From the Daily Skeptic
Author: David Telfer
Back in March, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee published a report on long-term energy storage (LDES). The report urges the government to “keep up the good work”. One of its key recommendations is for governments to “support no-regret investment in hydrogen”.
However, some members of the committee had significant conflicts of interest and incestuous relationships, which raised questions about the objectivity of the report and the integrity of the government.
What did the House of Lords LDES report say?
The report's executive summary talks about “cheap” renewable energy and insists the benefit of investing in storage is that the power system will be cheaper. We do not need to rehearse all the arguments against this statement. It is worth noting that all existing renewables, whether financed through Contracts for Difference (CfDs), Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) or Feed-in Tariffs (FiTs), are currently more expensive than gas-fired generation, as recently discussed That way.
Therefore, a grid powered entirely or mainly by renewable energy will be more expensive than a gas grid. However, because wind and solar are intermittent in nature, they require some kind of backup or storage to ensure that the grid can always meet demand. Adding storage adds additional capital costs to the system but does not increase power generation. Therefore, this additional expenditure must increase the power cost of the entire system. Therefore, the opening premise of their report is false, which calls into question the rest of their analysis.
They then go on to quote extensively from the Royal Society's report on long-term storage (dismantled here), which absurdly suggests that the system cost of a renewable energy hydrogenation storage grid would be around £60/MWh. However, this cost is less than half of what we pay for renewable energy today, and well below the price offered in AR6. The required electrolysers, storage caverns and generators are not cheap and will further increase the power costs of the system. The true cost of refueling the grid with renewable energy could be three to four times higher than suggested.
How could the House of Lords get so wrong?
It is worrying that such a distinguished committee could make such a huge mistake. To understand how and why they made such an obvious mistake, we need to look at the makeup of the committee.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge chairs the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. Her register of interests shows that she also chairs the Adaptation Subcommittee of the Climate Change Commission (CCC). By sheer coincidence, Baroness Brown is also a non-executive director of Ceres Power Holdings, which describes itself as a leading developer of “fuel cells for electrolytic production of green hydrogen and electricity generation”. Baroness Brown's other interests include chairing the Carbon Trust and she is also a non-executive director of wind farm operator and developer Ørsted.
Against this background, it is easier to understand why the LDES report is so keen on spending on renewable energy and securing hydrogen storage.
However, the network is much wider. Professor Keith Bell served as an expert advisor to the committee during the production of the LDES report. Professor Bell, who is also a CCC member, served as a power sector expert in 2019 and his contract was recently extended until April 2025.
Incestuous ties to the government
Baroness Brown also has close links with DESNZ's new head of mission control, Chris Stark. Following his resignation as chief executive of the CCC, Stack was appointed chief executive of the Carbon Trust, which is chaired by Baroness Brown. Mr Stark is also listed as a member of Baroness Brown's staff on the House of Lords website.
One wonders whether it is appropriate that one of the most senior people responsible for decarbonizing the grid by 2030 should be a baroness' staff, and have such close ties to someone with such a clear vested interest in wind and hydrogen suitable.
We can see that the tentacles of the Green Spot have reached deep into the heart of the establishment and the government. One might call this situation a two-tier moral system. A wide network of business interests and personal connections makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the recommendations in the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee's report on long-term energy storage are questionable. It would also be difficult to take any recommendations from the climate change committee and the new mission control chief seriously. This is so incestuous, seriously someone should check their hands and feet for extra digits.
Written by David Turver own values The substack page, where this article first appears.
Relevant
