The United Kingdom is likely to have barely a quarter of the energy in 2050 promised by the Government and its Climate Change Committee if all the legal obligations of Net Zero are followed. This shocking news is forecast by the latest energy review recently published by U.K. FIRES. Government-funded U.K FIRES writes that the “whole excitement” of its project has been to recognise that such a shortfall is close to a certain reality. Excitement is not perhaps a word that comes immediately to mind when contemplating Britain’s almost certain economic and societal collapse.
As we have noted before in the Daily Sceptic, UK FIRES bases its recommendations on the brutal, and many would argue, honest reality of Net Zero. It does not assume that technological processes still to be perfected, or even invented, will somehow lead to minimal disturbance in comfortable industrialised lifestyles. Speaking to architects in 2021 at a RIBA climate conference, UK FIRES leader, Cambridge-based Professor Julian Allwood, said the UK Net Zero strategy is as unrealistic as “magic beans fertilised by unicorn’s blood”.
It can be argued that the £5 million of taxpayer funding to UK FIRES is money well spent since its honest Net Zero appraisals contrast with the fanciful stories and deceit that surround many other claims by Net Zero promoters.
The above graph shows how UK FIRES expects only one quarter of electrical power to be available in 2050, compared with all other forecasts. By 2050, electrical power will be the primary source of all energy. It notes that all other scenarios depend on negative emissions technologies such as carbon capture to deal with ‘residual emissions’ – shown in the graph in orange. UK FIRES notes that it reflects the reality that to date no such technologies are operating in the UK, and therefore it states that by 2050, “we should continue to anticipate that they would not exist”.
Allwood, and his colleagues from a number of universities including Oxford and Imperial College, are dismissive of many of the proposed Net Zero mitigation technologies, noting, for instance, that biofuels are unsustainable since they threaten biodiversity. In 2021, Allwood observed that delivering Net Zero by 2050 “will require governments to utilise all available abatement opportunities, yet current policy largely ignores socially-driven mitigation in favour of technological innovation in the energy sector”
In plainer English, these government driven social “abatement opportunities” might reference the World Economic Forum’s advice that you will eat bugs, own nothing, and, it need hardly be added, be happy. As we have previously reported, UK FIRES promotes a world with no flying and shipping by 2050, drastic cuts in home heating, bans on beef and lamb consumption, and a ruthless purge on traditional building materials such as bricks, glass, steel and cement, to be replaced with materials such as “rammed earth”.
The UK Government is committed to reducing emissions by 68% from 1990 to 2030. Most of the easy cuts have been made with a switch from coal to gas, and the offshoring of a great deal of British manufacturing capacity. But the easy cuts, and the ubiquitous virtue signalling that goes with them, have ended. To comply with legal requirements going forward a massive ramp up of green energy is required, and there is little evidence that it is occurring.
The above graph from Atkins ‘Engineering Net Zero’ is referenced by the UK FIRES energy report. It analyses the build rates required to deliver the energy infrastructure predicted by the Climate Change Committee. There has, of course, been some building of renewable power sources in the last ten years, – wind and solar taxpayer subsidies of £12 billion a year for providing about 5% of total energy needs, attests to that – but nothing to suggest the build can ramp up to the required levels to even try to keep society functioning. Allwood notes that the correct interpretation of this graph is that it isn’t going to happen. “There is no possibility of this level of energy infrastructure being built by 2035, and if anything approaching this rate of construction is to happen beyond then, the public financing commitment needs to be made right now, before the next election.”
Mainstream media is very keen on horrific climate stories, but UK FIRES predictions are more or less ignored – presumably on the grounds they are the wrong type of Net Zero scares. But UK FIRES seems keen to scare the horses, noting that in articulating and promoting what it calls “opportunities”, it is aiming to open up “a more credible pathway to delivering zero emissions in reality”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
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.
Need a decoding dictionary for these demonic, evil, ignorant lunatics.
The above graph shows how UK FIRES expects only one quarter of electrical power to be available in 2050, compared with all other forecasts. By 2050, electrical power will be the primary source of all energy.
I think you have hit the nail on the head, Ferd. Language is very important and TPTB have used it to great effect to cast a ‘spell’ upon the people. The words ‘sustainability’,’renewables’,’emissions’,’fossil fuels’ etc etc all used to create an idea of a world where we will be ‘sustained’ by energy that is ‘renewable’ and to do that must cut the ’emissions’ of the ‘fossil fuels’. When you get away from the utter delusion of their vision, you find that we are being asked to pay for the destruction of our societies and our way of life because it is NOT sustainable because some deluded scientist with a fat grant said so. AND we are being asked to virtuously trumpet our adherence to this new paradigm in every aspect of our lives. Taken down to the simplest common denominators I can come up with it is this: what we are being asked to do is ‘contract’ our lives, not ‘expand’ them. Who would go along with that other than the completely and utterly insane? In my view, it is demonic.
The “contraction” is intended to be terminal Aethelred.
Gridwatch shows 2gw of electricity being produced by the banks of windmills we’ve paid an absolute fortune to install.
The Eco Lunatics in the Establishment have embarked on a project to reverse civilisation to the Dark Ages.
“The Eco Lunatics in the Establishment have embarked on a project to reverse civilisation to the Dark Ages.”
With a commensurate population size.
Not even the Dark Ages: I’d argue pre-Sumerian.
And the rest of the sensible world like India China Iran Saudi Arabia will look at Britain, start giggling, then look at each other and say ” there you go guys, that’s how not to do it!”
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
Bonaparte I believe.
Excuse me – don’t you mean UK’s being a “world leader” again?
I wonder how long until the Snivelling Service notices they are funding a report that contradcts ‘the message’
Another great article from Chris, thank you.
Unfortunately net-zero is now an apocalyptic death cult oblivious to reason and logic. I now regard it as being much on the lines of the Branch Davidian cult in Waco and we all know how that ended. Do we have to wait for that level of death and destruction before there is any chance of the scales falling from the eyes of the net-zero zealots?
The first really gritty aspect of all this comes in 2016 when the sale and installation of new oil fired boilers will be banned. Cue the winter of 2016/17 and we start to get stories of rural old folk dying of hypothermia when their old oil fired boilers died and they could not afford a heat pump. Will these rural hypothermia deaths be accepted collateral in our sacred duty to achieve the Valhalla of Net-Zero?
Whops senior moment, all those dates should be moved on 10 years, 2026, 2027 not as I have written.
And there I was about to ask you about your time travelling skills!
Hi Steve.I read this somewhere as I have and oil boiler and wrote to my MP.
He stated that the ban is on New build installations not replacement of existing .However as always there is nothing clearly written down anywhere I can see to confirm this .
The other joke is that my village electricity supply could not support heatpumps anyway if they worked .We need to get this into the Public space more as its the first actual nett Zero ban to actually start soon.I think its a deeply cynical ruse as there are only about 1.3 million homes on oil / LPG so are we a test run run.I did not vote to be a guinea pig !!!
There will be no detectable difference to global climate by 2050 even if the UK reaches this absurd NET ZERO target. If something won’t make any difference, then why do it? ———————Because it isn’t and never was about the climate in the first place. ————————– I recall the words of the head of the National Grid, Steve Holliday, a few years ago. He said “We are going to have to get used to using electricity as and when it is available”—–What? In the 21st century? We will get some electricity if it happens to be available? Not only that but it is going to cost us all an arm and a leg to pay for having electricity “as and when it is available”. Because make no mistake the bill for the trillions this absurdity is going to cost will be sent to you and I. ———We are about to get rid of known technology that powers industrial society and gives us the standard of living we now have, with a doubling of life expectancy, better health, freedom from back breaking labour and from preventable diseases, and are about to replace all of that with technology as yet not invented, and we have no clue even if we could invent it and at what cost. We do all of that and put a very short timeframe on it and we have actually made it the law, even though no one voted for this, and no one even questioned it. (except one labour MP, who might go down in history as the only person in parliament not wrapped in a phony pretend to save the planet straightjacket). ———-Why force yourself in law to do something when you don’t know how it can be done and what it will cost. Why not just TRY TO DO IT, if you really think it is necessary? But since it is supposed to be about climate, and it will make no difference to climate then it isn’t necessary at all. We are being sued by environmental groups already and there is still 27 years to go. This will only escalate until the life is squeezed out of the economy and we are all sitting here waiting for the electricity to come back on “as and when it is available”.
Laws can and must be changed back when/if we ever get a government that has the cohones to go against the religious zealots. Of course, government will never do that. They would rather see the people suffer than admit they were wrong because there is too much money and power invested in the climate emergency scam. Once people start to understand what is being planned for them, I don’t think they will be happy about it. The way to go about it is to tackle your local government. That’s what I am doing here in Dorset. We are also planning town meetings – not council meetings – but TOWN meetings and we are going to engage the sustainability crowd is a respectful and open debate about this. We can’t/won’t take this. We have to act because there is no one coming to save us. This is imperative in my view. It might not work but by god I couldn’t live with myself if I did nothing.
Tip o’ the hat Aethelred.
Unfortunately, and you know what I am going to post:
Our salvation will not arrive via the ballot box.
Thanks, HP. Yes I know that too and that is why we will continue to try and raise local awareness and challenge the local councillors. It could be fruitless of course but by doing so we attract attention. In a way, we are at the start of creating our own council that directly engages with the people. National politics is a dead duck I agree.
I am involved in local politics Aethelred but my priorities do not wholly align with those of my comrades who resolutely refuse to discuss the real issues of the day – litter picking is not my thing. Sadly, the sheer corruption and outright lying that ALL of our councillors exhibit disgusts me and I find it difficult not to believe that even the local election processes have been tampered with shall we say.
So, I have a small role on Thursday as a paper candidate and I hope some of my comrades enjoy the success they deserve but removing our Uniparty is at the moment out of reach. While we are an organisation that refuses to introduce the issues of the day such as the Reset I believe we are being disingenuous with the electorate and therefore largely pissing in the wind.
Hope and all that.
We have found the same levels of corruption here too, HP, in plain sight, as if they couldn’t care less. Interestingly we have found an unlikely ally who used to be a county councillor for years and knows where the bodies are buried. He told me that the county council meetings are almost not worth attending as questions have to be sent in advance so they already have answers prepared if, that is, your question is even considered! He said I could of course just stand up and demand to be heard. I may get thrown out of course with much banging of the gavel. I don’t have anything to lose if I do. I want to be heard. I tend to be more of an optimist in all of this than a pessimist which helps! Forward!
The problem is that Main Stream News are fully onboard with this Eco Socialist Scam (except maybe GB News some of the time). But I have also heard GB News presenters talk of “The Climate Crisis”. We are bombarded with climate scare stories nearly everyday on MSM. It is hard to explain to people that this is really just politics and that the science is very uncertain and actually isn’t really science at all. It is computer modelling where many important parameters in the models are not at all well understood. Or as Climatologist Judith Curry said “Sure, all things being equal, CO2 may cause a little bit of warming but all things in earth’s climate are not equal”. ———–A little bit of warming is not a CRISIS. But unless you scare people, they will be reluctant to get onboard. FEAR is the political tool that works best. ——-We have all probably tried to bring a little balance on this issue to friends and family. eg. I notice if I say to people that Polar Bear numbers have actually increased 5 fold in the last 60 years, they will look at me as if I am from Mars. Because propaganda works. You can see the little wheels in their brain turning and they are literally saying to themselves “Why should I should I listen to him when all of the scientists in the world say the opposite”. What they don’t realise ofcourse is that “all scientists” say no such thing, and crucially it does not matter what scientists say. It only matters what evidence they have, and the computer models of impending catastrophe are NOT evidence of anything. The Official Science of climate change is in control of the narrative and the huge Industrial Complex of politicians media and big business keep it that way. What would really help is if we had another “Great Global Warming Swindle” type of program on TV featuring many of the people who regularly challenge this “Consensus, Post Modern Science, which is really just Politics. The Sustainable Development Politics that seeks to control the worlds wealth and resources by using FEAR.
I think I have pointed out more than once the depopulation agenda.
Yes, I believe you have, and ofcourse you also realise there is more to it than that. I have repeated myself often on here as well. But it is necessary, and I hope you do the same on other platforms.
And this is what it’s going to cost..
Thanks for that. Added to my collection..
Even those FES report numbers are flattering since they include losses and exports. In terms of electricity delivered to customers they are forecasting reductions of 46-60% from 2020 levels by 2050. As discussed here:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/what-will-net-zero-ever-do-for-us
That fits in neatly with losing 75% of its population as predicted by Deagel.. funny old world ain’t it..
Oh.. I wonder why CO2 was chosen as the gas of choice..
Thanks for that George.
You’re more than welcome Huxley.. I’ve been collecting little snippets for years now. I’m glad I did because so much is disappearing from the net now at an increasing rate..
Thanks George…grabbed that!
CO2 is the one gas emitted by every human activity. If you control CO2, you therefore control all human activity. CO2 is the bureaucrats dream gas. It gives the Eco Socialists the means to do what they have long craved. Control all the wealth and resources.
Yep.
Down to 14 million in less than two years?
That’s quite some drop.
As Nietzsche once aptly remarked: Translating the statement “I’m going under.” (ie, I will die) into the imperative “Everything shall perish with me!” is a hallmark of the decadent.
These people are trying to destroy the world because they cannot stand the thought that others will still be living on it after their time has come to an end. It’s their ultimate act of indulgence: After my death, people shall regret that they outlived me!
But if we’ve lost 75% of our population, then it won’t matter.
All the talk of NET ZERO makes me seethe when I see skies like this, and nobody seems to take any notice.
Taken just now 21.15 French time above my house in Brittany France..
How on earth does that comment generate three downticks by 22:41 UK time?
Yes Huxley.. It’s obviously right over the target, truthful, in real time, and making some out there a little twitchy..
How do the numbskulls in Govt reconcile “offshoring of a great deal of British manufacturing capacity” with “promotes a world with no flying and shipping”?
“Offshoring” is now government speak for destroying.