin to make sense – SSE are betting on it and hoping to make money out of it:
https://www.ssethermal.com/
https://www.ssethermal.com/low-carbon-solutions/
Cynic that I am, I interpret “opportunity” in this context to mean an opportunity to make money. No wonder the Chief Executive is banging on about CCS.
LikeLike
The main use for carbon dioxide produced by CCS is to flush out nearly depleted oil wells.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, here’s a report of the CEO of one of the big windfarm owners calling for higher prices:
https://gcaptain.com/uk-offshore-wind-at-risk-without-higher-prices/?subscriber=true&goal=0_f50174ef03-a55c41abe2-170410014&mc_cid=a55c41abe2&mc_eid=9275323244
LikeLiked by 1 person
At the risk of sounding off, and going off topic a little into the realms of the specific, I have told you all before about the tsunami of wind farm applications in the Scottish Borders.
the latest offering is by RES (so not SSE) and is called Torfichen. s36, so straight to ECU of the Scottish Government. Now the only reason to mention this one is it a very large scheme, on the slopes of the southern escarpment of the Central Belt. So actually in Midlothian and not the Borders, but only just. Why mention it? Because it will be hugely visible right across Midlothian, and into Edinburgh. One of the Viewpoints proposed is Arthurs Seat, so the worthy MSPs who have created this mess will be able to view it in its full glory. If they cash walk up the hill. Up to now, that has Not Been Allowed, as it might interfere with Edinburgh’s iconic views.
This is, and all the other horrible schemes right across Scotland, a result of the coalition agreement with the Greens, which stipulates another 20GW of Onshore wind farms by 2030. All set out in the latest Scottish Government Planning Framework (NPF4). so chickens coming home to roost perhaps…?
And the strange thing is that NPF4 elevates the “wildlife crisis” to the same level as the “climate crisis” So actually the whole document contradicts itself throughout. Every new site onshore wind will create…. you can fill in the rest…. but so far the ruthless developers are just trying to brush that aside….
LikeLiked by 1 person
heriotjohn,
I’m very sorry that your comment was sent to spam, and that you had to try twice to post it. You’re released now though, and I hope that the spam filter will recognise you and let you through should you post again in future.
LikeLike
Green jobs in the UK are few in number and disappearing fast, as I think I have demonstrated here:
Yet today we receive this puff piece courtesy of the BBC and the CBI:
“Green projects are boosting UK growth – CBI report”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64440827
No link is offered to the CBI report. I note with interest that “green” jobs now include existing job categories, such as “waste management”. I can hear goalposts being moved. But this is what the push is all about, as per the SSE puff piece referred to in my article:
And guess who commissioned the report (which I think we can safely assume is therefore propaganda)? None other than the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU):
https://eciu.net/
Take a look at their website – hardly a disinterested organisation:
Perhaps the BBC should have gone into a little more detail about the objectives of the report and of the organisation which commissioned it. Instead they have simply provided some free propaganda via what is supposed to be a disinterested, respectable and objective organisation (i.e. the BBC itself) who UK citizens can trust. As always, the question is “Is that true, or did you read/hear it on the BBC?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
…the question is “Is that true, or did you hear it on the BBC?”
When the Moon is in the Seventh House, tra la…
living in The Age of Acquescence.
LikeLike