not many people know
Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
So much like common sense!
As the Conservative leadership race rages on, we're hearing a lot of talk about unity and the expected tough talk about immigration, defence, welfare and the tax burden. It would be nice if many of the candidates were at Cabinet meetings recently to advance Conservative policies that our members want to hear.
But there is less discussion about net zero emissions. Starting with Blair, every prime minister has been hesitant on energy policy. But all countries adhere to international climate agreements and even legislation to varying degrees.
Tony Blair oversaw the 2008 Climate Change Act (CCA) and Theresa May oversaw the 2050 Target Amendment. We are one of the few countries that regulates itself through legislation. But Parliament is sovereign and can repeal and amend any legislation it wishes. In terms of energy policy, I recommend this.
The results of this goal are now clear, UK consumers pay highest electricity prices in the world. We pay 2.5 times what American consumers pay and 4 times what Chinese consumers pay. Then we wonder why energy-intensive companies, from steel to ceramics, prefer to invest overseas.
Successive governments have agreed, however misguidedly, to reduce the use of fossil fuels, have had little plan for how to make up for the gigawatts of power lost by detonating fully operational power stations, and have been planning for significant increases in electricity demand – electric vehicles, Heat pumps and alternatives to natural gas or coal power generation in energy-intensive industrial processes.
As we destroy traditional fossil fuel power stations, our international competitors, especially China and India, accelerate the construction of new ones. Our power stations that have yet to be dismantled have been repurposed to burn pellet wood, primarily sourced from old-growth forests in North America.
Carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt hour of energy are approximately 1.5 times that of coal and three times that of natural gas. This form of biomass energy accounts for 15% of UK electricity generation, but we call it a “zero carbon” form of energy. Net zero emissions have indeed sunk so low.
In addition to burning North American forests, alternatives include wind turbines and solar power, if planned. Far from being “cheap”, this argument relies on ideal power generation conditions in the right places, with existing distribution lines meeting demand, The true cost remains to be seen.
Different wind or solar farms need to be connected to the grid through towers and cables that require copper, aluminum and concrete, and the reserve power needed to deal with irregularities in generation has not yet been accounted for.
These options include batteries of unimaginable size. Research in California shows it would cost the state alone $15tn (£11.5tn) to replace every 10-12 years.
The plundering of Africa and South America to obtain the minerals they need has not yet been taken into account.
Other energy storage methods include: lifting water to reservoirs and using stored gravity energy for later release, where geography permits; electrolysis of water into hydrogen; or production of liquid e-fuels, but using current liquid fuel infrastructure and transportation via reliable internal combustion engines.
The cost of wind and solar power with backup capabilities increases significantly in response to anticyclones that typically last for days across the continent with prolonged periods of low winds, icy conditions and low light. This involves vast amounts of copper, steel and concrete, as well as vast amounts of land being stripped of productive agricultural uses.
Another “grand plan” is to build large-scale interconnection networks between countries to share power generation and meet demand. How should this be equated to Energy independence and security Never explained. Three years ago, France threatened the Channel Islands' energy supplies in a small “fishing war” that should be instructive that dependence on other countries, no matter how well-intentioned, is not a good idea.
The final part of current ideas involves maintaining and building new gas-fired power plants to provide backup power when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. The waste of capital in building underutilized natural gas plants (whose owners would command super-high prices because of their fixed costs, capital-intensive plants that are only partially utilized) is obvious.
Latest Labor Party plan to halt further North Sea gas exploration Keeping these plants burning requires imported natural gas, which has a much higher carbon footprint. There will be few British companies left to buy Qatar in the coming decades.
The past decade has been a battle over Brexit, and the next decade will be a battle over energy. Labor plans to decarbonise grid by 2030 Not only would this be impossible, but the cost of its futility would be astronomical and potentially dangerous. Power outages may occur. This will be a factor in the downfall of this Labor government.
Our energy policy needs to be completely different. I propose the following.
First, we must amend the Climate Change Act 2008 to get the UK back on track with most of the world. Not only did CCAs lead to distortions in energy policy, they are now routinely used by well-funded activist groups to oppose most infrastructure development. Even more worryingly, some Supreme Court decisions support this view. If we want to grow, we must regain the right to build the necessary infrastructure.
Second, we must move toward a nuclear future. We are still considering small modular reactors (SMRs), but the Conservatives have wasted our last years in government in indecision. Large-scale EDF reactors under construction or in design are complex, prohibitively expensive, and often plagued by delays.
We need expandable Model T Fords, not Bentleys. If nuclear fusion becomes a reality, it will open a whole new chapter in human energy production, with enough cheap electricity to produce hydrogen and electronic fuels on a large scale. Conventional fission reactors can still achieve this.
Third, we need to “rush to domestic natural gas.” Natural gas is the transition fuel as we scale up nuclear energy. Domestic is key and we need, like Norway, to continue to open all recoverable oil fields in the North Sea basin.
We should be looking aggressively at fracking to ensure that domestic natural gas consumption (which is likely to decrease over the next few decades) is at least in line with domestic production. Exporting would be an added bonus. The benefits are obvious: investments, good-paying jobs, substantial tax and balance-of-payments savings.
Finally, we need to stop taxpayer support of wasteful wind and solar projects. Energy auctions must provide 24/7, 365 prices for energy supply. If wind and solar owners can provide this, then the economics should be a business decision for them rather than an additional burden on taxpayers.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/22/net-zero-is-sinking-to-new-lows
Relevant
