It’s time to drop the net zero agenda–Spectator
By Paul Homewood
Now The Spectator is on board:
For years British energy policy has been an exercise in wishful thinking. We’ve been living in a fantasy world in which Britain can somehow achieve ‘net zero’ by 2050 without paying any serious economic price, and with no one significantly poorer as a result. ‘Not a hair-shirt in sight,’ said the Prime Minister, though most independent assessments said net zero would cost between £36,000 and £50,000 per household.
Reality, now, is biting. Reducing emissions is important but security of supply is vital, and Europe has been forced to come to terms with its dependence on Russian oil and gas. The dependence is so entrenched that it is possible Vladimir Putin thought that Europe would rather leave Ukraine undefended than impose sanctions. If this was Putin’s thinking, it was a miscalculation. Europe has collectively chosen pain. The question is now to ameliorate it.
Boris Johnson has proposed a new energy plan, due this month. The European Union has said it will cut Russian imports by two-thirds by the end of the year: quite an ambition, given that Russia supplies about half of Germany’s gas imports and almost all of that imported by Finland and the Baltic states. A frantic search for alternatives has begun which has ushered in a new era of energy realism. The German Greens are softening in their opposition to nuclear power, and there are signs that No. 10 is letting go of the net zero agenda.
At present, it costs about £1,300 to heat the average home. By some estimates this will rise to £3,000 later this year, and that is before the other inflationary costs of food and basic shopping as a result of the sanctions. As Javier Blas argues in his article, the effect of the Ukraine war is all the greater because so many companies the world over are voluntarily imposing sanctions, compounding the effect of the official measures. Even if the conflict were to reach a swift resolution, relations with Russia are now so bad that sanctions are likely to remain in place for some time.
America is perhaps the least exposed of all western countries. More than a decade ago, it embraced hydraulic fracking technology to release its own gas supplies, and as a result is now self-sufficient in energy. It is no longer dependent on imports and is therefore less exposed to world energy turmoil. Britain had a great opportunity as a result of its huge shale reserves in the north of England. But local opposition inspired Johnson to impose a moratorium on fracking ahead of the 2019 election.
This has left Britain without many alternatives. The North Sea gas fields are run down, without any investment in storage facilities, leaving the UK completely at the mercy of a volatile global market in Liquid Natural Gas. Renewables have improved remarkably, and now generate about a third of domestic power. We have phased out coal. But we remain hugely dependent on gas – and horribly exposed to the staggering price increases. We can expect power cuts when the wind turbines we now rely on fail in calm weather. Against such a backdrop, net zero can’t last. The UK needs a grown-up energy policy instead.
The first step would be to dramatically increase production of our own oil and gas. Fields in the North Sea need to be brought back onstream, and we need urgently to restart fracking and exploiting the vast reserves of oil and gas in the north of England. Jobs and tax revenues would follow, and so as well as providing energy security, this might also be an opportunity to level up.
Advances in technology have already helped Britain reduce its carbon emissions more over the past decade than any other G20 country. The free market and innovation give us new ways to get more from less. Cars need far less petrol to travel the same distance, and the entire economy is becoming less energy-intensive. It’s far from clear that massive green levies and huge government bribes are the only way to achieve a cleaner, greener future – especially given the increasing consumer demand for low-carbon, low-waste lifestyles.
The UK should retain its status as a world leader in reducing carbon emissions, but it should not try to go further and faster than our major industrial rivals. That would come at too great a political and economic cost, with no significant benefit to the planet. We need a joined-up energy policy that combines security of supply, economic stability and geopolitical realism. Electric cars and heat pumps can wait until they are affordable for the average household.
The need for a new energy plan presents the Prime Minister with an opportunity. If Robert Habeck, the leader of the German Greens, can find it within himself to put in place plans for a strategic coal reserve to wean his country off Russian gas, than surely Johnson – a politician with the lightest of ideological baggage – can move on from his commitment to net zero. He doesn’t need to disavow it; he can just let it drop. There are new priorities now, and we can lose no time in addressing them.
Comments are closed.
And then perhaps become a world leader in stating firmly that decarbonisation is nonsense.
Not before time.
It’s not as if anyone of the slightest intelligence could have seen where this eco-lunacy would lead.
The problem is a complete lack of any STEM knowledge and experience, how a market works, and an arrogance and certainty that intelligence is substitute for relevant knowledge and experience.
Bertrand Russell
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
How did we get here? We have had a Tory Government for the past 12 years. They do not go in for such planning. Do you really think they are even mentally equipped to sort this out?
The fact is though, that whatever they do decide to do will have no effect for some years so what does the Spectator suggest we do to get us past the next two years.
Compare and contrast:
Wind farms couldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding, says Boris Johnson
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/10154424/Wind-farms-couldnt-pull-the-skin-off-a-rice-pudding-says-Boris-Johnson.html
And:
UK sets out net zero strategy as it gears up to host COP26
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britains-johnson-sets-out-net-zero-ambitions-2021-10-19/
Anyone want to take a guess at what made him change his mind?
Was it when someone asked if he preferred thin legs or fat legs, and he replied, something between the two?
He did say that 11slides had made everything clear to him.
Prince Charles now loves the wind turbines he used to hate:
Aug 2004 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1468897/Prince-Charles-wind-farms-are-horrendous.html
“The Prince of Wales believes that wind farms are a “horrendous blot on the landscape” and that their spread must be halted before they irreparably ruin some of Britain’s most beautiful countryside.”
2019 https://www.caithnesschamber.com/2019/12/06/beatrice-wind-farm-takes-renewable-energy-industry-award/
“After officially opening the Beatrice offshore wind farm in the summer, Prince Charles described it as a “remarkable engineering feat”.”
I wonder what changed his mind?
2019,Guardian: “The crown estate has opened the first leasing round for offshore windfarms in a decade to usher in a new generation of wind projects expected to eventually generate an investment of £20bn.”
The Crown Estate, which manages the monarch’s property portfolio, holds exclusive rights to lease the seabed around the British Isles for wind and wave power. Its profits go to the Treasury, which then sends 25% back to the royal household in the form of the sovereign grant.
The Crown Estate does not make its forecasts public. However, if the government’s 2030 target is met, the Queen [or King Charles, or King William] could be collecting more than £100m a year within a decade.”
The Tories have only been a proper free market, pro capitalism party under Thatcher. Before and after they have been highly interventionist, anti-market and high tax, high spending. In the last 12 years the only talk of markets has been the typically stupid “market failure”. Not a single problem has been allowed a market solution. The market solution (if one is needed) to CO2 is a carbon tax but that means no central planning, no CCC, no picking technogies by history graduates in the civil service and the exposure of Green technologies as high emitters. There are a vanishingly small number of free market Tory MPs. Both the Left and Right of economics has been abandoned by the political parties in favour of a technocratic mush of vapid stupidity.
Nick: One thing we can do immediately is to adopt the Irish Alternative Fuel Obligation and adapt our crucial CCGT generators to run on gas or liquid fuel esp. kerosene (for which they were originally designed as aero engines). Srorage could be built where appropriate by next winter. This would relieve the pressure on domestic gas, add security and challenge the price of gas.
Great suggestion. This would allow energy storage for high load / low wind periods. We also need more high efficiency OCGTs as it is pointless using CCGTs for short periods.
Jack B: Not so sure about the OCGT idea but what has to be done is to come up with a formula that overcomes the problem that renewables trump generators and find a way for the generators to make manageable incomes (which, in context of your suggestion would mean some level of steady load).
Vernon E, The gas turbines used in CCGT are generally relatively low efficiency “heavy-duty” machines. Aero-derivatives (up to about 80MWe) are much more efficient is open cycle mode: of course where there is a need they can be converted to CCGT by simply adding a boiler and steam turbine.
They are designed for rapid start-up and use much higher combustion temperatures to produce the higher efficiency. This debate has been around for years, the heavy duty machines won-out because they can be up to about 300Mwe / engine: this benefit over multiple smaller machines is at best dubious.
Best regards.
Well the headline is good, pity about the content. Renewables are great, got rid of coal , need more oil and gas fields opening up.
Good that it backs fracking, and new fields in N Sea etc; but these take a long time, they won’t change the next 4/5 years. Where is the drive to keep open any coal plant we have including mothballed plant, change the subsidy rules that would make renewables anything but great, but would create the incentive to build new dispatchable mid merit plant. Get rid of Climate Change Act and Net Zero legislation. Accelerate RR small nukes.
Its useless really, a bit of ‘oops we don’t like the thought of the lights going out, and its terribly expensive’ together with ‘ but we need to keep our woke credentials so we’ll say nice things about those lovely windmills’.
Didn’t Quadrilla say they could have their wells producing within 6 to 12 months?
Yep. Lets pretend there was, say, a war somewhere. Put them on a wartime footing and see just what they can do. I am not minimising the horrors and suffering but if it doesn’t go nuclear this could turn out to be a very beneficial crisis (for the right not the left for a change), a slap in the face bringing enough people to their senses, blowing away the shibboleths of climate emergency, CO2 as a temperature control knob, that there was a pandemic and that the jabs are not evil.
Can one of you clever chaps help me out here?
(1) I understand that ‘water vapour’ is a thousand and more times greater than C02 as a ‘greenhouse gas’ .
I also understand that if you burn ‘Hydrogen’ in an engine the gas coming out of the exhaust will be–‘WATER VAPOUR’!
Is this an example of ‘YOU COULDN’T MAKE IT UP’?
(2) The planet appears to be ‘finely tuned’ in several ways so that life can exist upon it.
One of these is the amount of OXYGEN in the atmosphere.
OXYGEN, of course, is extremely volatile so why do we not get raging fires bursting out all over the place?
The answer, I guess, is that the AMOUNT of OXYGEN is such that its volatility is tempered by the greater amounts of NITROGEN in the atmosphere.
So, what is going to happen to us when the making of HYDROGEN begins in earnest and
HUGE amounts of OXYGEN is then dumped into the atmosphere as a by-product of this HYDROGEN manufacture?
Like I said, ”help me out here”.
The amounts of gas involved are totally trivial in the context of atmospheric volumes. We’ve been taking oxygen out of the air by burning fossil fuels for a couple of centuries: that has had no effect on oxygen levels, afaik.
Don’t expect Johnson to change and drop net zero. Four reasons: he is economically illiterate (statement from Treasury), that bloody woman he lives with wouldn’t let him, BEID is so riddled with greens (it’s a wonder their building isn’t painted green) and Goldsmith would cut off his holiday villas, finally he doesn’t care a stuff about the man/woman in the street.
… you missed a key reason: very few votes will be lost, because there is nowhere for those voters to go.
As a reader I’ve been writing to the editor suggesting that the Speccie shd be the one to break the ice and tell the truth. GWPF’s lord Lawson had an article the other day – NZ will be an unparalleled economic calamity’.
Earthquakes are everywhere! A 1.7 in Cornwall!
‘Frightening’ earthquake at Cornwall’s Eden Project forces halt to drilling
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2022/03/10/frightening-earthquake-cornwalls-eden-project-forces-halt-drilling/
Though to describe a magnitude 1.7 as frightening does push credulity to the limit, even if it does have quotes:
Testing at the geothermal wells on the site was stopped after a seismic event of magnitude 1.7 was detected on Wednesday night.
Robert; The same article confirms the report that Cuagdrilla fracked their second test well to 2.9 when the test was stopped. All this is corresponding with the numerous published papers on the subject (all based on US Shale) that 3.0 is the outside limit for safety and there is no way that our goverrnment, even if if they let Cuadrilla have another try, will accept more than 2.5 ( at which the results will tell nothing new).
Yes, completely OTT. I live in Luxulyan a village about 3k from the geothermal site. We just looked at each other and said “thunder?”. Nothing moved or shook, forgotten until next morning when we saw the “Cornish earthquake” headlines. More clickbait.
‘Green Energy’ alternatives . . . Tesla, last year, sold 2 Billion $$$. Every solar farm and every wind farm did the same . . . All this green energy propaganda is FALSE ! Our governments have been sucked down the Big Green Rabbit Hole. It is almost like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic thinking that somehow that will help to ‘Right the Ship’ . . . Nonsense !
There is one big advantage of carbon offsets. If you’re the company selling them, they can be a significant revenue stream! The best example of this is Tesla. Yes, that Tesla we all know and love, the electric car maker, who sold Carbon Credits on the ‘Market-Based Carbon Emissions Trading Exchanges’ to the tune of over 2 Billion dollars worth of credits in 2021.
About $2,000 per car, because Environmentalists have declared Electric Cars are ‘Emissions Free’ . . . Emissions Free? . . . is that so . . .?? Really?
EV’s cause at least 15% more CO2 to be burned per mile driven, then the ‘Clean Green’ manufacturers can sell Carbon Credits worth $2,000 per car. Equal to . . . 400 tons of extra CO2 . . . per car . . . at today’s prices . . . Interesting?
https://www.academia.edu/62574334/Tesla_Versus_Toyota_Camry
These tricks of ‘Slight of hand’ MUST be exposed for what they are . . . Intellectual Fraud!
My Thoughts . . .