No Carbon Britain

By Paul Homewood

 

 

[This is a follow up post to my earlier analysis last week. I have pitched it at a more general level, but apologies for duplication]

 

 

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-the-uks-contribution-to-stopping-global-warming/

 

 

The UK already has legally binding targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. Desperate to virtue signal, last year the government asked the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) for advice on how to strengthen  this commitment to eliminate emissions completely by 2050.

The CCC has now responded with a detailed proposal which is likely to be highly damaging to the UK’s economy, yet has garnered very little critical attention in the press.

It must also be said that most of what the CCC is now proposing will be needed to hit the existing 80% target anyway.

Britain’s emissions of CO2 are of course tiny in global terms, just 1%. Since the Climate Change Act in 2008, they have fallen by 162 MtCO2, yet globally they have risen by 3063 MtCO2, to 33444 MtCO2. And this reduction has come at a huge cost, estimated by the OBR at £66bn over the next five years.

At the EU level, Germany, Italy and Poland have already made it clear that they are not prepared to back drastic emission cuts.

Much has been written about the Paris Agreement and its commitment to hold warming to 2C. Yet the Agreement specifically states that, if all of the national pledges are met, emissions would actually have risen by 12% come 2030, making any UK cuts meaningless.

So what do these new proposals hold in store for us?

Let’s start with the cost, which the CCC puts at £50bn a year by 2050. This equates to more then £1800 per household, based on current population.

A large chunk of this cost will impact households directly as natural gas is phased out, and replaced by much more expensive low carbon alternatives. These fall into three categories:

1) Electrical resistance heating (basically conventional electric fires and radiators). Electricity is approximately four times as expensive as natural gas in terms of units of energy.  As well as paying much higher energy bills, householders will need to buy new appliances.

2) Heat pumps are more energy efficient than resistance heating, but are still estimated to double heating bills. Moreover, they cost in the region of £10000 to install.

3) Hydrogen, which is produced from natural gas by steam reforming. As the process produces CO2, this would need to be captured and stored. It is estimated that using hydrogen will double gas bills. In addition gas networks and household appliances will need to be modified at a cost of tens of billions.

The CCC estimate that overall household energy bills will increase by £500 pa on average, as a result of the shift away from gas.

 

 

Demand for power is forecast to double, as heating and transport are electrified. But peak demand for electricity will certainly more than double, because of heating demands are mainly in winter. This will entail not just a massive increase in generating capacity, but also strengthening of transmission and local networks, for which the CCC does not appear to have budgeted for.

Even with the massive increase in renewable capacity planned, it may come as a surprise to learn that there is still a need for gas generation, to provide standby capacity. Indeed, generation from gas is projected to be greater in 2050 than it is now.

On top of that, large amounts of natural gas will be needed to produce all of that hydrogen mentioned above. So what happens to the emissions of CO2? The CCC is relying on using carbon capture and storage (CCS) for both power generation and hydrogen production, even though the process is still unproven on a commercial scale.

 

 

All new cars and vans must be pure electric by 2030, according to the CCC’s plan. Note that this excludes hybrids, for which development by car manufacturers would probably cease overnight. The CCC offer no strategy for what the motorists who make up nearly half the population with no off street parking are supposed to do when they need to recharge.

Nor do they explain how the National Grid can cope with the massive increase in demand for electricity, which local networks do not have capacity for.

Such a rapid move to EVs would pose an existential risk to car manufacturers, with low cost Asian factories poised to take business away. We have already seen Nissan and Honda pull out because of the demonisation of diesel, while Honda’s new EV, the Urban, is being made in Asia.

Industry in general stands to take a big hit as well from the CCC’s proposals, which they estimate at £10bn a year. Thousands of jobs could be put at risk in sectors especially vulnerable, such as oil refineries, chemicals and steel. Not to mention all of those central heating engineers!

To top it all, the CCC want a fifth of productive farmland to be taken out, for reforestation and biomass production, which will surely lead to greater imports of food.

Given that some emissions cannot be entirely eliminated, the CCC has the bright idea of using technology to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere, at the mind boggling cost of £20bn a year.

Voters were never consulted when the Climate Change was originally introduced, and will probably get no say about this latest utterly mad proposal, even though they are the ones who will pay through the nose for it.

Meanwhile there appears to be a conspiracy in the media to hide the real costs from the public.

We deserve better.