The EU’s net zero retreat is gathering steam
By Paul Homewood
Building new gas power plants will, of course, “only make the transition to renewables-based power unnecessarily costly”. How do I know? Because I heard it from a bunch of climate activists calling themselves Beyond Fossil Fuels. What’s more, building new gas plants runs contrary to the “emerging consensus” that Europe must phase out all fossil fuel-generation of power by 2035.
I’m used to activists making sweeping assertions and talking in generalities rather than addressing the boring old details like how we keep the lights on when there is little in the way of wind and solar energy on offer, but this really does take the biscuit. Only a “consensus” of climate activists with their heads in the clouds – plus Ed Miliband – thinks we could save consumers money by closing down all our gas power plants in the near future. Judge European governments by their actions rather than their words and the clear consensus is that we are very much going to need gas power in the future. As Beyond Fossil Fuels itself reveals, Britain is not the only country that is building new gas plants. Across Europe, 72 gigawatts-worth of them are being planned. This may well be contrary to the targets governments have set themselves to decarbonise their power sectors, but when forced to make a choice between virtue-signalling and keeping the lights on they are invariably choosing the latter.
It ought to be obvious that you cannot construct a national grid on solar and wind power alone. Renewables are great on a sunny, windy day like today when wind and solar farms between them are generating 21 gigawatts of power. It is rather less good on calm winter evenings when they can struggle to generate 1 gigawatt. What makes it possible to incorporate so much wind and solar power in our energy mix is gas power plants, which can be turned up or down at short notice to balance variable and unpredictable renewable power.
Only a “consensus” of climate activists with their heads in the clouds – plus Ed Miliband – thinks we could save consumers money by closing down all our gas power plants in the near future
Take gas away and you have a serious problem. We could store energy in lithium batteries or pumped storage reservoirs – but at a very high cost. We could theoretically use surplus power to generate hydrogen via electrolysis of water, store the hydrogen in underground caverns and burn it to generate power on windless and sunless days – except that the technology doesn’t yet exist on a commercial scale and when it does it is likely to be as expensive, if not more so, than lithium batteries. It certainly won’t be saving consumers money.
Rather than seeing gas a great evil, green lobbyists should see it for what it is: part of a system which has allowed us hugely to reduce carbon emissions from power generation over the past three decades. It has enabled us to all-but banish coal power plants – a form of energy which, gigawatt for gigawatt, produces around twice as many carbon emissions. And it has enabled the rollout of wind and solar by providing reliable back-up. Moreover, it may be possible in future to fit gas plants with carbon capture technology – although that won’t be cheap, either.
Green lobbyists are making themselves an irrelevance by turning against all fossil fuels in all circumstances. Governments may have nodded along with their demands up until now, by setting net zero targets. But clearly, when ideology collides with reality, governments are not going to sacrifice the well-being of their citizens. The move to build new gas plants is yet one more sign of Europe’s retreat from unrealistic net zero targets.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/27/europes-net-zero-retreat-is-gathering-steam/
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Hydrogen is difficult to handle, and is so light that it tends to escape the earth’s atmosphere, but is an essential component of the natural system. So nature’s way is to fix it by attaching it to carbon so it can be safely managed, and oxidised in due course to produce energy where needed, with the bonus that reconversion of the carbon to carbon dioxide yields more energy at point of use. What’s not to like?
Hydrogen is also a ridiculous waste of money. Like burning £20 of electricity to get £10 worth of hydrogen energy. Easier and cheaper to just use the electricity.
We don’t need less of the demonised CO2, we need more.
For the good of life everywhere.
Even though the “greening” over the last decades is obvious, they still refuse to see the need for more CO2 and not less.
When the hydrogen is burnt I assume the co2 is released back into the atmosphere
Precisely.
Are you sure? Where does the C part of the CO2 come from????
Electrolysis to split water into oxygen and hydrogen will theoretically be a net wash, as the energy from burning the hydrogen to produce water again is the same as you put in to separate it in the first place. But this ignores the fact that electrolysis is not 100% efficient, so it takes more electrical power to split a tonne of water into oxygen and hydrogen than you release by burning the resulting hydrogen. And the generation of electricity from the hydrogen combustion is not 100% efficient, either, so you’re losing more power there, making the whole process a net loss, even ignoring the problems associated with hydrogen storage.
2Hmp,
as the hydrogen enthusiasts never tire of saying, “the only emissions from burning hydrogen is water, H2O”, clearly unaware that H2O is the most potent greenhouse gas by far.
When hydrogen is burnt only water is released into the atmosphere. That is the big attraction for the eco zeolots. The problem is with making it in the first place. If you make it as most is currently made by splitting methane you do indeed release CO2 into the atmosphere. If you make it by electrolysing water you need an awful lot of electricity because this is an inefficient process.How you make this electricity is then crucial to the hydrogen’s “greenness”. There’s not enough wind and solar electricity even to supply our current needs, so there’s none left over to make hydrogen. If you generate the electricity using natural gas you release CO2, so you’re better off just using the gas directly and not going through the rigmarole of using the gas to generate electricity to the make hydrogen to then replace the natural gas – with all the energy losses in this drawn out process.
There are no easy answers!
“…retreat from unrealistic net zero targets.”
Ross should make it clearer that it is not only the targets that are unrealistic, but the net-zero insanity in its entirety.
The danger with a ‘retreat from targets’ is that a political fudge would simply allow the net-zero concept to wreak havoc over a longer period of time.
Do let’s grab a few facts. Any increase in CO2 from here yields negligible temperature increase. There is not the slightest remote chance that the steady rise in the Keeling curve can be checked. We are still in an Ice Age subject to a temperature decline since the Holocene optimum. Carbon dioxide (unlike ‘carbon’) is highly beneficial to nature. We are in a CO2 drought. Europe’s decarbonisation (ugh) is meaningless trivial virtue signalling and will result in ‘unparalleled economic disaster’. (Lawson). Do you like being screwed by China?
The solution to sourcing Energy has always logically been to use what is available to support each other, allowing time to develop new technologies to replace outdated systems – Gas replaced Coal, was supported by Nuclear, Oil and Hydro, now we are able to look to Wind, Solar, Hydro, Tidal, Gas, Nuclear and Oil, all combining to give a stable consistent Energy supply. Meanwhile, improvements are being made to solar efficiency, wind turbines, gas power, nuclear plants, improvements developed not in a mad rush, but carefully with private financial input, this equals an intelligent approach without the hysteria currently the norm.
micda67, You need to define what is an “outdated system”. Not clear to me why coal should be outdated. At the same time, you can make wind and solar as efficient as you like but, respectively, if there is no wind or at night, neither are much good – efficient or not. And don’t get me on tidal, please!
Obviously not heard of the engineer’s maxim: ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’.
The rest of the world hugely hugely doesn’t believe coal is outdated. Do look at the figures
micda67
Which ones from Wind, Solar, Hydro, Tidal, Gas, Nuclear and Oil do you consider to be stable. My choices are Gas, Nuclear and Oil although the UK doesn’t actually generate electricity using oil although we’re still using coal. But 0.28% of our 2.99GW of French electricity was generated by oil. This week wind and peak solar have been up and down like the proverbial, anything but stable
Glen , from a few years ago the UK had thousands of diesel [ oil ] generators to back up the grid . To the tune of £670 million in subsidies .https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/uk-must-use-diesel-generators-to-back-up-wind-turbines/
There is probably a lot more now , but there is still frequent blackouts in different parts of the country nearly every day in Wintertime because the Wind / Solar cannot produce stable , reliable energy , and the diesels are used to keep most of the grid going .
Tidal is not viable as if it was then the Rance Barrage would not be the only one I know of in Europe. Hydro is not an option in the UK and is not reliable during dry months. Wind is unreliable and expensive. Solar is a complete waste of money. Coal is the ideal fuel for generation as it is easy to store and energy dense, and new power stations are more efficient and cleaner. Nuclear is reliable and is only made more expensive by government interference. Using oil and gas seems to be a waste of a fuel that is ideal for other uses.
Well said,
as I understand there have been significant improvements to coal power staions in terms of emissions reduction and efficiency.
Trouble is that people like Ed Miliband have no grasp of reality or the laws of thermodynamics. With his plans energy prices will skyrocket as blackouts become common.
Ideally suited to be an MP and a minister then.
I’m sure that that Greenest of Greens activists Ed Milliband, or others of his beliefs, have their own views on how wrong they see Ross Clark’s article. Can we therefore, through these columns, invite Mr Milliband to answer the negative points of Net Zero, raised by Mr Clark, in order to give the Greens a fair voice in reply to Mr Clark’s criticism of the Greens logic on the Net Zero argument. I look for his reply with great interest.
Might I suggest, as a cheeky alternative, asking the good people of North Doncaster, (many of whom were coal miners or depended on the earnings of coal miners), why on earth they would even dream of voting for a completely gormless, virtue signalling, useless twerp like Ed Miliband, as their MP?
But clearly, when ideology collides with reality, governments are not going to sacrifice the well-being of their citizens.
Wut? Clark hasn’t been paying attention for the last generation.
Note too that he describes it as a ‘retreat.’ A ‘retreat’ does no one any good. Typical government, prolonging the damage, instead of admitting they were wrong.
Come on Gamecock; you should know by now that – the public, scientists, the laws of physics are always wrong …
Fortunatly our glourious leaders ( like Milly-peed) are never wrong & are never going to sacrifice the well-being os their bank accounts.
When the climate change act is watered down or repealed, that will be the confirmation of the U-turn. All that is going on now is tinkering around the edges, it needs a fully thought out approach to the facts that CO2 is a beneficial trace gas and there is no climate emergency. Not very likely with the corrupt politicians taking back handers from the renewable industry.
I just wish for a really severe winter, that would be expose the futility of renewables.
What makes it possible to incorporate so much wind and solar power in our energy mix is gas power plants, which can be turned up or down at short notice to balance variable and unpredictable renewable power.
It doesn’t quite work like that. Using 40-60% gas some of the time can’t be classified as balancing. In any case there are peaker plants for back-up but they’re designed and built for short period use only, not baseload. If all these proposed new build plants are peakers, they’re only going to be able to paper over some of the cracks in the system.
Here is an example of “It doesn’t quite work like that.”
Large synchronous condensers are being installed around the country as almost desperation measures in an attempt to stabilise the grid. The above one at Sellindge Converter Station (home to IFA 1 converter and Elec Link grid connections from France) is one of many “papering over the cracks” solutions.
“This second plant awarded to TSK will be built in Sellindge and is based on a setup with a 60 MVA synchronous condenser, which will provide short-circuit and inertia power, as well as reactive power compensation, to increase the stability of distribution networks with high penetration of renewable energy generation.”
Remember that unexplained “fire” at this place a year or so back? There was a very good reason why it never gets mentioned now.
Bet they didn’t add this into the “9 times cheaper” equation.
Gas does virtually all the grid balancing in the U.K.. You only have to look at how it’s output see saws with wind output. I call that balancing.
In a few centuries someone will discover the rather antiquated “Net Zero” laws, which everyone has forgotten rather like the one that says a Highlander in a kilt is committing an offence in Carlisle.
They can’t get rid of the Nut Zero, nor can they implement the Nut Zero, so it stands to reason, that they have to ignore it like we do.
In the real world any company CEO worth his salt would be looking at all of this – so we spent a few £billion to create a renewable supply but it’s not enough, we also now need a few more £billion to help mitigate the unreliability of the chosen solution and we need the same again to build more renewable supply which will need more “solutions”.
Wouldn’t you say, let’s take a step back and look t this, why are we doing all this? How are we measuring success? Should we be reviewing the rationale and finding a more realistic outcome? That might blow a couple of £million but it would save billions. Is that too much to ask?
Meanwhile in another blow to storage and supply solutions – it looks like hydro is releasing the even more evil (than CO2) methane!
I’m sorry, but I hve to post my usual bleat. Natural gas is a diminishing resource over which we, including other European countries, have virtually no control. Security lies in the Ireland Alternative Fuel Obligation whereunder all CCGT operators are mandated to be able to receive, store and burn distillate fuels (esp kerosene or diesel). There are no technical issues, only the cost of the receiving and storing facilities but the cost of these is a fraction of that of alternatives.
Thank you for sharing your whimsical idea of how UK power should be produced. Perhaps others will share theirs.
Now realize you are the problem.
“What?!?!” you cry.
The root of UK’s energy problems is top-down demands on how power is to be produced, based on reasons the government likes, not what the market wants. Which you hereby support, you only wish they would demand something different, for your reasons. The problem is not their selection of technologies, it is that they are selecting technologies, and you just wish they’d choose your technology idea.
Demand government get out of it. Hoping they will make better choices is not a strategy.
Vernon E; you have mentioned this quite a few times. Now my usual question: it sounds good but how easy would it be to convert existing gas-fired CCGT plants to dual-fuel capability? Aiui they are typically derived from aero engine designs and adapted to burn gas. Liquid fuels will have different combustion characteristics requiring different burners and probably other modifications. Can you provide examples of where this conversion has been done on existing plants.
MikeH: There is anexcellent and fully detailed paper on the web about the conversion of the Technocandelaria power plant near Caertagena, Columbia. This is a permanent change to diesel and took about one year to execute but most of that was spent on the delivering and receiving of the diesel fuel and an up-grade of the instrumentation. Changes to the machines were negligible – just nozzles. It sounds unwieldy because the location is not close to a marine access and the fuel is delivered by road tankers but it is still considered a great success. Meanwhile, all the Ireland CCGT plants are listed aas alternaive fuel ready (distillate).
Vernon, “Natural gas is a diminishing resource over which we, including other European countries, have virtually no control.”
And Diesel isn’t?
A C Osborn: No.
Vernon E: thanks for that. I didn’t manage to find the paper but this article gave an overview:
https://www.power-eng.com/coal/emerson-mitsubishi-initiate-duel-fuel-conversion-of-colombian-power-plant/
That was done in around 2008. The plant has recently had a major upgrade to CCGT instead of OCGT but the original 2 turbines were retained – as dual-fuel.
Maybe fuel cost is the reason this is not more common?
The point commentators continue to miss is that any cost now must be lower than the discounted cost of a future cost we avoid. It’s not about the actual cost today, it’s about the relative sizes of the two costs. It has become clear that current costs are going to be far higher and future costs both much lower and further out. That should slow Net Zero down, not speed it up, by the economic rationale set out.
So we have Net Zero’s law of unrelaibles – For every virtuous green energy solution there is an equal and opposite solution required to prop it up (make it appear viable). We have all sorts of great solutions such as storage in various guises, hydrogen, more wind, more solar and the only real ones that exist are the ones we had before this deluded Net Zero race to the bottom.
If you were a CEO of a company, spending your own money, you’d look at the situation and ask – why are we doing all of this? how are we measuring success? Let’s take a step back and look at what the expected results really are and do a cost benefit analysis – even if it cost a couple of million £ to look into it, it would still be cheaper than wasting billions.
So why don’t the powers that be do their due diligence on the state of the climate and climate science and take the necessary actions?
It also looks like storage is going to take a hit since it appears that hydro is generating methane which is even more evil than CO2!
Literally true, shytot. It is the fossil fuel energy they are trying to get rid of that enable wind/solar. Wind/solar cannot stand on their own; fossil fuels keep them alive.
Unfortunately, even highly respectable companies are still spreading doom and gloom. How can global economies cope with a changing climate (ricardo.com)
New extremes: How can global economies cope with a changing climate? A concerning gap is opening between what we know about climate adaptation and how the world is actually responding.
EU loses almost a million manufacturing jobs in just 4 years
https://www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/eu-loses-almost-million-manufacturing-jobs-just-4-years
Just getting started?
According to the IEA electricity demand in the EU’s industrial sector fell by an estimated 6% in both 2022 and 2023. EU electricity prices are almost double those in the US and China.
High electricity prices are leading to EU manufacturers moving manufacturing out of Europe.
IEA ‘Electricity 2024 Analysis and forecast to 2026’
Surely the only thing you need to know about hydrogen is that it takes more energy to manufacture hydrogen than that hydrogen contains.
Climate Crisis is a load of BS. Watch Climate Change ( The cold Truth) on YouTube. Even the founder of Greenpeace says so.
Our infrastructure is so reliant on a continuous and reliable grid supply, blackouts can cause people die!
I’m very much afraid that people will need to die from electricity blackouts before our deluded politicians will finally accept the utter folly of net zero.