In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the 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% to 100%i, creating the Net Zero policy (i.e. any remaining emissions must be offset by equivalent removals from the atmosphere).
Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, potentially disastrous and pointless. And that’s true whether or not Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to increased global temperatures.
1. It’s unachievable.
1.1 A modern economy depends on fossil fuels. And that’s unlikely to change until well after 2050, if ever.ii Examples fall into two categories: (i) products such as ammonia for fertilisers, cement and concrete, primary steel, plastics, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, semiconductors, lubricants, solvents, paints, resins, adhesives, insulation, tyres and asphalt; and (ii) vehicles and machines such as those used in agriculture, mining and quarrying, mineral processing, building, the transportation of heavy goods, commercial shipping, commercial aviation and military and emergency services. 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
1.2 Wind is Britain’s most effective source of renewable electricity – because of our latitude solar can make only a small contribution. But wind power also has significant problems: (i) the substantial costs of subsidising, building, operating, maintaining and replacing (when worn-out) the turbines needed for Net Zero – all exacerbated by high interest rates; (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing, as required for renewables, an expanded, stable and reliable high voltage grid by 2030 as planned by the Government; (iii) the vast scale of what’s involved (a host of enormous wind turbines, immense amounts of space iv and substantial quantities of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials and components v); and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see 2 below).vi This means that Britain may be unable to generate sufficient electricity for current needs by 2030 let alone for the mandated EVs and heat pumps and the energy requirements of industry and the huge new data centres being developed to support for example the Government’s plans for the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI).vii
1.3 In any case, Britain 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 that’s exacerbated by the Government’s plans for a massive programme of house building.viii
2. It’s potentially disastrous.
2.1 The Government aims for 95% renewable electricity by 2030, but hasn’t published a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of grid-scale back-up and network stability when there’s little or no wind or sun; a problem that’s exacerbated by the likely retirement of elderly nuclear and gas power plants. The Government has indicated that the problem may be resolved by the provision of new gas-fired power plants ix or possibly by ‘green’ hydrogen or batteries. But gas plants have an eight year lead time and our offshore gas supplies are diminishing.x Gas is obviously not a ‘clean’ solution and it seems the Government’s answer is to fit gas plants with carbon capture and underground storage (CCS) systems. But green hydrogen and CCS are extremely expensive, controversial, commercially unproven at scale and in any case unlikely to be available until well after 2030.xi This issue is desperately important: without a solution, electricity blackouts are likely, potentially ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems including serious health risks for everyone, particularly the most vulnerable. And note: the blackout in Spain on 28th April this year (the result it seems of over reliance on solar power and lack of ‘grid inertia’xii) caused at least 8 deaths.xiii
2.2 Another major Net Zero problem is its overall cost and the impact of that on the economy. Because there’s no comprehensive plan for the project’s delivery, it’s impossible to produce an accurate estimate of overall cost; but, with several trillion pounds a likely estimate, it could well be unaffordable.xiv The borrowing and taxes required for costs at this scale would put a huge burden on millions of households and businesses and, particularly in view of the economy’s many current problemsxv, could further jeopardise Britain’s increasingly vulnerable international credit standing and threaten its economic viability.
2.3 But Net Zero is already contributing to a serious economic concern: essentially because of the massive system costs of renewables (e.g. subsidies, carbon taxes, grid balancing, grid expansion, ‘constraint’ payments (compensation for having to switch off) and the cost of back-up to cope with intermittency), Britain has the highest industrial and amongst the highest domestic electricity prices in the developed world.xvi The additional costs referred to elsewhere – for example updating the grid, the costs of investment in ‘green’ hydrogen, of developing CCS for low emission power and industrial processes and for fitting to gas-fired power plants used as back-up – can only make this worse. And high energy costs are making household energy bills unaffordable and are undermining the Government’s principal mission of increased economic growth.
2.4 The pursuit of Net Zero’s increases our dangerous reliance on other countries. For example the refusal to grant licences for further North Sea oil and gas means more uncertain imports of natural gas and of European generated electricity. Far more concerning however is our unwise dependence on China’s goodwill, exacerbated for example by its effective control of the supply of key materials (e.g. lithium, cobalt, graphite, nickel, copper and so-called rare earths) essential for the manufacture of renewables; this dependence could be seriously damaging to Britain’s national security. Threats include for example communication devices (so-called ‘kill switches’) found in Chinese-built power inverters.xvii
2.5 Moreover Britain’s growing number of offshore wind turbines and undersea cables are also becoming increasingly vulnerable to sabotage – and offshore turbines can interfere with vital air defences.xviii
2.6 Renewables are particularly mineral intensive and the vast mining and mineral processing operations they require are already causing horrific 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.xix The continued and growing pursuit of Net Zero will make all this far worse. However an important consequence of that growth is that renewables’ increasing demand for key minerals for which demand exceeds likely supply may threaten their future viability.xx
3. It’s pointless.
3.1 It’s absurd to regard the closure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting activities here and their ‘export’ mainly to South East Asia (especially China), to plants commonly with poor environmental regulation and powered by coal-fired electricity – thereby increasing global emissions – as a positive step towards Net Zero. Yet, because of efforts to ‘decarbonise’ Britain, that’s what’s happening; it’s why our chemical and fertiliser industries face extinctionxxi and why the closure of our remaining blast furnaces would end our ability to produce commercially viable primary steel (see end note 3). These concerns apply also to most of the machines and other products listed in the first paragraph of item 1 above.xxii It means that Britain, instead of manufacturing or extracting key products and materials itself, is increasingly importing them in CO2 emitting ships from around the world. A related absurdity is our importing vast amounts of wood for the subsidised Drax power plant, Britain’s biggest emitter of CO2 – burning a fuel that emits more CO2 than coal.xxiii
3.2 The USAxxiv plus most non-Western countries – together the source of over 80% of global GHG emissions and home to about 85% 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.xxv As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. As Britain is the source of only 0.7% of global emissions any further emission reduction it makes (even to zero) would make no discernible difference to the global position.xxvi
In other words, Net Zero means that Britain is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, potentially disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that imperils our national security and could result in Britain’s economic destruction.
Robin Guenier December 2025
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: http://tiny.cc/xli9001 Also see this: https://co2coalition.substack.com/p/climate-faithful-admit-need-for-fossil
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
v See paragraph 2.4 of the main article. Also: https://energydigital.com/sustainability/mckinsey-2030-battery-raw-material-outlook
vi For a comprehensive view of wind power’s many problems, see this: https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/. And re the AI conundrum:
vii Re the AI dilemma: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/14/keir-starmer-ai-labour-green-energy-promise and https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-ai-energy-council-climate-change-gas-data-centers/
viii A detailed Government report: http://tiny.cc/bgg5001 See also pages 10 and 11 of the Royal Academy of Engineering report (Note 6 below). Also see: http://tiny.cc/0mm9001
ix See this report by the Royal Academy of Engineering: http://tiny.cc/qlm9001 (Go to section 2.4.3 on page 22.) This interesting report contains a lot of valuable information.
x https://watt-logic.com/2025/12/30/offshore-pipeline-closure-risk/
xi Re CCS: http://tiny.cc/emi9001, and https://heimildin.is/grein/24581/. Re hydrogen: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-2-14-when-you-crunch-the-numbers-green-hydrogen-is-a-non-starter.
xii An energy specialist reviews the facts and risks here: https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/09/the-iberian-blackout-shows-the-dangers-of-operating-power-grids-with-low-inertia/
xiii See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Iberian_Peninsula_blackout.
xiv 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
xv A worrying view of the current state of Britain’s economy: http://tiny.cc/nli9001
xvi For international price comparisons see Table 5.3.1 here: http://tiny.cc/9kbt001. Note that the UK’s industrial electricity price is well above that of our international competition. And note, from Table 5.7.1, that the UK gas price is about average and from table 5.5.1, that domestic electricity prices are exceptionally high. Also see this comprehensive report: https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/19/new-report-the-true-affordability-of-net-zero/
xvii See http://tiny.cc/0gvj001. An article by Richard Dearlove (ex-head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)) on national security risk and net zero: http://tiny.cc/wbev001/. Re ‘kill switches’: http://tiny.cc/vgvj001.
xviii Re vulnerability concerns: http://tiny.cc/9ruf001 and http://tiny.cc/xau9001. This essay by Dieter Helm (Professor of Economic Policy at Oxford) covers vulnerability and much else: http://tiny.cc/dtyf001
xix See http://tiny.cc/gtazzz, http://tiny.cc/unx8001 and https://eia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/EIA_US_Wind_Turbine_Timber_Report_1024_FINAL.pdf. And harrowing evidence is found in Siddharth Kara’s book Cobalt Red : http://tiny.cc/nmm9001. For more detailed views of minerals’ environmental and economic costs: http://tiny.cc/klz9001, and http://tiny.cc/qj0u001
xx A problem that’s reviewed here: http://tiny.cc/6dzq001
xxi As explained here: http://tiny.cc/chg5001
xxii A current example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70zxjldqnxo
xxiii See this: https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/drax-is-still-the-uks-largest-emitter/. And this Public Accounts Committee report: http://tiny.cc/qpwh001
xxiv Note: Trump’s abandoning of plans for renewables is not really such a huge change for the US as, despite his climate policies, the oil and gas industries flourished under Biden: http://tiny.cc/2ww1001
xxv This essay explains how over the past 30 years non Western countries have taken control of international climate negotiations: https://cliscep.com/2025/12/08/the-west-vs-the-rest/
xxvi This comprehensive EU analysis provides detailed information by country re global greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO2 emissions: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2024?vis=ghgtot#emissions_table.
Climate Scepticism 
Over the last few weeks I’ve made several detailed changes to the text and endnotes on my ‘master’ copy, so thought it was time for another update. It will be interesting to see just how well it relates to whatever horrors 2026 may bring regarding UK climate policy – or maybe they’ll be some pleasant surprises although I’m not holding my breath.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Top marks for perseverance (Ed 13). As an engineer I always railed against a hoped-for definitive Ed 1 (final version) which in practice never stood the test of time.
Your impeccable arguments against the lunacy of Net Zero are laudable. I fear there is little hope that these arguments will influence our globalist puppet politicians who seem intent on using Net Zero (and other malfeasances) to deliberately wreck our economy and society. I only hope your arguments may persuade a few more “floating voters” to swing their votes against our Net Zero oppressors.
LikeLike
Climate/renewables hoaxers can’t win this argument, so they plan to shut down the people making it:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/12/31/welcome-to-2026-europe-laying-groundwork-for-climate-science-censorship/
LikeLiked by 1 person
To complement what Jaime has said about censorship, I quote the concluding section of Kathryn Porter’s latest posting
https://watt-logic.com/2026/01/01/energy-security-threats-manifest/
START OF QUOTE
Trouble is brewing
My theory about what we are seeing: after the end of the Cold War we began to take security for granted, believing that existential threats had receded. Despite the emergence of terrorist threats post 9/11, this line of thinking does not appear to have changed the driving philosophies of Western governments in the post Cold War era. The lack of existential threat meant that attention could be diverted to “doing things nicely” leading to an explosion in regulation and a debt funded expansion of the state to execute these nice things (huge growth [in] regulators, major expansion of benefits and welfare and so on).
After decades, the affordability of this debt is starting to erode, while the red tape has strangled growth and created economic stagnation. On top of this, decision-making has been delegated to non-governmental bodies, reducing accountability and making policy change harder. This post cold war model is running now out of steam – bond markets are signalling the end of this particular road. Political elites are responding by increasingly trying to control speech, a typical sign of political models in decline.
The question is whether the reset can be peaceful, avoiding extreme financial hardship. My guess is that in some countries there will be unrest (eg France) and in some there will be real hardship (could be any of us).
What does this mean for energy? Meaningful changes in direction of policy will be hard without governance reform, but maintaining the current direction of travel will be financially constrained as well as limited by the physical realities of our energy systems.
END OF QUOTE
We should also note that Kathryn has been threatened; here is a what she said earlier in the aforementioned article, “2025 was also a landmark year for me personally, as some of my content went viral and I became a little bit famous in energy circles which has had some interesting consequences – being asked for selfies is strange, getting death threats is disturbing.”
This suggests to me that she (and we) are over the target and are going to take a lot more heavy flak before the “current renewables” money machine Leviathan is brought low.
Speed the plough! … but stay safe.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“‘Just an unbelievable amount of pollution’: how big a threat is AI to the climate?”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/03/just-an-unbelievable-amount-of-pollution-how-big-a-threat-is-ai-to-the-climate
...Some experts fear datacentres may derail the shift to a clean economy, adding an unnecessary hurdle to the quixotic task of keeping the planet from heating 1.5C (2.7F). Others are sanguine about the energy costs, arguing they pale in comparison not just to polluting industries, but also to the technology’s power to reshape society.
How big a threat is AI to the climate? And could it help more than it harms?…
Interesting that a Guardian article refers to the task of keeping the planet from heating 1.5C as “quixotic“.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well spotted Mark. Surely the Guardian didn’t mean that?
(BTW I think this item – an international story – should perhaps be posted under ‘the West vs. the Rest‘, just as the mini thread there about the absurd ‘hottest year evah‘ claim – a UK story – should really be here.)
LikeLike
If AI datacentres do derail the transition to a ‘clean’ economy, that can’t be all bad. Because let’s face it, a ‘clean’ economy is one where local and national governments wash, rinse and spin money from local and national tax bases straight into the hands of foreign corporations, NGOs, supranational entities and international ’causes’ – and last, but not least, into the funding of foreign wars. ‘Clean’ power is one of the principal means of doing that.
LikeLike
Since Jaime wrote about “spin[ning] money from local and national tax bases straight into the hands of foreign corporations, NGOs, supranational entities and international ’causes’ ” I thought it would be pertinent to recall the conclusion of Mark Hodgson’s post https://cliscep.com/2025/01/26/where-did-all-the-money-go/ which is subtitled, “Far, far away …”
Mark concluded, “When considering all the above money that is leaching out of the country, bear in mind that these are just the CfD payments, an absurdly large, but only one part of the overall subsidy regime. And of course, subsidies represent only some of the vast amounts of money we are paying for renewable energy. It’s bad enough that we are over-paying for energy. In addition, to damage our already weak balance of payments in an ongoing and growing manner, while making us dependent on foreign companies whose overriding objective is to make money (except possibly the Chinese companies, for whom national security objectives might rank higher) is absurd. This not what national financial or energy security looks like.”
To add a little New Year’s icing to Mark’s cake, perhaps a quote from Kathryn Porter would fit the bill, https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/19/new-report-the-true-affordability-of-net-zero/ Kathryn wrote, “Renewables are not and never will be cheap
The public has been seduced by narratives that renewables are cheap, believing them because the wind and the sun are “free”, and ignoring the fact that the machines necessary to convert their energy to electricity are very far from being free, and for the most part are actually very expensive. That renewables are not cheap should be clear, based both on the evidence that after 35 years of subsidies, we are yet to see any benefits through lower bills.
Indeed, the evidence suggests that consumers would have been almost £220 billion better off financially (in £2025) had the energy transition not been attempted. “
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Having written the note above I delved into my trusty politics dictionary [Ref. 1] and looked at the entry on State Capture, which reads:-
“‘State capture’ obtains when a small number of firms (or such entities as the military) is able to shape the rules of the game to its advantage through massive illicit, and non-transparent provision of private benefits to officials and politicians. Examples of such behaviour include the ability to control legislative votes, to obtain favourable executive decrees and court decisions. A relatively new concept … it echoes that of ‘crony capitalism’ and covers cases where high-level corruption is pervasive …”
For some reason it made me think first of the Covid-19 event and then of the many Net Zero events.
Reference 1. McLean & McMillan, “Concise Dictionary of Politics”, Oxford, 3rd ed., 2009, page 509.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
“The climate climbdown is finally upon us”
Fraser Myers of Spiked is more optimistic than I am, certainly regarding the UK.
LikeLike
He makes a lot of good points that are familiar to us and to anyone who visits us. Sadly, however, I share your scepticism about his optimism. The lunatics will probably be in charge of the day for at least the next three years, which means no change of direction in the UK during that time.
The irony, of course, is that most of the rest of the world (even, increasingly, the EU) is waking up to the folly of net zero. Yet, as the rest of the world turns away from the net zero cliff, the UK government (plus the devolved ones in Scotland and Wales) continue to head straight for the cliff edge, while failing to look over their shoulder. Thus they still don’t realise that they aren’t leading anyone else anywhere.
LikeLike
“Electrical equipment shortage threatens net zero, Hitachi warns Miliband
Energy boss says unprecedented demand for electricity adding to pressure”
https://archive.ph/66pTi#selection-2655.4-2659.76
A shortage of electrical equipment threatens to derail Ed Miliband’s flagship net zero targets, a leading manufacturer has warned.
Hitachi, the world’s leading producer of high-voltage transformers, said a critical lack of kit could leave UK power operators unable to expand the grid fast enough to achieve clean electricity by 2030.
Laura Fleming, Hitachi’s UK managing director, said this shortfall was caused by unprecedented demand for electricity combined with a shortage of raw materials and skilled labour.
This has led to soaring prices and delayed deliveries for electrical equipment crucial to net zero….
Well worth a read regarding the technical issues undermining Miliband’s net zero plans.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jit/Mark: I quite liked that Fraser Myers article but share your scepticism about its applicability to the UK. But his opening comments interested and worried me. He said:
I think it’s significant that Fraser, a sceptic, has made exactly the same error as Justin Rowlatt in his comment on the ‘hottest year evah’ report. The truth – as discussed HERE – is that the Paris Agreement was a failure (for the West): the Parties did not pledge to ‘cut carbon emissions‘ and there never has been a ‘political consensus on climate change‘.
LikeLiked by 2 people
8.10am today in the UK, gas is producing 65.4% of the UK’s electricity; solar is producing nothing; wind is producing 6.9%. The price is £212.79 per MWh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s just as well that France and Norway are contributing 10%.
LikeLike
“Britain’s Surging Reliance on Gas Deals Fresh Blow to Miliband Net Zero Hopes”
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/01/08/britains-surging-reliance-on-gas-deals-fresh-blow-to-net-zero/
…Gas-fired power plants generated 26.8% of power in 2025, a rise of 1.1% from the year prior, according to new figures from the Government’s National Energy System Operator (Neso).
This stemmed largely from reduced nuclear output across Britain, as the country’s nine remaining reactors were hit by technical faults and unplanned blackouts.
The latest figures also revealed that the UK relied on imports for up to 14% of its electricity last year, with London and the South East frequently powered by energy from France.
Increased reliance on fossil fuels and continued imports from overseas will raise fresh scrutiny over the Energy Secretary’s goal of attaining clean power by 2030….
I asked AI about how much gas is relied on to generate electricity in the UK in the winter. I’m not entirely sure whether to turst it, but this is what it said:
According to official government and National Grid ESO data:
I think it’s not insignificant that our reliance on gas increases at the very time of year when demand rises, i.e. when we have most need for electricity (and for that matter gas to heat our homes). It’s a pretty damning indictment of renewables that they supply a greater percentage of electricity as need/demand reduces (in the summer) and less when need/demand increases (in the winter).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I doubt if anyone at Cliscep is likely to be surprised by this Telegraph headline:
Miliband ‘to miss net zero targets by 15 years’Energy Secretary highly unlikely to achieve 95pc decarbonised electricity grid by 2030https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/01/12/miliband-to-miss-net-zero-targets-by-15-years
An extract:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Irony barely begins to describe it:
“Cold weather and data centres drive up US greenhouse gas emissions”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9r3832j47o
A very cold start to 2025 and the growing power demands of data centres and cryptocurrencies saw US emissions of planet-warming gases rise for the first time in three years, a new analysis shows.
Last year homes burned more gas for heating while the use of coal surged by 13% to meet rising electricity demands, the data finds.
Although solar power also shot up last year, overall, greenhouse gas emissions went up by 2.4% after two years of decreases, outpacing the level of economic growth, according to estimates from the Rhodium Group.
The authors say the policies of the Trump administration didn’t “meaningfully impact” the rise in emissions but they expect this to change in the coming years.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kathryn Porter (Watt-Logic) has recently published an important report titled ‘Electrification – can the grid cope?’ It’s long, detailed, interesting and possibly rather intimidating. However she’s also published an excellent and very accessible summary: https://watt-logic.com/2026/01/12/electrification-can-the-grid-cope/.
Her conclusion:
Good stuff. But is there even a remote possibility of Miliband following her excellent advice? Sadly there’s no need to answer that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Further to the above Ms Porter summarises her view on electrification in this short video: https://x.com/GWPF_org/status/2011068247114764317?mc_cid=8574bd3114&mc_eid=4c64ced7e9
LikeLike
The Guardian now has the irony-packed story about growing US greenhouse gas emissions.
“US carbon pollution rose in 2025 in reversal of previous years’ reductions
Study from research firm finds that US greenhouse gas emissions grew faster than economic activity last year”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/13/us-carbon-emissions-increase-2025
Not content with the level of irony already contained within the story, the Guardian placed these two (arguably mutually contradictory) paragraphs next to each other:
…Solar power generation jumped 34%, pushing it past hydroelectric power, with zero-carbon emitting energy sources now supplying 42% of US power, Rhodium found. It will be interesting to see what happens as the Trump administration ends solar and wind subsidies and discourages their use, King said.
“The economic case for adding renewables is quite strong still,” King said. “This stuff is cost-competitive in a lot of places. Try as they might, this administration can’t alter the fundamental economics of this stuff.”…
Ending subsidies means that things will get “interesting” when it comes to seeing how renewables fare going forward. Yet there’s a “strong economic case” for renewables, which are cost-competitive “in a lot of places”. Well then, where’s the harm in removing the subsidies, and allowing the market to decide? If, as we’re constantly being told (falsely) renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, they will surely come out on top in a straight fight based on cost-competitiveness and the strong economic case in their favour. Except, remove the subsidies, and they melt away like snow off a dyke ( as we say in Cumbria).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paul Homewood and David Turver have both published excoriating articles about the recent CfD auction (AR7): HERE and HERE.
Two extracts:
Homewood:
Turver:
Do read both.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Net Zero Watch’s latest “Samizdat” has a link to an excellent report by Sky on the demise of the UK’s chemical industry.
Warning: it is a thoroughly miserable story, both for the litany of closures and the lack of government awareness of the implications for the economy and security.
NZW Samizdat: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQfBQFnbMVXvvxphJnMfBnwhZMQ
LikeLike
MikeH: that sounds like an important but depressing story. Unfortunately your link doesn’t work (for me).
LikeLike
You can watch the report here:
LikeLike
Thanks Jit. As Mike said, it’s a thoroughly miserable story. Particularly so because no one was willing to state the obvious: that the first step towards achieving a solution must be to abandon the mad net zero policy. The only hint was that we should rethink, make some changes (the word used was ‘re-mould’) and then resume the ‘move towards net zero’. If people continue to think like that, Britain will simply sink further and further into the mire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ben Pile has also picked up this story in an article HERE. Of course it’s not quite true that ‘no one is talking about de-industrialisation’: see paragraph 3.1 of the subject essay and especially its endnotes 21 and 22.
LikeLike
It might be worth, in the context of that film, noting that right now gas is supplying 56.1% of the UK’s electricity, solar is supplying 0.1%, wind 13.3%, and the interconnectors 9.9%. the price is £110.88 per MWh.
LikeLike
Robin, while I agree 100% that Net Zero should be abandoned forthwith, I fear that our chemical industry is beyond hope. Too much has been lost and there will not be any attempt at recovery in the present circumstances which are set to persist for many years to come.
On that depressing note I’m off to the pub to cheer myself up (while it’s still open!).
LikeLiked by 1 person
It looks as though things were a bit tight earlier this month, though NESO is preening itself regarding the fact that it managed to keep the lights on, albeit at a cost:
“What happened with margins on 8 January?”
https://www.neso.energy/news/what-happened-margins-8-january
...On Tuesday 7 and Wednesday 8 January, with very low temperatures, high demand and weather warnings in place across large parts of the country, it was not a surprise that we needed to use our standard operational tools, which were an Electricity Margin Notice and a Capacity Market Notice to inform the market.
There has been some speculation about the seriousness of the situation and how much margin we had available as well as the accuracy of our forecasts and the prices paid to some generation assets....
...The key challenges for Wednesday evening were a drop of around 2GW in wind forecast and an increase in demand – these were weather driven factors.
There was also roughly 3GW of interconnection to Continental Europe, which were unavailable exacerbating the position between supply and demand, as well as some generators on maintenance outages.
This is not unusual at this time of year, as maintenance is carried out over the Christmas period and returns typically through January. This is why in the Winter Outlook published in early October we highlighted this period as when margins are generally forecast to be most tight.
The Electricity Margin Notice (EMN) – a standard tool in our operational toolbox – was issued at 20:30 on Tuesday 7 January showing a shortfall of 1,700MW compared to where we would want the margin to be for the period 16:00 to 19:00 on 8 January.
The Demand Flexibility Service auction was activated at 09:00 on 8 January; the auction results secured 92MW – 184MW of demand turn down between 16:00 and 19:00. This service, facilitated by energy suppliers and aggregators, pays customers to shift their energy usage outside of a particular time window to lower the level of peak demand.
A Capacity Margin Notice (CMN) was also automatically generated at 12:01 showing a shortfall for the half-hour starting 16:30. The CMN was automatically cancelled at 12:32, as the shortfall had been overcome….
…The costs NESO incurred for balancing the system on 8 January were £21M. This compares with a cost of £25M on 14 January 2022.….
In fairness, NESO did keep the lights on, so perhaps they are entitled to preen a little bit. But it beggard belief that we now have a system that is so badly-designed and not fit for use that this situation is expected to arrive every winter.
LikeLike
Mike: sadly I agree with you – we lost most of our once leading chemical industry long ago. But, as Jim Radcliffe argues HERE, all may not quite be lost – yet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A more accessible link to Jim Ratcliffe’s article in the Telegraph is this:
https://archive.ph/xAD86
LikeLike
Germany is often credited with leading the headlong rush into renewables and the abandonment of reliable, dispatchable energy. They are now performing the U-turn to end all U-turns. A week or two back they obtained clearance from the EU to build 10 GW of gas-fired generation by 2030 (and with plans to take that to 21 GW later). Now the Chancellor has just announced a return to nuclear power, admitting that closing their nukes was a strategic mistake.
Given that our government is addicted to u-turns, might they follow suit? We can but hope.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The German nuclear U-turn is discussed by Jo Nova here.
I have seen no UK mainstream media reporting this. Merz is quoted as saying:
The Turkish Anadolu Agency is one of the few outlets reporting it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The same Jo Nova article has a link to an open letter to NZ’s PM by farmer John Riddell on hidden subsidies for intermittent wind and solar. Worth reading.
LikeLike
Jit, Thanks for putting up the link to Jo Nova’s post. That’s where I read about the U-turn but forgot to give the source. She also posted about the German dash for gas a week or two back.
LikeLike
What will Germany’s dash-for-gas do to the lead times (delivery times) for gas-turbines? They are aleady measured in years! Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John C, I think Kathryn Porter has said that lead times are at least 5 years.
LikeLike
Chris Morrison has another outstanding article on the Climate Skeptic:
Climate Change is Not Causing Mass Extinctions, Says Bombshell Royal Society Paper
Extinction rates are actually falling
It’s full of excellent material. For example I liked this in particular:
Well worth reading if possible.
LikeLike
I can find nothing at all on the BBC website about the recent changes in Germany’s energy policy. In fact I can’t find it any of the mainstream media, but there’s plenty on the internet if you look (on more specialist websites). It’s pretty shameful that the MSM are looking the other way and declining to report on what is a pretty significant development, which really ought to have implications for the UK’s energy policy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John C, Even if Germany can source gas turbines quickly, where are they going to find the gas to power them? The EU has committed to stopping the imports of Russian LNG from the end of this year (iirc) which will put pressure on other supplies.
LikeLike
Germany lead the way for the “Green Energy” revolution, they where the poster child for the UK to follow & follow we have. Now that reality bites for Germany, and has been for a while, they eventually try to back peddle.
As noted, the UK MSM are not interested, and seem to have relegated Germany poster child status to the back pages, with no lesson learned.
ps – to be fair to the MSM, Trump dominates the news, so they may get round to covering it later.
LikeLike