The present energy crisis has seen massive increases in the costs of electricity and gas and petrol. If there is a silver lining in this particular cloud it is that it has focussed the public’s attention on the need for the country to have a sensible energy policy. Unfortunately, we do not have that. Following his conversion to eco-zealotry, Boris Johnson set out the U.K.’s Energy Strategy earlier this year. This committed us to generating the majority of our electricity from renewables by 2030 but, as everyone knows, renewables are unreliable. So if they become the main source of our energy then what will happen on days when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine? The answer is either we will have frequent and widespread power cuts or electricity bills will have to rise to pay for expensive back-up measures.
National Grid statistics for last year showed that on average renewables produced 22% of our energy, but this varied greatly, some days it was as high as 40% and other days as low as 5%. At the moment the grid can cope with these large swings in output because at 22% renewables are still only a relatively small part of the energy mix. As the contribution from renewables goes up or down then the contribution from gas-fired power stations is scaled down or up and this keeps everything balanced. But if, as foreseen in the Energy Strategy, renewables increase to 70% and gas-fired power stations are closed, then there is simply no way to compensate for the large variations in renewable output.
To appreciate the scale of the problem, the National Grid statistics show that in 2021 there were two periods when there was a prolonged and very large shortfall in the output from renewables, the nine days between February 27th and March 7th and the five days between December 17th and 21st. These dates corresponded to periods of low wind speed and because they occurred in the winter then solar made little contribution because most of the time in the winter in the U.K. there is no sun; it is dark. If in 2021 we had been relying on renewables for 70% of our electricity and our gas-fired power stations had been closed, then the energy shortfall during each of these periods would have been enormous, 2,000-3,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh). This is equivalent to the whole of the U.K. being without electricity for several days. Power cuts of this magnitude would have a devastating impact on people’s lives. Homes would be without lights and refrigerators and in many cases heating and hot water. Businesses and national infrastructure, such as transport and communications, would all be seriously affected.
Supporters of renewables blithely talk about energy storage technology improving and coming to the rescue. They talk of progress in batteries and green hydrogen, liquid air and pumped hydro etc. All these storage technologies have potential but at the moment they are expensive and way too small. There is no guarantee that they will ever be capable of giving us low-cost, long-term energy storage with a capacity at the level of thousands of GWh. Likewise interconnectors – cables connecting us to other European countries – are too small-scale to cope with this level of energy shortfall and, even if the capacity could be increased, do we want our electricity supply to depend on the goodwill of our European neighbours? There is also talk of giant solar farms in the Sahara Desert that are connected to the U.K. via undersea cable from Morocco. But again, do we want our energy security to depend on others, in this case the countries of North Africa?
So if the Government pushes ahead with its Energy Strategy, of making us reliant on renewables, then either people will have to accept frequent and lengthy power cuts or the Government will have to come up with a back-up measure other than wishful thinking about energy storage, interconnectors and Saharan solar farms. At the moment the only viable option would appear to be paying the energy companies to keep open the gas-fired power stations. This option is costly; in essence the country would be running two parallel energy generation systems, a renewable one for when it is windy and sunny, and a fossil-fuel based one for when it is calm and cloudy.
In an excellent article in a recent Daily Sceptic it was proposed that wind and solar farm operators must in future guarantee that, every hour of every day, they will supply a certain level of power to the National Grid. So when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining it will not be the taxpayer but the wind or solar farm operator who will be responsible for providing the back-up measures needed to keep the power flowing. If this was done then we would very soon find out the true cost of renewables.
There is an option other than renewables. If we want to keep our Net Zero commitment but have a stable energy supply then nuclear power may be the better way forward. At the moment nuclear power is expensive, but Rolls Royce is developing a new generation of smaller modular reactors that it is hoped will be cheaper. If these are successful then an alternative Energy Strategy would be to keep open our gas-fired power stations as a transition whilst we build up our nuclear capacity.
Any pause in the Net Zero programme will of course provoke a storm of protest from the usual suspects. But even for those who agree with the general direction of travel of Net Zero there is the question of why is the U.K. in such a rush? We are an insignificant 1% of the world’s CO2 emissions. Three countries account for half the world’s CO2 emissions, China 29%, USA 14% and India 7%. These three countries have far larger carbon footprints than us yet are moving much more slowly to decarbonise. For example, we are proposing to close our fossil fuel power stations whilst these three countries are still building new ones! We are proposing to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars in 2030 while China is not proposing a ban until 2035 and India is not proposing any ban at all. In the USA it is left to individual states, for example California and New York are proposing bans in 2035 but Florida and Texas are again not proposing any bans at all.
If the U.K. achieved Net Zero tomorrow we are so insignificant that it would make no difference to the CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere. All that is being achieved by our Government’s rush to Net Zero is to adopt bad policies and inflict needless pain on the British people. If we wish to keep to our Net Zero commitment then so be it, although there is no clear democratic mandate for this since all three main political parties support it so it is barely possible to protest. But if we must, at least let us stop the political posturing, the desire to be world leaders, and instead let’s settle for a more sensible and modest goal, namely matching our rate of decarbonisation to that of the major CO2 emitting countries.
Dr. John Fernley is a retired scientist.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
–“let’s settle for a more sensible and modest goal, namely matching our rate of decarbonisation to that of major CO2 emitting countries.”——————–Far too rational. It’ll never catch on!
Our political class are a group of narcissists who can’t abide being 2nd, they want to lord it on the World Stage, Net zero if it kills all of us, 1st and better than anyone to roll out the vaccines, doing more for Ukraine than anyone, Giving more to Aid. The UK has never been enough for them since Blair
Dan, our political class are not deciding anything. They are going along with a current that has been created for them.
By whom and for what precise purpose is the question that I don’t see discussed (seriously) enough.
I agree the Global Organisations are running the show, but our own politicians are jumping higher than many other countries, for their own political careers,
Green energy is about abolishing the energy market, not saving the planet. No one would choose to buy expensive unreliable so called renewable energy in a free market, or few would anyway. It’s the same motivation that gave us the corn laws during the Napoleonic wars, the landed gentry always desire a serf class.
It really is that simple isn’t it.
The corn laws are the perfect analogy.
Perhaps ’Landed corporations’ figure as largely in this scam as ‘landed gentry’ ?
“By whom and for what precise purpose is the question that I don’t see discussed (seriously) enough.”
TY is not keen on what he would see as a conspiracy theory, and it’s his site so I guess it’s not something he wants to push. That said, he’s happy to have Noah Carl write on Ukraine which last time I looked TY seemed fairly in support of the mainstream on. Trouble is that it’s hard to prove (IMO – others I know disagree strongly and say it’s all obvious and in plain sight).
Johnson, a criminal, a fool, a liar. He has presided over the destruction of the energy grid to enrich his nearest and dearest. Granny can freeze to death to enrich the Johnson clan. His half brother has close relations with China, enough said.
Whilst I probably have a worse opinion of Bunter than even you, we should not forget that it was Ed Miliband, Veggie Benn and Gordon Brown who kicked this nonsense off with the Climate Change Act 2008. The first country in the world, the Labia Party bragged, to enshrine 80% “carbon” reductions in law. And only five MPs voted against.
Unfortunately, every PM since Brown, and most MPs, hove been in favour of making the “Energy Policy” even worse.
Damn their eyes!
There’s little point trying to counter the whole Net Zero narrative with facts, as it isn’t built with facts, and those who ascribe to it, have no interest whether it is true or not. They have convinced themselves that it is necessary to do this, and that’s that.
True. It seems for some that the yawning gap left by the disappearance of religion has been filled by worship of safety, Planet Earth, wokeism.
We have angered the Gods with our decadent and sinful ways. We must pay penance for them, and beg for forgiveness, for terrible floods and famines will surely come to us, and the Earth will burn and we will all be cast asunder, etc etc etc.
Its the 12th century, updated to modern day.
And “The Science.”
The origins of all of this are in the “appeal to nature” fallacy of renewables. But also in the darker, anti-capitalist origins of the anti-nuclear movement. Here’s Amory Lovins in the late ’70s:
“Even if nuclear power were clean, safe, economic, assured of ample fuel, and socially benign, it would still be unattractive because of the political implications of the kind of energy economy it would lock us into.”
We have to remember that these people don’t want solutions to the problem. They want the problem to get worse so they can destroy capitalist society. This might sound hyperbolic, but it’s hard to think of any other explanation. The 1970s anti-capitalist movement has morphed into a grotesque cabal of monopolistic globalists with subservient slave state fantasies of population control, but it’s ultimately the same thing – a series of pernicious, wilful lies and weaponization of ordinary people’s good intentions.
Eezy guide ‘How to get elected for beginners’ Starter Pack, Lesson No. 1a
The government is responsible for deciding how the country is run and for managing things, day to day. They set taxes, choose what to spend public money on and decide how best to deliver public services, such as:
The National Health Service
The police and armed forces
The UK’s energy supply
They are doing all these things very badly
If the government did them what we call (technical term warning) ‘better’, more of the people that they call (technical term warning) ‘silly billies’ might vote for them…..
I think the Why such a rush? question is easily answered: The people behind global climate policy are simply trying to pick the low-hanging fruits. Obviously, the Bojo was such a fruit (is there something like a low-hanging fruitcake?).
Recently, a German climate expert (who looked very much like an African to me) was urging the German people that they must do more to combat climate change because of the special responsibilty of Germany (it seems Germany has a special responsibility for everything, IOW, Germans or at least German politicans have a reputation of being especially credulous and especially willing to pay anyone for everything). His argument was that dividing the CO2 emissions of Germany by the number of people living in Germany would result in a larger number than making the same calculation for India, IOW, he was implying that Germans would be especially harmful to the climate. It was claimed that an Indian would emit 3t (metric tons) of carbon dioxide per year and a German 5t ( ). I did some calculations with publically available population and GDP numbers based on that and the outcome was that Indian economy emits more than 9 times as much CO2 as the German one and that it is more than 13 times less efficient in this respect.
The bottom-line is that the exact opposite of what this person suggested is true: If general conditions of living in India and Germany were alike, a lot less carbon dioxide would be emitted in India. While he probably expected his audience to fall for the nonsense, especially the We are so culpable! faction controlling public discourse, I don’t think he’s stupid enough to believe in it himself. Even assuming he is, the more mathematically inclined people behind this global scam are certainly not. They must know this, too, hence, the obvious conclusion is that they don’t give a shit about CO2 emissions, they just want money from everyone who’s willing to give it to them.
Can I just point ouit again that our immigration policy – essentially, anybody who can afford to get here can come, and if you’re a violent young criminal who can’t afford it we’ll fund you -shows that our the people who own our politicians don’t believe that there’s a climate crisis.
How long before our country is being run by the Albanian mafia and the police are left wringing their hands?
It is quite likely that the Albanian Mafia would be more competent and caring that the twerps now in charge.
Good article but CO2 or ‘carbon’ as it’s now called (as if it’s literally clouds of child-seeking malevolent black lumps floating in the air) is NOT A POLLUTANT. It is a trace gas plant food that keeps everything on this planet alive. And there is no real world evidence that it is the evil puppet master to the Earth’s climate. None.
It is currently at around 417ppm. Previously 30-60 million years ago it was 15 times higher with no runaway global warming or climate ‘tipping point’ into BBC fantasy hand down the trousers armageddon.
Billionaire nut jobs like Bill Gates and Richard Branson want to build machines that ‘scrub’ CO2 from our atmosphere. But we live in one of the lowest periods of CO2 in the Earth’s history and if CO2 drops below 250ppm we all die, we literally go extinct. And ironically of all Extinction Rebellion will be directly responsible.
Precisely so. These facts need to be tattooed across the foreheads of every individual who supports ‘Net Zero’
Interesting article, but I am afraid that recommending a pause in the Net Zero project is like someone in the 1930s suggesting a pause in the second USSR Five Year Plan (1932 – 37) because of the emergence of mass famine – but retaining the basic communist centralised economic and political system and the possibility of returning to the Plan later when things have settled down.
We need to throw Net Zero / Climate Change and political Green-ism (the whole thing really just a variation on the same totalitarian and catastrophically harmful Marxist creed that operated in the Soviet Union) into the dustbin of history.
I do accept however that any specific policy changes which undermine this hitherto invulnerable agenda, including a Net Zero ‘pause’, removing the fracking ban etc, will still be very valuable in their own right as they could quickly lead to a collapse of the whole rotten edifice (through demonstrating the massive economic advantages of conventional / non-Green technology)
Giant Solar farms in the Sahara?
whoever came up with that bright idea obviously doesn’t understand that sand in deserts moves -a lot. They’d be cleaning them every time the wind blows and digging them out every time there was a sand storm.
People with strong opinions can be very ignorant of what they speak…
Maybe. But debwestsussex isn’t wrong. And that’s before we even consider other trifling problems. Does it go dark at night in the Sahara?
What would the transmission losses between Algeria and the UK amount to?
Would our more excitable chums from the Religion of Peace take an interest?
How much would it cost?
What would be the “carbon footprint” of constructing it and making the panels?
I could continue…
I didn’t mean debwestsussex was the ignorant one. She’s correct and so are you. People have wonderful ideas and somehow assume that it will all be taken care of by someone else. It’ll be fine in the future as the technology will have moved on and all that.
Questioning of the practicalities is seen as being negative. Critical thinking is not allowed. I know that as all my life I’ve been told I think too much!
“National Grid statistics for last year showed that on average renewables produced 22% of our energy,”
No they don’t.
22% of our electricity. Around 8% of our energy, with luck.
Of course, if all transport and home heating was electric, as Bunter dictated, we’d be in an even more dangerous situation.
I’m sorry, but this is not just too weak an article. It is plain wrong. CO2, a natural trace gas, is the basis of ALL life on Earth. Reduced CO2 means less life. CO2 below a certain level, about 150 parts per million (it is currently 417 ppm), means widespread plant death and in short order, therefore, NO life on Earth. How it has come to be targeted as a pollutant responsible for the warming of the planet is a masterpiece of left-wing activist lies. The late unlamented Maurice Strong, a Canadian communist and Gro Harlem Brundtland, the socialist ex Premier of Norway, are the instigators of the Great Climate Lie under the auspices of the UN. Their aim was to help the weaker peoples of the World by destroying the basis of Western economies. They persuaded millions of useful idiots to go along with this and they are succeeding. Even Dr John Fernley, a retired scientist, has seemingly accepted much of the Great Climate Lie.
Whatever Dr Fernley studied, it obviously wasn’t chemistry or botany. Surprisingly Google can’t find him either.
No, it’s time to scrap the Net Zero lunacy completely.