In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the UK Government to ensure that by 2050 ‘the net UK carbon account’ was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990. (‘carbon account’ refers to CO2 emissions and ‘other targeted greenhouse gas emissions’.) Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.i
Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, potentially disastrous and in any case pointless – and, importantly, that’s the case irrespective of whether or not human caused greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to a rise in global temperature.
1. It’s unachievable.
Many vehicles and machines (used for example in agriculture, mining, mineral processing, building, heavy transportation, commercial shipping and aviation, the military and emergency services) and products (for example cement (and concrete), high-grade steel, plastics – all needed incidentally for the construction of renewables – nitrogen fertilisers, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insulation, tyres and asphalt) essential to life and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives; there are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Our civilisation is based on fossil fuels; something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.ii
Wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K., but: (i) the substantial and increasing costs of building the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero, (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable non-fossil fuel grid by 2030 – not least the need to cope with a vast increase in high voltage grid capacity and local distribution, (iii) the enormous scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of space iii and of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials, such as so-called ‘rare earths’) required because, unlike fossil fuels, the ‘energy density’ of wind is so low and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see 2 below) make it unlikely that the UK will be able to generate sufficient electricity for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs (electric vehicles) and heat pumps and for the energy requirements of industry, rapidly expanding AI (artificial intelligence) and huge new data centres.iv
In any case, the UK doesn’t have nearly enough skilled technical managers, electrical, heating and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other skilled tradespeople required to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem worsened by the Government’s plans for massively increased house building.v
‘Net Zero’ means that there has to be a balance between the amount of any greenhouse gas emissions produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. That there’s no detailed, costed (or indeed any) plan for such removal, threatens the credibility of the project.
2. It would be socially and economically disastrous.
The Government aims for 100% renewable electricity by 2030 but has yet to publish a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun; a problem that’s exacerbated by the pending retirement of elderly fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. The Government has indicated that back-up may be provided by new gas-fired power plants vi but it hasn’t published any detail. This of course would not be a ‘clean’ solution and it seems the Government’s solution is to fit them with controversial carbon capture and underground storage (CCS) systems (commercially unproven at scale).vii This issue is desperately important: without full back-up, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems for millions of people, including health consequences threatening everyone and in particular the poor and vulnerable.viii
Even more serious is the fact that, because there’s no coherent plan for the project’s delivery, little attention has been given to its overall cost. All that’s clear is that it would almost certainly be unaffordable: for example, a recent Office for Budget Responsibility projection of £1.4 trillion ix is probably too low and several trillion seems likely to be more accurate.x The borrowing and taxes required for costs at this scale would destroy Britain’s already weak credit standing and put an impossible burden onto millions of households and businesses.
Net Zero would have two other dire consequences:
(i) As China essentially controls the supply of key materials (for example, lithium, cobalt, aluminium, processed graphite and so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the UK would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on it, putting its energy and overall security at most serious risk.xi Moreover, while impoverishing Britain, Net Zero is enriching China.xii
(ii) The vast mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering throughout the world, affecting in particular fragile, unspoilt ecosystems and many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people; the continued pursuit of Net Zero would make all this far worse.xiii
3. In any case it’s pointless.
For two reasons:
(i) It’s absurd to regard the closure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting plants in the UK and their ‘export’ mainly to SE Asian countries, commonly with poor environmental regulation and often powered by coal-fired electricity, as a positive step towards Net Zero; such action will increase global emissions. Yet efforts to ‘decarbonise’ the UK mean that’s what’s happening: it’s why we no longer produce key chemicals and, by closing our few remaining blast furnaces, will soon be unable to produce high quality steel.
(ii) Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of GHG emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt (by international agreement) from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. The UK is the source of less than 1% of global emissions – so any further emission reduction it may achieve cannot have any impact on the global position.xiv
In other words, Net Zero means the UK is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, potentially disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that could well result in Britain’s economic destruction.
Robin Guenier August 2024
Guenier is a retired, writer, speaker and business consultant. He has a degree in law from Oxford, is qualified as a barrister and for twenty years was chief executive of various high-tech companies, including the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency reporting to the UK Cabinet Office. A Freeman of the City of London, he was Executive Director of Taskforce 2000, founder chair of the medical online research company MedixGlobal and a regular contributor to TV and radio.
End notes:
i http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/part/1/crossheading/the-target-for-2050
ii See Vaclav Smil’s important book, How the World Really Works: https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/.
iii See Andrews & Jelley, “Energy Science”, 3rd ed., Oxford, page 16: http://tiny.cc/4jhezz
iv For a view of wind power’s many problems, see this: https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/ This is also relevant: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/debunking-cheap-renewables-myth
v A detailed Government report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65855506fc07f3000d8d46bd/Employer_skills_survey_2022_research_report.pdf See also pages 10 and 11 of the Royal Academy of Engineering report (Note 5 below).
vi See this report by the Royal Academy of Engineering: https://nepc.raeng.org.uk/media/uoqclnri/electricity-decarbonisation-report.pdf (Go to section 2.4.3 on page 22.) This interesting report contains a lot of valuable information.
vii In this report the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis indicates serious uncertainties and shortcomings regarding CCS: https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Gorgon-Carbon-Capture-and-Storage_The-Sting-in-the-Tail_April-2022.pdf Also see this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/24/how-failure-carbon-capture-risks-net-zero-nightmare-labour/
viii This article reviews why more renewables could result in blackouts: http://tiny.cc/lnhezz
ix https://www.cityam.com/uk-fiscal-watchdog-puts-cost-of-reaching-net-zero-at-1-4trn/
x The National Grid ESO has said net zero will cost £3 trillion: https://www.current-news.co.uk/reaching-net-zero-to-cost-3bn-says-national-grid-eso/. And in this presentation Michael Kelly, Emeritus Professor of Technology at Cambridge, shows how the cost would amount to several trillion pounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkImqOxMqvU
xi https://www.dw.com/en/the-eus-risky-dependency-on-critical-chinese-metals/a-61462687
xii See for example this article by environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/24/net-zero-is-impoverishing-the-west-and-enriching-china/
xiii See this for example: http://tiny.cc/3lhezz. Arguably the most compelling and harrowing evidence is found in Siddharth Kara’s book Cobalt Red – about the horrors of cobalt mining in the Congo: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250284297/cobaltred
xiv This comprehensive analysis, based on an EU database, provides – re global greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions – detailed information by country from 1990 to 2022: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2023?vis=ghgtot#emissions_table
Climate Scepticism 
Although it’s only two months since I published the third update, I decided to do so now as there have been some relevant developments since then – not least the election of a Labour government. The result is that I’ve made several changes to the text and have expanded the endnotes. My thanks to Mark for making this so easy for me and to John C for the help re the reference at endnote 3.
I might have to make some further adjustments when EDGAR updates its database and analysis in September.
PS: although there’s plenty of relevant comment out there, I haven’t been able to find any useable data that would provide evidence for an endnote supporting item 3 paragraph (i). Can anyone help?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Believing in the tooth fairy is more credible than believing “Net zero” is achievable or desirable
LikeLike
Robin, I still think the quote at page 945 from HAL Fisher’s “A History of Europe” about the siege of Sebastopol during the Crimean war is most apt for the target of your article. Fisher wrote, “And if the objective was insane, the methods were tragic.” Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
More from Ben Pile this morning:
“Labour’s Insane Energy Policy Means Consumers in England’s Southeast Will Either Have to Ration Electricity Use or Face Blackouts. Cheers, Mr Miliband”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/08/09/labours-insane-energy-policy-means-consumers-in-englands-southeast-will-either-have-to-ration-electricity-use-or-face-blackouts-cheers-mr-miliband/
As always , well worth a read.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks John for reminding me of that outstanding Fisher observation. It perfectly encapsulates the whole NZ absurdity.
LikeLike
The Telegraph paywall can be partly sidestepped via the Daily Sceptic to read Jeremy Warner’s latest:
“Britain is Leading the World on Net Zero, But No One is Following”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/08/09/britain-is-leading-the-world-on-net-zero-but-no-one-is-following/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Mark. For those who can access it the surprisingly sensible Torygraph article is worth reading: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/09/britain-leading-world-on-net-zero-no-one-following/
Two extracts:
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin, is this not a major sign that the UK is now, and has been since the CCC of 2008, in the realm of extremist politics? Leadership of this kind (i.e. without followership) is heroical stupidity at best and pointless, futile destruction at worst – as per the subtitle of your post.
The UK emits only about 1% of global CO2 and yet our so-called representative democracy, working through uni-party support in parliament, enacted the CCC in 2008. However, there appears to be very limited democratic grassroots support for the policy which is immiserating the vast majority of people, as well as driving industry down and out. The country seems to be in the grip of political vandals intent, as David Turver noted, on the dematerialisation of the economy rather than its decarbonisation. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John: I suggest the politics are ‘extremist’ only in the sense of being extremely foolish. And I’m reasonably sure that our ‘leaders’ know that the UK is the source of only about 1% of global emissions, but – to them – that doesn’t matter as we have an obligation to set a good example. What they don’t seem to understand is that the big world out there isn’t remotely interested – except perhaps to laugh at our self-destructive antics.
As for public opinion, the evidence indicates that most people do support net zero, although it’s a long way down their priority list. And it disappears altogether when they find they’re going to have to pay for it.
Yes, these people are vandals (although I think some historians say that the vandals have been unfairly demonised) – but I still cling to the belief that their actions are based on a mad view that they’re saving the planet and not, as I think Jaime believes, on sheer evil. What I find difficult to understand is how so many seemingly intelligent and well-educated people – people who have nothing to gain from all this – share the views of the politicians. R
LikeLike
Hello Robin, thank you for expanding upon these very important ideas.
Robust data can be very useful in distinguishing between ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ policy responses to a policy challenge. If the response is proportionate to the challenge then I think we can reasonably say the the response is ‘moderate’. However, if challenge and response are disproportionate then the response is reasonably classified as ‘extremist’. Note, however, that an ‘extremist’ response can be either an overreaction or an under reaction (e.g. arguably, appeasement policy prior to WWII).
Addressing now your specific arguments, for myself I find it difficult, but not impossible (see below), to accept that, on the one hand, these vandals know the UK is the source of only 1% of global CO2 while, on the other hand, they do not know that the rest of the world is not remotely interested. Such cognitive inconsistency is, I hope, less likely in non-extremists, but, as Gray notes [Ref. 1], it is consistent with extremist policy making, “Totalitarian governments will often engage in, and maintain, policies that look irrational (or even borderline insane) when viewed from the outside.” Does not the UK’s Net Zero policy look irrational to most people outside the elitist bubble?
The argument that the UK has to set a good example comes, I believe, from the realm of luxury beliefs that elitists expect other people to pay for, since, as you rightly say, support for Net Zero melts away once those ‘other people’ discover that they have to pay for such beliefs / policies / indulgences.
As David Turver has observed, “I fear we are heading to a very dark place, both physically and spiritually before we can alter course to a more sensible energy policy.” https://davidturver.substack.com/p/hello-darkness-my-old-friend
Reference 1. Phillip W. Gray, “Totalitarianism – the basics”, Routledge, 2023, especially page 17.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
I can’ t wait for winter. Hopefully, Mother Nature will cold slap some sense into these people.
LikeLike
All-blackout
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you John – interesting observations. Just one further comment: I was initially reluctant to accept the view that belief in NZ was directly analogous to belief in a religion – where no external evidence, however cogent, is able to undermine faith. I’m beginning to sympathise with this view: it explains precisely why it’s seemingly impossible to persuade NZ supporters to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Robin, yes, it may indeed be analogous to a religious belief without being a religious belief because for me it fails the Gandhi test, namely “A religion that takes no account of practical affairs and does not help to solve them is no religion.” [Ref. 1]
However, your insight illustrates that this issue can currently be viewed from several perspectives, which may explain why various views of it have been expressed here at Cliscep.
For myself, I see that an “extremist” stance (as previously defined) has been taken at the outset of this new government. It remains to be seen what new laws follow from this stance; what will be prescribed and what proscribed by these laws? For example, will there be a move towards moderation with the ordering of the 30 to 50 GW of CCGT that the Civil Service said we need. Or will we see a drive towards hardline, dogmatic decarbonisation and the consequent dematerialisation of the economy? Time will tell, but I am not hopeful at present given, for example, that Mr Miliband is surrounded by advisers who are on message but, it seems, have no technical competence in business let alone engineering. https://substack.com/@davidturver/p-146814424
Reference 1. P. Kelly (editor), “The Politics Book”, Dorling Kindersley, 2013, page 224.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good evening John. Re the Gandhi test, NZ believers certainly take account (albeit misguided) of practical affairs and believe they are most definitely helping to solve them. So perhaps theirs is indeed a religion.
For my part I suspect the whole enterprise will collapse because of a collision with reality – especially severe shortages of materials and skilled people: obstacles that even people who are incompetent in business and engineering won’t be able to ignore.
LikeLike
Bit O/T – but as I remember, the UK NZ was inspired (maybe wrong) by the German Energiewende, which was the poster child for “green energy transition” & the move away from fossil fuels to renewables. Seem to recall the Pols/MSM singing it’s praises & urgings the UK to follow that lead.
Wonder how the German Energiewende is doing. the latest I could find –
Cleaner German power sector coming under scrutiny in 2024 | Reuters
ps – guess who gets a quote –
“Lower fossil fuel use has in turn helped cut German power sector emissions by around 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and equivalent gases through the first four months of the year, according to energy think tank Ember.”
“20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and equivalent gases” in 4 months !!!
LikeLike
That Reuters article about Germany also says this:
But thanks to annual “Dunkelflauten“, or spells of low wind speeds during the summer that cut wind-powered electricity generation, total German clean power output may be capped over the coming months and may place strain on power providers if total demand creeps higher...
…Additional large electricity imports look likely throughout the summer, but German power firms will also likely need to increase power output from coal and natural gas plants in order to ensure stable market conditions throughout the summer when wind generation dies off….
…However, those cuts to fossil fuel use and emissions could be quickly reversed if power firms crank coal and gas-fired power over the remainder of 2024, which may be inevitable if clean power supplies remain capped just as total electricity demand rises.…
What the Reuters article doesn’t mention, is this:
…For household consumers in the EU (defined for the purpose of this article as medium-sized consumers with an annual consumption between 2 500 Kilowatt hours (KWh) and 5 000 KWh), electricity prices in the second half of 2023 were highest in Germany (€0.4020 per KWh), Ireland (€0.3794 per KWh), Belgium (€0.3778 per KWh) and Denmark (€0.3554 per KWh) – see Figure 1. The lowest prices were observed in Hungary (€0.1132 per KWh), Bulgaria (€0.1192 per KWh) and Malta (€0.1279 per KWh). For German household consumers, the per KWh cost was 41 % above the EU average price…
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics#Electricity_prices_for_non-household_consumers
“German economy is in ‘troubled waters’ – ministry”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68361717
LikeLiked by 1 person
An article in the Guardian:
Biomass power station produced four times emissions of UK coal plant, says report
Drax received £22bn in subsidies despite being UK’s largest emitter in 2023, though company rejects ‘flawed’ research
According to a report from Ember – the Government’s favoured climate think-tank:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Robin, in a recent post you wrote, “For my part I suspect the whole enterprise will collapse because of a collision with reality – especially severe shortages of materials and skilled people: obstacles that even people who are incompetent in business and engineering won’t be able to ignore.” https://cliscep.com/2024/08/08/the-case-against-net-zero-a-fourth-update/#comment-154097
Please can you help me because I am having difficulty with your word ‘collapse’ in this context, if by which you mean ‘coming to a sudden end’, even though you correctly cite the real issues of shortages greatly slowing down the Net Zero decarbonisation process.
Given that the whole government machinery (from cabinet level, through the Civil Service and out into academia, plus the stooge papers and other on-message media) is entirely absorbed in the self-serving groupthink of the Green Blob, I cannot foresee that the aforementioned shortages will produce a sudden end to the madness. Rather will we wade further, deeper and hence ever more slowly into the swamp, the Slough of Despond/The Grimpen Mire.
What action by government might bring an abrupt end to the waste, the stupidity, and the futility of it all? I see only major external shocks bringing change e.g. electricity blackouts and the consequent chaos and misery. Failing that, perhaps only the electoral cycle running its course and the next General Election bringing in a new, less ‘extreme’, less doctrinaire government will bring relief. However, that new government would have to completely clean out the Augean Stables that the Green Blob have so polluted in making them their own.
Was it prime minister Harold MacMillan who remarked on, “Events, dear boy. Events!” bringing sudden changes in perspective and thus policy? And “A week is a long time in politics” said prime minister Harold Wilson. So political lightning strikes do occur to bring about radical change. But apart from these unforeseeable bolts from the blue I feel, unfortunately, that we are stuck with this ‘extremist’ decarbonisation/dematerialisation policy for the long term.
If you see other options which might bring a sudden change of course then please tell; I would like some good news. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well John, I believe the net zero project – up and running for five years now – will, within about twelve months, be seen by Government to be wholly unachievable because of a shortage of key materials, a shortage of engineering and management expertise, a shortage of skilled labour (hugely exacerbated by the housebuilding programme), increasing and active public opposition and unaffordable cost. Were that to happen I think the word ‘collapse’ would be appropriate. R
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, Robin. “Increasing and active public opposition” is just the sort of off-ramp that would do it for me. I will be on the look-out for it, and hope that it will jump up and bite me and, more importantly, the government firmly on the derrière.
Long live active and increasing public opposition to Net Zero! Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John C:
I realise that’s a quote from a book I haven’t read but this strikes me not just as true but of great (and sombre) importance. More should be said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Richard. Yes, I believe that the quote (from Phillip W. Gray, “Totalitarianism: the basics”) is very relevant to the way the West has developed/degenerated over the last 30 years. I will try to expand on the totalitarian theme – but it won’t be today, I’m afraid. In haste. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What form will this “active and increasing opposition to Net Zero” take? Will it be mass protest, direct action? Will it be passive resistance, i.e. refusing to install a heat pump/smart meter or buy an electric car? In either case, we can expect this fascistic eco-communist government to step up and force people to accept Net Zero austerity measures, whether they like them or not, by introducing laws which make it practically impossible for people to continue their ‘carbon-intensive’ lifestyles or by introducing the threat of punishment (including criminal prosecutions) for not adopting a low carbon lifestyle and accepting severe energy rationing. We’ve definitely seen who Keir Starmer is now.
LikeLike
Jaime: I was referring in particular to the ‘need’ for wind turbines, solar farms and a vast new distribution network – all by 2030. Public opposition to all this is already happening – even leaders of the Green Party are protesting – but that is only one of many other obstacles such as a shortage of key materials, a shortage of engineering and management expertise, a shortage of skilled labour (hugely exacerbated by the housebuilding programme) and unaffordable cost. Even a fascistic eco-communist government will be unable, for example, to force people to become skilled engineering managers or electricians.
LikeLike
“How Ed Miliband became Britain’s most divisive government minister
The Energy Secretary has made an eye-catching start. But how far is he prepared to rock the boat?”
https://www.politico.eu/article/ed-miliband-uk-energy-secretary-energy-labour-green-policies-policy-keir-starmer/
…Veteran broadcaster Andrew Neil went so far as to predict that “at its worst, the energy and climate crusade on which [Miliband] is embarking … could at some stage bring the government down.” A local council in the east of England county of Suffolk — home to one of the solar farms he approved in the face of local opposition — is already taking legal action against him….
…With green policies under pressure all over the Western world, Labour’s political opponents view Miliband and his strong commitment to climate action as a potential political weakness, arguing the costs of the energy transition could weigh heavily on ordinary voters, that well-paying, unionized oil and gas jobs won’t be replaced, and that government diktat will ride roughshod over local communities to build clean energy infrastructure.
Miliband, claims Conservative MP and former Climate Minister Graham Stuart, sees climate policy “as some sort of religious crusade” and is therefore “a real danger to our ability to maintain the political consensus to deliver net zero.”
“The danger of someone who puts their zealotry ahead of practical implementation is that it will create more and more enemies, not only of him … but actually of the project overall,” Stuart said….
...For now at least, Labour figures remain publicly united behind the Miliband agenda. But fault-lines already exist. Labour-allied union bosses have warned about the potential impact of the government’s oil and gas phase-out plans on jobs. Others believe Miliband will need more money for his clean power plans — potentially reopening a rift with Reeves and the Treasury.
Stuart, the former Tory climate minister, said the government will need to spend “many tens of billion more” on carbon capture technology alone if it wants to decarbonize the power grid by 2030.…
…An aide to Miliband said: “Ed Miliband and the Labour government have been elected with a mandate to make Britain a clean energy superpower …”
Er, no you weren’t:
https://cliscep.com/2024/07/06/when-is-a-mandate-not-a-mandate/
LikeLiked by 1 person
“What shall we do with the drunken sailor?”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/miliband-drunken-sailor
…So Mr Miliband’s plan will add at least a net £15 billion to the annual cost that consumers have to cover. That’s a minimum of £555 per household….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for that pointer Mark – used right away on X
LikeLiked by 1 person
Love this apt opening verse
“From Tortuga’s port, we put to sea
And sailed for 16 days
In the biggest storm I’d ever seen
We almost lost our way
When a call came from a deckhand
Boys, I think she’s going down
But don’t you fear
There’s enough rum here
To drink until we drown!”
LikeLike
OOPs – the vid & verse don’t seem to match 😦
Never mind, the gist for me from this shanty, re Ed Miliband –
Ed is steering the good ship UK into troubled waters with a drunk crew onboard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul Homewood has just published in the Daily Sceptic a useful summary of his latest annual review of misleading BBC climate stories from the last 12 months: The BBC’s Tall Climate Tales.
I often wonder why it’s so important to the likes of the BBC, Sky and the Guardian to keep making such a fuss about what they say is terrifying evidence of the ‘climate emergency’? I’ve never really understood what they hope to achieve by these attempts to frighten everybody. After all, notwithstanding Miliband’s mad efforts, there’s almost literally nothing the UK – their primary audience – can do to achieve what is presumably their objective: a reduction in global CO2 emissions. Or do they perhaps inhabit a fantasy world where for example the Chinese politburo, the Indian government, the Kremlin and the Iranian ayatollahs regard these publications as important sources of information? Surely not.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin: Man’s Search for Meaning. Power. Money.
It’s the wrong place to search for meaning, I should hasten to add. It’s futile.
But the power (just within the UK, say) and the money are real enough . Until the Net Zero Crash anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do we need a demonstration project for an emission-free electrical project?
For some time now the redoubtable Francis Menton has been campaigning for a demonstration project for an emissions-free electrical grid. This gets a lot of support. However some insist that it’s unnecessary as it’s so obvious that a zero-emissions cannot work that the expense and effort of such a project cannot be justified. Menton sympathises with this view. However he notes that Germany and the UK for example are forging boldly ahead with massive emissions-free programmes seemingly without any fears that they might be unachievable. He concludes that a ‘demonstration project that fails spectacularly is the only thing with any hope of saving them.’
Is he right?
Menton’s article about this can be accessed HERE .
PS: my view is that Menton’s conclusion is correct but that there isn’t the remotest of it happening in the UK. Somewhere else perhaps? I doubt it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree Menton’s conclusion is correct Robin. We need to lay out what sanity would look like, even while those running the asylum into the ground fail to listen.
LikeLike
It would be impossible to do such a trial here, because of the existence of interconnectors. Francis Menton has I know mentioned El Hierro before: a perfect candidate. However, it has the always-available backup of diesel up to now.
LikeLike
Robin – thanks for the link – notice he say’s this just before the concluding quote you mention –
“In short, this large and seemingly sophisticated country is completely delusional, with no sane voices anywhere to be heard.”
Yep, he’s right & your right re the UK – Miliband warned ‘absurd’ net zero electricity pricing will force factories to close (msn.com)
Miliband is to invested in the climate chaos/NZ crusade to ever listen/heed any real world harm it will do to the UK & will never criticise UN/EU.
PS – that graph at the bottom of your Menton link has me confused.
Title – Battery Energy in Germany (all battery technologies MaStR)
The graph link takes me to the reddit graph titled “Total installed battery storage capacity in Germany has now reached 10Gwh. Nearly 1 milion homes have battery storage systems installed.”
Look at the kWh for “home storage” against the other 2 storage in the graph, makes me wonder what type/how 1 mil Germans have so much “home storage”
Interesting – Germany Population 2024 (Live) (worldpopulationreview.com)
LikeLike
More good news – Heat pumps could bring the German economy to its knees (telegraph.co.uk)
LikeLike
Richard, you say: ‘We need to lay out what sanity would look like...’
That would be a useful step forward if it were possible. But surely it’s not?
LikeLike
All complex, uncertain engineering projects should do a pilot.
Not possible in what sense? Because it would be highly embarrassing?
LikeLike
‘All complex, uncertain engineering projects should do a pilot.’
That’s true – I should know: I was for many years CEO of two engineering companies (marine navigation and then production automation). And Net Zero is the biggest, most complex and uncertain engineering project ever undertaken in Britain (at least in peacetime).
So why isn’t it possible? Two reasons I think: (1) it would be hugely difficult to set up and would take many years to complete (just consider for example the extreme difficulty of establishing that CCS really worked and was commercially viable) and (2) there isn’t the remotest likelihood that the Government would provide the necessary backing for such a pilot.
LikeLike
Robin, you seem to imply that, in the absence of vigorous public resistance (as we discussed recently), the whole UK is sailing directly over the EROEI cliff without so much as a competent steersman and without any lifebelts. Is that how you see it?
The poem ‘The Wreck of the Hesperus’ comes to mind, especially this part:-
Then up and spake an old Sailòr,
Had sailed to the Spanish Main,
“I pray thee, put into yonder port,
For I fear a hurricane.
“Last night, the moon had a golden ring,
And to-night no moon we see!”
The skipper, he blew a whiff from his pipe,
And a scornful laugh laughed he.
And, if Longfellow will allow a minor change, this part too resonantes:-
Christ save us all from a death like this,
On the reef of Edward’s Woe!
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44654/the-wreck-of-the-hesperus
It is little comfort to me that other ships in our convoy (such as the SS Germany and the SS Empire State) have set a similar course and with equally incompetent crews.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes John – that would seem to be so. R
LikeLike
On 9th August I quoted from Gray’s book on totalitarianism and, on 13th August, Richard suggested more should be said. I have therefore reviewed Gray’s short book (177 pages) and listed a few quotations (see Addendum below) that, for me, illustrate the way we in the West are already heading – even if we have not yet reached the possible final destination of technological totalitarianism sketched by Gray.
One of the key insights for me is Gray’s distinction (already observed by others, even politicians e.g. Michael Gove) between, on the one hand, “experts” in the traditional sense of having deep and extensive understanding of a body of knowledge related to the real world, and on the other hand, the newer sense of “experts” as simply credentialed for having the correct, consensus-consistent opinions, typically on current topics related to public policy.
This distinction between ‘knowledge experts’ and ‘credentialed experts’ is one that another well respected commentator on post-democratic politics seems to have signally failed to grasp. Colin Crouch [Ref. 1] writes, “Rejection of scientific knowledge reverberates across the US political right, from religious creationists, to climate change deniers, to the anti-vaccination movement, and forms part of the demagogic rhetoric of many kinds of populists reassuring people that important decisions do not require any knowledge, because experts are sometimes wrong.” No! While it is agreed that experts can sometimes be wrong (especially in complex matters), the rejection described above is not of unalloyed science but of motivated “trust-the-science” reasoning masquerading as traditional science.
To be fair to Crouch, he is not alone. Many in or close to academia seem to have great difficulty distinguishing between two classes of academic work, namely between (i) truly independent non-partisan scholarship and (ii) scholarship directed in support of a particular argument (such as a barrister makes in court in favour of defence or prosecution) which is sometimes called motivated reasoning.
Early in his book (page 12) Gray indicates that, for its supporters, totalitarianism acts as a ‘master key’ to understanding society. This theme is taken up by Professor Mike Hulme [Ref. 2], “Master-narratives offer comprehensive explanations of historical experience and/or knowledge about the future. To quote two leading academics who study them, a master-narrative ‘is a global or totalizing cultural schema which orders and explains knowledge and experience’.”
Hulme’s also tells us [Ref. 2] that, “The purpose of this book is to warn against the allure of blaming everything on climate … Climate reductionism has turned into a fully fledged ideology, an ideology that I call ‘climatism’ …Climatism is the settled belief that the dominant explanation of social, economic and ecological phenomena is a ‘human-caused change in the climate’ … Yet climatism is a pattern of thought which carries significant dangers for social justice, political freedom and future prosperity.” Hulme further warns us, “But climatism has also crept into a more extensive range of businesses, charities, professions and public institutions, such as Amazon, Oxfam, the BBC and the World Bank.”
I have quoted Hulme, not simply because he (now) sees the totalitarian dangers of climatism, but because some 15 years ago, while Professor of Climate Change at UEA, he seemed to be encouraging climate politicization, “By approaching climate change as an idea to be mobilised to fulfil a variety of tasks, perhaps we can see what climate change can do for us rather than what we seek to do, despairingly, for (or to) climate.” [Ref. 3].
With this very brief overview of a possible technocratic totalitarian future as my background, you will, I hope, understand why I am currently trying to establish the similarities (and marked differences) of the West’s current situation in terms of traditional fascist doctrine.
References
ADDENDUM: Quotes from Phillip W. Gray, “Totalitarianism: the basics”, Routledge, 2023
(with a couple of my own comments added in italics)
[page 12] “… totalitarian ideology act as a “master key” to understand society and history.”
[page 14] “… totalitarian ideology requires the politicization of every aspect of human existence.” This is echoed [page 90, section title] with the quote from Mussolini, “Everything in the State, Nothing Outside the State, Nothing Against the State”. https://www.azquotes.com/author/10620-Benito_Mussolini
[page 17] “Finally, for most totalitarian governments, there will be an inclination to expansion … and, finally, this expansion might be fundamentally global in nature, with the final aim of transforming the entire world.” Is this the so-called Great Reset in action?
[page 17] “Totalitarian governments will often engage in, and maintain, policies that look irrational (or even borderline insane) when viewed from the outside … Indeed, it is rare to find a totalitarian government that does not engage in at least some activities that seem irrational.”
[page 41] “The linking element between the disparate forms of eco-totalitarianism is the central focus on the “planet,” “nature,” or some similar ecologically focused notion.”
[page 71] “Each factor – loss of fundamental legitimacy or a major issue in a narrow timeframe – will bring problems, but it generally needs to be both together to create a crisis by which totalitarian movements can gain victory.” The ever-repeated invocation of the Climate Emergency is, I suppose, designed to create for us the necessary air of permanent crisis.
[page 94] “No association is too small, no person too socially insignificant that they can be spared the obligation to hold the “correct” views and exhibit proper “enthusiasm” for the regime and its goals.”
[page 99] “Most totalitarian regimes, if they are able, will engage in many large-scale industrial and infrastructure projects upon taking power … While infrastructure improvements would be appealing after years of crisis and instability, these changes are built on the backs of the population through rationing and severe regimentation.”
[page 101] “While the amount of terror varies between totalitarian states, a system of this type simply cannot exist for any real length of time without it.” What forms will terror take if this style of political ideology strengthens its grip on the West?
[page 108] “And yet, with a few notable exceptions, most totalitarian regimes that have existed, exist no more.”
[page 126] Section title, ‘The “Golden Age” of Totalitarianism’, defined at line 2 as starting from about 1917 and running to 1953.
[pages 144 – 162] Chapter 6 ‘The Future of Totalitarianism’
[page 146] “… a notable amount of people do look to the PRC’s system as something worth emulating … One needs to only look at some of the various writings by Westerners on China’s “success” in handling the COVID-19 pandemic … one of the more consistent mistakes from various “experts” and others was the belief that one could have the benefits of totalitarianism … without the negatives … ”
[page 155] “Forced unification can exacerbate underlying tensions … “we all just need to get beyond our differences, come together, and do everything I want.” A potentially emergent form of totalitarianism does seem to use this type of passive-aggressive, “nudging” form of coercion, so, let’s spend a little time talking about it.
Technocratic Totalitarianism on the Rise?
Totalitarianism historically develops from parties and movements that seek to destroy what exists and replace it with something new.” Such as replacing a highly reliable electricity grid with an unreliable and highly expensive one?
[page 155] “But in recent years … something new may be arising: a type of “technocratic totalitarianism,” a “rule by experts” with traits of totalitarian rule.”
[page 156] “The following … is quite speculative … We could define “technocratic totalitarianism” as a totalitarian ideology …that bases its legitimacy upon the knowledge/training of an “expert” class … that … emphasizes bureaucratic, regulatory, and other less-accountable parts of government … The unifying element is expertise, but “credentials” is perhaps a more accurate term … “expertise” arises from the consensus among other experts (rather than from an external truth or reality).”
[page 157] “The fixation of the credentialed “expert” class has, at various points, emphasized globalization as an economic/cultural foundation of a new order, a new ecological order … shifting away from fossil fuels … or now on “net zero emission” … Perhaps an example would be useful. Consider the events surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic …many nations imposed substantial limitations on their populations … with many corporate entities aiding in these endeavours, be it in blocking “misinformation” (even if such information turned out to be correct, or at least arguably so). In most cases, the populations of these democracies had no vote on these restrictions … political leaders often shifted responsibility to government entities … which appeared as “black boxes” of unaccountability. One was to “Trust the Science,” even if the restrictions seemed questionable through scientific analysis.”
[page 158] “Certainly, there have been plenty of authors arguing that many Western societies are becoming (or already are) totalitarian in nature …”
[page 159] section ‘Summing Up’, bullet point 4, “The mixture of technological advancements with an increased focus on credentialed “expertise” could be developing toward a rather different form of totalitarianism based on more technocratic foundations.”
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Superb, John, thank you. And not a little terrifying.
I feel a mixture of guilt and gratitude!
Fatalism is the first -ism to avoid here. I, and I’m sure others, will respond more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clueless:
“‘You’ve got to reach people emotionally’: the UK energy head making the local case for clean power
Faced with community anxiety over building for the energy transition, Energy UK’s Emma Pinchbeck stresses the wins, near-term and far”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/youve-got-to-reach-people-emotionally-the-uk-energy-head-making-the-local-case-for-clean-power
The prospect of pylons, wind turbines and solar farms springing up across the countryside has upset a number of UK communities. But the head of Energy UK, Emma Pinchbeck, believes there is a way to decarbonise our electricity and sooth these tensions.
Pinchbeck is tapped to be the next leader of the Climate Change Committee, and currently represents the industry charged with decarbonising the grid at the cheapest and fastest rate possible.
But she understands why many feel resistance to the idea of changing the countryside: she lives in the Cotswolds, in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). “I’m the 10th generation of my family to come from this land. My granny’s brothers all farmed it. I intellectually understand that tackling climate change is about largely other parts of the world that will be much more impacted than I will be, or this landscape will be. But emotionally, I have a very strong conservative instinct that I don’t want this landscape to change, and I want to hand it to my children.”..
...In my current job, investment for the last five years has been absolutely critical for us, and we are in competition with other markets, and our investors do read headlines.” So, she says, “when you get net zero scepticism in politics, that often manifests in my world as investors getting nervous about the UK.” The energy sector “just wants to get this [the green transition] done”.
Whereas taking things more slowly will have costs. “If you do more deliberative comms and you put extra steps in the planning process, then you slow those processes down. If you ask industry to bury cables or do them offshore, rather than do them in a straight line, there is a benefit to that community aesthetically, and that solves the one problem, but there’s an extra cost for everyone else on the bills. So there is nothing that is a free pass.”
The critical point in danger of being lost, she argues, is that everyone will benefit if cheap, clean energy is built and if climate impacts, which will ultimately be more destructive to the countryside than pylons, are minimised.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From the Express:
The tiny £184m UK airport that’s about to get 2.5 million more tourists
London City Airport’s proposal to increase passenger capacity to 9 million was approved on Monday by UK ministers much to the dismay of climate campaigners.
An extract:
Hmm … does this mean that the Government is, after all, prioritising growth over ‘the fight against climate change’? Surely not?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d assumed we’d soon be told that climate change was responsible for to the sinking of Mike Lynch’s yacht Bayesian. And sure enough the Guardian (where else?) has the story this morning:
Climate crisis fuelled storm that sank yacht in Sicily, say experts
Perhaps someone should have a word with Odysseus who I seem to remember had a few difficulties in the Med about 3000 years ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark: The head of Energy UK, Emma Pinchbeck (sounds like a Dickens character) is clueless indeed.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/youve-got-to-reach-people-emotionally-the-uk-energy-head-making-the-local-case-for-clean-power
Three things caught my eye that demonstrates the hubris of this type. Apparently she is “an expert in whole-economy decarbonisation and the energy transition” suitably qualified I suppose because she has an MA from Oxford. Clearly not an engineer or scientist. They all hang out at Cliscep.
“Change can be quite frightening,” says Pinchbeck, “and there is this kind of national romance about British identity and green and pleasant lands and that kind of countryside. I think you’ve got to reach people emotionally and not try to tell them that is a stupid instinct.”
At first this sounds just patronizing and condescending but it’s worse than that. She says “not try and tell them that is a stupid instinct.” Who apart from Emma Pinchbeck thinks that preservation of green and pleasant lands is a stupid instinct?
The less renewable energy is politicised the better, she argues,
In other words there should be no democratic debate or discussion around Net Zero. This is a constant theme on Cliscep but here is the head of Energy UK and tapped to be the next leader of the Climate Change Committee articulating what we have always suspected.
The energy sector “just wants to get this [the green transition] done”.
Well yes. When you are into the government trough you want the spoils as soon as.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Are there any experts in that? After all, it has never happened anywhere. You might as well call someone an expert in the search for the Philosopher’s Stone.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“Net zero is sinking to new lows
Labour’s plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030 is both impossible and potentially dangerous”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/22/net-zero-is-sinking-to-new-lows/
Behind a paywall, but I’m sure some enterprising soul will find a readable link.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pinchbeck in south Lincolnshire, a sleepy village which straddles the River Glen which flows into the nearby Welland, is typical of the kind of quintessential English countryside and farm land which is seriously threatened by the ‘clean energy transition’. Bicker Fen, which hosts the Viking Interconnector and is already blighted by pylons and wind turbines, is nearby. It does not deserve to share a name with a monstrous ideologue who thinks that the instinct to preserve such landscapes is ‘stupid’; or rather, she does not deserve such a surname, whether or not she is descended from the original Pinchbecks of the area or not. Sitting in the shade of the great willow on hot sunny days whilst the dogs played in the waters of the Glen, I often imagined that this was the inspiration for Butterworth’s ‘Banks of Green Willow’, though it wasn’t.
You’re certainly reaching me emotionally Emma P, and many others I imagine. The emotions are strong: love of the countryside, a strong sense of belonging and of wishing to preserve that countryside and a hatred of the swivel-eyed, Green-eyed Blob profiteers who look at that rural landscape and see only £ signs. No doubt if they cannot win over the hearts and minds of the locals and many appreciative visitors, then they will instead label them all as ‘stupid racists,’ because it is no coincidence that people of Emma P’s ‘educated’ ilk also refer to the English countryside as a “racist colonial white space.” Why would you want to preserve it eh? Such an impulse must be both stupid and racist.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mark,
Quite. Many of us have been saying it ’til we’re blue in the face.
There follows a sensible demolition of the absurdities of net Zero energy policies and then this:
So why wasn’t the Torygraph saying this when the Cons were in power? Or did I miss their outspoken and articulate opposition to Net Zero?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Another straw in the wind of destruction that is Net Zero (from Energy Voice):
“UK energy supply chain companies warn “time is running out” to save jobs and investment. The 42 companies manufacturers, professional services and engineering companies employing tens of thousands have issued a joint letter to Sarah Jones,…”
The article itself is paywalled, unfortunately
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime, thanks for the extract. Paul Home wood has the Craig Mackinlay piece now:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the extract Jaime. Of course there isn’t even the remotest chance of Craig Mackinlay’s sensible proposals being adopted by Mad Ed.
I liked this comment in particular:
But will it? So we have blackouts: but how exactly does that bring the Government down?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t see blackouts bringing the government down, but they will send it to defeat at the next general election, just as they did to Ted Heath’s government 50 years ago.
This time, the question as to who runs Britain won’t involve a choice between the elected government of the day and the coal miners. Instead the choice will be between common sense and the green blob.
LikeLike
Mark: blackouts today would be a very different phenomenon from blackouts in the 1970s. Today an advanced economy (I think that still applies to the UK) cannot function without a widespread supply of electricity. Without it, pretty well everything that matters would fail: not just heat and light (bad enough) but also almost all means of communication, healthcare (people would die), policing, access to practical help and advice, food supplies, public and private transport, most industries … etc. In theory, ordinary people’s near revolutionary anger at all this might trigger an emergency election – but in practice it couldn’t because without the internet it would be impossible to organise anything – all we’d have is utter chaos.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Andrew Montford has a good piece about the BBC on Spiked this morning:
Is there nothing the BBC won’t blame on climate change?
The state broadcaster has swapped factual journalism for breathless eco-activism.
He concludes:
Amen to that. No one has to read for example the Guardian but millions still listen to / watch the BBC.
LikeLiked by 4 people
David Turver has an excellent take on today’s Ofcom announcement of an increase in the energy price cap. His analysis of comments by Ed Miliband, Jonathan Brearley (Ofcom CEO) and Emma Pinchbeck are a must-read.
His conclusion:
PS: my comment on a Speccie article on the same topic:
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin,
Amen to that.
How could I possibly disagree after having written this?
The Real Threat to Democracy – Climate Scepticism (cliscep.com)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The energy price cap hike is just the start of Labour’s problems”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-energy-price-cap-hike-is-just-the-start-of-labours-problems/
…in spite of October’s rise, it may well be that we will look back on the present time as an age of affordable energy. The government’s biggest potential banana skin is its energy policy, in particular Ed Miliband’s promise to fully decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 – a target which will cost many billions in investment and which many in the industry believe cannot be achieved at any price.
It will not merely require more wind turbines and solar panels, but vast investment in energy storage. If the government doesn’t invest in the energy storage – and there is scant sign of that happening at the moment – then consumers will face eye-watering surge pricing when wind and solar energy is sparse. We will also become ever more dependent on electricity imported via subsea cables, from which we are currently drawing around a tenth of our power. That, too, will feed into spikes in electricity prices as we will inevitably be needing to import power at times when neighbouring countries are also low in renewable energy – if it is not windy in southern Britain it may well not be windy in northern France, Belgium or Holland either.
Miliband has no chance of building extra nuclear power by 2030. In fact, he will lose nuclear from the grid as Hinckley C – when it eventually opens – will not compensate for the loss of nuclear plants due to close in coming years. The other option for decarbonising the grid – which Labour seemed to be warming to in its manifesto – is to keep gas power stations but to equip them with carbon capture and storage (CCS). But that, too, will cost billions. We don’t yet have a single large scale CCS plant in Britain, even a demonstration one. Moreover, CCS would lead to a substantial loss of efficiency, requiring more gas for the same power output.
Moreover, a policy of continuing to rely on gas rather grates with Miliband’s explanation for Ofgem’s price cap rise. Bizarrely, this morning Miliband has blamed it on the Conservatives for making us dependent on ‘gas markets controlled by dictators’. Actually, most of our imported gas currently comes from Norway, with the US and Denmark our next biggest suppliers. If Miliband is calling them dictatorships maybe David Lammy should have a word with him before he causes a diplomatic incident.
Blaming the Tories for everything has been Labour’s default position since it took power seven weeks ago. But it won’t wash once the bill starts rolling in for Miliband’s decarbonisation plans.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think Ross Clark has got it right in that Speccie article. My comment (see my post yesterday) is the fourth most popular – outvoted by commentators who are extremely rude about Miliband (‘patently stupid‘ ‘unhinged‘). I’ve some sympathy with this but believe it’s a mistake to blame everything on his foolishness: what he’s doing is carrying out Government policy and there’s every reason to believe that, in doing so, he’s supported by his Cabinet colleagues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For quite a while I assumed that Miliband was an extremist outlier, who was being humoured by his colleagues, and that they would ditch him and his crazy policies, once the reality of those policies started to bite.
Regrettably it seems I was wrong, and that in all probability Starmer and Reeves are fully signed up to the nonsense. How long before they wake up? Going from a massive Parliamentary majority to humiliating electoral defeat might do it, but by then the damage will have been done.
LikeLike
We can only hope Mark that the risk of extreme damage will be soon be so obvious that Starmer/Reeves will have no choice but back-track.
LikeLike
John Constable has an outstanding article – The terrifying scale of the green revolution – in the Spectator this morning.
A must-read.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reading through that article, the pursuit of ‘renewable’ energy must surely strike one as a working definition of insanity and delusion on a truly grand scale. But you would be missing this vital final paragraph:
It’s called winding back the Industrial Revolution and the consequent economic and social emancipation of the masses. Is that a bug, or is it a feature?
LikeLiked by 1 person
For those who (like me) have used up their allowance of free Spectator articles for the month, Paul Homewood has it in full. Definitely a must-read:
LikeLike
My comment on Constable’s piece:
I believe that, if EVs and heat pumps are to be accommodated, the total electricity requirement would be about three times current demand. Does anyone know if that’s correct?
LikeLike
Robin, I think the National Grid estimate is hugely optimistic, but this is what it says:
In 2020 fossil fuels made up 84% of the global energy mix1, but this figure will need to fall to less than 20% by 2050 in order to reach net zero. It’s estimated that electricity consumption in the UK and US will increase by approximately 50% by 2036 and more than double by 2050.
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-will-our-electricity-supply-change-future
LikeLike
So much Huff’n Puff …
So little out-put
For so much imput,
So much clean-up
Soon to be required.
x—–//
LikeLike
Robin: wrt to future electricity demand, it’s my understanding that there are several scenarios in the Future Energy Strategy produced by the Nat Grid (I think?).
I don’t think EVs will present much of a problem. Average annual mileage in the UK is about 7000 – less than 20 miles per day. The figure for EVs is probably lower as high-mileage drivers are likely to stay with ICE. 20 miles in a modern EV requires about 6 kWh – less than an hour on a decent domestic charger.
It’s going to take a long time for EVs to displace ICE. Even if all new cars sold were EVs, starting tomorrow, it would take 20 years or more to replace the existing ICE fleet. Say we get to 15 million EVs by 2035 – unlikely imho – that’s an extra 90 GWh per day, on average. Present demand is around 700 GWh per day so it’s a pretty small increase, spread over 10+ years. Also “Smart charging” is already widely used, moving demand to off-peak periods and/or when cheap power is available. So EVs should not be much of a problem from the demand perspective. However, the capacity of local distribution networks is far more likely to cause bottlenecks aiui.
Heat pumps are a different ball-game as they are a hefty load which has to be met virtually 24/7, certainly in winter. I’ve read that peak gas demand in winter is 6+ times greater than the peak for electricity. Even allowing for some efficiency savings with heat pumps, that’s a massive extra load – maybe something like the 3x you mention. Again, local distribution networks will be woefully inadequate.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks Mike – both interesting and helpful. However re EVs I was referring to the Net Zero requirement that all transport – not just cars – must be fossil free by 2050. If that were possible (surely unlikely?) it would I suggest mean a substantially increased electricity demand.
LikeLike
An interesting piece on how the excessive, and unanticipated, energy demands of AI could upend the plans for net zero:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/08/26/the-end-of-australias-renewables-romance/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Surely the UK Government’s answer must be to opt out of having anything to do with AI, quantum computing etc? After all, it’s committing us to ruin anyway so there would seem to be little point in getting involved with these advanced technologies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Labour lied about reducing energy bills. The intent is to raise energy bills by imposing Net Zero austerity measures and that intent is clearly malign. It will degrade our freedoms, our quality of life, immiserate and impoverish us. For what purpose? To ‘save the planet’? No, our self-sacrifice will have no effect whatsoever upon global mean surface temperature in 2100 or make bad weather nice again. This is self-evidently true and undeniable, even by someone as mad as Mr. Milibean. So, to set a good example for the rest of the world to follow then? No, the rest of the world (bar a few European and Five Eyes countries) is intent upon exploitation of fossil fuel reserves to fuel economic development. This too is self-evidently true and undeniable, even to Milibean and the Starmeramas. So what is the actual motive for the enforced energy rationing by price hike and limited availability?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/24/ed-milibands-war-on-cheap-energy-has-only-just-begun/
When (soon) Labour are forced to explain their intention to deliver ever escalating energy prices combined with swingeing controls on availability, they are going to have to claim it’s because of the ‘climate crisis’ and I will wager that the British public will not believe them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, you say:
‘The intent is to raise energy bills by imposing Net Zero austerity measures and that intent is clearly malign.’
Foolish – yes. Malign – no.
If, as you say, the falsity of a net zero policy is ‘self-evidently true and undeniable’, why do so many people and organisations accept it? The Conservative party for example. Or my Oxford college which has recently published an ‘Environmental Plan’ and appointed a Net Zero Fellow who is one of several respectable academics involved with this organisation: https://netzeroclimate.org. Or the Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Toronto with whom I had a recent exchange on The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/canada-must-continue-cutting-emissions-regardless-of-the-actions-of-other-polluters-236295.
There many such people and organisations throughout the Western world. Are they all motivated by malign intent? I don’t think so.
LikeLike
Prof Lindzen has recently quoted Voltaire, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities” – which may help to explain why Jaime and Robin see the same phenomenon so differently.
https://clintel.org/those-who-can-make-you-believe-absurdities-can-make-you-commit-atrocities/
Prof Lindzen ended with the more up beat, “Hopefully, we will awaken from this nightmare before it is too late.” Amen.
In haste, John C.
LikeLike
Robin,
You are missing the central point of my argument I feel. The policy of continually and deliberately escalating energy bills, given the certainty of the hugely detrimental consequences to the economy and to society and individuals, cannot, per se, be anything other than malign. It is, by definition, deliberately imposed hardship and austerity.
The motivation for that policy may itself be malign or it may be foolish. You argue that it is foolish and deluded. I argue, with considerable evidence to support my case, that the motivation for malign policy is in fact malign in itself – in that the stated motivation is fraudulent and is known to be fraudulent by those imposing the policy.
LikeLike
Konstantin Kisin has just published a most interesting article: Why We Keep Losing the Immigration Debate (https://www.konstantinkisin.com/p/why-we-keep-losing-the-immigration/comments#comment-66892059).
He shows how, when debating the immigration problem, he positions his arguments outside the framework within which his opponents are determined to operate. He does so by basing his position on the proposition that ‘the most important thing you can do for the future of your society is not allow immigration to become a moral issue!’ From that rather surprising base he develops a very convincing case. Worth reading.
My comment (which relates to my debate with Jaime) was as follows:
[Emphasis just added to the original text]
Perhaps I should have taken a lead from KK and positioned my argument on an assertion that we should not allow net zero to be a moral issue?
LikeLike
Robin, others have determined that Net Zero is a war of good vs evil, rather than right vs wrong, and everything in between. The denier smear is a great shortcut to avoid any requirement to debate the substance. And as we do not dictate the terms of any debate, we are doomed – until the negative impacts of Net Zero outweigh its moral standing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Net Zero has moral standing only as a result of ‘the science’. The facts and evidence which purportedly underpin The Science come before the morality; they are pre-eminent. If the facts and evidence fall down, so does the moral standing come to its knees.
Apply KK’s argument to climate change and we have:
Try as we might, moral indignation over the sufferance of Net Zero austerity measures is never going to trump the morality of ‘saving the planet’. Trashing the environment whilst ‘saving the planet’ might have some weight. But what will sweep the feet away from Net Zero’s moral standing is the destruction of the ‘necessity’ and ‘urgency’ arguments. That necessarily involves challenging the fundamental science. Climate scepticism is coming of age. We will have gone full circle. That does not of course mean that we should stop chipping away at the Net Zero edifice by pointing out all the other inherent problems and absurdities which its imposition presents.
LikeLike
Jaime:
But surely the central point of your argument is that Labour’s ‘intent to raise energy bills by imposing Net Zero austerity measures and that intent is clearly malign’? I’m sorry but I don’t think that’s clear at all: after all, most of the organisations and people to which/whom I referred, also believe that the pursuit of Net Zero is essential if we’re to make our contribution to avoiding global catastrophe: if that means pain now (e.g. increased energy bills), that’s OK as it will bring important national (e.g. reduced energy bills) and huge international benefits in the future. You and I of course are sure that they’re utterly wrong about all this. But, the idea that the multitude of organisations and people who say they do believe it are acting fraudulently and with malign intent requires belief in an extraordinarily massive and co-ordinated international conspiracy. I don’t buy it.
LikeLike
I’ll say it again Robin. Labour lied about reducing bills by producing more ‘home grown clean energy’. They lied. They knew for a fact that bills would continue to escalate as energy became more expensive due to the reliance upon intermittent renewables. The ‘we will reduce your bills by £300’ was a blatant lie. They didn’t mention the pensioners winter fuel allowance before the election. Immediately after, they abolished it. That too was a lie by omission. Because they want to make energy much more expensive and less abundant – so we use less. This is not a Net Zero bug, it’s a feature. By making energy deliberately more expensive and less abundant, they are knowingly creating impoverishment and immiseration, whilst destroying the economy and manufacturing industry. That action is both intentional and malign. We can argue about motivations for that malign intentional action (e.g. ‘for the greater good’, to ‘save the planet’ etc.), but that does not change the fact that the malign intent to raise the cost of energy was there from the start – and they lied about it to keep us from knowing about their intentions until after the election. That is crystal clear.
https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1828519619830988932
LikeLike
I suggest Jaime that, as before, we agree to disagree. And leave it at that.
LikeLike
Jaime / Robin, I wonder whether the power of decades of climate catastrophist propaganda could be, in part, why you view matters so differently. Propaganda can turn the heads of even the most level-headed observers. And so when the genie of “climate breakdown” is flourished before susceptible minds then everything, absolutely everything, must be done to avoid further catastrophe.
If Voltaire thought that absurd ideas could lead ordinary people to commit atrocities then, surely, “climate breakdown” can justify economy-destroying policies. Gaia demands no less!
To an outsider who is not infected by the propaganda these policies seem malign and borderline crazy (to use Gray’s totalitarian insight), but to those fearing further “climate breakdown” they seem entirely necessary and even virtuous. What is a little suffering (mostly for other people) when set against Gaia’s human-induced woes? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
An interesting perspective John. There’s one aspect of the ‘climate breakdown’ scare that has infected many of the otherwise sensible and intelligent people with whom I’m in contact – e.g. my Oxford college, its Net Zero Fellow, ‘Oxford Net Zero’ (scroll down to ‘Our Team’) etc. It’s this: although I suppose many of them could have been persuaded by ‘decades of climate catastrophist propaganda’ (although some – e.g. Professor Myles Allen – are scientists who might be said to be authors of the scare and hence the propaganda), how is it that so many of them subscribe to the view that Britain must ‘act now’? Surely they don’t really think it’s possible for the UK to set an example and exercise ‘leadership’?
LikeLike
“New Shetland windfarm could power nearly 500,000 homes”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w6zld90zjo
The usual weasel words in that headline – “could,” “nearly”…However, the concluding words are why I’ve posted it here:
...”We’re starting to see resources, key equipment, drilling rigs and personnel leave the basin,” agrees Steve Bowyer, North Sea general manager of oil and gas producer, EnQuest.
“We actually want to grow in the UK but we need the right fiscal conditions to drive that growth,” he adds.
Mr Bowyer says his firm will be “watching very closely” what Chancellor Rachel Reeves does in her autumn budget and how she engages with industry “over the next six to 12 months” as it considers where to invest in future.
“There’s a risk of causing irreparable damage to the industry and the UK economy if we don’t see proper engagement, collaboration and action to put in place an appropriate fiscal regime,” he added.
The government insists it will protect North Sea jobs for decades to come while also ensuring a smooth transition to renewable energy.
But it is clear that ministers face pressure and scrutiny from the oil industry on one hand and the renewables sector on the other.
Going green is not without its challenges.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
According to the Departments, 40 members of the research team are social scientists and policy wonks, another 25 are geographers and environmental ‘scientists’. There are only two researchers from the Department of Physics (and one from Chemistry), including Myles Allen, who is also one of three directors. That doesn’t seem very interdisciplinary to me! Why hasn’t Myles Allen encouraged many more physical sciences researchers onto his team? I suggest because he thinks he has all the answers and the rest of them are just there to take his scientific expertise and knowledge for granted and get on with persuading the public to accept the austerities of Net Zero. And the rest of them don’t look like they are going to be as adversely affected by those austerity measures as the general public, I must say.
I would venture to suggest that Oxford Net Zero is not genuinely persuaded by The Science, rather the team is a hand picked group of people willing to take Myles Allen’s scientific expertise and knowledge on board as a given and to opportunistically get on with pursuing their own politically and ideologically motivated goals to reorganise society in sympathy with their inevitable bias. If there were 40 physicists on the team, I venture to suggest that the risk of at least one or more of those Oxford physicists eventually coming to conclusions which would downplay or even dispel the required sense of ‘urgency’ of climate policy would be high. Can’t have that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Robin, thank you for your comments, among which you write, “… how is it that so many of them [i.e. otherwise sensible and intelligent people] subscribe to the view that Britain must ‘act now’? Surely they don’t really think it’s possible for the UK to set an example and exercise ‘leadership’?” Well, that is a very pertinent question; are you able to ask that question of them?
I know it is only a single example, but I have previously mentioned the case of my friend, also an academic (although recently retired), who is a Labour supporter and who also fervently supports British leadership in Net Zero (e.g. by opposing the opening of a new coal mine in Cumbria) because it will, in their mind, set an example to China. Personally, I find this view utterly bizarre!
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John, you ask me if I’m ‘able to ask that question of them?‘ I’ve tried, but what nearly always happens is that they ignore me – e.g. by not replying to an email. I intend to keep trying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Sensible and intelligent”:
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics.html
The UK is not setting an example which others will follow; it is self-sacrificing our energy independence, destroying domestic manufacturing industry jobs and impoverishing and immiserating its citizens. It is obviously not saving the planet from CO2 induced ‘climate breakdown’. An 8 year old kid can see this – but ‘sensible and intelligent’ academics can’t?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well Jaime, what I’m sure is obvious to all of us here ( LINK ) is not it seems obvious throughout UK academia – with a few honourable exceptions.
Unfortunately I’m afraid most 8 year old kids don’t have a clue about the climate issue: more’s the pity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Milibanned has refused to defend climate lawfare suits taken out by Greenpiss against the licensing of Rosebank and Jackdaw North Sea gas fields. This will very likely mean that the courts will find that the granting of the licences was unlawful and thus extraction will not go ahead. This is the final death blow for North Sea gas exploration in the UK and will mean that we have to import gas, creating even more emissions than if we were to burn our own, plus it will devastate jobs and the economy.
This is not energy policy, it is an act of industrial sabotage on a par with the blowing up of the Nordstream pipelines.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/08/29/miliband-deals-final-blow-to-north-sea-oil-after-siding-with-greenpeace-and-refusing-to-fight-climate-lawsuits/
LikeLiked by 4 people
David Turver has fun HERE reviewing a letter Miliband and Stark sent to NG NSO yesterday:
Stark Sends Out SOS
Energy Secretary and Head of Mission Control admit they do not have a clue
He starts with this:
Notes this:
And concludes with this:
Hmm … a tough call.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A great analysis. Pity I wasn’t aware of it earlier, as it would have been useful to mention it in my Ofgem submission.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
How on earth has it happened?
Indeed. If I could answer that, I could die a very wise man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The Crocodile Jaws That Will Crush Net Zero
Yawning gap between Government projections for renewables prices and reality”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/crocodile-jaws-will-crush-net-zero
Conclusions:
It is clear the Government peddled dangerous disinformation in its Generation Costs report from 2023. It must know the prices it projected are wrong because it also sets the strike prices for the CfD auction rounds. But Labour and others use this report to substantiate their claim that renewables are getting cheaper.
In reality, the opposite is the case; renewables were never cheap and they are now getting much more expensive. More expensive than Government projections and more expensive than gas-fired electricity. Yet the Labour Government has recently increased the budget for AR6 so they can deliver even more of this more expensive, intermittent electricity. Labour has also announced that the Winter Fuel Allowance will be cut, reducing the ability of pensioners to pay for this more expensive electricity. Their self-declared mission is to “cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper zero-carbon electricity by 2030” is in tatters. We can only hope that the jaws of the reality crocodile close soon to avoid further damage and the 2023 Generation Cost Report is withdrawn.
LikeLiked by 2 people
From the report:
Who are the “external providers”? One presumes they have a strong vested interest in promoting the idea of cheap renewables.
LikeLike
Somehow my post yesterday re a Ben Pile article has disappeared. So far as I was concerned, it was particularly important because of my closing paragraph and question. (John R commented that he shared my lack of understanding.) Here it is again:
Ben Pile – once of this parish – has posted another remarkably good article on the Daily Sceptic: The £22 Billion Green Hole . It deals with how ‘the new Government is committed to spending money it does not have on things that do not serve our needs, and which we did not vote for’. And, in particular, it provides a detailed review of ‘fuel poverty’ in the UK.
Ben’s central point is this:
His answer:
All good stuff and well worth reading.
But I was particularly struck by his comment that ‘It is an article of faith for the entire U.K. political mainstream that “tackling climate change” is an unimpeachable Good Thing’. Obviously true – but would add that it applies not just to the political but also the academic and media mainstreams.
How on earth has this extraordinary state of affairs happened?
LikeLike
Robin, that is a mystery. Looking now, I see that there are two copies of your comment in the trash, plus the extant one. I don’t know what happened there.
LikeLike
What happened was that I noticed that two copies had been posted so I deleted one. In so doing I somehow must have deleted both.
It was unfortunate because I was anxious to underline my view that arguably the most important political development in the UK over as little as ten years is that it’s become an article of faith for the entire U.K. political, academic and media mainstreams (and more) that “tackling climate change” is an unimpeachable Good Thing. How on earth – I asked – has this happened?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Ed Miliband betrayed families with energy-saving pledge, says Claire Coutinho
Shadow energy secretary says her successor’s policy is rooted in ideology rather than fact”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/01/ed-miliband-energy-pledge-betray-families-claire-coutinho/
Behind a paywall, unfortunately, and a bit rich coming from a Tory Minister who was almost as gung-ho about net zero as Miliband is. Can anyone supply an extract that offers more than just the headline?
LikeLike
It’s a rambling interview high on copium. Coutinho is adamant that her slightly-delayed national suicide strategy was workable because of the supply chain she was putting in place, that could not be put in place by 2030. Lacking is any recognition that the “transition” is going to destroy the UK’s standard of living, those of us who survive it that is.
She does point out that far from the -£300 promised off energy bills, the pensioners are getting an immediately +£300, and that’s excepting the price cap rise.
Until the Conservatives realise that “Labour lite” on this is not going to win them any votes, the prospects for any slowdown in the mad rush off the Net Zero cliff are distant dreams,
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with Jit’s comment on the Coutinho interview. A few extracts:
It would be interesting to know exactly how the Tories’ decarbonisation by 2035 plan (only slightly less mad that Miliband’s scheme) would avoid dependence on China.
All true. But doesn’t exactly the same apply to her policy? Her answer:
Hmm … If she really thinks all the materials required for renewables can be acquired from friendly sources, she doesn’t have a grasp on reality.
Unquestionably a better policy than Ed’s.
True
That’s also true. Unfortunately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’ve come full circle haven’t we Robin? Whilst climate mitigation (though not the rate or the method thereof) might be a morally unimpeachable Good Thing, agreed by the entire political establishment in line with acceptance of the Settled Science of Climate Change, The Science itself is not unimpeachable and never has been.
As Ben says:
The only metric they can dream up in order to convince us that climate change is an imminent threat is extreme weather, its impacts and the extremely dubious attribution of extreme weather events to a moderate long term increase in temperature. The only metric they can garner to convince us that climate change is a future threat is the ensemble of climate models plus the extremely dubious attribution of all of the post industrial rise in global temperature to man-made greenhouse gases. If you want to explode the moral consensus you have to detonate the scientific consensus. There is no other way, and that is what eventually will happen.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jaime, as I’ve said it’s more than the entire political mainstream but also the academic and media mainstreams (and more) that believe ‘tackling climate change’ is an unimpeachable Good Thing. That’s it – that’s what all these people believe. So far as I can see, few of them can be bothered about trying to convince us about an imminent threats or in garnering dubious attributions: they’re not much interested in our views. No – it’s up to us to try to convince them that their method of tackling climate change (i.e. the net zero policy) is hopelessly misguided. As Ben says it’s climate policy that’s the real threat – and, as it’s possible to make an irrefutable case for abandoning the policy without going anywhere near the ghastly and emotionally charged area of climate change science, I’ve no doubt it’s best to do so. Otherwise you’ll be dismissed as a ‘denier’ giving your opponents the perfect excuse for ignoring your views on the absurdities, dangers and pointlessness of the policy. And it’s those views that matter: the overriding priority is to get rid of the disastrous net zero policy.
But of course you’re not going to agree. So, as I’ve said many times, I suggest we agree to disagree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regardless of the debate about whether we should attack policy or the underlying issue, what I will never understand is why intelligent people (and many net zero supporters are intelligent) believe as they do.
It seems blindingly obvious to me that:
LikeLiked by 3 people
Of course Robin. Our opinions matter not a jot. It matters very little whether we agree, disagree or agree to disagree. What matters is reality vs. fantasy. Reality consists of the practical and economic infeasibility/impossibility of implementing Net Zero, combined with the certitude of the disastrous social, economic and environmental consequences of even attempting to implement Net Zero. Reality also consists of the laws of physics and chemistry and how they play out in the grand arena of planet earth’s land/atmosphere/ocean system. The reality of Net Zero is that it is entirely justified by the assumption that ‘experts’ have correctly applied the laws of physics and chemistry to the complex ocean-atmosphere system and correctly interpreted the results of doing so. If it turns out they haven’t, by a long chalk, there will be hell to pay, and the reality is that the history books will ask the question: Who stood up to question not just the safety and effectiveness of mad Net Zero policies, but also their necessity?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Jaime I believe our opinions do matter. I agree with you here:
‘Reality consists of the practical and economic infeasibility/impossibility of implementing Net Zero, combined with the certitude of the disastrous social, economic and environmental consequences of even attempting to implement Net Zero.‘
And I think it’s that message (plus the utter pointlessness of it all) we should – no, must – be communicating. And I’m sure that we can do so – without any need to get into unpleasant and fruitless debate about climate science.
I’m aware that you’re not going to agree. So, as I’ve said many times, I suggest we agree to disagree.
LikeLike
Yes Mark, it’s hard to understand how intelligent people can believe all this nonsense. The only answer it seems to me is that climate change is akin to a religion where belief is all that matters – whatever the contrary evidence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark, you could add:-
4a. Increasing the share of unreliable renewables in the generation mix increases system complexity thereby reducing overall system reliability.
5a. The EROEI of renewables (especially when their obligatory back-up is included) is worse than that of conventional systems. Hence overall system EROEI is reduced, not just below that of a conventional system but, in the limit of very high renewables penetration, below what is necessary for even a modest modern society.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 4 people
John C, you’re right, and I should also have added a number 6 – after 28 COPs and an ever-upward trajectory of GHG emissions, I fail to understand how any intelligent person can continue to believe that the rest of the world is likely to follow the UK’s self-flagellating act of pursuing net zero at all costs. Patently they’re not. And if the rest of the world doesn’t follow the UK’s example, then nothing the UK does will make the slightest difference (other than with regard to the pain imposed on ourselves). Even a 5 year old could understand that, but not, apparently the government, much of academia, the Climate Change Committee, numerous green pressure groups, and many more.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jaime/Robin, one of the ways that NZ can be attacked is through its enormous costs; enormous costs that the MSM are not doing enough to highlight. The GWPF has just shown that there is a half trillion pound error in the Royal Society’s estimates. https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/royal-society-report-contains-half-trillion-pound-error
My current concern, however, is not about NZ’s costs but about ensuring that the necessary 30 to 50GW of CCGT plant is ordered, installed and operational ASAP simply to keep the lights on.
[On a related note, French TV was saying last night that the Flammanville nuclear plant will be connected to their grid at the end of the autumn.]
Fight the good fight. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
See Mark’s comment on that missing 0.5 £trillion here :-https://cliscep.com/2023/10/03/intermittency-the-royal-society-has-the-solution/#comment-154662 Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John C you say:
‘My current concern, however, is not about NZ’s costs but about ensuring that the necessary 30 to 50GW of CCGT plant is ordered, installed and operational ASAP simply to keep the lights on.’
I share your concern: at 7:00 am this morning (i.e. in the rush-hour) renewables contributed 18.8% to electricity demand (2% hydro, 0.4% solar and 16.4% wind) and fossil fuels 44.8% (41.8 gas and 3.0% coal). Without back-up how would Miliband’s fossil-free electric power system cope on such a day? (It could well be much worse with wind at less than 10%.) There’ve been vague references to gas plant as a ‘strategic back-up’ and even vaguer references to CCS to ensure the system is emission free. What’s needed of course is a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun. But there’s no sign of that. And time is running out.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John, ’tis but a rounding error!
But yes, no gas power stations does present a rather existential threat to our power supplies.
I suggest a new Downfall Spoof where, in 2030, one windless day during midwinter, Herr Starmer is informed by Kommandant Milibean that the lights are going to go out, whereupon Herr Starmer points to the gas stations on the map and says, “Fire them up!”
Kommandant Milibean replies: “But, mein Fuehrer, we have run out of imports and I destroyed the North Sea gas industry and . . . . . . those gas power stations have been decommissioned and we didn’t build new ones.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Jaime, we did not just decommission power stations – our senior politicians also blew them up. Here is Nicola Sturgeon bringing down the stack at Longannet power station in Fife. I twice visited this station as an electrical engineering student at Dundee. Over 2000MW of reliable power, originally fueled by coal from the adjacent hills … but now it has gone for good! Or should that be “gone for bad”?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-59578148
I did not know about the Parodies. Thank you. For your 2030 spoof I believe that Herr Milibean (assuming he has not returned to the ranks of the unelected) should have a rank suited to his station which, by then will surely be Dunkelflautenfuehrer. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 4 people
And here is Alok Sharma, Minister of State and COP26 President, blowing up the landmark coal-fired power station at Ferrybridge, West Yorkshire:
https://dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/2021/08/ferrybridge-blast-marks-further-retreat-from-coal/#google_vignette
An extract:
But China and India were not listening.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mr. Milibean’s tweet thread on X today has to be seen to be believed. He’s taking all the credit for the ‘most successful renewables auction round ever’ (after the last Tory government substantially increased the CfD subsidies on offer) and he still keeps lying that renewables are going to drive down the cost of energy bills and enhance energy security. The man is a psychopathic fantasist and a menace to us all.
LikeLike
Robin, thank you for reminding me of this tragedy. What is perhaps more surprising or disturbing about the Sharma case is that he has a degree in Applied Physics with Electronics, albeit gained before he moved into finance if Wiki is correct:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alok_Sharma
By contrast Sturgeon is a law graduate – although her father was an electrician.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Sturgeon
It is clear that the enthusiasm for the misnamed renewables affects all types. It is the gift that, for now, keeps on giving. But how to stem the flow of public largesse, that is the half trillion pound question.
And, yes, China and India were not listening – and they still are not listening. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just above I wrote, “But how to stem the flow of public largesse, that is the half trillion pound question.” In trying to answer that question I find it useful to consider the following.
The Iron Triangle is a well-known phenomenon related to policy making. It is described in written form by Endress in Arsenio Balisacan et al. (editors), “Sustainable Economic Development: resources, environment and institutions”, Academic Press, 2014, especially section 3.4.2 by Lee H. Endress, ‘Public policy: prosustainability or not?’, pages 57 -58. It is worth quoting at length from the latter. After describing the first- and second-best levels of policy making, Endress continues:-
Third-best is the world of political economy, wherein costs and benefits directly influence the formation of coalitions that compete for political and economic advantage in society. The pursuit of such advantage is called “rent-seeking” in economics and typically involves activities such as lobbying, public relations campaigns, political contributions, and, sometimes, outright bribery. Unfortunately, the expansion of government that accompanies intervention on second-best grounds can facilitate rent-seeking at the third-best level … A particularly powerful type of rent-seeking coalition, long studied in political science, is termed “the iron triangle” because of the strength of the collaborative relationships among a triad of actors: politicians who seek campaign contributions, votes and reelection; government bureaucrats who aspire to expand fiefdoms and budgets; and private sector interest groups who seek special privileges in the form of political access, favourable legislation, subsidies, protection of monopoly positions, and lucrative government contracts. The iron triangle is durable and impenetrable because it functions as a highly efficient, three-cornered, rent-seeking machine.
Nowhere (except perhaps in healthcare) do third-best politics sink first-best and second-best economic considerations as deeply as in the realm of energy policy. In assessing energy policy in Europe and the United States, Helm (2012) is especially critical of policymakers’ obsession with current technology renewable energy, which is not yet commercially viable without government subsidies and mandates … Consequently, renewables have remained ineffective in lowering energy prices, creating green jobs, and reducing carbon emissions worldwide. The result is high costs for little gain. In a review of [the 1st edition of] Helm’s book, “The Carbon Crunch,” The Economist … highlights Helm’s observation that the entire renewable sector has become an “orgy of rent-seeking.” This outcome is not compatible with the sustainability criterion.
End of quote.
That sentence, “The iron triangle is durable and impenetrable because it functions as a highly efficient, three-cornered, rent-seeking machine” resonates very strongly with me.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 4 people
And then there is this, which suggests that much of the public discourse has been captured and subverted by the large social media organisations working hand in glove with the Establishment. Now why am I not in the least surprised? What about other Cliscep readers?
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/09/02/why-did-zuckerberg-choose-now-to-confess/
Control the narrative to control the news cycle. I will have more to say on “master narratives” in my Totalitarian thread in the coming days.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Ed Miliband adds £150 to household bills with wind turbine building spree (msn.com)
Partial quote – “Responding to today’s CfD auction AR6 results, Emma Pinchbeck, Energy UK’s chief executive, said: “AR6 represents a crucial step in the journey to clean power by 2030. As we recover from an energy crisis caused by our exposure to international fossil fuel prices, it’s more important than ever that we build a clean energy system that can ensure our energy security and protect homes and businesses across the country from unaffordable energy bills.”
She added: “This is by far the cheapest way to power the UK.””
“Lions led by donkeys” springs to mind for some reason.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yesterday I noted that at 7:00 am renewables contributed 19% to electricity demand (2% hydro, 1% solar and 16% wind) and fossil fuels 45% (42% gas and 3% coal). This morning the 7:00 am figures were: renewables 9% (2% hydro, 0% solar and 7% wind) and 58% fossil fuels (56% gas and 2% coal). Yet there’s nothing but the vaguest information about back-up when all our electricity is ‘clean’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
dfhunter, when I read statements like that from Ms Pinchbeck I ask myself (yet again!) the question, “When does an error become a lie?” In the renewables energy business there are many answers to my question. Here are a couple of examples:-
Perhaps “Lions mediated by donkeys” might be more appropriate these renewable days. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dougie, I cut’n’pasted the same soundbite this morning over on Spot the Difference. It was shockingly out of touch for someone who is so senior. [But someone who has a particular tune to play; nevertheless, it’s brassy to spout such nonsense.]
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yet another comment piece pointing out the problems with the UK’s energy plan in the Telegraph yesterday, this time by David Blackmon:
Nobody noticed, but renewables-heavy states went to ‘Energy Emergency Alert One’ this summer
LikeLiked by 4 people
It looks as though some interesting in-fighting might be developing between the various troughers profiting from net zero:
“Miliband told to crack down on ‘pylon levy’ that drives up electricity bills”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/miliband-told-to-crack-down-on-pylon-levy-that-drives-up-electricity-bills/ar-AA1pZZzc
…Dale Vince, the Labour donor and founder of energy business Ecotricity, suggested that trimming the companies’ profits to a lower level could cut £6bn from standing charges – saving customers an average £200.
Power distribution networks are a little known component of the electricity system. Britain is divided into eight distribution regions with a single company delivering power from the grid to homes and businesses. It means each is a regional monopoly free of competition.
Mr Vince is writing to Mr Miliband and Chancellor Rachel Reeves to demand change....
...“It’s also the responsibility of suppliers to pay the distribution companies even when customers haven’t paid us … these guys are just having a field day. Why does the regulator allow that when we’re trying to get bills down?”…
...The industry argues that operating profit is an unfair measure because it is capital-intensive and needs to generate cash to invest in its systems….
...A spokesman for the Energy Networks Association, which represents the industry, disputed the use of company operating profits as a way of assessing their performance.
He argued that because the industry was highly capital-intensive, a better measure would be return on capital – which averaged around 5pc.
The spokesman said: “Network companies aren’t making excessive profits. Their returns are regulated by Ofgem and average around 5pc. Running, maintaining, and upgrading the electricity network costs about 48p per day on your energy bill.
“This supports 26,000 jobs, 1,500 apprenticeships – with 700 more being recruited this year, and maintains over 500,000 miles of wires and cables.
“Additionally, network operators are investing more than £30bn in the coming years to ensure a reliable energy grid.”….
Prices paid by the end user keep going up, and these guys are squabbling over their share of the cake. Perhaps all is not well after all?
LikeLike
Paul Homewood has an excellent follow-up – Miliband’s SOS – to his earlier comment on the letter from Miliband and Stark to Fintan Sly, Director of the ESO.
An extract (something that’s been noted here several times):
I liked Paul’s conclusion:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting reports in the Telegraph, accessible in full via Paul Homewood’s website:
LikeLiked by 3 people
Most interesting Mark. Paul H says:
Miliband can put back his deadline for as long as he likes – but nothing he does will make the impossible possible. When he decides to defer – which surely he must – there will be a host of interesting questions and consequences for us to mull over here. For example, surely the time has come for him to resign and let someone who understands the issues (assuming Labour has such a person) to get a grip of this desperately important issue?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin, while delaying for a few years is, at first sight, good news. A more considered view may be that it is simply prolonging the agony; NZ will just hang around like an economy-destroying bad policy to be implemented as and when. We and, more importantly, the economy need NZ slayed never to return. Only then can the economy start to fully recover from the strictures that the poseurs/poseuses have imposed upon it. So tonight I’m a little less melancholy … but still looking for that definitive off-ramp. One cheer for democracy, but three cheers for common sense tonight.
You write, “… surely the time has come for [Miliband] to resign and let someone who understands the issues (assuming Labour has such a person) to get a grip of this desperately important issue?” While I agree with your sentiments, is it not too early in the new government’s rule to lose a leading cabinet member, especially one who has been such a stalwart of the Uniparty’s economy-destroying policies for over 15 years? And, no, he must not be sent to the HoL – heaven forfend! Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John C: upon reflection, this may not be the dramatic change we (and Paul H) thought it was yesterday. Despite it being a breach of Labour’s manifesto (which indicated that 55 GW of offshore wind capacity was necessary to reach the target of 100% ‘clean’ power by 2030), it seems they may now believe that the target can be achieved with less than 55 GW. Two extracts from the Telegraph article support this view:
And note that the DESNZ is saying that the target has not been dropped.
Maybe they’re just trying to make the best of a bad situation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I concur with John’s sentiments: death of Net Zero by a thousand cuts still means death of the UK economy, the environment and society by considerably fewer, and far deeper wounds. Our steel industry is basically gone. Our chemicals manufacturing industry is fast on its way out, along with the North Sea gas and oil industry. So Mad Miliband is made to look like the utter plonker that he is and put back his impossible (on any reasonable timescale) Net Zero grid target to 2035. Plus ça change. Tinkering at the edges will do bugger all to derail this unbelievably destructive behemoth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The fact that wind, despite all that capacity, is contributing only 5% to our electricity demand should be a stark (!) reminder of the desperate need for realistic storage/back-up policy.
And Jaime, it rather looks as though Mad Ed may be retaining the impossible ‘clean grid’ by 2030 target after all.
PS: I’ve amended this several times as the wind contribution has gone from 9% this morning to 5% now (early afternoon). R
LikeLike
Chris Morrison of the Daily Sceptic has a good article this morning about inter alia CCS – one mooted solution to the back-up problem. I liked this comment:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/09/07/colossal-waste-of-money-climate-alarmists-turn-on-carbon-capture/
Worth reading.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Net Zero Elegy…
Death by a 1000 cutz,
Cut energy,
Cut liberty
‘n the economy,
Cut every
t
h
i
n’ .
LikeLike
Miliband will never step back from this, It’s his baby.
LikeLike
Kemi Badenoch has written a good article for the Sunday Telegraph:
Net zero is gifting our future to an increasingly dominant China
A few extracts:
All good stuff. But it was during the 14 years of her Party’s government that most of this happened. I don’t recall her speaking up against Net Zero when she was a senior member of the Tory cabinet.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The locust years…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bjorn on the case, and speaking well as always:
LikeLiked by 2 people