As we all know, the Guardian is a leading protagonist when it comes to proselytising about the “climate crisis” and the “need” for Net Zero. If you’re an organisation which exists to push that agenda, then the Guardian will probably be happy to publish whatever you write, without first applying any critical editorial standards. A good example is the “report” by CarbonBrief on 8th August 2022 (and updated on 24th August when gas prices peaked, but never subsequently updated despite gas prices now being less than 10% of the price they reached on that day). On 7th October 2022 the Guardian website featured an article by Caroline Lucas repeating the claim and linking to the CarbonBrief report, even though by the date her article appeared, the price of gas had already fallen steeply (by around 60%) from the peak of 702.95p per therm (which was used to justify the highly dubious claim made by CarbonBrief) to 285.04p per therm (today, by the way, it sits at 60.29p per therm). In other words, the original claim was highly dubious (as I pointed out in The Lies Have It), and it was already wildly untrue by the time Caroline Lucas wrote her piece and the Guardian published it. Amusingly (I missed it at the time) the url for the Caroline Lucas article was https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/07/energy-crisis-it-isnt-that-we-have-too-little-oil-and-gas-we-have-too-much-lucas. While the jury is out as to whether we have too little oil and gas, all of us hear at Cliscep would probably agree that we have too much Lucas.
The other day I spotted another article in the Guardian, this time by Gaia Vince. It broadly consisted of the stuff we have come to expect, both from her and from the newspaper for which she was writing, but the final section of her article included this:
Alarming forecasts from Big Wind this week, as the world’s three largest companies are struggling with hikes in raw material costs, delays, investment problems and high inflation — offshore wind is around 30% more expensive now.
Finally, I thought: recognition that the claims of cheap renewable energy are false – surely then, we will see something of a mea culpa for having mislead Guardian readers for so long, and perhaps a bit of sense will appear regarding the UK’s energy policy? I couldn’t have been more wrong. Instead the article assured us that we just have to accept higher prices:
Governments must create the conditions for rapid expansion in these challenging offshore and floating markets, even if it means agreeing higher energy prices in the short term. Now, where did we put that £28bn?
My own suspicion is that going down this road will saddle us with higher energy prices in the meduim and long term too. However, only time will prove which of us is right.
All of the above is a long-winded way of setting the scene for the huge surprise I received yesterday when I read another Guardian article, this time with the heading “Power struggle: fears for UK energy generation as green projects delayed” and the sub-heading “Path to relying solely on green power appears long as series of problems collides with reality of keeping the lights on”. Written by Alex Lawson, it could almost have been written by any of us here at Cliscep.
He starts by talking about the fact that the 280 miles between Hadrian’s Wall and Peterhead (which includes, he says, stunning Scottish countryside and quaint villages) is “to become a building site for vast power lines connecting offshore windfarms with urban centres.” This, he tells us, is part of the “national transmission plan” necessitated by net zero driving increasing demand for electricity and the consequent need to accommodate numerous “green” energy projects.
Policymakers face a tricky decade as the target of decarbonising the electricity system by 2035 collides with the day-to-day job of keeping the lights on and ensuring electric vehicles, heat pumps and industrial machinery are powered.
He goes on to point out that in worst-case scenarios we will struggle to meet the surging demand forecast for the early 2030s if “nascent technologies” (such as pie-in-the-sky – my words rather than his – CCS and hydrogen) fail to take off as hoped. Although “the scenarios vary wildly”, we in the UK could be left with “39 gigawatts less power than previous forecasts.”
The problem is exacerbated, given that gas power stations still provide most of our electricity (35.7% last month), nuclear power looks increasingly problematic (at least over the necessary timescales) given further delay to Hinkley Point C, and windfarm planning has been shaken by supply problems “that forced the world’s biggest developer, Ørsted, to scale back, and for Sweden’s Vattenfall to pull out of a huge offshore project [Norfolk Boreas] off the Norfolk coast after they said rising costs meant it was no longer profitable”.
Although he suggests that switching gas plants to hydrogen is viable, he acknowledges it will be costly. CCS is unproven at scale; and large battery projects are facking a backlog to connect to the grid. And even National Grid ESO acknowledges that we will struggle to meet security of supply by relying on battery technologies alone.
A section of the article then talks about the problems experienced by those project developers seeking to connect to the grid – a problem I discussed in Gridlock. Then there is talk of the need to shift consumer demand to times of greater supply and lower demand (in other words, customers are there to serve the needs of the grid, not the other way round).
Next he moves on to discuss the problems with the Labour Party’s energy plans such as its “target to decarbonise power by 2030 and how practical a target to only use gas-fired stations as a backup really is.” Its reliance on Drax is problematic, given its dubious green credentials and massive subsidies (as pointed out by Jit in The Beast of Selby). And there is the question mark within the party over how much money to commit to decarbonising home heating, and the problem of vested interests to be overcome in this area – not only gas companies, but also trade unions.
He concludes thus:
An industry source says: “Everything relating to government decarbonisation targets has an asterisk with ‘subject to security of supply’ attached.”
The path to relying solely on green power appears as long as the journey to Peterhead.
Well said Alex Lawson. And what a refreshing change, in the Guardian of all places!
As a postscript, I should add that I took a look to see what other articles Mr Lawson has written, and was pleased to note that he doesn’t shy away from writing things that don’t seem to fit the Guardian agenda, such as (to give just a few examples) “Danish windfarm firm Ørsted to axe up to 800 jobs and pause dividend”; “UK electric vehicle maker Arrival enters administration with 170 jobs at risk”; and “‘Hypocrisy’: Tata builds vast India furnace despite Port Talbot emissions claims – Owner says shutting Welsh blast furnaces will cut emissions, but it is opening a new one in India”.
I hail an independently-minded journalist committed to telling it like it is, and (unusually for me) I give considerable credit to the Guardian for allowing him to write there as he does. At least one journalist is allowed to let the Guardian’s readers know that chickens are coming home to roost.
Climate Scepticism 
Is there a breath of fresh air at the Guardian?
“Country diary: A new chapter for these old hills
Wolfelee Hill, Scottish Borders: They’ve been used for upland sheep and sitka spruce plantations – now the wind turbines are arriving, as the locals know all too well”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/17/country-diary-a-new-chapter-for-these-old-hills
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then again, possibly not, to judge by this drivel:
“The Guardian view on Labour’s green retreat: wrong, wrong, wrong
Editorial
Keir Starmer’s announcement is a historic mistake on economic, political and environmental grounds”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/08/the-guardian-view-on-labours-green-retreat-wrong-wrong-wrong
LikeLike
Regarding Caroline Lucas, as a party with only one MP, the Greens certainly have quite a presence in the media. It would be interesting to see a tally of MPs’ appearances on panels.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liked the quote – “and windfarm planning has been shaken by supply problems “that forced the world’s biggest developer, Ørsted, to scale back, and for Sweden’s Vattenfall to pull out of a huge offshore project [Norfolk Boreas] off the Norfolk coast after they said rising costs meant it was no longer profitable”.”
wonder what “profit” they deem acceptable to keep the planet temp “just nice”.
If oil & gas companies stop north sea extractions because of the exact same problem, wonder what the Guardian view will be? mournful or jubilant?
LikeLike
That Carbon Brief “9x cheaper” claim enabled a few prominent Labour politicians to make idiots of themselves publicly. Every cloud has a silver lining.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, at least the 9x more expensive statement now rings true, however, it’s renewables that are 9x more expensive than gas
LikeLike
Thanks Mark for drawing our attention to this very surprising and welcome Guardian article. One thing puzzled me. Lawson wrote:
Only gas as a backup? But that’s not what Labour’s policy document – Make Britain a Clean Energy Superpower – has to say:
What happened to CCS, hydrogen etc? Perhaps Lawson and people ‘within Labour’ are assuming they won’t be available – not an unreasonable assumption I suppose. But of course if the only backup was gas it would have to be (1) a substantial ‘reserve’ and (2) one that was called upon for much of the time – in which case, it would hardly be accurate to describe Britain as a ‘Clean Energy Superpower’.
LikeLike
Thanks Robin,
The context of that comment was, I believe, the question mark over the cost and practicality of CCS and hydrogen. I think your assumption is correct – some within Labour might be assuming that CCS and hydrogen aren’t (in practical and financial terms) available, and in that (highly likely) scenario, what then?
LikeLike
Yes Mark: what then indeed. As David Turver shows in a most interesting article this morning (https://davidturver.substack.com/p/wait-for-the-blackout), unless new gas-fired power plants are built we won’t have enough gas by 2030 anyway. And can you see Labour investing in gas? Plainly not. Labour’s energy problems are stacking up.
LikeLike
In addition, it looks as though poor Scotland will continue to bear the brunt of the cranked-up industrial devastation of wild places that is an integral part of Labour’s energy “plan”:
“Zero plans for public onshore windfarms submitted last year in England
Lack of activity persists despite lifting of ban on projects last year, and contrasts with 46 applications made in Scotland”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/15/zero-plans-for-public-onshore-windfarms-submitted-last-year-in-england
LikeLike
Robin,
Many thanks for drawing that David Turver piece to our attention. It is, as always, excellent and compelling. It should be compulsory reading by all politicians, who plainly do not remotely understand the hell they are unleashing on the UK.
LikeLiked by 2 people
David Turver’s excellent summary can also now be found at the Daily Sceptic:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/18/wait-for-the-blackout/
LikeLike
So much for battery storage:
“UK energy storage funds feel the squeeze
‘Weak revenue environment’ means UK storage funds are diversifying into overseas markets”
https://tamarindo.global/articles/uk-energy-storage-funds-feel-the-squeeze/
LikeLike
There are so many places where it would be appropriate to post this, but here seems topical, and it ties directly into the points made in the Guardian article on which I was commenting:
“Climate change: Plan to capture, ship and bury power station’s CO2”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68296155
LikeLike
Whatever else it might be, it won’t be a new industry, because it produces nothing of worth.
LikeLike
Another prodigal chook returning to the roost:
https://gcaptain.com/scotlands-fuel-binge-offers-glimpse-of-future-without-refinery/?subscriber=true&goal=0_f50174ef03-6a6f440e05-170410014&mc_cid=6a6f440e05&mc_eid=9275323244
So the UK will have to buy 13% of its fuel on the open market once the refinery closes, on top of however much it already purchases. Since the chemicals operation will continue we can presume that the feedstock will also have to be imported. So the import bill will go up while revenue from employment taxes, etc will decline.
LikeLike
LikeLike
A good example of policy poultry bringing problems:
https://www.powermag.com/miso-warns-immediate-and-serious-challenges-are-threatening-reliability/?oly_enc_id=1116I5572089I1F
There are lessons for our grid but I doubt anyone would acknowledge them. The US equivalent for the region is far more open on the realities of the “transition”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mikehig – thanks for that link, so many quotes I could lift from it.
“These factors paint a dire picture. “MISO modeling indicates that a reduction of that magnitude could result in load interruptions of three to four hours in length for 13-26 days per year when energy output from wind and solar resources is reduced or unavailable,” the report notes. “Such interruptions would most likely occur after sunset on hot summer days with low wind output and on cold winter days before sunrise and after sunset.”
LikeLike
LikeLike
Thank you Alex Lawson, once again:
“UK power plants lined up to command record high energy prices this decade
Stations secure all-time high price of £65 a kW per year for 2027-28 in ‘capacity market’ auction”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/28/uk-power-plants-record-high-energy-prices-auction
Paul Homewood is also on the case:
LikeLike
“Power chiefs fear net zero blackouts in London by 2028
Switch to renewable energy sources blamed for growing struggle to ‘keep the lights on’”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/07/power-chiefs-fear-net-zero-blackouts-in-london/
National Grid executives have warned of blackouts before the end of the decade unless the South East pays more for power than other regions…
Behind a paywall, but it includes this:
…In private conversations with the energy industry, executives from the Grid’s Electricity System Operator (ESO) claimed the network was becoming so congested that “there will be blackouts in the South East by 2028”, one industry source claimed….
LikeLike