Daily Skeptics
David Turver
The Climate Change Commission (CCC) recently released No. 7Th Carbon budget, clarifying the UK's greenhouse gas emissions from the 2038-2042 period. Their report mentions five times in the context of low-carbon technologies in general, especially electric vehicles and heat pumps, and five times in reference to “misinformation” or “misleading”. But, as we will see, the CCC itself has been touting misinformation in its own reports at the scale of undermining its own credibility.
Heat pump
One of the most interesting passages in the CCC is “A third say they are unlikely to install a heat pump that shows it is impossible to do so in their homes, while a third says they would rather wait to see the technology evolve. Although heat pumps are a well-established technology, they are still suitable for most UK homes.”
The problem is that during this interview in 2024, CCC’s new CEO Emma Pinchback still has no heat pump in his own home. Her ex Chris Stark said the heat pumps are too expensive to install them in existing apartments like him. They have to succumb to the scourge of misinformation, otherwise the CCC is selling its own misinformation.
Renewable electricity cost error message
More seriously, the full basis of their costs, especially for renewables, is indeed doubtful and perhaps the largest source of misinformation throughout the report (see Figure 1).
They assume that offshore winds will sell for £51/MW in 2025, drop to £31/MWh in 2050, solar energy costs will be £46/MWh in 2025, and drop to £27/MWh in 2050 in 2050. Their numbers are even lower than the government power generation cost report from 2023, which is hopeless. Furthermore, they seem to rely on models to implement hypotheses rather than looking at the actual data in renewable energy auctions (see Figure 2).
The orange line is a CCC cost estimate. The magenta line shows the awards and offers for the fixed bottom offshore wind, and its shaded box reflects a portion of the contract awarded in AR4 reconstructed at a higher price. Of course, there is no bid in AR5. The latest award for the new AR6 project is about twice the cost estimated by the CCC. Furthermore, the trend is upward, exactly opposite to the CCC assumption. It is also worth noting that the CCC hopes we will install 125GW of offshore wind by 2050. This is unimaginable without the need for a lot of floating offshore wind energy. The technology is more expensive and rapidly rising, with the government recently announced that the AR7 price of £245/MW in 2024 will be higher than the contract rewards in AR6. The AR7 offers floating offshore winds at a price of more than six times that CCC delivers in 2030. The strike price for solar energy in AR6 is also about twice as high as the assumption that CCC had in 2030 delivery.
During the entire calculation process, this power generation cost is insufficient and has a chain reaction, which is the source of 7 error messages.Th Carbon budget.
But the dangers of our electricity supply don't stop there. The power system was designed around the 20-minute adverse weather year (1987), when the report they relied on also mentioned the 50-year period in 2010. They repeated this error in the 6thTh The carbon budget only takes a look at the event for one year, rather than the years of wind and drought in 2009-2011. This is a mistake Chris Stark wants to kill with technical language. This error means they greatly underestimate the amount of storage needed to keep the lighting, so their capital expenditure costs are too low.
Joyful hockey stick
The CCC's power supply pathway is based on a wide range of techniques based on a series of hockey stick charts (see Figure 3).
Offshore wind and solar delivery speeds must rise significantly. By 2050, low-carbon dispatch power generation capacity (gas with carbon capture or hydrogen) must almost increase from zero to 38GW. Medium duration and battery storage also have to scale faster than it has been so far, and despite onshore doubts, interconnect capability must be fourfold. The number of “time-changing demand” – euphemisms of charging electricity penalties at peak hours during dark, calm winter evenings must rise from today’s zero to 32 TWH by 2050.
Their industry plan also shows similar hockey stick predictions (see Figure 7.3.3). Obviously, by 2050, the proportion of energy from the industry from electricity will reach almost 72.8%. The remaining heat will come from green hydrogen, which is more than six times the price of British natural gas and more than 20 times that of American natural gas.
This happens when you incorporate a committee firmly into the ivory towers on Fantasy Island: The balanced road stands out from reality.
S surface and price misalignment
We also have to pause our incredibility when looking at their housing plans (see Figure 4).
According to the CCC, the miraculous dislocation drives the speed (e) of the electricity price compared to the gas price (E), and the miracle rate (F) of the electricity price is dramatically reversed on the trend of the cost trend (F) of the heat pump installation.
They believe that the proportion of homes with heat pumps will miraculously triple between 2023 (0.59%) and 2025 (1.59%), or rise by 290,000 units, and then increase by more than 1.5% per year, from 2029 to 2030 to 2030, over 3% per year, over 2031 to 2032, and from 2031 to 2032, about 29 million households have a speed of 870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 The latest heat pump statistics show that 42,645 heat pumps were installed in 2024, using “market estimation technology to infer data” compared to the more than 98,000 claimed by the Heat Pump Association. Of course, CCC uses Heat Pump Association data. The CCC assumes that the average heat pump cost in 2025 is 11.4K, falling to 7.8K in 2050. However, the average cost of an air source heat pump in the last quarter of 2024 was £125,000 and the ground source heat pump cost 25k. The trend of capacity costs per kilowatt installation also increased, rather than decreased. Additionally, the CCC costs do not include auxiliary costs such as new hot water tanks and radiator upgrades. They expect that the reception of the heat pump will be supported by government subsidies or discount financing programs.
The dislocation of the electricity to gasoline price ratio occurs because they believe that the cost of electricity policy (also known as subsidies) has been transferred to natural gas or general taxes. They want to mask the costs of all these “cheap” renewable energy to cover up the real cost. In their most extreme case, the price of electricity is from a ratio of 4.32 to 2 in two years to half the price of gas between 2024 and 2026. This is the cost from electricity and loading to gas. Strangely, however, after peaking in 2026 in all three cases, household energy costs for households with gas boilers fell to 2050 (see Figure 8.4). Due to the false low-cost renewable energy assumption, they must assume that policy costs are reduced to almost zero.
None of these assumptions are credible.
Total cost
The Climate Change Commission expresses the cost of its program as the difference between the total cost of the balanced pathway and the conceptual benchmark. They do not provide the original cost of their path or baseline, so it is impossible to reach the bottom of their actual cost estimates.
As mentioned above, they underestimate the cost of renewable generation and heat pumps. Their estimates of capital expenditure on electricity supply in 2030 (from Figure 4.1 in Figure 4.1), which is estimated by their capital expenditure on electricity supply, accounting for about one-third of the NESO's estimated £260-290 billion, the cost of Miliband's Clean Power 2030 plan.
They say electric cars are priced 37% higher than gasoline cars in 2023, but by 2028, that premium will turn into a 2.7% discount and will grow to more than 12% by 2050. Coupled with the falling electricity prices, EVS adoption rates are even faster than Norway. However, if their electricity price estimates are unreliable, then the forecast must also be entrusted to the trash bin.
These false assumptions are passed into their overall capital and operating cost estimates (see Figure 5).
The assumption that they see as unreasonable low-cost renewable energy is how they claim that the program starting in 2040 will bring net benefits. Despite spending about £10 billion per year (see Figure 7.12.2) on “engineering disassembly”, this extraordinary claim is made, which means carbon capture and storage (BECCS), net energy sinking, and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). They hope we spend more than £30 billion on BECCS CAPEX on OPEX 2050-2045 and more than £6 billion on OPEX starting in 2045. Additionally, by 2050, OPEX on DACCS machines will have nearly £25 billion of OPEX on Suck Co over £3 billion of OPEX each year2 Directly from the air. By 2050, the total cost of all their projects demolition will be £180 billion. They will convince us that despite the huge spending, their plans are generally cheaper than the mythical benchmark without further climate action.
It seems strange that we need too much taxes, subsidies and other government intervention to achieve these goals. It almost seems that the collective wisdom of the market does not believe in the CCC’s misinformation.
Your Villain Eats Zee Worms
The CCC is not content with interfering in energy systems, industries and their ways of heating and isolating houses, but rather wants to interfere with the food chain. 34 replacement proteins were mentioned in the report. This is a euphemism for things like insect protein, although they do point out that their civic panels are not keen on eating bugs.
They also want to seize our cattle and sheep, calling for nearly half of the number of livestock (see their figure 5.3), from 44 million people this year to 2050 to 2050. Essentially, they wanted to sacrifice our sheep and cattle on the altar of Gaia to make the weather god appece disciples. They also want to reduce meat consumption by one third, from 1,011 grams per person per week to just 678 grams.
in conclusion
What we have in our latest carbon budget is a Soviet-style five-year plan that urges the government to intervene to an unprecedented level in our lives. The CCC hopes more government intervention in energy, housing, industry, and even the food we eat. All of their calculations are based on poor cost assumptions, and they have repeated six years later.Th Carbon budget. The so-called balanced path is completely unrealistic. Despite the obvious untruth spreading in their reports, their brass necks publicly worried about false information. The wrong information should be created incorrectly, while the false information is intentionally spreading the wrong information. Sadly, we must conclude that the CCC is spreading false information.
The cost of renewable electricity is assumed to be too low and extends most of the remaining reports to the reports. Observe the results of renewable energy auctions to check their numbers, which doesn't require genius. Since November, NESO Clean Energy Program has been in the public sector until 2030, so it is unthinkable that the CCC does not understand its cost estimates.
This did not stop Simon's “nine times cheaper” Evans' carbon summary to promote false title numbers as gospel truth (see Figure 6).
We can only hope that Councillors are more diligent than Dr. Evans and can call up analytical techniques to separate the carbon budget and conduct forensic reviews, and then blindly use it as land law.
I've made three FOI requests about 7Th Carbon budget. It will be interesting to see the results.
Written by David Turver Your own values Instead, this article appears for the first time.
Related
Discover more from Watt?
Subscribe to send the latest posts to your email.
