Labour’s net zero grid will require ‘huge sacrifice’, warns energy chief
By Paul Homewood
Reality is beginning to dawn!
Labour’s plan for a net zero grid by 2030 is unrealistic and will require a “huge sacrifice” by the country, a leading power station builder has warned.
Javier Cavada, European boss of Mitsubishi Power, said the rollout of green energy schemes planned by Sir Keir Starmer and Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, would have to move at an unprecedented speed to stand a chance of success.
He also warned it would be prohibitively expensive and questioned whether completely eliminating emissions from gas-fired power plants, which generated one third of Britain’s electricity last year, was a sensible immediate priority.
Asked whether the 2030 target was feasible, Mr Cavada said: “In my years at Mitsubishi and, frankly, my 48 years on the planet, this would be a speed that I have never seen anywhere else.
“Can you do it? You definitely can. But financially? Well, the cost is very large.
“Can the whole country invest into fully decarbonising and can all the industries invest in that? Is everyone so wealthy and so happy to increase the cost of everything?
“You need to create a path that is realistic, that is affordable and is achievable.”
Higher spending on the energy system raises the prospect of households and businesses shouldering increased costs through taxes or bills.
Mr Cavada is the latest energy industry figure to express scepticism about Labour’s plans, which the Conservatives have claimed would risk blackouts. Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the petrochemicals billionaire, said on Thursday that Labour’s net zero grid target was “absurd”.
Labour has insisted its plans are deliverable and will ultimately bring energy bills down.
The Labour manifesto pledges to retain a strategic reserve of gas power stations “to guarantee security of supply” and says it will partly fund green investments by expanding the windfall tax on oil and gas companies.
Electricity demand is expected to rise from around 300 terawatt hours per year today to about 360 terawatt hours by 2030.
The bulk of Britain’s future supplies are forecast to come from weather-dependent renewables such as wind and solar farms, backed up by batteries and nuclear power, but gas-fired power stations will still be needed at certain times to keep the lights on.
However, instead of seeking to eliminate their emissions completely by 2030, Mr Cavada urged future governments to proceed more gradually by blending hydrogen into their fuel.
Mitsubishi Power believes existing gas turbines could burn gas that is 30pc hydrogen with only minor modifications.
Mr Cavada admitted that supplies of hydrogen were currently small and highly expensive as well, but argued that – as with wind and solar power – costs would fall as production was scaled up.
That view is not shared by all experts. Many argue that the energy-intensive process of making “green” hydrogen via electrolysis – where water is separated into hydrogen and oxygen – makes it unsuitable for large-scale use in power plants or for heating.
However, Mitsubishi Power, which manufactures gas turbines, is working on technology to make power plants hydrogen-compatible.
The company is also a key player in so-called carbon capture and is developing chemical plants that can absorb emissions from power stations and factories, so they can be sequestered later underground.
Both hydrogen and carbon capture, also known as abatement, are expected to play a role in Labour’s plans to decarbonise Britain’s energy system, although the party has not set out detailed proposals.
But Mr Cavada warned carbon capture was an expensive solution and said it should only be used at sites that were most difficult to turn green, for example cement factories.
.
In fact Cavada still grossly understates the problem.
He talks about the speed of the rollout and cost. But barely touches on the underlying problem of intermittency.
His favoured option appears to be hydrogen, unsurprising given Mitsubishi make the turbines which will be needed to burn the stuff!
But as the Telegraph notes, experts don’t believe green hydrogen is scaleable at this time. Neither id carbon acpture, as Mr Cavada admits.
This leaves us relying on nuclear and batteries, which the Telegraph seems to believe can supply “the bulk of our power”. Apparently the Telegraph’s Industrial Editor is not aware that batteries can only store enough power to last an hour or two.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Just go ahead with the mad plan, the sooner the blackouts and rationing of electricity (by price for the mugs that have smart meters) start, then the quicker net zero will be abandoned.
No Pain No Gain!
Yes – the only way to destroy Net Zero is to start implementing Net Zero.
The idea is sound but who really suffers- the ultra rich, the wealthy or the “just getting by” majority- we both know that the politicians and Civil Servants fall into the first two categories leaving the “Rest of Us” to pay higher and higher prices for energy that is not going to be available 24/7 no matter how much they charge, Heat or Eat will be replaced in winter by Cold or Dead, what a choice- it makes the dystopian world of 1984 look decidedly cosy.
Let them eat…………well cake is reserved for the rich, so sod all is left for the RofU.
The peasants will almost certainly start to revolt, a foreseeable, but unintended consequence of net zero
Meter tampering will be the simple way of bypassing the price rationing, but this will overload the local distribution system and uncontrolled trip outs will occur at substations and switching centres, both overcurrent and frequency.
On the other hand an area of affluence with lights on and Tesla’s charging on the drive next to an area of social housing, in the dark and freezing, is likely to provoke some unrest, The Net Zero revolution will be much worse than the poll tax riots that we had 34 years ago.
With the greatest respect… anything that leaves the consumer either cold or dead, surely isn’t really ‘sound’ is it?
No gain just pain
Maybe Miliband read the article as he now says that he would scrap the banning of gas boilers by 2035. Is the NZ charade crumbling?
The only possibility of getting to Net Zero is the widespread adoption
of modular nuclear plans such as the ones already developed by India and
planned by the Rolls Royce partnership. These are safe enough to install
near towns and so would not require the major upgrade to the National
Grid that is needed for renewables. Since they need to run near full
load the excess power can be used to make hydrogen for use by industry
and transport. They would also be financially viable unlike the
renewables battery or gas-carbon capture options. What will prevent this
is the current corrupt alliance of Green NGOs, Hedge Funds and those
benefiting from the subsidies for wind and solar or battery banks.
I hope they can stand up to a Carrington like event.
Hedge funds? Hedge funds look for counter-cyclical investments – hence the “hedge”.
The Carrington event video is scaremongering. Most essential electronic
systems are now protected against such an event not least because the
use of nuclear weapons with and EMF spike would have the same effect.
You and industry can protect against such events by shielding the
equipment with a Faraday cage or metal box, like the reinforcing steel
net in the walls of building that prevent internet signals, or wrapping
it in aluminum or lead foil. Nuclear submarines have such shielding to
prevent the radiation from the modular nuclear propulsion system frying
the crew so the manufacturers of these units for use near cities are
well aware of the problem and solution.
Most likely yes, indeed.
But what is NOT being talked about is the grief adopted / continued by the tories, is the junk science of Miliband – and , AND HE, his name or sight is hardly touted by the Media TO have Miliband back in control, is akin to the anathema of Boris & Princess NutNuts. It goes SO FAR BACK in time. That’s what Labour and now the Uniparty have done for this country.
And we still have not joined up the dots……if we have Gas/Oil/Coal power plants on “standby” to fill the gaps caused by Renewables inability to provide power 24/7/365, someone has to pay to have this duplication of providers- and be assured that the back providers are NOT going to switch on unless there is a bloody big payment carrot dangling in front of them – so we will have subsidies paid to Wind and Solar spiralling out of control, a standby subsidy to Gas/Oil/Coal that will probably equal Wind/Solar subsidies and then the prospect of a large charge to “jump in” and keep some of the lights on.
Sheer madness.
Yes, I’m unclear how Labour believe that the costs of a fleet of gas power plants that have to be paid for from bills can possibly bring down bills. I suspect the cost will go to general taxation as it’s “strategic” and our politicians will lie to us and themselves.
Colonialism. British government telling people how they must live. They can’t tell Kenyans any more, but they can tell Brits.
Elite foreigners in charge. They have no concern that their ideas are stupid and destructive, because you are under human.
And of course batteries do not generate energy. In fact due to round-trip losses they consume energy. So even more waste of our money, to back up the intermittency of renewables. What the country needs is lots and lots of nuclear power to provide baseload and load follow, with some pumped storage to provide peak load (and it we had a sensible government we would also have coal and gas also for baseload and load follow).
It gets worse. Much worse.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/23/ill-take-on-the-wind-farm-nimbys-from-day-one-says-ed-milliband/
Look to see how much and where he whacks up the AR6 CFD budget at the end of July.
Miliband is not only one of the stupidest men in politics, he is also a Zealot, so very dangerous.
“stupid” ” zealot” two words that nail it.
We only produce one per cent and CO2 doesn’t matter anyway
We, apparently, produce just 1% of the 3% of mankind’s contribution to the gas that makes up 0.004% of our atmosphere and which is destroying the planet whilst the remaining 97% contributed by natural causes is apparently benign… 🤷♂️
I think it is 0.04% – that’s quite a big error!
Apart from bankrupting the country, exactly, what is this going to achieve?
Mass unemployment as industry leaves. A dry up of any foreign investment. And even our much vaunted service sector will die off if the constant power failures make it impossible to deal with.
It satisfies the Messiah complexes of Labour senior politicians who believe they can save us all through their brilliance.
Correct. It is an impossibility.
That would be a “HELL NO!” People aren’t going to pay it. Companies will move. The economy will collapse. Ipso facto, there will be NO MONEY TO PAY FOR IT. The economy you kill is not going to pay for the mess you try to replace it with. Net Zero = Zero economy.
Most Engineers and analysts say that it cannot be done there are not enough manufacturing capacity or mined materials to achieve that kind of exapansion.
And you would have to divert resources from lots of other sectors too, including house/road/hospital building, which means lots of other Labour pledges won’t happen. Labour and much of the country dint understand that government spending allocates resources, it does not create them. My guess would be that Labour’s spending plans plus the production we already have, require a workforce 20% larger than we have and resources of concrete, steel, aluminium, technology etc 30% larger.
And all in a rapidly shrinking economy.
Read a comment on Bill Gates the other day, it fits perfectly to Mr. Miliband and his mate Sir Starmer:
‘He does not know what he does not know.’
Ignorance is bliss, except for the victims.
Why is the Telegraph so appallingly out of touch with science by allowing ignorant people to write articles devoid of serious analysis. Do they not want proper atmosphere scientists to spread the truth ?
My hope is that when the ownership is sorted out the Telegraph will go back to attacking Labour, and net zero idiocies will be an open goal.
They might do well to rehire a star journalist:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/ignore-doom-merchants-britain-should-get-fracking/
“Can you do it? You definitely can.“
No. You definitely can’t. As of now, no ships are available to lay cables to wind farms until 2030 so from the first day of a Labour government the target of ‘by 2030’ is missed. In 2029 there has to be another election although Sir Kneeler might rig everything so Labour govern forever.
Plus a host of other limiting factors. What do we get from BBC/Guardian/Telegraph?
Crickets.
Outlandish lies, and they say nothing.
Ask any salesperson if they can supply something to perform a specific job they will always say yes. The politicians we have have no experience of buying anything major for themselves, or been involved in getting something their employer has spent a lot of money acquiring to work as intended.
That is why you have specialist procurement people who can smell bullshit a mile off. And if given what they consider implausible answers ensure that any contract includes steep penalty clauses for failure to deliver.
Labour will build those ships next week… in a Scottish shipyard. 😬
And all out on strike three weeks later
Have they finished the ferry for the service to the islands yet?
The wealth and well being of humans has increased over time, as more and more people found better ways to grow stuff, make stuff, distribute stuff, with the largest improvements being due to the use of more energy to allow less people to accomplish more. That allowed more people to be freed up to figure out even more to help improve life for more and more people. Net Zero is designed for people to have less energy and force more people to accomplish less. The western countries will become dominated by the countries that continue to use more and more fossil fuels and nuclear fuels and generate more and more dominance over western countries. At some point, they will own us and then we will be forced to develop our resources just for them. Much like has most often happened in the past, the dominate powers have colonies that mostly serve their masters. Western countries are trying to be the future slaves, and it is working.
The communists embrace climate change as the Universal Cause, uniting the world in common cause.
Western communists, that is. Actual communist countries know it’s BS. Just a tool to get the West to accept their demise.
Gamecock is not motivated by “saving the planet.” As George Carlin noted long ago, this big old dirt ball is going to keep flying around the sun no matter what we do.
Yes, you got that right, the Western Communists are just Pawns of the Communist Country Communists.
They get Western Countries to destroy Energy and Mining and Manufacturing while the real Communist Countries ramp up everything they get us to ramp down.
Keep an eye on Nigeria as the French company that mines the Uranium and the French army are being kicked out of the country by the ruling military. Who are thinking of selling the Uranium to Russia. So don’t expect those interconnectors from France to run for ever. Net zero gets ever more dangerous.
Nigeria?
Quite, as has been pointed out I have made a mistake, and it is Niger. Still it is interesting news.
Or is it Niger…
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230801-niger-coup-raises-questions-about-uranium-dependence
Russia gets its uranium mainly from Kazakhstan which supplies nearly half of world demand.
Thank you, I made a mistake. Still the coup is intersting news.
The main point being, France won’t be getting this uranium.
There is no point in getting to Net Zero
The planet is not headed toward Net Zero, only Western Countries and the target is way below Net Zero, so the other countries can feed us, if they choose.
when will our idiotic politicians ever stop to consider the consequences of chasing the net zero madness target. It’s just weather not a climate crisis.
when we are all bankrupt and frozen what then?
Invasion. Denmark? Norway?