Skip to content

GWPF launches ‘workable alternative to Net Zero’

May 18, 2021
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

image

London 18 May — With mounting concern in the media about the true cost of the Government’s Net Zero project the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) is today publishing a realistic alternative that reduces CO2 emissions without inflicting astronomical costs on consumers.

The Government’s current Net Zero plans and the utopian Net Zero roadmap published today by the International Energy Agency (IEA) are dangerously expensive and will result in painful reductions in living standards for all but the richest, as well as national weakness, societal instability and the eventual failure of the decarbonisation effort.

The GWPF proposal requires that electricity generation policy must refocus on dispatchable low-emissions plants to deliver a secure and competitive electricity system as an enabler for the UK’s manufacturing industries.
The proposal envisages a Gas to Gas-Nuclear system, unwinding the extreme costs of the failing renewables fleets, delivering immediate consumer relief and a rapid program of low-carbon Combined Cycle Gas Turbine construction on existing sites, leading to a new generation of nuclear employing Small Modular Reactors.
The alternative energy strategy has been developed by Dr Capell Aris, a nuclear physicist and power sector engineer, and Dr John Constable, the GWPF’s Energy Editor. The proposal is based on technical papers by Dr Aris, some in collaboration with Colin Gibson, the former Power Networks Director at National Grid, also published by GWPF.
The authors said:

Current UK climate policies are ill-informed and utopian and will almost certainly fail to deliver Net Zero emissions by 2050, or ever. It also runs a high risk of deep and irreversible societal damage.”

Because of the time wasted and the harms already inflicted by the current policies, the practical and engineerable programme we outline today cannot deliver Net Zero by 2050, but it will reduce CO2 emissions rapidly and sustainably without destabilising British society. It is what the UK should have done in the early 2000s. It is not too late to change course, but there is not a moment to lose.”

John Constable & Capell Aris: A workable alternative to Net Zero. A plan for cleaner, reliable and affordable energy (pdf)

36 Comments
  1. May 18, 2021 5:49 pm

    I have commented the details below today on an earlier posting, but this may be more relevant of details received today from the Govt on Energy Security which shows some plans and risks to National Security.

    Gigantic future costs and National Security concerns, regarding Radar Interference with surveillance systems from Windfarms.

    I imagine you subscribe to the email alerts from Gov.UK regarding Energy Security?

    Competition: Windfarm Mitigation for UK Air Defence Phase 2

    Windfarm Mitigation for UK Air Defence Phase 2: Competition Document

    Initially £3.6million available to research. Link to Documentation below:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/competition-windfarm-mitigation-for-uk-air-defence-phase-2/windfarm-mitigation-for-uk-air-defence-phase-2-competition-document

    Extract.

    “A number of recent trials have demonstrated the adverse impact that this has on the UK’s air defence capability.
    The Doppler shift on ground radar returns mimics the signals of fast moving aircraft, curtailing the RAF’s ability to detect incoming, low flying, aircraft threats.”

    This was one of the (many) reasons that the 130 plus, gigantic 220 metre high turbine, Navitus Wind Farm off the Isle of Wight
    was cancelled, due to the Radar Interference with Bournemouth Airport.

    2.1 Background

    Extract

    “…..under the 2019 ‘Net Zero’ legislation, the Committee on Climate Change (HMG’s advisory body) has predicted a requirement for at least 75GW of electricity from offshore wind by 2050. This would require a ten-fold increase of current offshore windfarm generation capacity……..”

    Interesting reading.
    .

  2. May 18, 2021 6:08 pm

    Why do sensible people consider reducing CO2 when it will not make any difference to anything apart from impoverishing the populace. Rather the accent should be on how good more CO2 is for the planet and everyone, and everything, on and in it, CO2 is not much of a so-called “greenhouse gas” by any measure. The greenhouse concept is also false. Back to reality please, including pointing that we, and almost all other living things, are all ultimately made of CO2 as the base building block of life.

    • Colin R Brooks permalink
      May 18, 2021 6:22 pm

      Absolutely right wheewiz!
      I suspect this is the work of Andrew Montford, when at Bishop Hill he claimed to be a .luke warmer’ now he looks more like an alarmist.

    • Ian Wilson permalink
      May 18, 2021 7:34 pm

      That’s my reaction, too. Generally the GWPF take a pragmatic view of climate change but there is enough scientific evidence that CO2 plays a minor role at most and possibly non-existent.
      I have asked numerous individuals, councils, NGOs etc why, if CO2 is such a threat, there were ice ages when CO2 levels were 10 – 15 times as high as now. I have yet to see a credible reply.

  3. May 18, 2021 6:11 pm

    The owners of the Hyndburn Windfarm “forgot” to notify NATS when they applied for planning permission for their installation. By the time this came to light, their turbines were up and running. When two local dairy farmers wanted to erect a single windmill each, permission was refused, on the grounds of interference with the radar signal at BAC Wharton.

  4. Broadlands permalink
    May 18, 2021 6:20 pm

    This group seems to understand what NET-zero actually implies…

    “Net zero refers to cutting greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible and balancing any further releases by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere.”

    “To avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need to reach “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner. Net zero means that, on balance, no more carbon is dumped into the atmosphere than is taken out.”

    As they point out, their proposals may help to get to zero emissions, but no further. And that means that those who are investing in direct air capture technologies are wasting their money. They cannot possibly take more CO2 out than is being put in.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      May 18, 2021 7:06 pm

      …and balancing any further releases by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere

      Which assumes (by tptb) – wrongly – that any ‘excess’ emissions will end up adding to the base atmospheric 0.04% CO2 proportion extant. Surely, if they have to remove more CO2 it should only be that which is in excess of the carbon cycle.

      • Broadlands permalink
        May 19, 2021 1:07 am

        Harry.. their removable CO2 is supposed to be buried geologically and in massive amounts if they are to affect the climate…assuming CO2 is the control knob. The carbon cycle cannot be fooled by human attempts to adjust the standing crop without realizing that the oxygen being created by plants will be used by animals to recycle it. This has been taking place for billions of years and a few misguided “scientists” will not alter it.

  5. ianprsy permalink
    May 18, 2021 6:21 pm

    Another disappointing discussion of “how?” instead of “why?” Especially disappointing from GWPF.

    • dennisambler permalink
      May 18, 2021 11:03 pm

      Indeed.

  6. GeoffB permalink
    May 18, 2021 6:22 pm

    The report is a realistic assessment of the mess that is our electricity generation system is in, however the announcement from GWPF seems to accept that CO2 is the driver of global warming. this is the wrong approach from them. Not happy.

  7. John Cullen permalink
    May 18, 2021 6:54 pm

    I can understand commentators here being disappointed by this stance from the GWPF. However, I think the reasons for the stance may be as follows.

    The authors of the report probably thought that it would have the greatest chance of being taken seriously by the authorities if it accepted the latter’s blind obsession with CO2 and its reduction. The report was thus constructed to pander to that obsession while (i) doing the least damage to the economy and (ii) strengthening the resilience of the electricity grid.

    I further suspect that the authors desperately hope to nudge policy makers away from their current highly destructive and monstrously expensive Net Zero policies i.e. in a less dangerous direction (e.g. as per the scheme in their report). Once embarked upon this less damaging policy, it may be possible to nudge in the direction of an even less damaging policy thereafter.

    Thus we may simply be seeing, with this GWPF report, the application of the Overton Window to energy policy.

    Regards,
    John.

    • Colin R Brooks permalink
      May 18, 2021 7:08 pm

      That was the philosophy of Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill, I did not agree with it then and I do noty agree with it now. Give them an inch and they will take a mile comes to mind.

  8. Harry Passfield permalink
    May 18, 2021 7:09 pm

    Well, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
    Can’t say how sad that makes me feel that GWPF have given up the fight. That said, I can understand what they are up against.

  9. Mack permalink
    May 18, 2021 7:45 pm

    Echoing the remarks of some of the previous posters, I can ompletely understand why the GWPF have issued this paper. However, in doing so they seem to have completely accepted the premise that ‘reducing anthropogenic co2 emissions’ is a neccesity or somehow desirable in order to ‘stabilise’ the climate. Which,of course, much of their own research disputes. It would seem that they have now adopted the policy of ‘best being inside the tent pissing out, than being outside the tent pissing in’, in the vain hope, I believe, that they can mitigate some of the worst effects of green zealot policy. Good luck with that! As anyone who has being following ‘green’ energy policy in recent years will know, the puppet masters dont really care about the environment, nor reliable energy, it is the complete re-ordering of society that counts. The GWPF are fighting a minor skirmish on the Maginot Line with this paper whilst the major alarmist blitzkrieg is going right around them.

  10. Harry Passfield permalink
    May 18, 2021 7:48 pm

    When I read the headlines today – that certain ‘forces’ want the Government to bring forward the plans to NZC-fy our country – initially by bringing forward the replacement of perfectly good gas central-heating boilers with dodgy ASHPs I was fuming. Even that thick idiot Jeremy Vine was at it today (before I switched him off) saying we need to get rid of gas boilers.

    This is intolerable in a so-called democratic country. We are being governed by an un-elected CCC that has no mandate from THE PEOPLE to come up with the truly Marxist ideas that have dreamed up. And before anyone shouts, ‘What do you mean, Marxist’, think on this: if it was not driven by such a philosophy where are the debates in all our democratic functions: the press; parliament; the BBC etc? Why is it necessary to shut down the opposition to the argument and lump us in with anti-vaxxers and flat-Earthers. Our elected officials are having their gonads squeezed by the unelectable Greens, Attenborough, and the CCC (and Carey) – with a huge lashing of child-abuse from the teachings of our school system that teaches nothing BUT man-made global warming. (We – not us, the people to come after us in later years – are going to include some very dysfunctional adults who, as children, were taught the CC nonsense, took it as gospel, and then can’t believe they have been taken in so badly when the light hits them. Cognitive Dissonance, anybody?).

    Well, I’ve had enough. I’m going to become a pain in the arse to the likes of the DT’s Letters’ Editor until they print as many letters about the scam that is NZC and its bonkers boiler replacement program etc as they do about the current lack of access to GPs – which is nothing compared to the fall-out that will come in time from the realisation that the Government’s ‘fix’ for non-existent MM CC is all shite.

    /rant

    • Colin R Brooks permalink
      May 18, 2021 8:12 pm

      A superb rant Mr Passfield ^.^

      • Lorde Late permalink
        May 18, 2021 9:39 pm

        Seconded, if I may.

  11. D J Fraser permalink
    May 18, 2021 8:12 pm

    I am really pleased to read so many informed and succient replies to the GWPF way forward report. At times I thought I was shouting into the wind but maybe if our squeaking gets louder we will override the global control monsters, they being the squeaky wheel that is getting oiled at the moment.
    I won’t see 2050 but the kids of today along with their indoctoration will be in thier fourties and maybe will not like the global warriors of today but will have woken up to how they have been conned by an enormous hoax.
    By then I will carbon dust, do hope I won’t be creating any pollution.
    (How much CO2 does human body give off when being cooked??)

  12. May 18, 2021 8:23 pm

    I disagree agree with the nay-sayers here.
    The GWPF paper seems sensible at first glance
    The alarmists have crazy ideas and crazy policies

    The GWPF is basically saying “let’s for an exercise accept your cray ideas,
    but let’s look at the policies with real world maths”

    ..ie start by bringing part of the discussion back into the real world
    instead of shouting at the alarmists “you are wrong, we are right”
    which would just get their backs up.

    Seems GWPF are about bringing out the Michael Shellenberger in every climate cultist.

    • Stuart Brown permalink
      May 18, 2021 8:43 pm

      Stew, where’s the maths? To me this document is barely more than an opinion piece blog post, 4 pages of text, a one page summary and unworthy of a couple of blokes who could have worked out a few different scenarios, timescales, likely costs etc down the pub one evening to better effect.

      Otherwise, apart from the nod toward hydrogen that I think is barking, I’m with every word!

      • May 19, 2021 12:29 pm

        @SB “Where’s the maths ?”
        see Iain Reid’s post below

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      May 18, 2021 8:56 pm

      Sorry, Stew. Having trouble accepting your premise here.
      I don’t for one minute think the GWPF was saying “let’s for an exercise accept your crazy ideas, but let’s look at the policies with real world maths” – and if they were implying such I certainly don’t think the nutters of the likes of XR and the Greens would accept such a point, other than to accept that they have won and the opposition has capitulated.
      We should never give an inch; never compromise our values; and never accept their beliefs. I take Churchill’s apercu “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile — hoping it will eat him last.”

      • May 19, 2021 12:32 pm

        @HP I disagree, and expect that you haven’t converted any alarmists or got thing changed with that attitude.

      • Colin R Brooks permalink
        May 19, 2021 12:52 pm

        Yay! another great rant Harry .

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        May 19, 2021 1:35 pm

        @Stew:
        Can’t say I have converted any – I don’t keep score. But I do manage to support and reinforce my friends of the same beliefs. I guess I need to check my attitude – though I can’t see where my previous comment promoted any negativity. That said, trying to convert the likes of XR and GP is futile: my attitude is to let them stew (apologies 🙂 ).

  13. GeoffB permalink
    May 18, 2021 9:08 pm

    Everything revolves around CO2, man made, causing global warming, through the absorption and subsequent release of infrared radiation. If this is shown to be unfounded then the whole climate change scam collapses, surely the GWPF should be supporting this.

    • Colin R Brooks permalink
      May 19, 2021 12:54 pm

      Geoff, why does it need to be declared ‘unfounded’ it is just another unproven hypothesis.

  14. John OReilly-Cicconi permalink
    May 18, 2021 9:25 pm

    Dear Mr Homewood

    read the above & agree with nuclear being the ultimate solution but should that not be powered by Thorium?

    Yrs john o’reilly-cicconi ________________________________

    • Stuart Brown permalink
      May 18, 2021 10:28 pm

      John – perhaps, but where is there a thorium powered reactor in the world? Where will there be one in the next 10 years ie by 2030? Apart from a bit in some full sized traditional reactors in India partly fuelled with a mix of thorium and uranium as an experiment, and a few experiments elsewhere, there isn’t a one that I know of. I’d be pleased to learn otherwise if you’ve a link to a thorium reactor supplying power today, otherwise I’ll continue to believe U235 powered pressurised water reactors (PWR) is what we have to build with.

      Fun fact though – Shippingport, almost the first reactor built in the US connected to the grid, was partly powered by thorium for a time.

  15. Sobaken permalink
    May 19, 2021 12:17 am

    Sadly, no one is going to listen to GWPF, they’ll be dismissed as denialists and thus their article will go by unnoticed. Even if someone stumbles upon it, they’ll stop reading as soon as the point about dismantling all the wind turbines comes up.
    Though it would be interesting if GWPF produced an extended report, detailing what their future energy grid might look like, and what are potential costs and benefits.

    • May 19, 2021 11:11 am

      Sobaken,

      there is a paper, dated 2019 which I believe covers this plan in detail (GWPF Technical paper 3).

      I remember reading it when it was published and I think, from memory it is very detailed.

      • Stuart Brown permalink
        May 19, 2021 2:11 pm

        Thanks, Iain (and StewGreen). Link here for anyone else interested- it’s far from obvious on the GWPF website!

        Click to access Capell-Aris-UK-Electricity-System.pdf

      • Sobaken permalink
        May 19, 2021 2:43 pm

        Very interesting, many thanks. Surprising that they didn’t link to this technical paper in the new proposal.

  16. Ray Sanders permalink
    May 19, 2021 9:39 pm

    I fully understand the criticism of the GWPF taking this approach but leaving the CO2 issue aside, it does have to be accepted that fossil fuels are a finite resource. The costs of recovering many fossil fuels are rapidly increasing and as an additional issue there are unquestionably real pollutants such as SOx and NOx and radioactive materials involved with their combustion (especially coal)
    A chap I know put forward an option on Euan Mearns some years ago that similarly addressed electricity generation with detailed figures.
    http://euanmearns.com/decarbonising-uk-power-generation-the-nuclear-option/
    The point to note is that this would be an exceptionally robust and reliable grid.

  17. Ray Sanders permalink
    May 19, 2021 9:52 pm

    Just one point to make re heat pumps and the CoP relative to gas prices. My Avro energy kWh rates inc VAT are 2.26p gas against 13.36 electricity. That is not 3 to 1 but very nearly 6 to 1.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: