Cold, hungry, stuck at home: Net Zero’s drastic lifestyle changes
By Paul Homewood
Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith (CLS) recently started a row by pointing out that the Climate Change Committee (CCC) made a mistake in its grid design calculations. We do not need to go into all the details of that argument, because it masks the fact all the main Net Zero players are agreed that we should be using much less energy in 2050.
The 570TWh of demand outlined in CLS’s Royal Society (RS) report is in the same ballpark as the National Grid ESO Future Energy Scenarios published in 2023 (FES23), which calculates 2050 end-user demand across Residential, Industrial and Commercial and Transport sectors of 601—810 TWh for its Net Zero compliant scenarios. The CCC estimates end-user demand of 610 TWh in 2050 in its Balanced Net Zero pathway. Their dispute is about the amount of storage that would be required to cope with weather-dependent electricity generation from renewables.
This is a distraction from what the real argument ought to be. We should be having a much deeper discussion about how much energy we will need in 2050. Broadly speaking, FES23, the RS report and the CCC are calling for final energy demand to halve between now and 2050.
Full post here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Hi Paul,
The link to the full post seems to be broken.
Netzerowatch.com doesn’t work, and the link at the end isn’t a real link, just some text separated by spaces (%20).
Re the post – storage is a red herring. The only storage that works at scale (other than hydro in specific landscapes) is ready-to-burn fuels like coal and gas, assuming there’s somewhere to burn them!
Link I posted works for me in UK.
Oh, and to your second point – and various odd numbered isotopes of uranium (and plutonium).
“assuming there’s somewhere to burn them!”
Indeed.
In Chrome all NZW links give me a blank screen with no error message.
Oldbrew, I tend to browse with Javascript turned off and had no problem. Firefox and Linux, but I get the same as you if I turn Javascript on.
Something bust with them perhaps.
The real deceit is not admitting that Net Zero is a con and achieves nothing but poverty. It will have no effect on the climate whatever that is.
As most self respecting scientists know, man-made carbon dioxide has virtually no effect on the climate. It is a good gas essential to animals and plant life. Provided dirty emissions are cleaned up, we should be using our substantial store of fossil fuels while we develop a mix of alternatives including nuclear power to generate energy. There is no climate crisis, it has always changed and we have always adapted to it. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were many times higher during the last mini ice age. There was no industrial revolution then to be the cause . We have no control over the climate. The sun and our distance from it have by far the most effect. Most importantly, Net Zero Policy will do nothing for the climate either. Countries like China, Russia and India are sensibly ignoring it and using their fossil fuels. They will be astonished at how we are letting the power elites, mainstream media and government implement this Policy and Agenda 21 to needlessly impoverish us as well as causing great hardship and suffering.
Neatly put. Now all residents of East Surrey in the South East need to write to the woefully misguided and not very bright MP Claire Coutinho who believes every piece of Net Zero Nonsense plopped in front of her.
The Government funded UK FIRES Absolute Zero report describes the new living conditions we are expected to follow by 2050 to achieve Net Zero :
https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/75916920-51f6-4f9c-ade5-52cbf55d5e73/content
I don’t believe Net Zero can or will happen. Eventually this fraud, which is the modern equivalent of the “Emperors new clothes”, where no-one dares call it out, will be exposed and cancelled. It’s only a question of how much damage is caused in the meantime.
BTW, I understand that the 570 TWhrs figure used by the RS is the the quantity of renewable energy (wind and solar) which will require hydrogen storage backup to make it reliable. It is not intended to be the total amount of energy (around 1200 TWrs) available as some energy will come from other sources such as nuclear.
More like the Darien scheme than Emperor’s new clothes.
The Darien Scheme bankrupted Scotland and resulted in the creation of the United Kingdom (along with aid from bribery and political shenanigans). Also the deaths of a fair number of Scots in Central America.
The idea behind the scheme was actually a good one, unlike a wind powered economy. Transporting goods across the isthmus of Panama to save sailing round Cape Horn in ships powered by the wind. Just 200 years ahead of its time.
Fascinating, never heard of that before. I always thought the lengthy period of severe weather and famine was the driver of Union. Learn something new every day.
Ray
When I was at school in Perthshire in the 1950s and 60s everyone knew about the Darien Scheme without being taught. It was part of the nation’s DNA almost. It affected every family directly as almost the entire population invested in it.
Apart from’ as you rightly say, poor harvests the other issue was that the English Parliament banned English colonies trading with Scottish merchants and interests.
So a bankrupted nation with no possibility of trading internationally was in a very bad way.
The monarch at the time who insisted on maintaining the embargo was William III aka William of Orange of Glorious Revolution fame. But that’s another can of worms
Link to full post doesn’t work on my system,
regards
Terry Wall ________________________________
Strongly recommend everyone writes to their MP to request their and their party’s position on “Net Zero” and allied proposals such as aggressive traffic control measures, 20MPH, imposition of LTN zones and so on. Only by increasing the pressure on the Westminster gang, regardless of party, forcing them to think a little, can we hope to swing things in a more sensible direction.
I did – write to my MP – to ask him to justify NZC. His reply was that we need to reduce pollution. YCMIU!!
My MP replied that the young people he met were worried about climate change so we had to prevent it. Brains not engaged?
Yes we should all be contacting our MPs about their made dash to net zero. But “forcing them to think a little”?
That assumes they are capable of actually thinking, and it seems very few of them are
I wrote to my own MP some time ago, with a lot of technical info, seems it went right over their head. But it is the only tool we have, so keeping on hammering is the only way. More in hopes than expectations. Maybe need a bigger hammer !
Link should be to here, I think, for those looking:
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/storage-spats-mask-drastic-net-zero-lifestyle-changes
… all the main Net Zero players are agreed that we should be using much less energy in 2050.
Much less? Population projection for UK in 2050 is 71.6 million versus 68 million currently. Things that come to mind: caves, depopulation, a giant meteor (see Stony Tunguska River event) visits London, . . .
yeah we know that decarbonising electricity generation can’t be done. So what about aviation, shipping, construction, agriculture, motor transport? Any ideas? Haven’t seen anything from the lying incompetent deluded CCC
Cars and planes reserved for essential services. International freight switched to electric rail. No beef, pork, or lamb to be reared. No cement. Restrict fertiliser. No fossil fuels. Electric homes only. Travel only when necessary and by cycle, electric bus, or electric train.
Basically permanent lockdown but vegan and colder with no end in sight.
Was the global lockdown just a dress rehearsal?
Nobody seems to mention population numbers as predictions are for an extra 10M rise by the time zero arrives