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 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 that’s true whether or not humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to increased global temperatures.
1. It’s unachievable.
A modern, advanced economy depends on fossil fuels; something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.ii Examples fall into two categories: (i) vehicles and machines such as those used in agriculture, mining, mineral processing, building, heavy transportation, commercial shipping, commercial aviation, the military and emergency services and (ii) products such as nitrogen fertilisers, cement and concrete, primary steel, plastics, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insulation, tyres and asphalt. All the above require either the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives: easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives have yet to be developed.iii
Although wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K. – because of its latitude, solar power contributes only a small percentage of the UK’s electricity – it has significant problems: (i) the substantial and increasing costs of building, operating and maintaining the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero; (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable, comprehensive non-fossil fuel grid by 2030 as planned by the Government; (iii) the vast scale of what’s involved (a multitude of enormous wind turbines, immense amounts of space iv and large quantities of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials v); and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see 2 below).vi This means that the UK may be unable to generate sufficient electricity by 2030 for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs (electric vehicles) and heat pumps and for the energy requirements of industry and of the huge new data centres being developed to support the rapid growth of AI (artificial intelligence).
In any case, the UK doesn’t have 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.vii
2. It would be socially and economically disastrous.
The Government aims for 95% 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 complicated by the imminent retirement of elderly nuclear and fossil fuel power plants. The Government has indicated that back-up may be provided by new gas-fired power plants viii and is also considering ‘green’ hydrogen. But it has yet to publish any detail about its plans for either. The former would not of course be a ‘clean’ solution and it seems the Government’s answer is to fit the power plants with carbon capture and underground storage (CCS) systems. But both CCS and green hydrogen are very expensive, controversial and commercially unproven at scale.ix This issue is desperately important: without full back-up, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – potentially ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems for millions of people, including serious health consequences threatening everyone and in particular the poor and vulnerable.x
Net Zero’s major problem however is its overall cost and the impact of that on the economy. Because there’s no coherent plan for the project’s delivery, little attention has been given to overall cost; but with several trillion pounds seeming likely to be a correct estimate it would almost certainly be unaffordable.xi The borrowing and taxes required for costs at this scale could destroy Britain’s credit standing and put an impossible burden on millions of households and businesses. It could quite possibly mean that the UK would face economic collapse.
But Net Zero is already causing one serious economic problem: because of renewable subsidies, carbon taxes, grid balancing costs and capacity market costs, the UK has the highest industrial and domestic electricity prices in the developed world.xii The additional costs referred to elsewhere in this essay – for example the costs of establishing a comprehensive non-fossil grid and of providing gas-fired power plants fitted with CCS as back-up – can only make this worse. Unless urgent remedial action is taken, the government is most unlikely to be able to achieve its principal mission of increased economic growth.
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, nickel, copper 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 national security at most serious risk.xiii It would also mean that, while impoverishing Britain, Net Zero would be enriching China.xiv
(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.xv
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 (especially China), commonly with poor environmental regulation and often powered by coal-fired electricity – thereby increasing global emissions – as a positive step towards Net Zero. Yet efforts to ‘decarbonise’ the UK mean that’s what’s happening: it’s why we no longer produce many key chemicals and, by closing our few remaining blast furnaces, will soon be unable to produce commercially viable primary steel (see endnote 3).xvi
(ii) Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 70% 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.xvii As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. As the UK is the source of just 0.72% of global emissions any further emission reduction it may achieve would essentially have no impact on the global position.xviii
In other words, Net Zero means the UK is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, potentially disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that could result in Britain’s economic destruction.
Robin Guenier November 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 Regarding steel for example see the penultimate paragraph of this article: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/the-blast-furnace-800-years-of-technology.
iv See Andrews & Jelley, “Energy Science”, 3rd ed., Oxford, page 16: http://tiny.cc/4jhezz
vi 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
vii 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 6 below).
viii 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.
ix This International Institute for Sustainable Development report on CCS is useful: https://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/unpacking-carbon-capture-storage-technology And re hydrogen see this: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-2-14-when-you-crunch-the-numbers-green-hydrogen-is-a-non-starter and this: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-10-18-the-defr-follies-cost-of-hydrogen-storage
x This article shows how more renewables could result in blackouts: http://tiny.cc/lnhezz
xi The National Grid (now the National Energy System Operator (NESO)) 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
xii The facts, an explanation of why Net Zero is responsible and a proposed solution are cogently set out here: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/uk-electricity-prices-highest-in-world.
xiii https://www.dw.com/en/the-eus-risky-dependency-on-critical-chinese-metals/a-61462687
xiv Discussed here: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/24/net-zero-is-impoverishing-the-west-and-enriching-china/
xv See this for example: http://tiny.cc/3lhezz. Arguably however 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
xvi A current example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70zxjldqnxo
xvii This essay shows how developing countries have taken control of climate negotiations: https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/the-west-vs-the-rest-2.1.1.pdf (Nothing that’s happened since 2020 changes the conclusion: for example see the ‘Dubai Stocktake’ agreed at COP28 in 2023 of which item 38 unambiguously confirms developing countries’ exemption from any emission reduction obligation.)
xviii This comprehensive analysis, based on an EU Commission database, provides – re global greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO2 emissions – detailed information by country from 1990 to 2023: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2024?vis=ghgtot#emissions_table
Climate Scepticism 
An eighth update! I apologise. What happened was that I thought I should mention ‘green’ hydrogen and, mainly because of a new endnote (v), it proved difficult to do it as a simple amendment to the seventh update. The changes are mainly in the first paragraph of item 2 – with a few adjustments elsewhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wind has recovered this morning (contributing 22.6% at 7:20). But interconnectors are negative: minus 1.0%.
LikeLike
Alister Heath had an article in the Telegraph yesterday that I found most interesting:
Trump’s triumph is a disaster for Starmer and the self-regarding, virtue-signalling elites
This resounding triumph is total repudiation of the Left’s brand of politics – and cataclysmic for Labour
This paragraph is particularly relevant here:
True. How will they – especially Mad Ed – deal with it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
How will Ed deal with it? My guess is that he will rage and seethe, more seethe than rage because he is after all supposed to be a government minister. Just like the rest of the Labour front bench – and probably a lot of the back bench too – will rage and seethe. I predict that they will not be able to reconcile their ideological hatred of Trump with their duties as a responsible government to forge an alliance with our closest allies, and this government will fall apart fairly quickly. This is poetry from Brendan O’Neill, bad language and all, but it sums up the excruciating agony of the educated elites and their complete bewilderment as they watch their carefully constructed fantasies fall apart:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/11/06/the-unbelievably-hilarious-meltdown-of-the-centrists/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Claire Coutinho, Shadow DESNZ minister, has a part-decent article in the Telegraph today:
Miliband’s pledge to lower heating bills was always pure fantasy – now we have the proof
It’s becoming painfully clear that Labour’s ‘clean power’ revolution will fail to deliver on its promises
Re the recent NESO report she says, referring to Miliband:
Good stuff. But unfortunately (and unsurprisingly) she’s missed one small detail: that the entire Net Zero shebang is a disastrous and pointless waste of time and money introduced by a Conservative government in 2019 – the year she became an Tory MP – going on to become DESNZ Secretary of State with the specific objective of implementing this mad policy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ross Clark has another climate article in the Spectator. It isn’t one of his best, but I liked the title:
Trump’s victory makes Miliband’s climate plans look even sillier
True.
PS: wind contributing only 5.7% to our lekky needs this morning.
LikeLike
David Turver nails it again:
“Time for Think Tanks to Think Again
Free market think tanks need to challenge the Net Zero orthodoxy.”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/time-for-think-tanks-to-think-again
Conclusions
As Dieter Helm said two years ago, our energy markets are a mess. They are mired in a morass of complex, contradictory rules and regulations, some of which are designed to mitigate the impact of earlier interventions. For instance, we have introduced subsidies on renewables that make electricity more expensive, added carbon taxes to gas-fired generation to level up prices and then added energy intensive industry support schemes to try and mitigate the impact of high prices. It is an expensive and self-destructive shambles about as far from free markets as it is possible to get. This new report will only make things worse.
The root cause of all these problems is the ideological pursuit of Net Zero in defiance of common sense and economic reality. But instead of starting from first principles and challenging the whole idea of Net Zero, the CPS and Penrose accept the premise of Net Zero and offer platitudinous ideas to attempt to mitigate the damage. Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher will be turning in their graves after seeing such intellectual weakness.
It is time for our think tanks to start thinking again and challenge the whole idea of Net Zero from first principles. First, why is Net Zero required? It is a manifestation of the “Mitigation Strategy” to combat climate change, but why is mitigation the best strategy? For mitigation to be effective, it requires CO2 to be the only influence on climate change and for every other country to be reducing emissions to zero. Neither condition is being met and the risks of Net Zero “cure” are far higher than the supposed climate change “disease.”
Yet, we are hurtling down the road to serfdom by pursuing policies that will halve per capita energy use by 2050. We already have the most expensive electricity in the IEA, and under current policies of carbon taxes, more intermittent, expensive renewables and massive extra spending on the grid, prices are heading even higher.
The alternative is the adaptation strategy, where we focus first on cheap, abundant energy and take a chainsaw to the current regulations. Ideas would include:
If climate change becomes a problem, we can use some of our energy to invest in adaptation measures like flood defences and new crop varieties. These have the advantage of being effective regardless of what others do and will undoubtedly cheaper than destroying the economy.
This problem we face is similar to the destructive power of the unions in the 1970s and 80s, but instead of tackling Red Robbo we need to face down the Green Blob. There is nothing intellectually difficult about this, it just requires courage and determination, like that shown by Thatcher at the time using the intellectual framework provided by the CPS. The free market think tanks need to rise to the challenge and start thinking again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Miliband’s energy policy isn’t just incoherent, it’s a danger to security”
Nick Timothy in the Telegraph.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Quote
Nick Timothy MP
@NJ_Timothy
https://x.com/7Kiwi/status/1858451638802899281
LikeLiked by 4 people
Comment awaiting moderation . . . . . because it contained two links! Aaarggh! Is WordPress a dinosaur or is it a dinosaur?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It looks as if the moderator (not me) didn’t need lengthy awaiting there Jaime! (Thanks Mark, I’m assuming. The audit trail on such interventions being non-existent, like a few other important things. But anyway.)
As you obviously know, the initial tweet was by the wonderful David Turver, quote tweeting Nick Timothy, who’s been distancing himself from his old boss’s dramatic finale of giving us all Net Zero to chew on – and trying to spit out. (He’d left by then, he says. Fair enough.) I’d be inclined to edit your post to make Turver’s authorship explicit. But then I’ve not been around very much recently so thought I’d do this comment instead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the plaudit, Richard, but I have been busy all morning, and on this occasion it wasn’t me patrolling spam and setting Jaime’s excellent comment free.
LikeLike
PS Welcome back!
LikeLike
FWIW I released JJ’s excellent comment.
It may be relevant to note that Badenoch has just appointed Timothy as a junior whip.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well worth a read, IMO:
“The tide is turning against the green elites
Western publics are rejecting the self-destructive and immiserating policies of Net Zero.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/11/18/the-tide-is-turning-against-the-green-elites/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Robin. You were quick on the draw! Comment approved even before I wrote my complaint!
Richard, prehistoric WP doesn’t allow commenters to edit posts and if it would only embed twitter posts like it used to do, David Turver’s name would have appeared automatically. As it is, I have to copy and paste the post, but I can’t copy the author.
LikeLike
An excellent article in the Scotsman:
“COP flop shows why we need an open debate about net zero and climate change”
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/cop-flop-shows-why-we-need-an-open-debate-about-net-zero-and-climate-change-4874293
It’s the climate change summit that nobody’s talking about. The United Nations annual Conference of the Parties (COP) is fizzling out in Azerbaijan, but you would be forgiven for not noticing.
COP29 had no shortage of delegates. The UK alone sent a staggering 470 officials to the jamboree in Baku, led by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Net Zero Chief Druid Ed Miliband. Starmer and co are fond of declaring they are “leading the world” in the fight against climate change. But in Baku it became glaringly obvious that, wherever the UK is leading, the rest of the world is not following.
Most of the people who really matter didn’t even bother to turn up. Lame-duck US President Joe Biden was a no-show, as were President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of hydrocarbon super-emitters China and India. French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen all had better things to do….
...Despite this display of international indifference, Starmer reverted to our standard COP practice of performatively setting unrealistic targets, committing the UK to cutting 81 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035 compared with 1990, up from 78 per cent.
The rise of three percentage points may seem small, but we are now into the sticky side of the net-zero project. Most of the reduction so far has been achieved through a combination of replacing dirty coal with cleaner gas, deindustrialisation and the offshoring of much of our manufacturing. According to the government’s Climate Change Committee advisers, reaching the 81 per cent target will not only involve electric vehicles and heat pumps, but also a 20 per cent reduction in meat and dairy consumption by 2030….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wondered why COP29 dropped out of BBC news. Justin Rowlatt even seems to realise it’s now a farse.
LikeLike
dfhunter: like your mis-spelling! “Farse” is spot-on!!
LikeLike
Which is obviously true, regardless of what Keir Starmer says.
Telegraph link.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Not so much the case against net zero, as the case against accelerating the decarbonisation of the grid. Surprising to find it in the Guardian, but welcome, nevertheless:
“Will Labour’s 2030 green energy goal cost more than 2035? They should come clean
Ed Miliband argues the UK should race towards becoming a ‘clean energy superpower’, but costs to the consumer shouldn’t be ignored”
https://www.theguardian.com/money/nils-pratley-on-finance/2024/nov/27/labour-2030-green-energy-goal-cost-more-2035-miliband
...the pace of decarbonisation can clearly also affect the cost for consumers, a point Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, tends to skip over too breezily when he argues that security, sustainability and affordability are now perfectly aligned.
The report by the state-owned National Energy System Operator (Neso) earlier this month supported Miliband’s argument that clean power by 2030 is “achievable”, albeit with the heavy qualification that the task is “immensely challenging”. But Neso’s analysis did not compare the costs of 2030 against a 2035 timetable. Instead, it assessed 2030 against a “counterfactual” that imagined no meaningful acceleration.
On that basis, it concluded that a renewables- and nuclear-heavy system can be delivered by 2030 “without increasing costs for consumers” (a verdict hotly disputed by some because of its assumptions for gas and carbon prices) but it doesn’t tell us whether 2035, or any date in between, would be better value. Ofgem, the independent energy regulator with a duty to protect consumers, is the obvious body to give an opinion. But it hasn’t yet.
Talk to people who will build the new infrastructure, however, and they say the answer is blindingly obvious. “The 2030 target is going to make it more expensive than it would have been to go to 2035 because you are working at breakneck speed,” says one leading figure in the energy industry. “If you are going to put more risk into the system, it goes on to the price.”
It is easy to think of specific risks….
And the article goes on to identify quite a few of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – am I missing something? when Pratley says – “There should be wider economic wins: faster demand for high-voltage cables could mean more investment in UK factories; if the grid capacity is in place, more power-hungry datacentres may get built sooner.”
So “power-hungry datacentres” are the future against the “power-starved populace”.
LikeLike
Yesterday’s Telegraph:
“Net zero is making Britain poorer, says Trump’s energy secretary”
Is anyone listening?
LikeLiked by 3 people
dfhunter,
Yes, I did a double-take over that part of Mr Pratley’s piece. It was the least credible part of it, IMO.
LikeLike
Starmer has hit a pothole on the road to net zero and he should be honest: there will be necessary pain
The row over electric vehicles is just the start. The change to a green economy was always going to be politically explosive”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/29/keir-starmer-labour-net-zero-electric-vehicles-green
As might be expected from a Guardian journalist, there’s lots of stuff here about why we need to push net zero to stop the world frying, etc, but on the other hand it’s refreshing that at last there is recognition that this is going to involve a lot of pain. For too long we have been sold the lie that this will make us better off. It won’t. It will involve destroying our countryside, our wild place, our jobs, our energy security, our access to electricity when we need it, and our entire way of life. All to achieve nothing in global terms. They don’t yet get all that at the Guardian, but perhaps there are the first faint signs of recognition that the public gets it, and persuading them to endure the pain won’t be an easy sell after all:
Have cake, will eat. For years it has been the default political response to awkward questions about the climate crisis, with successive governments insisting that going green would create jobs, not destroy them, and that the planet could be saved without stifling growth or demanding uncomfortable sacrifices. Keir Starmer promised only this month not to “tell people how to live their lives”, suggesting the road to net zero would not be quite as painful as some think. And then, this week, he hit a pothole.
The carmaker Stellantis, which owns Vauxhall, announced it was closing its van factory in Luton, putting 1,100 jobs at risk; its rival Ford is axing 800 jobs. In Sunderland, Nissan has warned of an industry at “crisis point”.
All are blaming rules introduced by the outgoing Conservative government, under which manufacturers will be fined if they don’t meet annual targets for ramping up sales of electric cars even though demand is waning….
…
…The truth is that like all big industrial transitions, the shift to green was never going to be without pain. New jobs will be created, but not always in the towns where fossil-fuel industry jobs are dying. Not every worker made redundant in late middle-age is going to happily retrain as a windfarm engineer. Not everything in life is going to be the same as it was, and change always has the potential to be politically explosive. Softening the edges of it, for the places and people who always seem to end up on the sharp end, won’t be cheap. But neither, as you would think we might have learned by now, is picking up the pieces of lives left behind...
…The threat nobody is quite spelling out yet is that if selling cars in Britain gets too hard, ultimately there’s no obvious reason to make them here either. Why not just shift production overseas to wherever the rules are looser, and save the post-Brexit hassle of exporting them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“UK Industrial Electricity Prices Highest in EuropeNew data from the Government shows the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices in Europe.”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/uk-industrial-electricity-prices-highest-in-europe
Conclusions
When it comes to gas prices, the UK is reasonably competitive compared to the EU average. But this is something of a pyrrhic victory because European gas prices are so much higher than key industrial competitors like the US, Canada and Korea.
However, when we turn to electricity prices, the UK is woefully uncompetitive, particularly for industry where our prices are much more than double those in the EU. When we factor in EU prices being very much higher than other international competitors, then we can see the UK position is dire. This level of price differential is an existential threat to the economy.
We can pretend to be “climate leaders” on the world stage and set a mission for a Net Zero grid by 2030, but this is coming at the cost of winning the gold medal in the international electricity price Olympics. We can also see that it is not the gas price that is driving our electricity prices to such uncompetitive levels, because we are also winning the gold medal for the electricity to gas price ratio. As discussed previously (here and here), it must be the ~£11bn of renewables subsidies, £4.6bn of carbon taxes in the form of the Emissions Trading Scheme, £2.5bn of grid balancing costs and £1bn of capacity market costs that are driving electricity prices skywards. There is an extra £112bn of transmission network costs in the pipeline to connect remote, intermittent renewables to the grid that will continue to push up prices.
Now we also find that the fuel most used to transport goods around the country is the second most expensive in Europe, we can see that expensive energy is acting as a tax on all businesses, not just energy intensive industry.
All this is in direct contradiction to Labour’s number one mission of increasing economic growth. As discussed earlier, Labour’s top two missions are mutually incompatible; we cannot have top tier growth with the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world.
Having the highest electricity prices in the EU and by extension the rest of the developed world, ought to be considered a national emergency. The Government’s primary mission should be to cut energy prices because cheap energy is the key to unlocking growth. In addition, the pernicious impact of high fixed charges on our gas and electricity bills is making the poorest suffer most from this madness in energy policy. Surely, the “progressive” thing to do would be to cut energy prices.
It is good to see rising disquiet in the press about high energy prices, but there is precious little sign that Labour is paying attention. We can but hope that reality dawns on the Government before the economy collapses under the weight of Net Zero.
We might be able to accelerate the awakening of Government if more of us sign and share this new petition calling for a referendum on Net Zero.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Starmer: admits that Western leaders have been running an “open borders experiment” “This happened by design, not accident, Immigration policies were reformed deliberately, it has been a failure, they pretended it wasn’t happening.”
The British PM has just admitted that immigration policy was a conspiracy, a policy which has continued despite the obvious catastrophic harms to our societies.
How far are we away from a similar admission re. globally coordinated climate change mitigation and Covid lockdown and mass vaccination policies?
LikeLike
“Consumers Set to be Reamed by REMA?
Proposals for zonal pricing set to send bills even higher”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/consumers-set-to-be-reamed-by-rema
Conclusions
This extra spending on the grid is a feature of installing lots of geographically distributed, low density, intermittent power sources, not a bug. The claims of cheaper pricing coming from Octopus are obviously false as they hint at in their own report. The reality is that massive extra spending with only a marginal increase in output must mean unit prices rise.
The proposed solutions like zonal pricing only add even more complexity and cost to the system. The “solutions” are a way of trying to compensate for the uncontrollable output of intermittent renewables. They want consumers to run their lives around the grid or pay penal rates at peak times because the grid is not being designed to meet the needs of its customers.
The extra costs will be added to our electricity bills, which are already the highest in the countries measured by the IEA. Consumers are going to end up being reamed by REMA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“People are angry about the floods – but turning to Reform endangers us all”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/01/people-are-angry-about-the-floods-but-turning-to-reform-endangers-us-all
The interesting part of this article is the possibility inadvertent acknowledgment that UK net zero, without global action -and possibly even then – is a waste of time and money:
…Damage from Britain’s storms is only going to worsen until net zero is reached across the planet sometime in the future. And rainfall will not decrease in intensity when that day arrives – it will simply linger at its new heightened level until humanity finds a way of extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
We may have a long wait for that eventuality, it should be noted…
LikeLiked by 2 people
That Robin McKie article in the Guardian is most interesting Mark – thanks for the link. There’s nothing ambiguous its the call for global action, although by stating that ‘we persist in burning more and more fossil fuels’, McKie tries to give the impression that the UK is one of those responsible and by dishonestly referring to ‘the inaction of most developed nations’ he ignores the countries that are really responsible.
I’m getting increasingly tired of the sleight of hand: surely by now even the Guardian should be facing up to what’s really happening in the world. And the sneer at Reform is absurd: do McKie and Bob Ward really think China and India are likely to be influenced by Farage’s views? Of course they don’t.
However I suppose we should be encouraged by the comment that the situation ‘is only going to worsen until net zero is reached across the planet sometime in the future’. McKie doesn’t actually conclude that the UK’s Net Zero policy is a waste of time and money without global action, but it’s surely impossible for an intelligent reader to avoid that conclusion?
LikeLiked by 2 people
IIn the Daily Sceptic this morning ‘Sallust’ has a useful piece about an article in the Telegraph by Jonathan Leake setting out how Ed Miliband’s Net Zero energy policy is accelerating Britain’s industrial decline in a way that’s alarming our American allies.
Both the Sallust and Leake articles are worth reading – as is a very interesting paper by Dieter Helm referred to by Jonathan Leake.
LikeLike
Robin; while the Leake article makes some good points, the graph “UK energy use is winding down” contains a fundamental error which makes it meaningless. The “demand” plot is total energy while the “supply” trace is only electricity.
As for the plot “Energy supply moving away from gas”, it’s a shame that it was not also done on a cost basis. The wholesale replacement of gas and oil with electricity – mostly renewable – will probably reverse the slope of the graph!
LikeLike
Interesting points Mark. Re the energy use graph, I see that it compares ‘EJ/Yea’ with ‘GWh/Year’. I know what the latter means, but not the former. Please explain. I see also that the data was produced by John Constable – unusual for him to make a mistake.
As for the moving away from gas graph, the Neso predictions are interesting – not least because they think we’ll still be burning gas in 2050. I thought that was the net zero year. I suppose they believe we’ll have developed a way of offsetting it by then. And I suspect Neso would be reluctant to cost its predictions. Not least because they don’t have a clue about what the costs will be.
LikeLike
Jonathan Leake says this:
I think he’s mistaken. Consumption emissions have declined also since 1990 (from 922MtCO2e to 705MtCO2e in 2021), but at a slower rate than territorial emissions. They might have increased since 2021, but I doubt very much they will now be double what they were in 1990, as Leake is suggesting. However, the share of embedded import emissions as a % of overall consumption emissions has increased from 34.23% to 54.08% ref. 1990-2021. So, emissions embedded in imports have gone from 315.6Mt in 1990 to 381.3Mt in 2021. Not exactly a doubling.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/greenhousegasemissionsandtradeuk/2024
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin; I think you are reponding to my comments on the Leake article?
On that graph, the supply line reaches about 300,000 GWh/yr. Over 8760 hours that equates to about 34 GW on average which is close to our electricity production.
The demand plot is in ExaJoules. I looked up the conversion: 1 EJ = 278,000 GWh. So the demand as shown is many times the supply when the units are equated. Also the demand figures lines up well with the value given by Statista for our total primary energy consumption from all sources.
Comparing the change in total energy demand with the supply of electricity on its own is meaningless – unless I’ve made a mistake somewhere, which is always possible 😉
LikeLike
Apologies Mike – I was responding to you. Your comments look accurate, but really it’s beyond my pay grade. However, as I said, it’s unusual for John Constable to make a mistake.
LikeLike
Robin: I agree about John Constable so I wonder if Mr Leake combined a couple of JC’s graphs to get the one in the article? That might explain the mixing of units. Indeed another minus point for me was the multiplicity of units used: GWh; EJ; TWh and mtoe (million tons of oil equivalent).
LikeLike
An important article in the Telegraph this morning:
Nuclear plant closures paused amid fear of net zero blackouts
EDF is to extend the lifespans of four power stations designed in the 1960s by another two years
Mad Ed’s comment:
So … some good news for Ed!
LikeLike
Robin: the extensions of two of the stations are for only one year. From EdF’s website:
“Heysham 2 (Lancashire) and Torness (East Lothian) will keep producing zero-carbon electricity for an additional two years to March 2030 while Heysham 1 (Lancashire) and Hartlepool (Teesside) will produce power until March 2027, an extension of one year.”
The extensions are also qualified:
“These dates are forecasts, and the precise dates will be determined by the results of regular graphite inspections and how those results are interpreted within EDF and by the independent regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation.”
Aiui, those inspections are quite frequent – 2 or 3 per year – and any adverse finding could change those dates.
LikeLike
Ed right now, on X:
My reply:
Well that’s strange Ed. The answer was blowing in the wind, you said. But now it’s blowing in the nucleus of Uranium atoms apparently. That’s good, can we stop wasting time and money on solar panels and windmills now and start building SMRs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Climate realism – time for a re-set
https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/climate-realism-time-for-a-re-set/
The reason I participate in Cliscep is because I see it as an important vehicle for refining the simple message that current climate policies will do more harm (much more) than good (if any). That’s why I was particularly interested in the article by Professor Sir Dieter Helm to which Mark provided a link yesterday on The Flavour of Fudge thread.
It’s a comprehensive and interesting view of basic climate change politics, actions and facts that for me ticks most of the boxes and, as Mark says, is relevant to several Cliscep articles. As he also says, it’s well worth a read.
Helm makes some important observations. For example about ‘the deceit’ that net zero targets ‘measure carbon production on a territorial basis, not carbon consumption’ and that ‘There is so far no transition from fossil fuels to renewables’.
And I liked these comments in particular:
There are a lot of similar gems.
But, although excellent, his article contains some fairly basic flaws. In particular, it’s based on the unchallenged assumption that greater emissions will cause an increase in temperature and that that would mean huge damage to future generations. That’s why, he says, we need a carbon re-set. Also for example at one point he states that none of the many problems about renewables he’s just listed ‘suggests that renewables are a bad idea’. I would have thought they at least ‘suggest’ that they’re a very bad idea.
He concludes the article by proposing three steps towards a solution:
I have no problem with the second (by ‘firm-power’ he means dispatchable and nuclear) and the third. But have serious doubts about the practicality of the first – whereby ‘a bottom-up coalition of the willing’ would set up targets for carbon consumption treating ‘the carbon embedded in imports on the same basis as domestic production.’ (I assume by ‘carbon’ he meant CO2) – the objective being for a country exporting to the coalition ‘to apply its own equivalent carbon price domestically’ so that ‘Gradually the coalition widens as the carbon pricing is extended’. Hmm … that doesn’t seem to be very likely to happen. And, his setting out of a variety of problems and potential obstacles, suggests he may share that view. And one problem he doesn’t mention is the unlikelihood of the UN etc. agreeing to a move away from the COP system.
Nonetheless, as Mark and I have said, it’s well worth a read.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have re-read the Dieter Helm piece, having yesterday quickly skimmed it and initially found that I agreed with most of it. However, having re-read it, while applauding many of the inconvenient truths he lays bare, I find I share Robin’s doubts regarding Sir Dieter’s (qualified) enthusiasm for renewables, and also regarding his belief in the “coalition of the willing” and the power of CBAMs (carbon border adjustment mechanisms). He has long been a fan, having pushed for them in his Cost of Energy Review in October 2017 (commissioned by the then government and subsequently ignored). His review can be found here, for those interested:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a749c26ed915d0e8e39997a/Cost_of_Energy_Review.pdf
The review is a very long read indeed, so if interested in what Sir Dieter has to say, may I also plug my transcript of his Radio 4 interview in August 2023:
https://cliscep.com/2023/08/04/reality-kicks-in/
I wound up that piece as follows:
Summary
Sir Dieter’s words speak for themselves, but I hope I fairly paraphrase his message as follows:
1. We’ve had a pretty dishonest debate to date. It’s not all upside. There are real costs, in terms of damaging the countryside, problems with intermittency of supply, and serious financial implications – who is going to pay for it?
2. We have lacked a proper plan. Now that the detail is having to be worked out, and the costs (financial and otherwise) are becoming apparent, the edifice is beginning to crumble.
3. Destroying our manufacturing base and exporting our emissions, by having our products made elsewhere, isn’t virtuous at all, it’s self-deceiving. This is about global emissions, and exporting emissions isn’t the same as reducing them.
4. We’re now effectively a service economy. Cutting emissions here is easier than in a manufacturing economy. It’s going to be very difficult to achieve elsewhere.
5. We can’t deal with climate change unilaterally. Others have to cut their emissions. The politicians have misled us.
6. If we’re serious about this, then you can forget your foreign holidays and your imported products.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The always excellent Douglas Murray has an article in the Speccie today about the visit to Britain by the Emir and his wife from the ‘sordid, terrorist-supporting statelet’ of Qatar. He reminds us that the incredibly wealthy Qatar has for decades been a leading supporter and funder of Hamas and other terrorist groups. He believes that, far from welcoming them, we should treat its royal family as pariahs.
I mention this here because of a comment by ‘Sir Graphus’:
True.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Years ago a keen advocate of UK shale gas development called Nick Grealy used to campaign against “keeping Qataris in Ferraris”.
LikeLike
And why is this visit happening? Well, according to the Daily Mail:
LikeLike
Is the new Labour government already drawing its horns in regarding its barking mad and completely unachievable plans to “decarbonise” the grid by 2030?
“Starmer accuses Whitehall of being comfortable with failure in landmark speech
Prime minister sets out milestones for delivery but faces claims of watering down targets and ignoring immigration”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/05/starmer-accuses-whitehall-of-being-comfortable-with-failure-in-landmark-speech
…Starmer set out six “milestones” designed to “give the British people the power to hold our feet to the fire”. They were:…
…Putting the UK “on track” to achieve at least 95% clean power by 2030….
Compare and contrast Labour’s 2024 manifesto:
https://labour.org.uk/change/make-britain-a-clean-energy-superpower/
Clean power by 2030…
Families and businesses will have lower bills for good, from a zero-carbon electricity system.….
…To deliver our clean power mission, Labour will work with the private sector to double onshore wind, triple solar power, and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. We will invest in carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and marine energy, and ensure we have the long-term energy storage our country needs….
That looks like a watering-down to me. By the way (I believe Jit has highlighted this before) it’s worth looking at the manifesto to find the clip of West Midlands pensioner, Gary, who says he’s voting Labour because he can’t afford to heat his house, and Labour will deliver cheaper bills and look after the elderly. I wonder if he has yet changed his mind?
LikeLike
I should have added, from that Guardian article:
...The government’s plan to decarbonise the power grid by 2030 is now a target of “at least 95%” clean power generation by 2030, it emerged on Thursday, prompting concerns about shifting goalposts.
Labour insisted the two statements were consistent, with Ed Miliband, the net zero secretary, saying the remaining 5% was due to the need to maintain a strategic gas reserve....
LikeLike
I don’t think this is much of a ‘watering down’. The 95% target was established several weeks ago (it’s in my header article) and the idea of a ‘strategic reserve’ of gas-fired power stations, in practice cancelling any possibility of achieving the 100% target, was Labour policy long before the election. The media think there’s been a watering down simply because they’re too lazy to look at the detail. I’ll believe Labour has changed course when for example it defers the 95% target to 2040 and abandons the absurd and damaging restrictions on ICE vehicles. And even then I won’t be very impressed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fact is, Labour were committed to a ‘carbon free grid’ by 2030. That is in writing and indisputable. Then they wrote to Fintan Slye at Neso in the autumn for advice on how to achieve their zero carbon grid and Fintan Slye, knowing that it was impossible, wrote back, redefining ‘clean energy’ as ‘95% clean energy’! Now the government have officially adopted that definition. It is the beginning of a retreat from the impossible.
https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/net-zero-becomes-net-five
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes but it’s also in writing and indisputable that they said long before the election that they would have a ‘strategic reserve’ of gas-fired power stations – making the 100% an impossibility. Surely they haven’t got themselves into a muddle about all this?
LikeLike
Robin,
What does a ‘strategic reserve of gas-fired power stations’ even mean? It’s just waffle. Did they make it clear that gas fired power stations would still be used in 2030 to cover (very rare) periods when renewables, zero carbon energy and storage failed to meet demand? I doubt it. This is a climb down, make no mistake.
https://x.com/NetZeroWatch/status/1864969060179677258
LikeLike
Other folk have their doubts….from Energy Voice:
“Energy sector’s faith in net zero is just 4%, says Energy Institute”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime: not so much a climb down as a muddle. As I’ve said, I’ll believe there’s been a climb down when I see a meaningful change of policy. However in the meantime I’m moderately happy to see the media say that Mad Ed has been humiliated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Climbdown or muddle? I think it may be a bit of both. What’s interesting, to my mind, is that the zealots at the Guardian seem to be unhappy about it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
All is not lost. Europe gas prices are forecast to fall significantly by 2030 which should lower the cost of UK energy and make Mad Ed Miliband really happy. Nevertheless and surprisingly, lowering the cost of energy to a measurable target is not one of the Labour Government’s new milestones:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/05/climate-bomb-warning-over-200bn-wave-of-new-gas-projects
The IEA has predicted that the price of gas imported into the EU is expected to plunge from a record average high of more than $70 (£54) per million British thermal units (MBtu) in 2022 to $6.50 (£5) by the end of the decade, following a boom in planned gas projects in recent years
Of course this is not predicted as a “good thing” rather the opposite:
‘Climate bomb’ warning over $200bn wave of new gas projects
“The IEA warned that the world’s LNG capacity was on track to grow by almost 50% by 2030, greater than the world’s forecast demand for gas in all three of the agency’s modelled scenarios.
This glut is expected to lead to falling fossil fuel prices, which could encourage a greater reliance on cheap gas in favour of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency improvements, throwing climate targets further into doubt.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
The climate effect of such a change would not be measurable, so it’s hardly a “climate bomb.” Perhaps every edition of the Guardian should be regarded as a “stupid bomb”?
Yesterday in the Telegraph, Charles Moore had a rather harsh piece about Mr Miliband.
“Miliband’s net zero zealotry risks killing Labour’s dream of growth”
It speaks of the absurdity of the “clean” power pledge, and spends rather a long time on the EV “transition.”
I think I might have phrased that a little differently, but the point is made.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Contributions to our leccy needs at 7:30 this morning.
Gas: 77%. Wind/solar: 6%. Interconnectors: minus 2.6%.
LikeLike
With 77% of our rush hour electricity demand supplied by gas and only 6% by wind and solar (and interconnectors making a negative contribution) today is arguably not the best day for this headline:
Plan for retiring gas network ‘desperately needed’ as UK shifts to clean energy
The UK Energy Research Council has warned of the multibillion-pound costs as the gas network goes into decline.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/labour-b2662986.html
LikeLiked by 2 people
In the middle of the day, wind and solar are still producing just 5.8%. The current price is £256.89 per MWh. That’s going well then.
LikeLike
Compare that with the price over the past year: £68.84/MWh. I wonder if Mad Ed is being kept up to date?
LikeLike
Rye House and Humber South Bank gas power station are selling electricity to the grid at £3000 per kWh!! That’s utterly mad.
I’ll tell you what’s even more insane. Miliband and his renewables cronies will tell you this is because of the high price of gas!
Stupid, stupid politicians for causing this insanity.
LikeLike
Today’s woes described at the Telegraph here
LikeLike
https://x.com/afneil/status/1867258904989647019
On the 12th day of winter, my true love sent to me: Five Gold Rings
But they weren’t enough to cover the cost of my leccie bill.
LikeLike
Neil has got gas percentage wrong though. It’s 61%. Was nearly 73% very early this morning. That was the peak.
LikeLike
Jaime: my post here this morning:
Contributions to our leccy needs at 7:30 this morning.
Gas: 77%. Wind/solar: 6%. Interconnectors: minus 2.6%.
Source: iamkate.com
LikeLike
I’m getting my generation mix info from here Robin. Not sure which is the more reliable.
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live
LikeLike
Interesting. There’s a huge difference re gas: iamkate has it at 63% and Energy Dashboard at 58.7%.
LikeLike
Bit OT – hat tip to oldbrew over on http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
Norway Wants to Scrap EU Power Links amid Surging Prices | OilPrice.com
LikeLike
Now (23:30) we are exporting 3 GW across all interconnectors except for the Netherlands which has zero flow. Baffling.
LikeLike
Oops – oldbrew comment link was from NOALOPKT
LikeLike
Contributions to our electricity demand at 7:00 this morning:
Wind: 7%
Solar: 0%
Gas: 79%
Wood: 7%
Nuclear: 12%
Interconnectors: – 7%
Price: £132.58/MWh
Source: https://grid.iamkate.com
Not perhaps the best day to announce this:
Miliband unveils new powers to approve large wind farms
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx27wppegddo
LikeLike
An hour later (8:00):
Wind: 7%
Solar: 0%
Gas: 72%
Wood: 6%
Nuclear: 10%
Interconnectors: 0%
Price: £147.02/MWh
The big changes are Interconnectors and Price.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
Energy Dashboard says its data come from these two sources:
They also include a disclaimer on the accuracy of their presented data. I can’t imagine that Kate’s data would come from alternative sources, so maybe the difference lies in the presentation and/or processing.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter how much of our money Mad Bad Ed spaffs away on renewables, batteries and carbon capture in the next 5 years, whilst he destroys the British countryside in the process, this graph is not going to change much: the lows will get lower, approaching 0%, but the gas generation highs will remain above 70% during Dunkelflautes, as we are seeing. Meanwhile, energy bills will spiral uncontrollably and the economy will go into sharp recession. Ed knows it. He’s lying to the British public. Why?
LikeLike
Maximum gas generation was 72.8% at 6.30 this morning according to Energy Dashboard. Despite Ed’s lies, this will remain the same over the next 5 years, during Dunkelflautes.
LikeLike
My comments keep disappearing. Annoying.
LikeLike
Jaime; IamKate’s data sources are as you say:
“The data comes from Elexon Insights Solution, National Grid ESO’s Data Portal, and the Carbon Intensity API (a project by National Grid ESO and the University Of Oxford Department Of Computer Science).”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime,
My apologies. I have been away for a couple of days and have not been checking spam, so have just found and released your comments now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess this should be of interest:
“Completely And Utterly INSANE!” Passionate Debate On Ed Miliband’s Net Zero Pursuit – YouTube
LikeLike
“Get ready for the Ed Miliband blackouts
Labour’s lies about renewable energy will leave Britain in the dark.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/12/13/get-ready-for-the-ed-miliband-blackouts/
LikeLike
Utterly delusional, IMO:
“Miliband pledges no blackouts under Labour’s ‘unstoppable’ renewable energy shake-up
‘Clean power 2030’ plan will speed up planning and give energy secretary final say on major infrastructure projects”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/13/miliband-pledges-no-blackouts-under-labours-unstoppable-renewable-energy-shake-up
LikeLike
When they start pledging that there won’t be blackouts, we know we’re in real trouble.
LikeLike
The BBC this morning:
UK ‘doesn’t have enough builders’ for Labour’s 1.5m homes
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg1471rwpo
So who’s going to build all those pylons, solar panels and wind turbines?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The homes target won’t happen, even if the builders are there. The developers don’t want a glut of properties because it depresses the value of sales. They will drip things into the market as always.
LikeLike
The increasingly Stalinist 5 year plan approach is doomed to fail in a market economy. Builders won’t build houses in locations where people don’t want to live and/or where they won’t make a decent return on capital. People won’t instal heat pumps just because the government says they should, nor will people buy expensive EVs they can’t charge at home. And so on. The only way the government can come close to achieving its targets is by hosing taxpayer money at its chosen targets, and even that won’t get them there (though it will trash the economy).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit: “The developers don’t want a glut of properties because it depresses the value of sales. They will drip things into the market as always.”
That point came out in a recent article in the Spectator (I think). Apparently, over the past 10 years, planning has been granted for approx 3 million homes but 1.2 million of those have not progressed at all.
LikeLike
Re the skills shortage I suggest it might be relevant to read THIS.
LikeLike
Robin: thanks for that link to your excellent article; I missed it at the time.
LikeLike
Ben Pile is on a roll in the Daily Sceptic this morning with his attack on Mad Ed’s Clean Power Action Plan. An extract:
Good stuff – and all true.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The Spectator website has an article on the challenge of building Labour’s promised 1.5 million homes:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/12/15/shock-revelation-the-u-k-doesnt-have-enough-workers-to-build-labours-1-5-million-new-home/
This para confirms the point Robin has made so well:
“Based on the Government’s plans, the estimated number of new workers required for some common trades, for example, would be:
When asked if there were enough workers currently to build the extra homes, David Thomas, Chief Executive of Barratt Redrow, said: “The short answer is no.”
But let’s not forget this is a government expecting simultaneously to carpet the country with solar farms and wind turbines, and also supercharge the manufacturing and installation of heat pumps as well as car charging points.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Conversation has published an article titled ‘Protesting farmers are having to fight off the radical right, conspiracy theorists and climate sceptics‘.
I’ve just posted a comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
That really is an extraordinary article, demonstrating – to my mind – the extent to which much of academia has lost touch with reality. I give you credit for persevering with the Conversation. I stopped checking it out a long time ago, as it’s now just a monologue, with little variety in its subject-matter. Still, we all have our crosses to bear. I check out the Guardian every day….
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting that the author, Tom Carter-Brookes, who was quick to reply to other comments, ignored mine. And now – surprise – comments have been closed.
LikeLike
Yes, I spotted that, Robin. As I say – it should be renamed the Monologue, or the Nonversation.
LikeLike
Robin – thanks for the Conversation link, interesting comment & answer by Tom –
Ashton Heaney – Interesting that Ed Davey, Rihanna, Greta Thunberg etc have all publicly supported farmers protests yet don’t get a mention…
Similarly during Conservative governments tenure it was ‘normal’ for more ‘left wing’ celebrities/figures to front protests.. it’s a normal part of the process
Me thinks the author is cherry picking (good agricultural link?) data to justify his scholarship/political leanings……
Report
LikeLiked by 2 people
HS2 might be a useful reference point when it comes to seeing how good government’s are at bringing large infrastructure projects in on budget:
“Cost of HS2 could pass £80bn as estimated bill jumps 15% in a year
Projected bill includes price of building HS2 station at Euston, with a budget of about £5bn”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/17/cost-of-hs2-estimate-euston
LikeLike
Spiked has an article by Peter McCusker this morning that puts it plainly:
Trump’s rejection of Net Zero will leave the UK in the dust
As America embraces energy abundance, Britain is stumbling into a new dark age of energy insecurity.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/12/18/trumps-rejection-of-net-zero-will-leave-the-uk-in-the-dust/
Some extracts:
Trump’s pick for energy secretary, Chris Wright, founder and chief executive of fracking giant Liberty Energy …
McCusker’s conclusion:
Likelihood of that happening? Er … net zero?
LikeLiked by 3 people
For a really jolly Christmas The Conversation recommends some games that are ‘a playful way to stimulate non-threatening conversations that make sense of climate change, promote learning and engage the imagination’. Apparently they are ‘a powerful way to explore new possibilities or imagine alternative futures without any pressure.’
http://tiny.cc/5p02001
Enjoy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
No wonder young people are so depressed. That’s not what I looked forward to as a child on Christmas Day. By the way, the Conversation’s “Just Begging” slot sounds quite a lot like the Guardian. What are they on?
A registered charity, we are free from the influence of advertisers, big business, billionaire owners or politics. Our articles are written exclusively by academic experts [many of whom are overtly politicial and/or receive funding from organisations that are]. But in uncertain times, your support is vital. Please back the facts [sic] and donate to support our free-to-read, expert journalism. [My emphasis]
LikeLike
“Cranky Uncle”, if memory serves, is the work of Messrs Cook & Co.
LikeLike
Ben Pile has a good article in the Daily Sceptic this morning:
Greens Slowly Wake Up to Energy Reality
Little here we don’t know. But Ben puts it well. For example:
Well said.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jit,
Cook is very much into the idea of ‘vaccinating’ children against misinformation by inoculating them with his concept of the truth – hence Cranky Uncle. But his is not a particularly new idea. Board games have been a favourite instrument of propaganda throughout history. If you want the seeds of your ‘truth’ to be planted in the minds of the unwary, what better way than to proffer an innocent looking game, the rules of which are formulated around your truth? For example, the next time you want to open up a post-prandial conversation after Christmas lunch this year, forget about the King’s Speech; there is no better way than to dust off your copy of the great classic board game, Juden Raus!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_board_games
Or, to bring it up to date, why not invest in a copy of the children’s ‘educational’ colouring book, From the River to the Sea?
https://shop.foa.org.uk/from-the-river-to-the-sea-colouring-book.html
Fun for all the family.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Juden Raus! shows that after decades of propaganda, antisemitism was so deeply rooted in German society in the 1930s, that someone thought it would be a good subject for a children’s game. Racism is present in many board games, but Juden Raus! is unique in its portrayal of how racism manifests itself in society and is a terrifying example of the banality of evil. … There are many areas of the world where such a game might still find a receptive audience. … Juden Raus! is a warning to us all”.
Indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
And then there’s the Nazi board game, Jagd auf Kohlenklau (“Hunting for the Coal Thief”):
Uncannily similar to the ‘entertainment’ that TC is pushing now, don’t you think? Some of the environmentalism actually has quite a dark history.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John – you amaze me with your ability to present pertinent info/links.
The weird connection – “Cranky Uncle is the creation of scientist and cartoonist John Cook, who uses cartoons, humor, and critical thinking to expose the misleading techniques of science denial and build public resilience against misinformation. To explain why and how some people reject scientific evidence, Cook created the character Cranky Uncle, the family member we all have who thinks he knows better than the world’s scientists, in the book Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change.”
I seem to remember Pics of Cook dressed as an SS officer, but can’t find a link?
But, my search was not wasted, some things never change – So What Happened to the Journalism? – Watts Up With That?
7 years ago Guest Blogger John Ridgway – 117 Comments
Liked this comment –
“Kip Hansen
Editor August 25, 2017 7:10 am
There is some confusion between the role of a Science Journalist and a Science Popularizer.
Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov were Science Popularizers and Science Writers– it was their profession to take complex science and explain it to the general public in a way that it could be understood — in newspaper columns, magazine articles and books. These guys and gals really need a deep understanding of a broad cross-section of science, its methods, history, underpinnings, etc.
Science Journalists (“reporters”) are mean to report on the current news — they most current happenings in science. They are bound by the Journalists Code of Ethics (or should be). They need to be knowledgeable enough to correctly communicate findings, point up weaknesses in studies, background a bit, etc. They are not expected to be experts in everything, nor need they be. They do have to be honest — able to write the news without injecting their own opinions and bias.
Science Essayists, like myself, are a sub-set of Science Writers. We write short pieces on topics with the intention of helping the reader understand the something specific about something in the science world. science Essayists do not need to be experts in the topics they write about — they need to be good writers, they need to be able to do research and understand science topics and how science works.
There is very little real journalism being done today — most journalists (sceince or politics and everything else) are writing opinions pieces disguised as news stories or are writing outright advocacy pieces).
The Editor-in-Chief of the Wall Street Journal pointed this out yesterday.”
LikeLike
Dougie, you can the image at one of Brad’s old pieces, scroll down:
https://cliscep.com/2017/06/03/krank-haben-die-skskidz-uber-den-scharktank-gejumpt/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dougie,
Of course, it was Jit who highlighted here Cranky Uncle’s origins. I just picked the ball up and ran with it. As for my WUWT article, I had forgotten I had written that one. When I look back on it now, I recognise I was wrong to give Cook all the credit for the 97% nonsense, but he sure as hell deserves top billing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The always excellent Rupert Darwall has written a fine piece for the Speccie:
Labour has walked into a net zero trap of its own making
(That’s a good attention grabbing title – but the Tories were at least as responsible as Labour for the mess we’re in.)
Darwall’s conclusion:
He’s right of course. But it won’t happen until Labour wakes up to reality. And current evidence suggests it’s unlikely to do so for a long time. If ever.
Worth reading in full.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A comment (by Dickie Hart) on the Darwall post:
That all looks pretty convincing to me. Perhaps someone who understands these things better than I do might tell me if I’m right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Today’s Sunday Telegraph has a remarkably good first leader:
Britain is stuck in a doom loop of rising costs
The cost of meeting our net zero targets is rising all the time, and it is now hitting us all directly in our pockets
Its concluding paragraphs:
Well said – the last sentence in particular goes right to the heart of the Net Zero nonsense.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin; while what he says is correct, I found the way he says it a bit unclear. At first I thought he meant that the maximum output from Dogger would 2.0 GW then I realised that he was referring to the average across the year.
I think he’s being a bit harsh with the load factors. As this listing (from 2 years ago) shows, the bigger (newer) wind farms have LFs well into the 40% range: https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors . Dogger should be in that range, or possibly better, since it uses the latest colossal turbines – 13 MW.
Further, Ratcliffe’s average output must have been a bit less than 2.1 GW due to planned maintenance, outages, etc. It may have achieved a load factor of around 90% – still far ahead of any wind farm and, of course, fully dispatchable.
There is another point wrt wind capacity. It is evident that the wind fleet will never get close to its total nameplate rating. A day or two back the output hit a new record of 22.5 GW for a short time. That is only 75% of the installed nameplate capacity. That’s entirely logical because the wind is never going to be at the ideal strength and direction for every single one of the thousands of turbines spread across and around these isles. In addition, there will always be a number of turbines out of service for planned maintenance, breakdowns, etc..
Imho they should recognise this by calling it the effective capacity, or some similar term. The implications are serious because it means that, during peak demand, only 75% will be available, at best. That amounts to a shortfall of 12.5 GW today which will only grow as the fleet expands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apologies: my comment was in response to Robin’s earlier post about Dogger Bank wind farm.
Also my last sentence should read “That amounts to a shortfall of 7.5 GW today which will only grow as the fleet expands.” Well, it is a Sunday morning!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Mike, that’s all very helpful. Yes, what he had to say was sometimes unclear and even I thought he must have made a mistake regarding Ratcliffe’s average output in view of maintenance etc. But his overall point – about the relative efficiency of a coal-fired power station – is most important and commonly overlooked.
LikeLike
Francis Menton (The Manhattan Contrarian) has just published an interesting note:
Cautious Optimism On The Demise Of The Green Energy Fantasy
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-12-21-cautious-optimism-on-the-demise-of-the-green-energy-fantasy
He opens thus:
He’s right of course: although there have been some near misses, there has yet to be a total disaster. His candidates for first to hit reality were California, New York, Germany and the UK. As he says:
Having noted how it now looks as though Germany is ‘winning the race’, he proceeds to review its current travails in detail. ‘This is what the green energy wall looks like.’
Menton concludes:
Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be the slightest sign that our wretched government has also caught on. His ‘rest of the world’ is unlikely to include the UK.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In case this my last comment before Xmas, have a good & merry Christmas to all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Christmas cheer?
I’m no scientist but I found this article by Chris Morrison in the Daily Sceptic quite encouraging:
Science Shock: CO2 is Good for the Planet, Peer-Reviewed Studies Suggest
His opening paragraphs:
An extract:
Well worth reading in full.
Hoping all this research is well-founded, I wish everyone at Cliscep a Happy Christmas and a healthy and interesting 2025.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is another very important bone of contention between alarmists and sceptics. There’s loads of eminent scientific literature out there on the topic, but only time will tell whether the alarmists or the sceptics are correct. Needless to say, I lean to the sceptical side of the debate…;-)
And a Merry Christmas from me also to all Cliscep contributors, commenters and lurkers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Net zero: fantasy power”
https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/front-page/net-zero-fantasy-power/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark – thanks for the link, which in turn links to a Times article Far more funding needed if UK is to decarbonise grid by 2030
Snippet from the Times article –
“Hitting a central target to decarbonise Britain’s electricity system by the end of the decade is “increasingly looking out of reach” without a dramatic increase in the financial support given to green projects, in addition to planning and grid reforms.
The value of subsidies handed to the developers of wind and solar farms over the next two years needs to be at least double this year’s record level, according to an analysis by Cornwall Insight, the energy consultancy, if the government is to reach its clean power goal by the end of the decade.”
“woe woe and thrice woe” as said in Up Pompeii.
LikeLike
Ross Clark has another good piece in the Speccie today:
Ed Miliband doesn’t understand how energy pricing works
Having opened by asking whether ‘we about to find out the full foolishness of Ed Miliband’s policy of blocking licences for new oil and gas extraction in the North Sea’, he goes on to review how Russian gas being (surprisingly) supplied to Europe via Ukraine is being turned off, how Europe is having to look elsewhere to make up for this and how DESNZ believes this emphases how crucial it for the UK ‘to build a clean, secure energy system that reduces reliance on foreign fuels’.
But Ross says,
That’s something I’ve never understood. If we produce our own gas from our own resources why would it have to be priced at a global level? That doesn’t happen in the US – why must it happen here?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin; I’ve long had similar thoughts. While our situation is very different to the US, it should not be beyond the wit of man to devise an agreement with the industry which would promote exploration and production in exchange for favourable pricing for the home market.
By the way, the amount of gas that was flowing via Ukraine was pretty trivial – about 3% of Europe’s demand. However, it’s a fragile market so this may have some impact.
LikeLike
Francis Menton (Manhattan Contrarian) has just posted another interesting article:
New York On The March To Climate Utopia
In it he refers to his article a few weeks ago (see above) where he concluded that Germany appeared to have won the race among all countries and states to be the first to hit the ‘Green Energy Wall’ So, he asks: ‘If Germany has “hit the wall,” what is the appropriate analogy for New York?’
He notes:
His conclusion (re the appropriate analogy):
So what’s the appropriate analogy for the UK?
(The article, as always with Menton, is worth reading in full.)
LikeLiked by 3 people
John / Mark: any ideas about an appropriate analogy for the UK?
LikeLike
The Spectator’s leading article this week is well put and worrying. Headed, ‘The growing wealth gap between Britain and the US’ or in the paper edition ‘Growing apart‘, it opens with this:
It contains a lot of interesting material but these two extracts are particularly relevant here (although unfortunately the second underrates the problem):
The conclusion:
My comment was well received:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, the only analogy I can think of is similar and not new – basically, our government has pushed the country out of an aeroplane without a parachute, and is hoping that someone will invent a means of strapping one on before we hit the ground.
LikeLike
I think that analogy was coined by Francis Menton and said that the parachute had to be invented, made and strapped on before you hit the ground.
LikeLike
Robin,
I am very happy to give Francis Menton the credit. It’s certainly a vivid and highly apt analogy.
LikeLike
You’re not thinking ahead guys. Net Zero is the analogy. In years to come, when our descendants wish to describe some utterly pointless, ridiculous, suicidal exercise, using the most absurd analogy possible, they will point to Mad Miliband’s Net Zero Clean Energy Superpower dream.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Our energy policy is like trying to cure a headache by banging your head against the wall.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The year is 2231. The headbanger cure for migraine is the latest health craze sweeping the Nations. The Telegraph runs a critical article: ‘Headbangers are as mad as Milibands’.
LikeLike
The Sunday Telegraph’s leading article today is headed:
The price of net zero is now too high to bear
Time and time again, we find the state adopting an approach that wilfully destroys value in the name of environmental progress
Using two examples, the ‘Sustainable Aviation Fuel Mandate’ and the zero emission vehicle mandate, the article illustrates how it’s ‘fundamentally unjust’ that the Government is undoing …
The result it says ‘is to introduce into the British economy a sort of central planning of economic activity, with predictable results’. Its conclusion:
Not perhaps the most effective or powerful argument. But it’s encouraging that some parts of the MSM are at last beginning to get the message.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Paul Homewood has an interesting article in the Daily Sceptic this morning:
Trump Attacks Starmer’s Decision to Abandon North Sea Oil – BBC Has Melt Down
Worth reading.
Paul makes what is I suppose an obvious point – but it’s one I hadn’t really appreciated before:
Of course!
LikeLike
“Tony Blair’s Foundation takes Ed Miliband to task over Net Zero”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tony-blair-paper-warns-against-net-zero-dogma/?
Is Tony Blair, like Margaret Thatcher before him, about to become the voice from beyond the political grave that makes life difficult for his party? Labour’s climate secretary in waiting – Ed Miliband – won’t find a lot of comfort in a paper put out today by the Tony Blair Foundation, Reimagining the UK’s Net Zero Target. The conclusion of the paper, whose authorship is attributed to ‘multiple experts’, is not that Britain should drop its overall target to achieve net zero but that its strategy has become too dogmatic, and revolves around unrealistic targets which, by threatening to make people poorer, are in danger of hurting public support for net zero and setting a damaging precedent for international efforts to tackle climate change.
Just look at this passage:
Deploying intermittent renewables rapidly and without sufficient focus of storage solutions, frequency services, baseload power and whole-system integration could increase energy costs or reduce energy security, with major economic and social consequences for the country. This is made more challenging by increasingly affordable gas prices making non-renewable sources more economically attractive.…
The paper from the Tony Blair Institute, needless to say, preens over the introduction of the Climate Change Act and the whole net zero concept, but there is the sound of a penny dropping, or the sight of a lightbulb coming on. It’s a long read, but there’s rather a lot in it that suggests its authors understand that unless we do something radically different so far as concerns net zero, we’ll be in serious trouble.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting Mark. But note the paper was published in May of last year, i.e. two months before the election, and obviously Miliband has ignored it. I don’t think the TB Foundation has said anything about net zero more recently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Robin .
I didn’t notice the date. It came to my attention today, so I mistakenly assumed it was recent. My apologies.
LikeLike
No need to apologise Mark, it’s significant and interesting that Miliband has chosen to ignore Labour hero Tony Blair. I suggest it’s part of a pattern: Mad Ed isn’t concerned about contrary opinion, criticism, setbacks or opposition. For example, he’s quite content to ignore the reality that, contrary to his claim, his policies will increase energy costs, that there’s huge and growing local opposition to his plans for wind turbines and pylons, that other economies are not interested in following his lead … and so on. You see, none of these things matter when you’re saving the planet – no one said it would be easy.
In other words, the only way to change his policies would be for Starmer to fire him. But that’s unlikely to happen as it would mean that by appointing him Starmer had made a mistake. And you must understand that Starmer doesn’t make mistakes.
LikeLiked by 3 people
An early crack in the net zero carapace?
“UK government scraps plan to ban sale of gas boilers by 2035
‘Future homes standard’ will not mandate replacing boilers with environmentally friendly alternative”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/06/uk-government-scraps-plan-to-ban-sale-of-gas-boilers-by-2035
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – thanks for the Spectator Blair’s Foundation link. Even though it’s from 16 May 2024 as Robin noted, it was/is still relevant as Robin points out. Ed is not for turning no matter from who facts are presented.
The other thing I got from that link, was Ross seems to be the only MSM “writer and columnist” that gets what NZ will really mean for the UK. The link links to his book/audio from Feb. 2023–
Not Zero: How an Irrational Target Will Impoverish You, Help China (and Won’t Even Save the Planet) (Audio Download): Ross Clark, Ben Onwukwe, Swift Press Audio: Amazon.co.uk: Books
Won’t post the review, but at least he could see the car crash coming.
LikeLike
Mark – thanks for another interesting link to the Guardian article.
A few quotes that have me confused –
“They also confirmed there will not be a ban on the sale of gas boilers by 2035 and people will not have to remove them from their homes.”
“However, there are reports that elements of the proposed FHS will be watered down, potentially making homes more expensive to heat as a result and passing the cost of switching to heat pumps on to the property owner rather than the developer.”
“Jess Ralston, head of energy at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said: “Every home we insulate and heat pump we install means we need less gas that will increasingly come from abroad as North Sea output continues its inevitable decline. Customers and industry knowing what long-term, stable incentives and policies will be in place is essential to add confidence to the insulation and heating sectors, which have been badly hit by boom and bust policies and unclear government direction in the past – so an ambitious and clear warm homes plan can’t come too soon.””
“Countries across Europe are trying to encourage heat pump uptake amid negative media campaigns against the technology. Colder Nordic countries have embraced heat pumps; Norway has 635 for every 1,000 households, while Germany has 47 and the UK just 15″
Wonder where the last quote came from & did it mean homes in Norway were solely heated by heat pumps – found this weird/probable link –
Heat Pumps explained Today’s The Guardian. Quote: “Green heating has an image problem, especially where climate-sceptic parties hold sway. Now energy groups are promoting them on grounds of cost, status and energy security” – Who Watches the Watchers?
“Jess Ralston, head of energy at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit” gets quoted again –
“At the same time, growing concerns about energy security could help sell heat pumps as the “patriotic” choice for homeowners who value locally sourced power. The technology reduces reliance on foreign fuels and can shield consumers from price shocks in volatile global gas markets. An analysis from the ECIU last month found a British heat pump would use six times less imported energy than a gas boiler in 2030 if the renewables rollout continues to accelerate.”
LikeLike
Turning the UK’s heating to heat pumps would cause quite a bit of carnage. As I noted here, households presently use gas for a lot more of their energy than they do leccy. Even allowing for the efficiency gains from heat pumps, in a world with no gas boilers we will have a very unequal electricity grid – where winter supply has to grow far larger than summer supply to replace all the gas burnt locally.
At the same time, we are getting rid of supply that can be turned up and down as needed – i.e., gas turbines. And it has to be noted that there are cheap and easy means to store large amounts of energy as natural gas, to be drawn on as required. Electricity on the other hand cannot be stored, meaning the entirety of the required power has to be met by generation. There is no grid squeeze with gas, no need for rationing by price.
Regarding Norway’s high penetration of heat pumps – well, this presumably owes its existence to the fact that Norway has a lot of hydropower, and it can open the taps when demand is high.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Beginning to understand a bit more about renewables and the grid after reading the article ‘ wind and solar can’t support the grid’ at judithcurrie.com
LikeLike
dfhunter: a couple of problems with those pronouncements….
Firstly, it is blindingly obvious that anything which increases the demand for electricity will increase gas consumption, not reduce it. We do not have a deliverable surplus of zero-carbon power, nor does that look likely to happen anytime soon. Until/unless that happens, any new demand will be met by gas.
Secondly, gas-fired power generation is probably around 50% efficient, allowing for older plant, load following, etc.. Add in transmission and transformer losses and the overall efficiency is probably no better than 40%. Modern, condensing boilers are over 90% efficient so a heat pump would need a coefficient of performance of better than 2 to match the boiler – and that has to be achieved in winter and allowing for direct heating of hot water. All that guff means that a heat pump running on gas-fired power, per above, is unlikely to be any more efficient that a modern boiler and could easily be worse – as well as much more expensive to install.
LikeLiked by 2 people
An other crack in the Net Zero wall. But a paywall unfortunately:
https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/jpmorgan-is-latest-lender-to-walk-out-of-net-zero-banking-group-lp6txphmj
“An exodus of US lenders from a leading international climate coalition has intensified after JPMorgan Chase became the latest Wall Street player to leave the Net Zero Banking Alliance.
The move by America’s biggest bank comes after five other leading lenders, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup, withdrew from the climate group in recent weeks.
The spate of exits deals a blow to efforts by Mark Carney, the former Bank of England governor who is now weighing a bid to become Canada’s next prime minister, to push the financial industry to do more to cut greenhouse gas emissions. This is because the coalition is part of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (Gfanz), a broader initiative unveiled by Carney in 2021 in the run-up to the Cop26 climate conference.”
Mark Carney is reportedly thinking of running for Prime Minister of Canada. The opposition leader who is likely to win the next election calls him ” Carbon tax Carney”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“PM plans to ‘unleash AI’ across UK to boost growth”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr05jykzkxo
The government is to set out plans to use artificial intelligence (AI) across the UK to boost growth and deliver public services more efficiently.
The AI Opportunities Action Plan being announced on Monday will be backed by leading tech firms, which are said to have committed £14bn towards various projects, creating 13,250 jobs, the government said.
It includes plans for growth zones where development will be focused, and the technology will be used to help tackle issues such as potholes….
Is that the sound of someone scraping a barrel, I hear? Have these people any idea how much energy AI requires, at the very point when we are getting ever closer to blackouts in the UK? The BBC article doesn’t mention it as an issue, so far as I can see, but Politico does:
https://www.politico.eu/article/starmer-banks-on-ai-as-uk-savior-as-growth-agenda-falters/
…An AI Energy Council is also being formed, headed by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and Tech Secretary Peter Kyle to find solutions to AI’s ever-increasing demand for power. They’ll look at renewables and small modular reactors.
The plan also aims to increase the country’s public sector compute capacity by a factor of 20 by 2030. To do that, the government will commission a new supercomputer....
This government seems determined to adopt policies that are mutually exclusive and which undermine each other’s effectiveness.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Or if you believe Vice, AI is going to lead to high levels of unemployment. That is, after all, its ultimate promise: to do everything that humans need done, without people. And what of we plebs? What do we do in this brave new world, and how do we earn a crust? Do they intend that we will be glued to day time TV, and paid subsistence for doing naught?
As the saying goes, if A (General) I is invented, it will in fact be the last invention by a human, because after that, the AI will do the rest.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Meanwhile on the front page of the Times,
LikeLiked by 1 person
For a government not to do irreparable harm it is essential that it has no big ideas. This government is just full of them.
I think we should invade Saturn. Like net zero, it will show leadership to the rest of the world whilst being technically more achievable.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The Spectator has an article this morning – Labour’s kowtowing to China will cost Britain – that cites The Times Dearlove article:
Speccie readers liked my comment:
LikeLiked by 4 people
Robin,
By getting us into this position our political leaders have been unforgivably irresponsible.
Yes, yes, I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I say it makes so much more sense to invade Saturn. Just think about it for a moment:
Saturn is the bringer of old age, so any government that hates the elderly will want to invade Saturn.
Inter-planetary conquest is unbelievably expensive, so any government hell-bent on wasting money – sorry, growing the economy through investment – will want to invade Saturn.
Saturn’s atmosphere is 75% hydrogen, so any government committed to the total removal of fossil fuels will want to invade Saturn.
So I say invade it, and do it now before Trump decides to buy it.
LikeLiked by 4 people
John: I agree. As, as you said in your earlier comment, it’s technically more achievable than net zero.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Having vilified BBC Verify in my last article, I now have to give them some praise for stepping up to the plate regarding the AI announcement:
“What are the challenges facing the government’s AI action plan?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04nl711r0qo
...But Dr Stephanie Hare, an AI expert said the current minimal economic growth and the spiralling cost of borrowing made it hard to see how these new centres would be funded.
She also questioned how their energy needs would be met, warning the UK’s energy grid was not “fit for purpose” if it is to meet the ambitious aspirations set out on Monday.
The prime minister did announce a new AI Energy Council to work on “innovative energy solutions” – including Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), small nuclear generators that allow a lot of power to go to remote areas – to power the industry.
Most SMR designs though aren’t yet approved in the UK….
But then the risible semi-official response is quoted with a straight face, with no questions raised regarding its credibility:
…Sana Khareghani, a former head of the government’s Office for Artificial Intelligence, does say there could be benefits to the wider economy. She told the BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme that the UK’s leadership in the renewable energy industry could help drive AI growth.
“Continuing this clean energy leadership into the AI revolution would really give the UK a fantastic advantage,” she said.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well Mark done for praising the BBC when praise is due. But … ‘stepping up to the plate‘? Hmm.
LikeLike
Mark,
I happened to catch the BBC’s AI item on the lunchtime news yesterday. The picture they showed purporting to be a certain Dr Stephanie Hare was of some random, old bald bloke. Now, I’m no AI expert but…
LikeLike
Jo Nova has just posted an interesting article: The race to Not Zero: the beginning of the end of the climate delusion picks up speed…
Her opening paragraph:
Who indeed – but I don’t think Mad Ed will be joining the competition.
LikeLike
“Could Keir Starmer’s AI dream derail his own green energy promise?
As PM pins hopes on AI, what effect will building energy-hungry datacentres have on Labour’s clean power pledge?”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/14/keir-starmer-ai-labour-green-energy-promise
Wow – even the Guardian is sceptical:
Keir Starmer this week launched a plan to bring a 20-fold increase in the amount of artificial intelligence (AI) computing power under public control by 2030.
But the race to build more electricity hungry AI datacentres over the next five years appears to work against another government target: to plug in enough low-carbon electricity projects to create a clean power system by the same date.
The green goal was already considered to be “at the outer limit of what’s achievable” by Fintan Slye, the chief executive of the National Energy System Operator (Neso), which is responsible for delivering the net zero target. But the enormous energy appetite of an AI boom has raised concerns that the government may end up derailing the clean power pledge just months after making it one of its key election promises….
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Net Zero vs AI: Starmer Hasn’t Worked Out That The U.K. Can’t Be a ‘Superpower’ in Both Climate and Computing”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/01/16/net-zero-vs-ai-starmer-hasnt-worked-out-that-the-u-k-cant-be-a-superpower-in-both/
Behind the Daily Sceptic paywall, unfortunately.
LikeLike
I liked this extract from Ben’s article:
Absurd, embarrassing … but true.
PS: ‘larping’ means role playing.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Robin,
Starmer should forget all of this talk of being an AI or renewables superpower and stick instead to his fantasies of moral leadership. If he does nothing about these fantasies then we might just survive. Otherwise, I fear our only superpower will prove to be an unlimited capacity for self-destruction.
Putin and Starmer have a lot more in common than they would wish to admit. Both are desperately trying to regain former supremacy on the world’s stage by engaging in totally unrealistic and catastrophic projects.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes John – but most unfortunately I suspect Putin’s ambitions may be slightly more realistic than Starmer’s.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would say the Telegraph is 95% there in its analysis of the motivation behind this government’s fanatical pursuit of Net Zero, plus other nationally ruinous policies:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/15/starmer-selling-britain-down-river-like-no-pm-before-him/
Net Zero is not so much Labour’s misguided attempt to ‘save the planet’ by rigorously ‘following the science,’ it is the progressive liberal elite instituting the process of penance for our past imperialistic Industrial Revolution sins. I was saying this years ago, I think on these very pages. It doesn’t matter that the ‘science’ is post normal, post evidence, post empirical pseudoscientific garbage, it doesn’t matter that Net Zero doesn’t work or even if it does work, that it would not make a blind bit of difference to the global climate, it matters only that Brits are made to pay for the collective sins of their forebears.
Net Zero is clearly intentional, in the sense of a wrecking ball aimed squarely at the British economy, our way of life and even our cherished rural landscapes. It is moot in many ways to argue over whether the intent is malign or for the ‘greater good’ because its effect is clearly, unequivocally harmful to the British populace and the ‘benefits’ to the ‘global majority’ (non-white, non British, ‘disadvantaged’ populations) are imperceptible – barring the huge profits to be had by Green vested interests, who don’t appear to be very non-white, though many are non-British.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Jaime, as you know, it’s my view that Net Zero is indeed Labour’s misguided and cultish attempt to ‘save the planet’ by rigorously following what it believes to be the science.
We’ve exchanged views on this many times before and I know you disagree. As I’ve said before, let’s leave it at that.
LikeLike
I will continue to point to the shifting of the Overton Window (in my direction) on this very issue in the mainstream media and elsewhere Robin, because getting to the truth is more important than letting sleeping dogs lie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: I don’t want to silence you, merely to say that I disagree with you. My own position was expressed just now in a comment on a Spectator article about the closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, we both know that we disagree with each other on this important issue. I wasn’t posting in order to provoke another argument with you – even though this is your thread. I was posting because I think it is important to look at the evolution of thinking on this issue in the msm and elsewhere, based on the evidence which the current Labour administration are helpfully providing us with in abundance. That is all. Perhaps I should have resisted the temptation to point out what I was saying years ago. I did interpret your terse response however to ‘leave it at that’ as an attempt to censor the conversation. Apologies if I was wrong.
LikeLike
Jaime: no need to apologise for a misunderstanding – perhaps my phrasing was inadequate.
BTW I just now got a reply to my Speccie comment that IMHO puts it well:
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jaime, I am sitting on the fence with regard to the difference of opinion between you and Robin. Given that the difference between the current Labour government and the last Conservative team with regard to net zero is minimal, being as to timing and urgency only, would you attribute the same motivation to the Tories as the Telegraph attributes to Labour?
If so, do you think the Tories are different under Badenoch, or if re-elected would simply offer more of the same?
LikeLike
It’s funny you should ask that Mark, because here was my response earlier to somebody who was posting about the Telegraph article:
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have no hope that Bad Enoch will be any different, though Coutinho is currently starting to make the right noises, but the Tories need to be far more definitive and aggressive, admit that they were horribly wrong previously and commit unequivocally to repealing Net Zero, if not CCA2008, and regenerating our fossil fuel powered industrial sector plus the exploitation of our own considerable reserves of coal, oil and gas.
LikeLike
I’m afraid Jaime that there seems to be little realistic chance of their doing that – they seem to believe in a slightly lesser version of the cult that’s consuming Mad Ed.
In any case I believe opinion polls still indicate that most people (except those directly affected by government policy) think ‘something must be done’ about climate change. So there’s no pressure on our ‘leaders’ to change course.
LikeLike
Mark,
As I think I may have said before, I don’t think this is an argument in which there is an obvious position to take in preference to the other. To the extent that Jaime is correct, and ideology is a significant motivator, we must expect that debunking the technical premise of net zero will have limited effect. To the extent that Robin is correct, and that there is a genuinely held belief that the technical imperative underpinning net zero is valid, we must expect that a change of ideological position will also have a limited effect. I think that, to a certain extent, both issues apply to both of our main parties. Maybe one day the reality of the impracticality and pointlessness of net zero will be rammed down Milliband’s throat. Or maybe the self-destructive moralising that seems to have gripped our nation will lose its traction. We can but hope. In the meantime, I think we should continue to openly discuss both sides of the mess we find ourselves in, since they both have a relevance.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin,
Here’s a start. Maybe Bad Enoch will surprise us, but I would NEVER vote Tory again unless they commit to a legally binding manifesto pledge to ditch Net Zero and CCA2008.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/15/tories-net-zero-2050-pledge-without-plan-kemi-badenoch/
LikeLiked by 2 people
And I think Ben is correct here:
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks Jaime: both links are most interesting. The Badedoch statement could even be a small but significant breach in the net zero dam. It’s true as Ben said that ‘there was very little evidence of public appetite for the “strong climate law”’, but the evidence is threefold: (1) climate change is a priority issue for very few people; (2) there’s nonetheless a widespread popular view that ‘something should be done’ about it; and (3) but, whenever people realise that they might suffer from climate policy, they become hostile.
LikeLike
Re my Badenoch comment above, see the NZW post cited by Mark on the New Broom thread. There’s not been much sign of Kemi the new broom yet. Let’s hope – re net zero – that that’s changing. A slightly encouraging development.
LikeLike
Jaime, you quote Ben as writing, “This shows that Westminster — including Tories — was fully aware of the democratic deficit, but preferred instead the priorities of supranational political agendas. And they were quite happy to take instructions from blobs, rather than the public. They preferred this arrangement.”
This quote is perhaps a partial answer to the question that was commonly posed a few decades ago, “Britain has lost an Empire but what has it found in its place?” Thus it seemed clear that senior British politicians and civil servants were, from the end of WW2, in serious danger of losing their place at the world’s top tables and were keen to find ways to stay at the centre of power … whatever the cost to the UK.
One simple way to achieve their aim was to submit the UK to all manner of supranational organisations whatever the cost in terms of loss of sovereignty and half-baked policies; Britain could thereby, once again, be a world leader in all manner of projects e.g. become a “renewable” energy superpower (albeit dependent upon the kindness of strangers for that technology). Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime, Ben also wrote, “MPs from *all* parties were locked in a climate policy target war, each competing to be the climate champion from the mid-2000s.” I remember that time, notably the passing of the CCA when only 5 PMs voted against it. Why was the rest of the House in favour, I have often wondered. Is it only me that feels that the “ayes” did not give their INFORMED consent but rather their misinformed consent given the panicky propaganda of those days (much of it still with us, even though, as you indicate, Jaime, the Overton window is now shifting our way)?
Likewise with the response to the Covid event. Did government gain the INFORMED consent of the House to its policies?
It seems much can be achieved by government responding to a panic (real or imagined). However, I do not think it makes for good government when viewed from the popular seats on the Clapham omnibus; the view, is, I am sure, much more profitable from the standpoint of certain vested interests. So, can I buy shares in panic? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John: re the passing of the CCA in 2008 you ask ‘Is it only me that feels that the “ayes” did not give their INFORMED consent but rather their misinformed consent given the panicky propaganda of those days …?‘ I’m sure you’re not, but the Net Zero Fellow of my Oxford college thinks the vote demonstrates just how much political support the Act has. Perhaps she’s right?
LikeLike
Robin, thank you for that fascinating insight; I’m trying to get my head around it.
Yes, the vote reflected the degree of political support at that time, but did not that support come in the wake of the Stern review and, dare I say, its rather rosy view of climate change costs, especially for first adopters? Regards, John.
LikeLike
Apologies John, I quoted from memory. I’ve just checked and what she actually said was: ‘Which shows how much political support net zero has.‘ But she was commenting on the 2008 CCA vote – and net zero wasn’t agreed until 2019.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Power generation at 8:00 today (a cold Monday morning): Gas 71%, nuclear 9%, biomass 8%, wind 8%, solar 0% and (note this) interconnectors 1%.
Price: £218.41/MWh
LikeLiked by 1 person
From the FT:
Trump says he will withdraw US from Paris accord after hottest year on record
Move deals blow to worldwide efforts to slow global warming
No it doesn’t: efforts to cut emissions are getting nowhere.
PS: I don’t think this was mentioned in his inaugural speech.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
You’re right, Trump didn’t mention it. But he did say “drill baby drill” and he advised that from hereon Americans will be allowed to buy any type of car they want. The self-harming that is net zero is starting to look like a peculiarly British disease. Well, European maybe.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Power generation at 7:30 today (a cold Tuesday morning): Gas 70%, nuclear 10%, biomass 8%, wind 14%, solar 0% and (note this) interconnectors -5%.
Price: £133.72/MWh
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, she did ask them how to stop growth from flatlining.
Telegraph link
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Siemens boss warns of green energy skills shortage”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvmrzw41jvo
The boss of one of the UK’s largest manufacturers of wind turbines has said up to 500,000 more workers were needed in order to meet net zero targets in the coming years.
Darren Davidson, the UK and Ireland boss of Siemens Energy, said the green skills gap was one of the biggest challenges facing the sector as it goes through a period of “unprecedented growth”.
He also suggested that focusing too much on wind and solar at the expense of other technologies could undermine plans.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Centrica may close UK’s largest gas storage site. Is the energy system really ready?
The risks need accessing as a renewables-heavy set-up would make demand for gas more volatile and unpredictable”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2025/jan/21/centrica-may-close-uk-largest-gas-storage-site-is-the-energy-system-really-ready
Monday was another of those dunkelflaute days when the wind barely blows, the sun doesn’t shine and it’s cold. At times, gas-fired power stations were generating 70% of the UK’s electricity while windfarms and solar facilities were contributing as little as 7% combined.
It was a reminder of why, even under the government’s rapid programme to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 by expanding renewables, the current gas-fired capacity of 35GW will be retained as backup. The fossil-fuelled plants may stand idle most of the time – they are scheduled to account for only “up to 5%” of generation over a full year in 2030, versus 34.7% in 2023 – but, when they’re needed, they will sometimes still be operating at full pelt.
So here’s a question: what is the right level of gas storage for an energy set-up that will have to be more flexible in future?
It is also a pressing question because Centrica, having partly reopened the large Rough storage facility off the Yorkshire coast as recently as 2022, is already suggesting it may close it again….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whilst he said nothing in his inaugural speech, Trump clarified his intention to withdraw from the Paris agreement during his ceremony at the Capitol One Arena, and it is fair to say that the BBC’s Matt McGrath is not happy:
Trump vows to leave Paris climate agreement and ‘drill, baby, drill’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20px1e05w0o
The consequences are spelled out:
Firstly, it was not ‘established in the Paris agreement’, it simply formed part of that agreement. There is a huge difference. Secondly, the level was arbitrarily set at 1.5C at the behest of Schellnhuber after it had initially been arbitrarily set at 2.0C. This target was not set to avoid extremely dangerous impacts but ostensibly to reduce the risk of such impacts to a level that was deemed acceptable. Again, there is a huge difference there. Thirdly, the fact that the Paris agreement is not legally binding is Trump’s big problem with it. McGrath knows this but chooses to play down the issue with:
The evidence would seem to suggest that it is driving nothing of the sort. It is, however, having some success in driving a global move to redistribute wealth. It also seems to be enjoying a great deal of success in damaging some economic power bases to the advantage of others.
LikeLiked by 6 people
McGrath also says:
Maybe if China had actually done anything – other than ramp up coal use so that it now accounts for over half the world’s total – there would not have been such a backlash? All in it together, etc?
We all know that China wants to exempt itself from any climate policy costs, while exploiting Western (now European) anguish by selling us green electricity paraphernalia built by slaves.
Come on, McGrath.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Jit,
My oh my, the Chinese are concerned. I can’t imagine why.
LikeLiked by 1 person
McKitrick may have read the Executive Orders more carefully than McGrath.
https://x.com/rdrake98/status/1881769208381595794
LikeLike
Mark – wrt that Siemens article –
“He also suggested that focusing too much on wind and solar at the expense of other technologies could undermine plans“
From the same article – “Siemens Energy owns the country’s biggest factory for wind turbine blades, in Hull, which opened in 2016 and now has 1,300 workers”
And – “There are also plans to decarbonise the power grid by 2030.
Mr Davidson said in order to achieve this, more action was also needed on other technologies like hydrogen and long-duration energy storage.
Siemens Energy also has a gas turbine factory in Lincoln that employs about 1,500 people. Mr Davidson said he wanted to adapt the plant so it can operate on hydrogen gas.
“If the conditions are correct, that is something that we would look to invest in, but we need to have confidence in the market before we decide to,” he added.”
Sounds like a veiled threat to me, gain 1,300 jobs, but lose 1,500 if hydrogen gas is not an option for the plant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe I am being a bit harsh on Siemens Energy in above comment after reading Marks Guardian link above – partial quote –
“The economics of gas storage, the company says, only work when the difference, or spread, between summer and winter prices is wide. That was the case in the two years after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but not now. Centrica has not ruled out closure of Rough, which currently represents half the UK’s gas storage capacity, before next winter.
One reaction to such warnings-cum-threats is to say Centrica is engaged in self-interested lobbying in search of its long-desired long-term deal with the government that would also cover eventual conversion of Rough to store hydrogen, the coming energy source (possibly) for the UK’s industrial plants in the 2030s.”
Seems the push for “hydrogen, the coming energy source (possibly)” has more traction than I thought.
LikeLike
Power generation at 7:00 today (22 Jan): Gas 74%, nuclear 11%, biomass 9%, wind (note this) 1%, solar 0% and interconnectors 4%.
£128.53/MWh
LikeLike
“Britain faces bidding war with Europe to keep lights on amid wind power slump”
It’s going well. Telegraph link.
LikeLiked by 3 people
From that Telegraph article:
Britain is at risk of entering a bidding war with Europe for electricity, as countries race to lock in supplies after a sharp drop in wind power.
Cold temperatures combined with calm weather have increased energy pressures across Europe, as dwindling domestic generation has led to traders competing to buy electricity.
The UK is typically able to rely on interconnector cables linking it to France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway when in need of bolstering energy supplies.
However, those countries have also been hit by the same still and gloomy weather in recent weeks, meaning they have less spare power to export...
LikeLiked by 1 person
Matt Ridley on Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreement at Spiked.
A good summary of Paris’s problems, but nothing that will be new to seasoned denialists.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jit: as you say there’s nothing new (for us) in Ridley’s article. But he does put it well. His conclusion is a good example:
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Cut net zero burden to grow economy, Bank tells Reeves
Chancellor warned that thicket of climate requirements makes City risk-taking harder”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/01/21/cut-net-zero-obligations-grow-economy-boe-tells-reeves/
The Bank of England should be freed from burdensome net zero rules to help grow the economy, Rachel Reeves has been told.
Sam Woods, the head of the Bank’s Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), said the thicket of climate requirements imposed by Westminster was impeding efforts to boost growth.
In a letter to the Chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer, Mr Woods said the requirement for the Bank to “have regard” for dozens of different “climate and the environment” issues made it harder to encourage risk-taking in the City and take a more light-touch approach to regulation.
Mr Woods raised the issue in response to a call from Ms Reeves for ideas on how to improve Britain’s flatlining growth rate....
That last paragraph is a delicious irony. Now we’ll find out if Reeves is serious about growth!
LikeLiked by 1 person
A few of Trump’s Executive Orders:
• Withdraw from the Paris Agreement
• Stop payments to UN climate funds
• No more offshore wind turbines
• Cancel electric vehicle mandates
• Boost American energy production
• Declare a national energy emergency
• End censorship and protect freedom of speech
Not a bad start!
LikeLiked by 3 people
There’s an interesting article in the Spectator today headed: How Donald Trump could really help Ukraine
The author, James Hanson, makes a point that’s very relevant here:
Hanson concludes:
Just one example of the many benefits of Trump’s new energy policy. A pity we’re not following suit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Today’s FT:
Reeves says growth ‘trumps’ net zero as Heathrow runway decision looms
Chancellor will indicate backing for west London airport expansion next week
It seems the paper’s subeditor may have struggled a bit with that verb – hence the inverted commas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Industry will ‘not be able to bear’ net zero tax, Miliband warned“
Unfortunately, rather than demanding that the carbon price be removed entirely, the intensive energy group are pleading for tech solutions: carbon capture at the factory, and substitution by hydrogen for process heat. None of this is going to be any more affordable than the warned-of £172 per tonne C price.
Telegraph link.
LikeLiked by 1 person