NZW says Labour and Policy Exchange tricked
By Paul Homewood
London: 10 June 2024
NZW says Labour and Policy Exchange tricked
Net Zero Watch says that the Labour Party and the Conservative thinktank Policy Exchange have both been taken in by misleading information issued by the energy analysts Aurora.
Aurora performed the modelling behind a 2024 Policy Exchange paper on decarbonising the grid. It was cited last week by Claire Coutinho, who noted its conclusion that Labour’s 2030 timetable for Net Zero was unachievable. It was also cited by Ed Miliband, who pointed to its conclusion that Labour’s decarbonisation plans would deliver cost savings to consumers.
However, energy writer David Turver has now shown that Aurora’s financial assumptions bear little resemblance to reality. Mr Turver said:
Aurora are assuming costs for renewables that are a fraction of what we know apply in reality. They have also left out the costs of grid upgrades, hydrogen storage and carbon capture. There are hundreds of billions of pounds missing from their analysis. The cost savings they claim are completely spurious.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
It’s sad to see an influential think tank like Policy Exchange publishing such risible nonsense, but it’s always a risk when taking numbers directly from the green lobby.
And Mr Montford called for politicians to come clean about the costs of Net Zero.
Last year, Mr Sunak said the public needed to be told the truth about the costs of Net Zero. But he, Keir Starmer, Claire Coutinho and Ed Miliband are still bandying about figures that are no better than fantasy.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Hopefully a major newspaper will pick up this story.
It is obvious in most story comments that there are many people who understand the true costs of Net Zero, but there are still too many that believe the green hype.
Cost isn’t the issue.
It is self-evident that weather dependent renewables can never be more that supplemental power sources. All else is intrigue.
Intermittency is ‘easily’ overcome with storage systems.
Then you realise we need 30,000 gwh of storage.
Then you realise that that is a whole load of infrastructure.
(Whether pumped water or hydrogen.)
Then you realise that this IS a cost issue.
R
Renewables with storage included can never be cheap.
Storage is finite. Outages are unbounded.
Ralph,
that is only to cover intermittency, there are other problems for the fantasy renewables only grid. Frequency control is a huge problem for renewables as is reactive power.
There may be ways to do that but again power is required which means more batteries, and more generators to keep them charged.
Another problem, is that of harmonics on the system generated by the inverters used for renewables which reduces transformer output (As they need to be regulated to control temperature rise induced by the harmonics)
None of this is new but those in power are not aware that there are problems that are near impossible to overcome and certainly at a horrendous cost.
That Net Zero Watch found out a reason just why government policy is so bad explains a lot. (I have been trying for more than two years, to get an answer, through my M.P., who advises the DESNZ with no reply.)
If they need advising, they can’t tell good from bad advice.
Hybrid solutions, at the very least in the interim, seem to be the way to go.
From hybrid cars to hybrid gas heat pumps up to & including hybrid mix of baseline with renewables ….. but not at any price.
China seem to have the right approach – using their own resources to sustain reliable energy security – all the way to 2050 – whilst rapidly developing their renewable capabilties.
Solution to WHAT?
The end of the world if we don’t appease the Climate God, apparently.
Given that over milliennia we have been at least 5° warmer and at least 10° cooler, that CO2 has been in concentrations up to (at the very least) 5 times greater than at present and within the last 200 years at least one-third less (and let us pray to that God that it never goes much lower or we are certainly doomed!), what precisely is the fuss about?
What precisely is going to happen if we continue with our present lifestyles and when precisely are the doom-mongers going to provide us with evidence to back up their miserable prognostications?
Does anyone remember this from 2007:
“The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”
Is this what passes for scientific proof in Climate Lalaland?
(I’ve left out the culprit’s name to save his blushes)
They are basing them on ‘feelings’, a bit like the gender mob
Hybrid solutions to what? What is the problem you perceive? Why would you want to replace gas boilers and ICE vehicles based on an unproven AGW hypothesis? We must resist decarbonisation at all costs, it’s a fools errand and simply a wealth transfer from the masses to the globalist elites
Their own resources? Coal, gas, oil?
St3ve, China are living on slave labour and imported coal
If China are rapidly developing their ‘renewable capabilities’ why are they building so many Coal fired power stations?
They are like other greenfoolery nations simply hoovering up western climate funding, based on the deceit they are going to go green, real soon, when in reality, they know fossil fuels are far superior and will put them well ahead of the West in many capabilities
I note it’s the usual ‘modelling’. So much of the climate fear narrative relies upon modelling in lieu of hard facts.
I have been reading this site since being introduced to it by the late Christopher Booker. I recognise that many contributors are experts in their own field and due to my lack of knowledge in the more complicated aspects often discussed, I am at a loss to fully understand their meaning.
However, I do understand the basic fraudulent and ignorant claims made by the various sources that control the green agenda. It is very frustrating to read such absolute lies and misinformation such as that portrayed above without there being any sanction applied to the authors. Furthermore, I try my utmost to engage with the people I meet to understand the fundamental problems that will come about if we just sit there and allow it to happen. I find it quite astonishing the amount of apathy that exists on the subject.
I’m afraid it may be too late to alter their thoughts, it is ingrained in them from an early the by the constant stream of rubbish printed and spoken by the media. Thank goodness for this site, it gives me great comfort to read the genuine, honest and real scientific truth. It damn well infuriates me though that we seem to be able to do nothing at all about it. Sorry for rambling on, I just had to get it off my chest.
Apathy? Or wilful ignorance or even stupidity? Trust me they do exist – my sister and husband still believe in ‘safe and effective’ despite the over 3 million excess deaths in 47 countries.
David W – I too am a ‘climate layman’ but I totally agree with your points of view’; the general public’s apathy etc is both astounding & concerning.
As I pointed out at Eigenvalues, Aurora are one of the go-to sock puppet consultancies for DESNZ, OFGEM, NGESO and the CCC. It is because they can be relied on to ignore reality.
Labour are saying they will make our electricity “cheap and secure” by 2030. They’re not saying, however, that our power will be abundant or reliable, “always available at the flick of switch” (P19 of the Net Zero Strategy) and by “secure” they means not relying on hydrocarbons from Russia or petrostates, not security of supply.
Of course they can decarbonise the electricity by 2030. But it will not be “cheap” as fixed offshore wind is twice the price of gas and floating is five times the price of gas (both without carbon taxes added) even if they don’t upgrade the national and local grids or add storage or CCUS to rectify the intermittency of renewables. We will just have to live with expensive and intermittent third world electricity supplies. Forget the idea that there will be any cheap rates when the wind is blowing because the local grids can only handle 1 – 2 KW of continuous power per household, totally insufficient for 4 KW heat pumps, 3 KW immersion heaters (needed for heat pumps to avoid Legionnare’s disease) and 7 KW ev chargers plus everything else for cooking, cleaning and entertainment.
Yes, isn’t it odd how the introduction of LED bulbs, LED/LCD tellies, more efficient hoovers, fridges and cookers etc saving a few watts here and there over many years inorder to cut our energy usage.
And in one fell swoop government dictat adds Kilowatts to our usage.
I have questioned the need for any of that happening. Remember the EU stopping us having more powerful vacuum.
Would almost make me think there was a plan in place.
Labour are lying, plain & simple
Which Labour – Blue or Red?
Both
Now, for Communists, Net Zero is entirely feasible with the right campaign as the USSR showed with their collectivisation program in the early 1900s. Unfortunately it didn’t work, was hugely unpopular, and resulted in a huge loss of life.
From down under (20+) Facebook
Hello.
I wrote to all MPs last year about this.
The Royal Society claimed £410 billion for complete decarbonisation by 2050. Using underground hydrogen caverns, for stored backup. (ie: no oil or gas for anything, including industry).
However, my estimate, using Hornsea-3 as a price guide, was about £4,200 billion.
The RS had forgotten many things, like the hydrogen storage cycle only being 25% efficient at best. So you need many more wind turbines, to charge up the hydrogen storage system, and allow for its 75% inefficiency. (This is, even if we can build such a vast storage system – holding 100 twh thermic, or 25 twh electric.
They had also assumed prices would drop on all infrastructure, due economies of scale. But that is not so. If raw materials become scarce, because the whole world is piling into the same renewables, prices may actually rise significantly.
Plus they were making wild assumptions. Like total energy usage being 570 twh per year, which is only about 1/3 of present consumption. And assuming something like 50% efficiency for offshore wind (capacity factor), when current efficiency is only about 40%, and has been static for years.
Plus present cheaper prices for infrastructure are due to concrete and steel being made by fossil fuels. If they are all made with renewable energy, again the price of infrastructure will rise significantly. The cost of the Snowy-3 pumped storage project has gone up ten-fold – and so will the UK Net Zero Project.
Take the R.S. cost estimate, and multiply by ten.
I told all M.P.s this, last year.
Ralph
Did you get any responses and if so were any of them sensible?
Unfortunately not.
But I did note some MPs quoting my cost estimates, so perhaps it did have an effect.
MPs are empty vessels, and if we do not put something in those vessels, the lefty media will.
R
Even though the RS said that the storage required would be “far more than could be provided cost effectively by batteries”,they also underestimated the amount of storage that would be required because they based everything on the UK’s electricity use in 2018 and used that figure 32 times (to 2050) forgetting that electrifying everything would require much more electricity over that period.
Much more electricity AND the infrastructure to carry it
Yes, the RS estimate of 570 twh per year was absurd, and gave an incorrect costing. My estimate was 1,250 twh per year, while the Climate Change Committee said 1,500 twh.
What is the point of these reports to government, if they have a three-fold spread in the demand calculation? Basically, we need a minimum of 3x current electric supply, to cover heating and industry.
Regards storage, we need 30,000 gwh of stored energy, to cover for a 10-day outage. But they are only planning 50 gwh by year 2030.
So only another 29,950 gwh to go…..!!
Something tells me, this ain’t going to work.
R
Regards storage, we need 30,000 gwh of stored energy, to cover for a 10-day outage.
How is the stored energy replaced after a 10 day outage?
Is this replacement of stored energy a long process? i.e. does this replacement of stored energy rely on grid capacity exceeding demand e.g. overnight?
Micky,
With pumped water, it can be recharged from the normal arays, when they are producing too much energy in good conditions. This is a bit risky, as you are not guaranteed good conditions following calm conditions. If conditions merely return to normal, there is no recharge.
It is even worse with hydrogen. Because the system is only 25% efficient, we need another 60 gw of wind turbines, to recharge over one month. That is another 17% of turbines, on top of the 350 gw we need for everyday use.
That is 20 extra Hornsea-3 wind arrays, just for the recharge.
Or 136 Hornsea-3s total.
Or 30,000 of the larges wind turbines.
Ralph
,
If conditions merely return to normal, there is no recharge.
The above (obviously) rings alarm bells and is probably a bit of a show stopper !
Thanks for the detailed reply Ralph, I’m groping in the dark a bit here, but I have “skimmed” online re storage.
I have read and understood your comment: we need 30,000 gwh of stored energy, to cover for a 10-day outage.
Is there a recognised set of performance requirements to state the time to the next outage after the 10 day outage has passed?
Is there a recognised set of performance requirements to state the duration of the next outage?
As I see it, if there’s no “outline” spec stating the outline performance requirements of an energy storage system then it’s more groping in the dark.
The GWPF estimate net zero by 2050 at £3Tn and rising – it ain’t happening, the scam will hit the buffers of reality, as it is doing and net zero will be yet another Govt scandal waiting for compo
.
Pretty close to my estimate of £4.2 Tn.
And completely unaffordable.
R
You won’t even have billions.
What seems to be ignored is that no matter where we end up, the cost of transition will be far higher than that. Making those cheaper turbines requires using the more expensive turbines. And thus they are much less cheap than forecast. And so on, across everything because energy is required for everything. The actual cheapest way to transition is to continue to use gas until others have reached the cheapest possible cost for reneeables.
Unaccountable tax payer gravy slurping liars inventing “data” to give to other tax payer subsidized liars with the purpose of further duping the very TAXPAYERS funding both of them?
In it’s religious context, telling lies in the name of the cause is both virtuous and permissible.
If we had a police force providing wilfully misleading information in return for money is FRAUD.
providing wilfully misleading information in return for money is FRAUD.
My limited understanding is that the fraud can be committed even of the guilty party does not benefit financially.
Like computer models, you can get exactly the results you pay for, even if it means rewriting the laws of Physics – the greenfoolery con is a self fulfilling prophecy, funded using taxpayer & consumer cash, by globalist entities whose sole purpose is to rinse the masses of as much money as possible, as quickly as possible – once the whole net zero scam implodes under the forces of reality, those who made all the money will ride off into the sunset, leaving the masses to pick up the pieces and put our energy system back to a working normal
Anyone able to count and with a little common sense could see that it was a crock of brown smelly stuff. But no, they swallowed it hook line etc
Bile acid diarrhea (BAD).
[Green shit]
Excuses
“We listened to the experts”
“Nobody explained it to us”
“Nobody said they were funded by green vested interests”
“I can’t remember “
“I don’t know”
.
You have been listening to the dopey woke bird who is head of the Post Office, giving evidence at the Horizon Computer Inquiry.
R
Being voice it’s my sort of thing, I can do something else while listening.
It’s fascinating and appalling at the same time.
Sir Wyn Williams has my admiration for sitting through all it wasn’t me and if someone told me I don’t remember it without becoming violent.
As somebody else said – all that was missing at the Post Office Horizon inquiry was canned laughter every time they opened their mouths.
There was genuine laughter at the end of the first day of Vennells evidence when Sir Wyn Williams asked her a couple of questions about giving evidence to Parliament. The second question “Why?” left her silent for long enough for Sir Wyn to offer the opportunity to answer tomorrow.