Jeremy Hunt’s Green Industry Deception
By Paul Homewood
Jeremy Hunt has revealed that the UK is sitting on an energy goldmine, as wind power has generated record amounts of energy in the past year. In a keynote speech at Bloomberg’s European headquarters in London, the Chancellor delivered an upbeat message as he unveiled his plan to turbocharge Britain’s economy. At this speech, Mr Hunt hailed the UK’s renewable energy industry as a "big growth area", which he estimates could be worth a trillion pounds by the end of the decade. He also pointed to recent announcements made by the National Grid’s Electricity Systems Operator, which showed that the UK has produced staggering amounts of electricity in the past year.
In the speech, Mr Hunt said: "Another big growth area is out green and clean energy sector. The UK is a world leader here, with the largest offshore wind farm in the world.
"Last year we were able to generate an incredible 40 percent of our electricity from renewables. On one day, on a rather windy December 30th, we actually got 60 percent of our electricity from renewables, mainly wind.
"McKinsey estimates that the global market opportunity for the UK green industries could be worth more than a trillion pounds between now and 2030."
Hunt is being rather disingenuous here. The McKinsey report he refers to states:
Overall, we estimate that the capital expenditure into low-carbon assets in the world’s broader energy, transport, food, and land-use systems could be around £40-50 trillion in the period 2021–2030. 16 The global market opportunity for UK companies producing the goods and services to feed this green capex revolution could be worth more than £1 trillion by 2030
Whether the export opportunities identifies materialise or not, they have very little to do with Britain’s offshore wind industry. It is extremely unlikely we will export turbine blades, for instance, or actually instal anything, or even provide consultancy.
The opportunities are most likely to revolve around our traditional strengths, such as finance and professional services. We will be in a good place to do this whether we go for Net Zero or not.
But what Mr Hunt forgot to mention was the crippling cost of Net Zero. A year ago the same McKinsey published another report on Net Zero:
The net-zero transition will cost $275 trillion globally by 2050 as low-emission activities are ramped up and high-emissions activities decrease, according to a new report from consultancy McKinsey & Company.
The increase in capital spending on physical assets for energy and land-use equates to an average $9.2tn per year or an increase of $3.5tn on today’s annual spending, McKinsey found in its latest study: The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what it could bring.
The transition will also lead to extensive labour reallocations, with about 200 million direct and indirect jobs added to the labour market by 2050, making up for the 185 million positions lost over the same period, the report found, which assessed sectors that produce 85 per cent of overall emissions, with a detailed assessment of 69 countries.
“The net-zero transition will amount to a massive economic transformation,” said Mekala Krishnan, a partner at the McKinsey Global Institute and lead author of the report.
Business will doubtlessly benefit from all of this capital spending, but it will be the public who end up paying the bill. Meanwhile it will be painful transition for those 185 million who will lose their jobs. The idea that they will simply walk into one of the 200 million new jobs is ridiculous – life does not work like that.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
We are all doomed when we are governed by politicians who haven’t a clue about energy supply. Do they really believe all the green crap that they spout endlessly?
Unfortunately it appears they do believe all the green crap
Spain already worked out their numbers.
I think it was 2.7 jobs lost for every GangGreen job gained.
But Britishvolt is just the latest in a line of British GangGreen fiascos.
The Chinese will carry on laughing all the way to the bank.
But I have no doubt that Jeremy “Isaak” Hunt will still smell of violets in his hideaway. Disgusting turd.
They won’t because they will discover rmercantilsm remains false e en when the Divine Leader of the CCP thinks otherwise. Impoverished Western consumers don’t buy many goods, no matter who makes them.
And at this very moment wind is supplying a whopping 5% of our electricity and solar 5%. Meanwhile Gas is supplying 54%, Nuclear 13% and coal 3%. Luckily overseas interconnectors are supplying another 14%.
Source. Gridwatch
On one day, on a rather windy December 30th, we actually got 60 percent of our electricity from renewables, mainly wind.
One day. And on some other days we got low single digits percent. What was his point exactly?
It is propaganda, intended to get people to pretend wind power is viable.
It depends on a government educated population.
Oldbrew,
using percentage does not provide a balanced look at or prove viability at all.
Simply, at night assuming a constant output over 24 hours (I know that’s not real but for this explantion accept that) percentage will be higher than at peak times, gas decreases at night and increases during the day.
In other words, given a constant over 24 hours the wind’s percentage varies inversely to demand, so say 60% at night, 40% at peak times.
A meaningless figure.
“McKinsey estimates that the global market opportunity for the UK green industries could be worth more than a trillion pounds between now and 2030.”
True. As well as could be zero. Could be a trillion pounds in debt.
Hunt is selling a fantasy, not a reality. We can’t know whether he knows.
‘as wind power has generated record amounts of energy in the past year’
‘which showed that the UK has produced staggering amounts of electricity in the past year’
A granularity fallacy. Electricity demand is by the SECOND. What you did in a year, vs perpetual demand, is a joke. A shiny object. “Look, a helicopter!”
Is he not aware that the UK has produced 100% of its demand – a “staggering” amount – for decades now? These politicians are so solipsistic- nothing exists until they turn their attention to it.
Actually given the efficiencies of the green economy, I wouldn’t be surprised that a large portion of people in mature industries, making $40-50/hr will get green jobs earning $15-20/hr and a portion of those extra green jobs will be people who have to work 2 jobs to make ends meet.
If, as Mr Hunt seems to believe, wind is superior to thermodynamically generated power, perhaps he can explain the rapidity with which unsubsidised commercial steamships took over from wind-powered ships in the nineteenth century.
Or that one steam powered pumping station that drains Amsterdam replaced 240 windmills, and there are 3 stations so that is 720 windmills.
Of the forecast worldwide £275 trillion cost up to 2050 to support a belief, what is the forecast cost to the UK?
Hunt used to be Health Secretary. I bet he would never want a hospital to be supplied ONLY by wind turbines, no matter how much electricity they ‘could’ generate in a year.
And during his time there he failed to plan for a pandemic and although he isn’t the only one guilty of this, it was written down that an unusual disease might kill less than 1000.
” And during his time there he failed to plan for a pandemic and although he isn’t the only one guilty of this, ”
Hunt (and others) should face manslaughter charges for failing to prepare for Covid. The Cygnus and Cygnet exercises in 2015 – 2016 demonstrated the potential risks that an airborne virus pandemic could create for the UK, but our glorious leaders did nothing to prepare for an airborne virus pandemic, in fact the opposite occured: in 2019 Johnson disbanded the government committee dedicated to preparing the UK for pandemics.
In 1919, the primary defence against Spanish Flu was a combination of face coverings, hand washing and social distancing.
In 2020, the initial defence against Covid was a combination of face coverings, hand washing and social distancing.
Face coverings ? Useless, like trying to stop a mosquito with a Pickett fence.* The paper style masks were only ever meant to stop spit from landing on a wound etc.
*Not my quote but I totally agree having worked and suffered in the NHS
Andrew Bridgen MP hero of the Post Masters scandle is currently exposing the fraud, lies and scandles that surround Johnson and his gangsters relating to the pandemic and the way it was and is being handled.
For better or for worse – we do indeed live in interesting times.
https://brownstone.org/articles/why-n95-masks-fail-to-stop-spread/
” Face coverings ? Useless, like trying to stop a mosquito with a Pickett fence.* The paper style masks were only ever meant to stop spit from landing on a wound etc. ”
The description “face coverings” applies to a wide range of masks, some more effective than others.
“…some more effective than others.”
But none capable of preventing the inhalation of nanoscale virus particles.
See my link above.
A face covering doesn’t have to stop all virus particles to be effective. It’s a “numbers game” .
You haven’t bothered reading the link, have you?
I got as far as ” the 5% percent never captured is still a plentiful enough potential exposure to infectious matter to result in infection. ”
There are too many variables for the above absolute statement to be valid in all instances.
Face masks. A very visual signal. Psychological, terrorising, wasteful (£), littering, virtue signalling, ultimately irrelevant if it wasn’t a potential risk to the person wearing one.
Young dealers and robbers loved them though.
I include Skidmore with them.
The entire lockdown, after the first one, another huge subject not discussed in the meadia.
Just like this climate change con.
Jeremy Hunt let the nation down too many times already.
Listen out for Andrew Bridgen MP.
A man who’s actually earning his crust.
You mean the second lockdown that occurred over primarily ver xmas, which was brought in after cases and deaths started increasing rapidly after opening up? The opening up which ultimately lead to 30K excess deaths over the November, December and January? Ok.
Where “cases” were not defined by a review of clinical symptoms, but by a positive response to a PCR test run at too high a CT or a lateral flow test; both tests being well known to produce false results. If you test for it you will find it, a.k.a. the scivers’ charter. Those “cases”?
Where is your evidence that those tests were run incorrectly, as you state, were pre-ordained to provide false positives and what failure rate are you stating? With evidence?
And in case you didn’t know, test results feed into and often form the basis of clinal reviews. In fact, more often than not.
The inventor of the PCR tests Kary Mullis, who was awarded a Nobel prize for his invention, said they should not be used as a diagnostic tool. The fragments of RNA which are identified by the test could well have nothing to do with a current SARs-CoV-2 infection but could well reflect some ‘dead’ bits of RNA hanging around from an earlier infection. I’m just a bog standard Biochemistry graduate so if a Nobel Prize winner in the field says something I tend to trust them until proved otherwise.
Also, the more cycles used in the testing, the more likely that the test will be inaccurate. A CT of 25 was suggested to be appropriate, but many laboratories went beyond this. Possibly to create a lot of “cases”?
In response to an FOI request made to the MHRA (FOI-21-153), it states that “The PCR tests being used by NHS laboratories are not 100% accurate in the detection of SARs-CoV-2.”
From my own perspective, if the Government is going to trash the economy and massively damage the country’s health and education systems in pursuit of the impossible goal of defeating a respiratory virus, it should only be using a test with 100% diagnostic accuracy. However, the high numbers of “cases” did enable the Government to keep their fear propaganda and ‘nudging’ advertising running along at warp speed. Which might have been the whole point of the exercise?
Regarding the lateral flow tests, the US Food and Drug Agency suggested that ‘the performance of the test had not been established, presenting a risk to health, and that the tests should be thrown in the bin or returned to their manufacturer’ (Guardian 11.06.21). These tests, manufactured by Innova, were the cornerstone of the UK mass testing scheme ‘Operation Moonshot’.
However, I’m sure that you and the 77th brigade would disagree with me!
Wrong. Mullis never said that and the actually quite that was attributed to him, is also fake. It was a claim made by an online blogger in Australia.
So debunked claims are your evidence. Ta.
Also your statements directly contracts those by many far more experienced biochemistry experts.
As for not 100%, well obviously. I asked for a failure rate, a percentage of failures. Unless you are saying that perpetual motion and other such 100% scams are the requirements? That all testing of any sort must be 100% accurate Oh, you are. Sheesh.
Bye.
Much as though I’m impressed by your use of the word “Sheesh” perhaps, in wishing you a less than fond farewell,you might like to read this link:
https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/questioning-unreliable-pcr-testing-is-hardly-trivial
This ex minister for media, 2010-2012,has learnt how to manipulate the figures.
Back in 2016, whilst minister for health, inflated the figures – claiming the funding was for five years when in actual fact they were for for six.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-hunt-admits-to-fudging-10bn-funding-pledge-for-nhs_uk_58062c83e4b096d121471392
Having been educated at good schools I’m sure there was no mistake made here but rather a deliberate attempt to deceive.
This leopard hasn’t changed his spots. Only grown his claws.
He does not care to speak the truth, nor care for the lives of those he plots to wreck.
Hunt is yet another crook we should not heed.
‘ turbocharge Britain’s economy’
Like he turbocharged the NHS when i/c there?
Needle scratch.
An internal combustion engine reference. (Requiring fossil fuels.)
I am starting to come to the conclusion that C – er sorry, Hunt is likely to be the worst and most mendacious snout-in-the-trough Chancellor of the Exchequer I have had the misfortune to experience since the 1950s.
Telegraph has the most ludicrous lickspittle leader of the year so far, outside its Ukraine comedy pages. “Jeremy Hunt became Chancellor at a moment of genuine peril and swiftly restored faith in the nation’s financial institutions.”
The peril of course occurred when he was installed, and continues apace.
They follow with a number of the most egregious misrepresentations from Hunt himself, and lap it up; the most sickening being his pompous “but voters deserve more than mere competence.”
Cat, How Dare You compare him to something useful !!!
Except for Zahawi?
Having the same time scale as your good self I could not agree more. Also, we need to recall that Chunt was the health minister who decided to sweep under the carpet the findings of Exercise Cygnus. Those findings being that we were woefully unprepared to cope with an influenza epidemic.
“Last year we were able to generate an incredible 40 percent of our electricity from renewables.”
NO, Last year …
30% came from wind
4% solar
1.3% hydro
16.7% nuclear
47.8% from burning stuff
biomass counts as renewable
with some crazy maths going on for Drax burning American trees etc.
Burning rubbish is a good thing
“Burning rubbish is a good thing”
Yes I agree …
BUT it’s not reducing CO2, which if memory serves, was the original reason we were given for all this madness
It does reduce CO2 cos burning rubbish displaces the fossil fuel activity you would have done to generate the same electricity otherwise,
At present the government are having to resort to paying people NOT to use electricity at certain times of the day; due to the lack of it.
Yet the cabinet’s response is to find ever more dastardly ways in which to consume it !
Watch “Urgent! UK Government’s Digital Identity Survey” on YouTube
Hunt’s appears to want all things Chinese. Not just his wife but also their totalitarian system of government.0
DD: I’m afraid that his links to China and his interesting millionaire status – along with that of his Boss and soon-to-depart Chairman – is what makes me most unhappy with Maggie’s farm. (Ref: Dylan – ‘I ain’t going down Maggie’s farm no more…’)
There were eight dsys in March last year when there was no wind at all, remember . Well 2-3 per cent
Which (8 days) were supported by non-contributory (from ruinables contracts) funds. But we paid for the gas. That’s one change the non-Tories could win votes with. (OK: with which the Tories could…..). I hate renewables contracts that need me to subsidise them!
“But we paid for the gas.”
Variable cost. You also paid for the MUCH HIGHER fixed cost.
Talking of the fantasyland that politicians/media push instead of reality
@JakeBerry MP was on On Question Time from Scunthorpe
“That wind farm in the North Sea is made with British Steel”
AFAIK no British company makes windfarm towers
The UK imports them
But Scunthorpe makes lots of rail track for Germany
(I did tweet this , but my Twitter impact is pretty small,
I guess Twitter is using some throttling tricks)
Since I have to pay for the steel in my electricity bill I’d like it yo be the cheapest possible no matter where its from. That MPs are now pushing this “Made in the UK” nonsense bodes poorly for our wealth.
Although The UK is a a crazy country that imports a great deal of the components for Green Energy projects , I find it strange that people here (Paul) think the UK never exports wind turbine blades
I read a year ago Hull exports recyclable turbine blades
Aug. 1, 2022
Recyclable wind turbine blades operating in German North Sea wind farm
https://www.offshore-mag.com/renewable-energy/article/14280568/recyclable-wind-turbine-blades-operating-in-german-north-sea-wind-farm
The blades were manufactured in Hull, eastern England, and the nacelles were produced in and installed from Cuxhaven, northern Germany.
Swap 185 million people for 200 million and produce both less in aggregate and much less un actual value (rather than price). Oh look, we are hugely poorer.
This is s literally the false economics of Marxism. What matters is the value consumers ascribe to what is produced, not the price the state creates for things we don’t want.
Millionaire Chancellor Jeremy kHunt lying? Surely not.
Reblogged this on sideshowtog.