Skip to content

Net Zero Power Scenarios

June 16, 2019

By Paul Homewood


I’ve obtained a bit more detail from the Committee on Climate Change about their Net Zero plan.

First of all, the generation mix. This of course is only one of several scenarios, but it is regarded as being close to a likely one.




The following stand out:

  • Gas still plays a significant role. Indeed, last year gas only generated 119 TWh. This is only compatible with the Net Zero plan if CCS is used. (Which raises the question, why even bother with renewables?)
  • Gas capacity of 33 GW is slightly higher than now. Given retirement of a large chunk of present capacity, there would need to be a large scale rebuilding programme of CCGT.
  • Taking bio and nuclear as well, but excluding peakers, dispatchable capacity amounts to 51 GW. According to the CCC however, peak demand could be up 150 GW by 2050. This simply does not stack up with the capacity available, even with peakers included.



Electric Cars

The second bit of information concerns EVs.

The CCC have assumed that there will be about 46 million electric cars and vans on the road in 2050, with electricity demand of 76 TWh additional to now.

Peak demand for EVs is assumed at 40 GW. This is equivalent to 13 Hinkley Points.

Claims from sceptics to this effect have been rubbished by the National Grid and the likes of the ECIU, who have argued that smart meter charging would largely solve the problem. It seems they were wrong.

The CCC confirm that this extra demand is built into their power scenarios above.

As an estimated 43% of households don’t have off street parking, a large number of public charging points will be needed:




There is one paragraph in the Technical Report which I cannot resist showing:


You have been warned! If you don’t obey the CCC diktat and buy EVs, you may be forced to walk!

  1. Pancho Plail permalink
    June 16, 2019 5:36 pm

    So, it is simply an act of faith.

  2. Athelstan. permalink
    June 16, 2019 5:49 pm

    Lord! there’s dumb, very dumb and total fuqwit dumbos, de “Committee on Climate Change about their Net Zero plan” it smacks of, does greta write their reports because as we note it, a 16 yr old with head problems seems to be the standard or scrawl and ‘thinking’ here.

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      June 17, 2019 7:54 am

      Climate Change Crazies. Much like All Out Crazy. Unicorn fart merchants.

      • Rowland P permalink
        June 17, 2019 10:26 am

        Once seen on the back of a car – “Save Gas, Fart in a Jar”.

  3. June 16, 2019 5:51 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.

  4. Stonyground permalink
    June 16, 2019 5:59 pm

    On the subject of electric vehicles. Electric cars are possibly practical for your daily commute but pretty hopeless for longer journeys. Electric trucks could only work if we adopted some kind of container system so that longer distances were covered by electrified railways. What about agriculture? Ploughing, harrowing, sowing and harvesting all involve diesel powered machinery that has to operate all day, often flat out for very long days, to get the job done. There is no possible way that a battery powered tractor could be made to work, there just wouldn’t be enough time to recharge it overnight, even if you could provide enough battery range to run it flat out for twelve hours.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      June 16, 2019 6:39 pm

      Around me agricultural machinery gets used overnight to get the harvest in. Such machines are expensive, and have to earn their keep in short order. Moreover, the battle to complete harvesting ahead of a turn in the weather can make a huge difference to the value of the crop. Similar considerations can apply at other times too.

    • Up2snuff permalink
      June 16, 2019 8:42 pm

      Quite so, Stonyground. It rather makes self-propelled cattle & sheep appear rather appealing. The vegans may be going hungry in a ‘net zero UK’ in 2050.

      The CCC info that Paul has extracted mentions cars & vans. No mention of trucks, electric motorcycles, bicycles, scooters and mobility scooters. Then there’s the manufacture and installation of charging points for all these devices. Will that be done using renewables and electric vehicles? Maybe not at first …..

      • Pancho Plail permalink
        June 16, 2019 9:42 pm

        I would be interested in the charging solution for multi-storey blocks of flats.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      June 17, 2019 9:55 am

      Yes, interestingly in rural France a few weeks ago, a French farmer was fuming to me about the idea of electric vehicles in the agricultural economy. Farmers and people in rural communities there are way ahead of us on how impossible this all is without destroying life outside the cities.

    • Hivemind permalink
      June 22, 2019 12:32 pm

      “There is no possible way that a battery powered tractor could be made to work”

      Haven’t you heard of horses? This is the 18’th century nirvana the Greens want you to live in.

  5. A C Osborn permalink
    June 16, 2019 6:04 pm

    So, 212,100 charging points to service 46,000,000 cars.
    That is 216 cars per charger.
    Anybody see anything wrong with that?

    • GeoffB permalink
      June 16, 2019 6:41 pm

      Even if you assume that half the EVs are charged at home its still 108 per charger. The 150kW is going to take an hour or so to charge so maybe 10 or 12 cars a night. Up all night looking for a charger. Next day about 30% of EVs not charged. ITS NOT GOING TO WORK.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        June 16, 2019 7:15 pm

        Who is going to go around connecting and disconnecting cars in high speed charging spaces in the middle of the night, and shuffling them to and from a car park – or paying for someone to do it?

        The high charge rate units are designed for larger vehicles such as trucks.

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        June 17, 2019 7:56 am

        You and your maths. facts and logic! You must believe……..

      • George Lawson permalink
        June 17, 2019 10:12 am

        46 million EVs on the road by 2050! This will mean that thousands of vehicles will run out of juice on long journeys every day of the week while looking for a charging point. Has anyone factored in how these thousands of vehicles which have come to a standstill on the motorways and other highways across the country will be dealt with? Presumably some sort of more powerful EV will need to tow them to the nearest charging point, using up more power for the towing vehicle. The Climate Change Committee should look beyond filling their own back pockets in order to find a sensible answer.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        June 18, 2019 1:46 am

        I found the work on which the CCC’s estimates are based:

        Click to access Plugging-the-gap-Assessment-of-future-demand-for-Britains-EV-public-charging-network.pdf

        You will search in vain for the words “rush hour” or “Bank holiday”. Do these people live in the real world?

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      June 16, 2019 7:11 pm

      Multiplying out the planned capacity, I come to 19.91GW. That is half their alleged peak demand number of 40GW. 76TWh over the year is an average of 8.67GW, or an anticipated 43.6% capacity utilisation. That is completely unrealistic. Perhaps they are assuming a lot of trickle charging at home limited to 3kW. Car traffic was over 250bn miles in 2017, so 76TWh works out at about 300Wh/mile which appears to be vaguely credible – but given the rise in projected vehicle population (currently around 38 million) you might anticipate a greater mileage – and the mileage figures exclude vans and trucks (where energy consumption will be much higher per mile).

      P.S. Has anyone heard how the House of Commons car park is getting on with its project to install 80 charging spaces? If it has been abandoned due to the problems of routeing in the required power, it might actually be an issue that MPs might relate to.

  6. tom0mason permalink
    June 16, 2019 6:32 pm

    My, my around 1°C global temperature rise in 200 years so lets ruin the country, destroy industries, and impoverish everyone except the rich and powerful.
    UK will and try to reduce it CO2 emissions. All for what (?), a supposed lowering of the global temperature by 0.0000000000002°C (or probably much less). And at what cost?

    Absolutely no sense. Just very costly political posing.

    • June 17, 2019 12:54 pm

      But that is what it is all about, stealing as much as Deben can stand before the Fraud is acknowledged. Because as sure as eggs are eggs, one of these days the truth will out. The bigger the fraud gets the sooner it will fall.

  7. June 16, 2019 6:58 pm

    35 GW peaking capacity generating 1TWh = operating for 29 hours a year, unless I miscounted the zeroes. Good use of resources?

  8. Harry Passfield permalink
    June 16, 2019 7:23 pm

    I note that they list gas and bio generation includes CCS. So, is the amount of generated capacity listed net or gross, considering that CCS will take quite a bit of generated power to make the CCS work? (I’ve read of amount needed to be up to a third of gross output).

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      June 16, 2019 10:14 pm

      I suspect it is grid supply. Elsewhere I noted their plan is to bury 180 million tonnes per annum, or about 3 million barrels a day, which would take an effort equivalent to the North Sea industry at its peak, perhaps of itself consuming 120TWh a year in pressurising to 100bar+ and pumping. Putting that sort of volume underground year after year is untried, but experience suggests it might eventually cause seismic events. A major leakage would be “interesting”.

      • Russ Wood permalink
        June 17, 2019 11:11 am

        Anyone even THINKING of CCS and burying the result, needs to have a bloody great poster on their wall, saying “Remember Lake Nyos!”

  9. Robert Christopher permalink
    June 16, 2019 7:27 pm

    370 TWh/yr from 110 – 175 GW capacity is 38% to 24% of capacity, if my figures are correct.

    That sounds generous, considering the best sites have already been taken for wind, or are we going to have more solar? 🙂

    ‘development of CCS and hydrogen infrastructure’
    CCS requires that the carbon, aka carbon dioxide 🙂 , can be processed and stored, safely, for ever – which is a long time – or is it code for ‘not in our lifetime’?

    There is a paper that covers most of the issues in developing a hydrogen economy:
    Conversion of the UK gas system to transport hydrogen
    by Paul E. Dodds, Stephanie Demoullin

    The UK is ‘looking forward’ to eliminating the domestic gas supply, so where will the hydrogen be used?

    • Dave Ward permalink
      June 16, 2019 7:48 pm

      I’m sorry, but “The UK” is NOT looking forward to eliminating the domestic gas supply, only the lunatics at the CCC are. As I said on a previous post, I’m sick & tired of blanket claims being bandied about saying the country is behind these crazy schemes, when we have never been asked for our approval. The sheer bloody arrogance of these barstewards just beggars belief…

      • Athelstan. permalink
        June 16, 2019 8:43 pm

        Very, very well said Dave, as usual, btw!

  10. markl permalink
    June 16, 2019 7:35 pm

    The sad part is they believe this is possible to achieve while after several decades and gobs of money the dispatchable electricity from wind and solar in the UK is dismal. The gall to suggest that if they don’t produce the power and install the infrastructure to distribute it the people will just have to use personal powered transportation. The people need to wake up to what is happening to their way of life……. especially since other MUCH larger countries are being allowed to continue energy business as usual.

  11. Barbara Elsmore permalink
    June 16, 2019 7:43 pm

    Here in Dorset, apart from Bournemouth and to a lesser degree Dorchester, the county has many people living in rural situations and in villages surrounded by farms and farmland with inadequate public transport so unless residents have the sort of work that can be done at home via a computer they need a vehicle – will they all be able to afford an electric car? According to ‘Living Carbon Free – Exploring what net-zero means for households’ – ‘those living in urban areas generally travel the shortest distances so, in principle, increased urbanisation of the UK population could support this transition (relative to an alternative future with more suburban or rural living)’.
    Do these people really see the future for our beautiful rural counties as unpopulated theme parks to be visited by those who live in the towns travelling there on public transport, by bicycle or on foot.

    There is so much not to like about having these ideas foisted onto us.

    Click to access ESC-Living-Carbon-Free-CCC.pdf

    • Nordisch-geo-climber permalink
      June 16, 2019 11:09 pm

      And from another rural area (The Lake District), our cars are our Oxygen.
      Warmth and cooking comes from coal, wood and oil because there is no gas, food comes from agriculture and diesel tractors, shelter walls and roofs from quarries, worked with diesel machines.
      And the internal combustion engine is the most efficient machine man has ever invented apart from the bicycle.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      June 17, 2019 2:00 pm

      It will be nice to see the horse and cart make a come back.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        June 17, 2019 7:01 pm

        I recall Prof. Wilf Beckermann describing the consequences as a 6ft deep covering of London in horse manure in his critique of Limits to Growth.

  12. Robert Jones permalink
    June 16, 2019 7:54 pm

    When is someone going to call out ‘the Emperor’s got no clothes’? Here we are paying court to a (probably) self-selected and (certainly) self-interested committee of climate activists preaching about discipline and sacrifices when the rest of the world is belching carbon. Now having Mrs May calling for zero omissions by 2050 sets a seal on the whole ghastly (but wholly unnecessary!) proposition. We need a mix of energy sources that must include nuclear, CCGT (with fracked gas!), the existing renewables (but no more) and coal until the picture becomes clearer.

    While the UK is determined to flagellate itself to the point of penury the developing world is building coal-fuelled power stations as fast as they can. The CCC is making mistakes which will cost us dear; it needs to have an over-arching scientific body (not from the socialist UN!) to give it a sanity check before jumping hand-in-hand off the cliff of stupidity.

    • Athelstan. permalink
      June 16, 2019 8:44 pm

      x 1000.

  13. June 16, 2019 9:24 pm

    And still there is no comment about shipping. The UK has eight container ports and to my best knowledge they operate 24 hours a day. Container ships burn the dirtiest of oil. But nothing is ever said about this. If the green policies were properly followed through, all container ports would only accept electric container ships – and as far as I know such a thing does not yet exist. And aircraft? Not a mention. Armed forces vehicles, ships and planes? Silence. Who do they think they are fooling …

    • Bertie permalink
      June 16, 2019 11:24 pm

      Don’t give the blob any ideas!

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      June 17, 2019 7:58 am

      Themselves. Doublethink.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      June 17, 2019 10:00 am

      Electric planes apparently, or some sort of bio-fuel! Those who think electric planes will work always overlook the great thing about kerosene – you reduce the weight you need to lift and propel as you go. So electruc aircraft will require far more energy for any given distance.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      June 17, 2019 6:39 pm

      Actually shipping is bound by new IMO rules that are forcing the use of low sulphur diesel and LNG as fuels. For some time EU ports have required a maximum of 0.1%S, sharply down from the 4% maximum that applied in the past. Refiners have had to invest in expensive cracking of the heaviest oils and additional desulphurisation, which needs a lot of hydrogen, made by steam reforming of methane.

  14. June 16, 2019 9:28 pm

    I did a blog post back in March, in anticipation of this CCC hogwash, comparing the capital cost of a reasonably ‘sensible’ mix of wind/solar/CCGT with an advanced 300 MW SMR nuclear power plant [npp], to supply all 340 TWh of 24/7, low-carbon electricity the UK uses each year, for a period of 60 years.

    Renewables + CCGT backup cost £527 billion and nuclear power cost 1/8th of that – £65 billion.

    For renewables/CCGTs to supply the 370 TWh mentioned in the first table above, would cost £573 billion.

    For npps to supply the 645 TWh mentioned in Table 5.2 [which is the sum of the generation from all of the technologies [including existing and ‘New’ nuclear] would cost £123 billion – that’s nearly down to 1/5th of the cost of renewables, for 3/4s more electricity.

    But that’s not the end of it, because the nuclear regulator in the USA has cleared the path for siting SMRs close to centres of population and therefore use as a CHP plant. With a rating of 950 MWt [thermal], many of the sites would be able to supply much of the heat and hot water to buildings – twice the ‘bang for their bucks’ for investors. More to the point it would cancel out any possibility of spending on this moronic hydrogen/methane reforming infrastructure with its ‘must have’ CCUS infrastructure cost-add-on. CCUS – untested at industrial scale. with dubious effectiveness; a stillborn technology, if ever there was one.

    • Chilli permalink
      June 17, 2019 1:08 pm

      Yes – but your analysis fails to consider the effect of HBO’s Chernobyl mini-series.
      Energy policy flows from politics, and politics is downstream from culture – and I can’t see anyone who watched that programme voting for more nuclear power. Pretty sure the public would prefer to live with some harmless global warming from fossil fuels than 3.6 roentgen.

  15. JimW permalink
    June 16, 2019 9:34 pm

    I had an unpleasant experience today. Dominic Lawson wrote a very good article in the Sunday Times today demolishing May’s zero emissions policy. Most comments applauded his article, but there were some ‘watermelons’ as usual spouting rubbish. I answered one of their comments , I thought politely and comprehensively. My comment was ‘reported’ and deleted by the paper without any reference back to myself.
    It appears the Times has also joined the trend to censor any comment that quotes facts rather than ideology about CAGW.

  16. BLACK PEARL permalink
    June 16, 2019 10:13 pm

    Are these people existing in some sort of virtual reality program that never gets switched off ?

  17. mem permalink
    June 17, 2019 3:21 am

    It appears that electrical vehicles aren’t as good for the environment in Germany as diesel powered vehicles. This is according to research just released from Germany.
    If correct there will need to be some major re-thinks from the anti Co2 brigade.

  18. June 17, 2019 5:55 am

    For such a radical plan to materialise over the next ten, so-called critical, years, all the public utilities would have to be renationalised immediately. Even then with effective centralised planning (or because of) I doubt that it could be achieved. Perhaps the most significant change is that load side demand management would have to go from voluntary to mandatory.

    • I_am_not_a_robot permalink
      June 17, 2019 7:42 am

      ‘Лес ру́бят — ще́пки летя́т’.
      ‘When wood is chopped, chips will fly’ (Nikolai Yezhov).

  19. europeanonion permalink
    June 17, 2019 7:44 am

    Under Mao the Chinese waged war on birds that were said to be eating the crop, killed them off; then bugs ate the crop instead. With an aim to reduce the Co2 in the atmosphere who can calculate how much Co2 will be needed to feed the plants? How much is enough Co2? Nature is the best regulator, the only regulator. Fanciful schemes to change nature represent the greatest threat to nature. For all the prognostications and foretelling there appears to be a lack of a definitive paper on cause and effect only an intellectual void filled with rumour and errant supposition.

  20. Iain Reid permalink
    June 17, 2019 8:10 am

    Peak demand up to 150 Gwatts for 2050, total capcity excluding renewables is 85.6, even if all this is available, that means that renewables have to produce 64.4 Gwatts. This is about 37% of an installed 175 Gwatts. How often do renewables produce such a large percentage of capacity as often it is in single figures especially when demand is greatest. Either the lights go out or we have a large installed capacity of rapid online capability stand by plant. of which there is no mention?

    • Adam Gallon permalink
      June 17, 2019 8:46 am

      Currently, rarely. Looking at the figures now, we’ve a demand of 31.9GW, which as about average across the year, unreliables are providing 28.1% & it’s breezy & sunny!

  21. Coeur de Lion permalink
    June 17, 2019 9:51 am

    Have they factored in sabotage of public charge points by the unemployed?

    • Gerry, England permalink
      June 17, 2019 1:59 pm

      Why should they have all the fun? Unplug all the cars on the way home from the pub?

  22. June 17, 2019 9:55 am

    As to on street charging a conversation with a local SWEB employee confirmed there was no way the existing cabling to the street lamps could cope with multiple charging points. The cables were designed for an approximate 500 watts per lamp and as most terraced houses tend to be the older ones the cables are no way near modern standards so the streets would have to be re-cabled and the local substations and their feeds up graded to cope.
    I’ve also done some quick calculations on the UK power deficit on my home page and it doesn’t look good.
    What I can’t understand that with such obvious facts why the politicians refuse to face reality.

  23. Phoenix44 permalink
    June 17, 2019 10:04 am

    A plan that is not technically feasible, economically feasible or socially feasible. Mad Nay likes it which should signal to anybody sensible it’s the worst alternative available.

  24. June 17, 2019 11:40 am

    As to on street charging a conversation with a local SWEB employee confirmed there was no way the existing cabling to the street lamps could cope with multiple charging points. The cables were designed for an approximate 500 watts per lamp and as most terraced houses tend to be the older ones the cables are no way near modern standards so the streets would have to be re-cabled and the local substations and their feeds up graded to cope.
    What I can’t understand that with such obvious facts why the politicians refuse to face reality.

    I have made some estimates of the UK power deficit in 2030 and it doesn’t look good.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      June 17, 2019 1:53 pm

      Politicians are generally morons who could not get a proper job that pays them anywhere near as much as we do, with a hugely generous pension and plenty of scope to fiddle expenses on top. Because they think they should be respected they will only take information from sources that in their feeble minds carry ‘prestige’, unaware as they are that ‘professor’ is a job title. Anyone from the grubby world of engineering where they assume we all wear oily blue boiler suits does not have any ‘prestige’ so it is a waste of time trying to inform them. They will only learn when it all goes wrong.

    • dave permalink
      June 18, 2019 7:39 am

      “…streets would have to be re-cabled…”

      Where would they find enough Irishmen to dig the holes? I say that somewhat seriously because of an experience twenty years ago.

      A relative had a Victorian house, and it was decided that the old, lead, cable from the mains was dangerous and had to be replaced. Come the great day, umpteen people from various agencies, with all sorts of equipment, gathered in the front garden, in expectation. Someone with a map pointed downwards;

      “We need an excavation here!”

      “How will it be accomplished?”

      “Arrangements are being made!”

      Indeed they were being made. For, ten minutes later, an old Irishman with a spade strolled over from the next street, where he happened to live, dug down to the live wires, and went home.

      Being half-Irish myself, I was proud.

  25. Gamecock permalink
    June 17, 2019 1:48 pm

    Net Zero is such a cop out!

    Hopefully, the next PM will get serious, and go for Net Minus. UK should remove from the atmosphere all CO2 it has ever produced.

    And all that everyone else has ever produced. NO MORE HALF MEASURES! Only Net Zero CO2 in the atmosphere can be acceptable!

    I’m sure Ernst Stavro Blofeld would help.

  26. Slingshot permalink
    June 17, 2019 2:40 pm

    How do we travel on holiday to Europe in our electric cars?

  27. Ariane permalink
    June 17, 2019 5:56 pm

    Some neo-Malthusian zealots actually measure how much CO2 humans exhale. I kid you not.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      June 17, 2019 6:45 pm

      They’ve been measuring the urine for a long time. Actually, lung function tests do at least have some medical purpose.

  28. Broadlands permalink
    June 18, 2019 1:54 am

    Have any of these dedicated climate activists noted that their biofuels take up agricultural land used for food, and result in a transportation fuel that is 90% fossil… and is then immediately burned, adding back the CO2 expensively sequestered? Where is the logic to “save the planet” by going to Net-zero?

  29. June 18, 2019 10:01 am

    Why have they not considered reintroducing electric trams.
    They used to be lots of them they even used to have a horse drawn tram in the small market town where I live in Bridgend South Wales.
    I remember seeing electric trams in Holland back in 1962.
    Maybe they need to have a Manhattan type project to figure the best way to split the water molecule.
    In 2050 I will be 97 If I make it.

  30. Coeur de Lion permalink
    June 18, 2019 12:44 pm

    EV demand peaks at 40GW? They must be joking. As of right now whole national demand is 31.5GW. (Gas 56%. Wind 11% btw)

  31. jack broughton permalink
    June 19, 2019 10:47 am

    The renewables engineering hype press are in full flow about a battery schemes at Whitelee, near Glasgow. They are trumpetting how it will provide 50 MW, but nowhere can I find how many kWh it stores; seems not to matter to our press! Nor can I find any data on cost and subsidies. The nearest to declaring a true storage value was the grauniad “Can fully charge 806 Nissan leafs for 183,000 miles”.

    Fundamentally, none of our reporters or planners know the first thing about what storage is and are purely loading the lies about the benefits of these projects onto the public.

  32. jack broughton permalink
    June 19, 2019 2:17 pm

    Trying to answer my own question: Nissan Leafs are available from 24 kWh storage to new models at 40 to 62 kWh. So taking the 40 kWh value (probably wrongly), the storage is 32.24 MWh.
    If the Nissan leaf 40kWh battery apparently costs $ 5,500 to replace in USA, so price is about $4.4m+ installation. Guessing at 2 cycles / day=> 19,200 MWh/y. seems that 10 years is likely life cycle; therefore 192 GWh supplied = £18/MWh above the cost of generating the power, i.e. £ 160/MWh.

  33. June 20, 2019 11:25 am

    When will people realise that any CO2 reduction policy should also be seen in a longer-term context:
    • The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
    • According to reliable Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial and the world had already been cooling quite rapidly for the last 3000 years, in fact since ~1000 BC.
    • At 11,000 years old, our Holocene interglacial, responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from caves to microprocessors, is coming its end.
    • The weather gets worse in colder times.
    • The world will very soon, (on a geological time scale), revert to a true glaciation, again resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York.

    The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something to be truly scared about, both for the biosphere and for man-kind.

    Spending any effort, let alone GDP scale costs, trying to stop something that has not been happening for 3 millennia seems truly stupid.

  34. Joe Public permalink
    June 22, 2019 7:40 pm

    I realise it’s a late comment, but the CCC’s expectation of 5GW of new nuclear generating 43 TWh stretches credibility.

    They’d all have to generate at an annual Capacity Factor of 98%.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: