Skip to content

Net Zero Damp Squib

October 19, 2021
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

Net Zero? More like damp squib!

 

 image

  • Net Zero Strategy sets out how the UK will deliver on its commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050
  • outlines measures to transition to a green and sustainable future, helping businesses and consumers to move to clean power, supporting hundreds of thousands of well-paid jobs and leveraging up to £90 billion of private investment by 2030
  • reducing Britain’s reliance on imported fossil fuels will protect consumers from global price spikes by boosting clean energy
  • it comes as the UK prepares to host the UN COP26 summit next week, where the Prime Minister will call on other world economies to set out their own domestic plans for cutting emissions

A landmark Net Zero Strategy setting out how the UK will secure 440,000 well-paid jobs and unlock £90 billion in investment in 2030 on its path to ending its contribution to climate change by 2050 has been unveiled by the UK government today (19 October).

Building on the Prime Minister’s 10 Point Plan, today’s UK Net Zero Strategy sets out a comprehensive economy-wide plan for how British businesses and consumers will be supported in making the transition to clean energy and green technology – lowering the Britain’s reliance on fossil fuels by investing in sustainable clean energy in the UK, reducing the risk of high and volatile prices in the future, and strengthening our energy security.

The commitments made will unlock up to £90 billion of private investment by 2030, and support 440,000 well-paid jobs in green industries in 2030. This will provide certainty to businesses to support the UK in gaining a competitive edge in the latest low carbon technologies – from heat pumps to electric vehicles – and in developing thriving green industries in our industrial heartlands – from carbon capture to hydrogen, backed by new funding.

As part of the strategy, new investment announced today includes:

  • an extra £350 million of our up to £1 billion commitment to support the electrification of UK vehicles and their supply chains and another £620 million for targeted electric vehicle grants and infrastructure, particularly local on-street residential charge points, with plans to put thousands more zero emission cars and vans onto UK roads through a zero emission vehicle mandate
  • we are also working to kick-start the commercialisation of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) made from sustainable materials such as everyday household waste, flue gases from industry, carbon captured from the atmosphere and excess electricity, which produce over 70% fewer carbon emissions than traditional jet fuel on a lifecycle basis. Our ambition is to enable the delivery of 10% SAF by 2030 and we will be supporting UK industry with £180 million in funding to support the development of UK SAF plants
  • £140 million Industrial and Hydrogen Revenue Support scheme to accelerate industrial carbon capture and hydrogen, bridging the gap between industrial energy costs from gas and hydrogen and helping green hydrogen projects get off the ground. Two carbon capture clusters – Hynet Cluster in North West England and North Wales and the East Coast Cluster in Teesside and the Humber – will put our industrial heartlands at the forefront of this technology in the 2020s and revitalise industries in the North Sea – backed by the government’s £1 billion in support
  • an extra £500 million towards innovation projects to develop the green technologies of the future, bringing the total funding for net zero research and innovation to at least £1.5 billion. This will support the most pioneering ideas and technologies to decarbonise our homes, industries, land and power
  • £3.9 billion of new funding for decarbonising heat and buildings, including the new £450 million 3-year Boiler Upgrade Scheme, so homes and buildings are warmer, cheaper to heat and cleaner to run
  • £124 million boost to our Nature for Climate Fund helping us towards meeting our commitments to restore approximately 280,000 hectares of peat in England by 2050 and treble woodland creation in England to meet our commitments to create at least 30,000 hectares of woodland per year across the UK by the end of this parliament
  • £120 million towards the development of nuclear projects through the Future Nuclear Enabling Fund. There remain a number of optimal sites, including the Wylfa site in Anglesey. Funding like this could support our path to decarbonising the UK’s electricity system fifteen years earlier from 2050 to 2035

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uks-path-to-net-zero-set-out-in-landmark-strategy

Despite the bold statements, it seems as if the Treasury has won this little battle. In particular the much heralded boiler upgrade scheme will only cover 90,000 homes at £5000 a pop. Worse still, this is spread over 3 years. Given the fact that homeowners will still have to fork out thousands more on top of the grant, I doubt whether even 90,000 will take up the offer anyway.

The other items listed are also disappearingly small, and will make little difference in practice, other than kickstarting a few pilot projects.

There is a lot of wishful thinking about heat pumps coming down in price, and ensuring they are no more expensive to run (which means adding green levies to gas bills). But no mention of how homeowners will be able to pay for them if they don’t.

In reality, this new announcement takes us no further forward than we were before.

The ban on the sale of gas boilers after 2035 and petrol/diesel cars after 2030 is confirmed. But we knew that anyway. And there is still talk of a hydrogen strategy emerging in a few years time.

But there are no concrete proposals for what happens next. Or, for that matter, how much it will all cost and who will pay. Maybe we should thank the Chancellor for that!

FOOTNOTE

The Telegraph’s report includes this:

image

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uks-path-to-net-zero-set-out-in-landmark-strategy

People will be absolutely furious when they find out the true cost.

 

They also ran this article last month, with comments by Chris Stark:

 

image

 image

 

Note the comment that only one in five homes will get away without adaptation. Clearly Stark knows that heat pumps can never be competitive without government intervention of one sort or another.

53 Comments
  1. October 19, 2021 5:54 pm

    In rough handfuls the UK consumes 100 GW of power (all energies), 90% of which is currently derived from fossils. Net Zero by 2050 therefore requires 90 GW of new generating capacity, i.e. a new 3 GW nuclear power station EVERY YEAR until 2050, better make that TWO per year to deal with downtime and retirements.

    This ain’t going to happen, not even close.

    Talking about costs such as billions and trillions just confuses people, and makes it sound expensive, but feasible. It ain’t even feasible.

    • Douglas Dragonfly permalink
      October 19, 2021 7:27 pm

      Talking of which –
      has anybody got any news from Hinckley ?
      It appears to be a white elephant.
      What happens when there is nowhere to run a generator ?
      Civil unrest as a way of keeping warm ?

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        October 19, 2021 9:55 pm

        Looks to me like they have a long way to go. The complexity of the design comes across in this site tour from last month:

      • tomo permalink
        October 19, 2021 10:17 pm

        I wonder if there’s enough water to get a couple of Russian nuclear barges alongside in the Severn?

    • October 20, 2021 7:49 am

      Are there any engineers here who can tell me how much power an ‘average’ household consumes and whether the household electricity supply is up to this conversion from gas based to electricity based, whereby we will have heat pumps and potentially an electric charging point for cars?

      Add in an electric cooker instead of gas, as well as a power shower, big fridge and other electrical gadgets and will the average (especially older) house be able to cope, especially in winter or will it need its electricity supply upgraded. If so is that a big or expensive job?

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        October 20, 2021 7:58 am

        90% of housing will need upgraded wiring. £10,000.

      • dave permalink
        October 20, 2021 8:25 am

        According to the Government, the average household uses direct electric power amounting to 3,731 KWH per year.

        The majority of homes are supplied by single phase 230 Volts with an Intensity of 40 Amps. 230 x 40 = 9,200 KVA. This means that 80,592 KWH can be consumed in a year. Basically, present domestic installations can handle a large overall increase in consumption but will be drastically limited when it comes to sudden demands – such as for an EV boosting charge.

        I imagine the hidden wiring of many houses could NOT handle extra power.
        Nor the local power company installations for that matter. We would only know our individual situations when the circuit-breakers start popping.

      • Ray Sanders permalink
        October 20, 2021 9:55 am

        Most homes in the UK are fitted with a 100amp main fuse (though some outlying rural areas are lower at 80 or even 60 amps) so with a 240V rms supply (though it is actually variable in the range of 230V +10%/-6%) most can theoretically draw in the region of 24kW. At this level it would be perfectly possible in theory to run an EV charger at 7kW simultaneous with an 8kW heat pump, 3kW immersion heater, electric double oven et alia.
        I personally once lived in a home with 7 night storage heaters that could draw almost 17kW together with a 3kW immersion heater and had no issues.
        The problem, though, is not the individual house wiring as that is normally way oversize for handling capacity. The real issue relates to the local distribution network’s ability to deliver that high a load to multiple sites…it simply would not get anywhere near that amount if even a modest percentage switched to that level of use. And, of course, national generation get nowhere near the amount required.
        An important thing to remember is the seasonal slew in gas consumption. In summer precious little gas is consumed daily domestically – hot water and some cooking. However, on a cold winter’s day whilst a typical house may use 10kWh of electricity they will also likely use 100kWh in gas consumption i.e 10 times the amount.
        A typical gas bill is quoted at 12,000kWh per annum but this hides the fact that as much as 80% of that is used in as little as 4 months of the year. It is this huge seasonal slew that makes the whole electrification of heating a farce…and please do not get me onto the lunacy subject of hydrogen!!!

  2. Beagle permalink
    October 19, 2021 5:58 pm

    There was a Tory MP, Member of a government climate committee, on GB News this morning with Tom Harwood. The MP said that 2035 was more a target to change from Gas heating and was not a ban, at this time.

    • The Informed Consumer permalink
      October 20, 2021 1:37 am

      This whole thing is a political charade for COP26.

      Boris will emerge, triumphant from the talks, brandishing a handful of paper claiming some deal or other has been finally been reached, despite China not being interested and some 20 other smaller nations livid that the money they have all been promised has never materialised.

      The boiler and EV scheme will go the way of all the other subsidy schemes in a couple of years time. Abandoned because the Civil Service make the application so deliberately complicated people just give up.

      Installers, other than the likes of British gas, won’t have the time, inclination or expertise to navigate the hoops they’ll be forced to jump through to become accredited and part of the subsidy machine with endless reams of paperwork for no extra money.

  3. October 19, 2021 6:01 pm

    ENDLESS £billions will be, and already HAVE BEEN totally WASTED on the global warming SCAM. Sea levels? Unchanged!. World temperature increase over a century? within measurement error %. Arctic? MORE ice than ever.
    Net zero will cost us ALL vast amounts, and achieve NOTHING. £BILLIONS to be wasted on lousy heat pumps and millions of gas and oil boilers scrapped? Good idea eh? NOPE. LUNACY!
    Electric cars, all on charge overnight? ONLY nuclear, backed by gas fired stations might just produce enough, SOMETIMES, and when they don’t your smart meter will pull the plug! -Better make sure your neighbour runs a diesel, to take you into work! ‘They’ are suckering the whole crazy world. Old David Bellamy was 100% correct when he told everyone the £billions will be, and AREbeing wasted trying to fix a ‘problem’ that does NOT exist. Naturally the woke lefty bbc booted him, thay HATE the simple TRUTH. -It’s a RACKET, and millions are falling for it everyday!! Wakey-wakey!

    • JBW permalink
      October 19, 2021 6:24 pm

      Shouldn’t that be Wokey, Wokey!

  4. cookers52 permalink
    October 19, 2021 6:18 pm

    I have a self charging hybrid car, works faultlessly never have a problem with range as it has a petrol engine.

    It decides itself when it will be an electric car, but I sort of like to see if I can keep it in electric mode by altering my driving pattern.

    What we need is a hybrid house heating unit, that switches from gas to electric as costs and availability change.

    Don’t abandon gas supply to housing that is putting your eggs in an unknown basket.

  5. Ian Wilson permalink
    October 19, 2021 6:23 pm

    440,000 new jobs? We are seeing how that’s going already – Scotland’s facility for building wind turbine towers lies idle while all the work goes to China. A contributor on TCW Defending Freedom (formerly Conservative Woman until they changed their name for obvious reasons) states that Cop26 visitors will be ferried from Gleneagles in a fleet of Teslas. Can anyone confirm this? If true, so much for all those UK jobs – supposedly a showpiece for Britain, couldn’t they have used Jaguars?

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      October 19, 2021 7:01 pm

      Those claiming so many jobs from the nonsense have failed to study Bastiat’s Broken Window Paradox.

      In the meantime I have blasted off a letter to the DT to complain about the complete lack of democratic mandate for such an expensive program being accepted from a non-elected committee.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      October 19, 2021 7:25 pm

      Not only can I confirm the fleet of Teslas but unless my cousin is giving me a bum steer I can also confirm the diesel gennies to provide the electricity ‘cos there ain’t enough charging points!

  6. It doesn't add up... permalink
    October 19, 2021 6:44 pm

    This is astonishing form Chris Stark, CEO of the CCC:

    We didn’t have a plan before, now we do.

    We’ve got lots of work planned to assess the new Net Zero strategy, but pause and reflect that the government has published a document, with a foreword from the Prime Minister, including this table, largely mirroring @theCCCuk
    advice.

    THEY DIDN’T HAVE PLAN???? THEY THINK THEY HAVE ONE NOW?

    Please, I want my money back. Let’s have a proper impact statement and then decide whether we should attempt net zero at all. It all remains completely uncosted. It continues to rely on buckets of Hopium. It’s nonsense.

    • tomo permalink
      October 19, 2021 11:19 pm

      Only it’s not Hopium is it ?

      Hopium is abstract …

      Some slightly firmer accusations one could easily lob in their direction:

      Delusion
      Hubris
      Innumeracy
      Ignorance

      It even seems that there is more than one “team” working on this mess and they’re trying to align the messaging. The recent emanations from BEIS about inclusivity, diversity and sustainability in Net Zero policy sound like the spoutings of drug addled Green fashionistas.

      Perhaps Boris can wade in with a speech in Ancient Greek – it’d make about as much sense…

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        October 20, 2021 1:52 am

        H opium seems to be Boris’ favourite drug…

      • tomo permalink
        October 20, 2021 12:16 pm

        Regular random drug testing in government?

        Now there’s something I’d vote for

      • tomo permalink
        October 20, 2021 12:33 pm

        I see the BEIS spouting woke drivel about Net Zero inclusivity has gone MIA

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      October 20, 2021 8:55 am

      There exists a simple and effective plan, that recently won a Nobel Prize – a carbon tax.

      But that would mean politicians and bureaucrats don’t get to play God and don’t get to go to conferences and preen like peacocks. And celebrities and imbecilic GPs don’t to virtue signal.

      I don’t think we need to do anything but if we do a carbon tax is the simplest, cheapest and least damaging way to reduce emissions.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 21, 2021 1:31 pm

      There was no Brexit plan either so it is standard behaviour.

  7. October 19, 2021 6:51 pm

    Unfortunately I was listening to the PM programme on BBC Radio4. Lord Deben, Ed Milliband, Greg Hand, all talking about the marvellous Net Zero They are living in a parallel universe, where reality is totally different. I know what it was like for Alice when she fell down the rabbit hole. We are totally screwed with so many idiots in charge, all egged on by the BBC with its 24hour a day propaganda.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      October 19, 2021 7:07 pm

      Phillip, I forced myself to listen to that egregious man, Deben, and just wished I could reach down through the ether, take him gently by the neck and….. And I so wanted Evan Davies (who, for once actually seemed to be taking a more robust attitude to the subject) to ask Deben if he would convert his pile to ASHP etc.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      October 20, 2021 8:50 am

      All people who think the world is a simple place that their genius intellects can comprehend in all its sweep. As with all bureaucrats at heart, they have no understanding of its complexity, its interconnectedness, its feedbacks and its fragility. Nor does any of them care for freedom. Government by such people is bad enough when they are tinkering at the edges but it is disastrous when they are attempting to dismantle the entire economy and most of society in order to rebuild it in their image. They are destroying a massive complex building and replacing it with a child’s drawing of a house.

  8. Post BREXIT permalink
    October 19, 2021 6:54 pm

    Classic .’Can down the road’ stuff.
    Having nailed its colours to to AGW mast the Govt has to keep up the pretence that it is serious about St Great’s mission. As with Covid 19 there is no way the politicos can admit that have got it wrong.
    However,, St Greta knows what is going on BLAH, BLAH, BLAH
    The politicos now have to wait until the latest ‘we’re all doomed’…” deadline passes before it can use it as a get out of jail card..

  9. tom0mason permalink
    October 19, 2021 7:02 pm

    Historically plans for the future have mostly (so far) been sustainable (during the historical periods when they were enacted).
    These days the sustainability of such plans are at there core, safe — they do not cause excessive environmental degradation, illness, hardship, potential or actual increases in mortality for employees and/or users. Such sustainable plans must be rational, practical, profitable, flexible and efficient. During times when such plans have proven to be unsustainable, poverty and shortened lives are the eventual outcome for many.

    Are Bozo Johnson’s plans safe, rational, practical, profitable, flexible, and efficient?
    I say NO they are not!

  10. MrGrimNasty permalink
    October 19, 2021 7:47 pm

    The climate/net zero rubbish has saturated nearly every TV/radio program on all channels. It’s completely insane.

    Complete lies about climate change risks, policy costs, technology efficiency etc. are spouted endlessly unchallenged.

    Your damp squib of a policy is a nuclear bomb at the heart of our economy/prosperity/freedom/security etc. It doesn’t matter if they work or not, the destruction they will cause is guaranteed.

    • Broadlands permalink
      October 19, 2021 8:11 pm

      What’s even worse is that Net-zero is now a buzzword and is never properly defined and understood. If it was it would immediately be seen as impossible to do.

      “What is net zero?
      Net zero means not adding to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Achieving it will involve reducing greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible and balancing out any that remain by removing an equivalent amount.”

      An equivalent amount that remained last year was about 38-40 BILLION metric tons. Do the maths to 2050 of removing that per year.

      Not adding to the atmosphere means no fuels for transportation. No maths needed to see the consequences of that stupidity.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        October 19, 2021 9:39 pm

        This is net zero:

        You will be poor
        You will be cold
        You will be hungry
        You may lose your job, your car and your house.

      • bobn permalink
        October 20, 2021 1:03 am

        Given the biggest greenhouse gas by far @95% is H2O, I expect this means boiling kettles is now illegal and all historic steam engines must never be fired up again.
        Also the Drax wood burners must be closed due to the huge H20 greenhouse gas emissions.

  11. October 19, 2021 7:53 pm

    What a surprise! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Drastic shortage of heat pump installers threatens Johnson’s green push

    About 60,000 plumbers will be needed to install the devices by 2028, but fewer than 1,800 have the right training
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/19/drastic-shortage-heat-pump-installers-threatens-johnsons-green

    What’s the difference between ‘having a path’ and ‘having a plan’?

    See above for what can go wrong when there’s no overall plan.

    • Peter Barrett permalink
      October 19, 2021 9:15 pm

      We have been driving goods around in lorries for over a hundred years. The number of lorries gives a rough estimate of the number of drivers required. One hundred years on and we are incapable of getting this anywhere near right. Heat pumps? Forget it.

  12. Crowcatcher permalink
    October 19, 2021 8:47 pm

    What confirms the lunacy for me is that “they” don’t know the difference between “net” and “nett” – ignoranuses all!!!!

  13. Jim Le Maistre permalink
    October 19, 2021 8:49 pm

    The Net Zero Lie . . .
    There is No such thing as ‘Clean Energy’ . . .
    The Planet Suffers Every Time We Use Electricity . . . Regardless the source . . .

    As Much Pollution Comes from Making Electricity -Globally
    As . . . All the Cars, Trucks, Trains and Planes – Combined ! 27% of global GHG production !

    Hidden truths surrounding electricity and the ‘Embodied Energy’ it contains must be understood. Wishful thinking about cleaning up the air we breathe is very good. However, we have been falsely led to believe the ‘Zero Emissions’ mantra about electricity and electric cars, we never hear about the science pointing to the environmental destruction caused by producing, transmitting and storing electricity. The Embodied energy leading to environmental destruction remains unspoken, but it is, very, very real.

    66% of electricity produced comes from burning fossil fuels. 79% is non-renewable. (fossil fuels + nuclear). Using electricity is presented as having ‘zero emissions. The place where electricity is consumed does indeed have no emissions but that electricity was generated somewhere and globally it ALL has an environmental impact. The result is more environmental poison not less. Cities may have cleaner air, but the planet gets more polluted. All energy production machines are about 35% efficient, including cars, trucks and power generating stations – physics 101. “The efficiency of power plants like nuclear, coal-fired or natural gas turbines. These technologies are based on a thermodynamic cycle, that efficiency is in the order of 35%. This means that the combustion of oil or coal, for example, will produce heat, which will be converted into mechanical energy and then into electricity”. https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/ Most energy produced by most engines is equal, at point of production. Cars, trucks, trains, planes, power generating stations and engines of all kinds start at about 35% efficiency. Transmission losses and charging inefficiencies make it go down up to 31% more from there.

    27% of GHG’s are released making electricity . . . How will increasing GHG’s by producing more Electricity for Electric Cars save the Environment?? . . . An honest question . . .

    79% of Global electric supply is non-renewable. 17% comes from hydro, 4% from wind, solar and renewables combined. Renewable or clean/green electric energy is said to be – emissions free . . . Not by a long shot! . . . For starters, 40% of the cost of building a Hydro dam is spent burning fossil fuels today. Running diesel-powered heavy machinery, moving earth, making reinforcing steel, producing concrete, building turbines and running the heavy machinery used to build those dams. More again is spent on steel for transmission towers and yet more on aluminum transmission lines. “Concrete and steel combined account for 14.7% of global carbon dioxide emission”. Think about those 400′ masts of concrete and steel supporting wind turbines as well. This FACT is always ignored. https://www.corporateknights.com/channels/climate-and-carbon/getting-carbon-concrete-steel-15869448/

    We must recognize the environmental destruction caused by building these dams and running transmission lines through natural habitats to cities where we all live and work. We must not forget the 10,000 caribou that perished in Quebec because the James Bay hydro project blocked migration routes for the largest migrating heard of Caribou in North America. This is not clean energy! Where is the outrage? This can not be swept under the rug! All energy production has a toxic environmental cost.

    Renewables . . .One wind turbine contains 800 lbs. of Neo-Dymium Boron. More radiation is released making these rare-earth magnets in Mongolia each Year than all the nuclear reactors in the USA, combined ! As one environmentalist told the Daily Mail, “There is not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment.” “Wood is currently the largest contributor to this renewable energy target, accounting for as much as 45 percent of all renewable energy consumed”. https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/12/insider-why-burning-trees-energy-harms-climate#:~:text We cut down forests and burn the wood as ‘biomass’ in North America and Europe and call it renewable energy – Why? . . . Trees are the #1 contributor to removing CO2 from the air we all breath! Those forests take more than 100 years to grow back.

    Wind turbines are described as clean, green technology and renewable, on paper. That is not even remotely true. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned the radioactive waste from producing these rare earth magnets in the USA, where it was invented by General Dynamics’ more than 30 years ago. Also, neo-dymium boron magnets are what drive those engines in the ‘Emissions free’ electric cars. Will electric cars end pollution? No! Sadly, pollution has just been moved out of site and out of mind to places like China’s Mongolia, where it is not seen and un-spoken. Again, we need to learn the science first! . . . All pollution must be eradicated, not just CO2 . . . IF you really care about the Environment.

    When electricity is lost, where does it go? OHM’S Law . . . Heat . . . Electrons moving back and forth crash into each other, and those collisions warm up power lines and the air around them. More heat loss again at power stations converting DC to AC and then again, more heat loss at transformers in your neighborhood. “8-15% is lost during transmission and from transformers”. https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/ The biggest loss of energy in any one place comes from charging Lithium batteries. Exciting the electrons inside a battery releases heat. To store 100 kilowatts of electricity it takes 115 kilowatts to accomplish that. 15% of the energy input is lost as heat . . . https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/09/20180905-fotw.html https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098248_charging-an-electric-car-why-it-takes-more-energy-than-your-battery-holds
    Transmission losses and charging losses represent up to 31 % of the Electricity Produced is wasted as heat before beginning to turn the wheels on an electric car. From the generating station, be it wind, hydro, coal, bio fuel or nuclear power plant – Up to 15% in transmission and 16% or more charging car batteries.

    Why is this knowledge not broadly known! Who keeps this from reaching the public? Why are we not told? Who gains from this misinformation? The Media and Governments must step up and dispel the illusions and false information disseminated by propagandists, profiteers and self-interested advocacy groups who promote Electric Cars and Electrification in general. Furthermore, why do governments give rebates for buying Electric Cars that waste so much energy? Electric cars are burning up to 31% more energy, Globally, for every kilometer driven compared to gasoline or diesel vehicles. Not a reduction in fuel consumption, Not Emissions Free. Not some panacea to save the world from pollution. Just another trick to fool the mases into believing in Energy Free Magic.

    Technology and charging efficiencies have improved enough to make competition possible for electric car makers . . . Electricity remains highly inefficient as an energy source for cars . . . Some day when we can produce electricity ‘on-board’ from a new source of energy, things may change. Until then, electric cars are little more than sleight of hand delivered by magicians selling a dream to believers in the myth of energy conservation falsely implied for drivers of electric cars . . . Some scientific facts never will change. OHM’S LAW – Resistance = Heat . . . Even the EPA missed the ‘How Electricity is Produced’ fundamentals in their analysis . . . Truth . . . All Energy Production . . . is Poison to the Environment!

    Jim Le Maistre

  14. Jim Le Maistre permalink
    October 19, 2021 9:11 pm

    The ‘Net Zero’ Lie . . .

    The Planet Suffers Every Time We Use Electricity . . . Regardless of source !

    Hidden truths surrounding electricity and the ‘Embodied Energy’ it contains must be understood. Wishful thinking about cleaning up the air we breathe is very good. However, we have been falsely led to believe the ‘Zero Emissions’ mantra about electricity and electric cars, we never hear about the science pointing to the environmental destruction caused by producing, transmitting and storing electricity. The Embodied energy leading to environmental destruction remains unspoken, but it is, very, very real.

    66% of electricity produced comes from burning fossil fuels. 79% is non-renewable. (fossil fuels + nuclear). Using electricity is presented as having ‘zero emissions. The place where electricity is consumed does indeed have no emissions but that electricity was generated somewhere and globally it ALL has an environmental impact. The result is more environmental poison not less. Cities may have cleaner air, but the planet gets more polluted. All energy production machines are about 35% efficient, including cars, trucks and power generating stations – physics 101. “The efficiency of power plants like nuclear, coal-fired or natural gas turbines. These technologies are based on a thermodynamic cycle, that efficiency is in the order of 35%. This means that the combustion of oil or coal, for example, will produce heat, which will be converted into mechanical energy and then into electricity”. https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/ Most energy produced by most engines is equal, at point of production. Cars, trucks, trains, planes, power generating stations and engines of all kinds start at about 35% efficiency. Transmission losses and charging inefficiencies make it go down up to 31% more from there.

    79% of Global electric supply is non-renewable. 17% comes from hydro, 4% from wind, solar and renewables combined. Renewable or clean/green electric energy is said to be – emissions free . . . Not by a long shot! . . . For starters, 40% of the cost of building a Hydro dam is spent burning fossil fuels today. Running diesel-powered heavy machinery, moving earth, making reinforcing steel, producing concrete, building turbines and running the heavy machinery used to build those dams. More again is spent on steel for transmission towers and yet more on aluminum transmission lines. “Concrete and steel combined account for 14.7% of global carbon dioxide emission.” This FACT is always ignored. https://www.corporateknights.com/channels/climate-and-carbon/getting-carbon-concrete-steel-15869448/

    We must recognize the environmental destruction caused by building these dams and running transmission lines through natural habitats to cities where we all live and work. We must not forget the 10,000 caribou that perished in Quebec because the James Bay hydro project blocked migration routes for the largest migrating heard of Caribou in North America. This is not clean energy! Where is the outrage? This can not be swept under the rug! All energy production has a toxic environmental cost.

    Renewables . . .One wind turbine contains 800 lbs. of Neo-Dymium Boron. More radiation is released making these rare-earth magnets in Mongolia each Year than all the nuclear reactors in the USA, combined. As one environmentalist told the Daily Mail, “There is not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment.” “Wood is currently the largest contributor to this renewable energy target, accounting for as much as 45 percent of all renewable energy consumed”. https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/12/insider-why-burning-trees-energy-harms-climate#:~:text We cut down forests and burn the wood as ‘biomass’ in North America and Europe and call it renewable energy – Why? . . . Trees are the #1 contributor to removing CO2 from the air we all breath! Those forests take more than 100 years to grow back.

    Wind turbines are described as clean, green technology and renewable, on paper. That is not even remotely true. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned the radioactive waste from producing these rare earth magnets in the USA, where it was invented by General Dynamics’ more than 30 years ago. Also, neo-dymium boron magnets are what drive those engines in the ‘Emissions free’ electric cars. Will electric cars end pollution? No! Sadly, pollution has just been moved out of site and out of mind to places like China’s Mongolia, where it is not seen and un-spoken. Again, we need to learn the science first! . . . All pollution must be eradicated, not just CO2 . . . IF you really care about the Environment.

    Why is this knowledge not broadly known! Who keeps this from reaching the public? Why are we not told? Who gains from this misinformation? The Media and Governments must step up and dispel the illusions and false information disseminated by propagandists, profiteers and self-interested advocacy groups who promote Electric Cars and Electrification in general. Furthermore, why do governments give rebates for buying Electric Cars that waste so much energy? Electric cars are burning up to 31% more energy, Globally, for every kilometer driven compared to gasoline or diesel vehicles. Not a reduction in fuel consumption, Not Emissions Free. Not some panacea to save the world from pollution. Just another trick to fool the mases into believing in Energy Free Magic.

    Technology and charging efficiencies have improved enough to make competition possible for electric car makers . . . Electricity remains highly inefficient as an energy source for cars . . . Some day when we can produce electricity ‘on-board’ from a new source of energy, things may change. Until then, electric cars are little more than sleight of hand delivered by magicians selling a dream to believers in the myth of energy conservation falsely implied for drivers of electric cars . . . Some scientific facts never will change. OHM’S LAW – Resistance = Heat . . . Even the EPA missed the ‘How Electricity is Produced’ fundamentals in their analysis . . . Truth . . . All Energy Production . . . is Poison to the Environment!

  15. October 19, 2021 9:18 pm

    The accepted climate change paradigm, proudly supported by the BCC, is it will soon be so hot in UK we won’t need heating any more so what is all this about? increased home insulation won’t be needed either.

    Our consumption of gas for heating will fall inverse to the widely accepted robust hockey stick temperature graph shown in IPCC AR6.

    There you are problem solved! saving the planet is simple as long as you don’t let reality intervene.

  16. October 19, 2021 9:21 pm

    10:15pm 🟢 Channel 4 COP24 Comedy show
    ‘How We Forgot To Save The Planet’,
    will it be preachy ?
    … Or will it take the mickey out of ecowarriors ?

    OK Channel4 commissioned a comedy prog, the maker used BBC studios
    so the prog carries the BBC logo even though it is on Channel4
    https://twitter.com/bbcstudios/status/1450509170432749571

  17. Gamecock permalink
    October 19, 2021 10:31 pm

    A Net Zero economy will have net zero money. All this billion pounds here, a trillion there, is hilarious – there will be NO MONEY for any of it.

    Gamecock’s advice to Brits: There will be no money for a military, either. Learn Norwegian. Maybe Danish.

    ‘it comes as the UK prepares to host the UN COP26 summit next week, where the Prime Minister will call on other world economies to set out their own domestic plans for cutting emissions’

    “Yeah, sure Boris, we’re right there with you. We’re going to destroy our economies, too.”

  18. October 19, 2021 10:49 pm

    Heat pumps are ‘not yet ready’ for the mass market. No, because they’re far too expensive, obviously. So forget it.

  19. richard permalink
    October 19, 2021 11:07 pm

    “At this point alarm bells should be going off even among the most brain-dead progressives because for all its touted benefits, the costs are starting to emerge and – at least when it comes to the next two or three generations – they will be absolutely crushing for the middle class, while allowing the top 1% to plunder and pillage virtually all the world’s assets. Think of it as the biggest mandated theft in world history, and suddenly one can understand why every private-jet setting billionaire is oh so very vocally in support of a “net zero” world” – https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/one-bank-reveals-dismal-truth-about-150-trillion-crusade-against-climate-change

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      October 20, 2021 8:41 am

      That’s bad economics. If most of us get poorer, so will the wealthy. Think of say Amazon. My essentials cost a great deal more as energy costs a great deal more. So I buy a great deal less from Amazon. That makes Bezos poorer. Same with Facebook – we buy less, there’s fewer ads. Indeed some tech companies reliant entirely on revenue like that might really struggle.

      The counterintuitive thing about wealth generated rather than simply stolen is that it can only exist for the owners of the companies generating it if we, the consumers, are also getting wealthier. Its no coincidence that the world’s biggest companies are in the world’s biggest economy. Shrink that economy and the companies will shrink.

  20. Coeur de Lion permalink
    October 19, 2021 11:07 pm

    I heard Lord Gummer say that the Climste Changr Committee will ‘hold the government’s feet to the fire’ on his net zero plan. But the Govt is elected, isn’t it? Is Gummer?

  21. tomo permalink
    October 19, 2021 11:53 pm

    The next few weeks are going to be fun huh?

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      October 20, 2021 10:03 am

      I have three children aged in their twenties who all live independently from my wife and I. None of them (quite legally) have a TV license as they simply do not watch mainstream TV in common with an ever rapidly increasing number of young people. I am really not sure who the likes of the BBC, ITV et alia actually think they are preaching to. Ask most young people in the real world who Greta Thunberg is and the usual reply is along the lines of “some foreign nutjob”!

      • tomo permalink
        October 20, 2021 2:10 pm

        Yep…

        I do not possess a telly either – but I chose to use them when I’m in a hotel and am subjected to them in public places (airports mostly – but the numbers there are thankfully dropping)

        The bubble the broadcasters operate in is quite extraordinary, – another planet… My surprise at the the ignorance, the conceit and the overarching arrogance coupled to an obvious sense of entitlement usually delays turning off for a couple of minutes filled with wonder.

        Bring back the test card and put most of them onto truck driving courses.

  22. October 20, 2021 3:32 am

    CO2is innocent of significant influence on climate, which is governed by the sun, water vapour and cosmic rays.
    Even E.Milliband could not (claim to) influence these.variables.

    “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.”

  23. October 20, 2021 6:39 am

    Sir David King was on Channel 4 News. He appears to have gone completely senile, but it didn’t stop the lies pouring out of his mouth – all lapped up by the arch-propagandist, Jon Snow.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      October 20, 2021 8:33 am

      King is one of the idiots who thought it would all be so easy and do simple. Now he actually has to engage in the messy, complex real world he doesn’t know what to do. As Hayek said in 1949:

      “The intellectual, by his whole disposition, is uninterested in technical details or practical difficulties. What appeals to him are the broad visions, the specious comprehension of the social order as a whole which a planned system promises.”

  24. Phoenix44 permalink
    October 20, 2021 8:25 am

    A couple of points.

    My cost for a gas boiler is zero, because I have one. It’s only when it needs replacing that it’s cost becomes relevant.

    If you protect me against spikes in price of gas then you also prevent me benefitting from dips in price. And I can protect myself anyway by taking out fixed price tariffs.

  25. Philip Wood permalink
    October 20, 2021 7:12 pm

    Absolutely spot on, Ph44 !
    Only one problem now – there aren’t any fixed price tariffs which are cheaper than the set price.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: