Energy bills are set to soar as almost all major studies on Net Zero contain serious modelling errors that grossly underestimate the cost, a new report from Net Zero Watch reveals.
The report, which presents a new model of the 2050 electricity system that corrects these errors, shows that official studies have suppressed the apparent cost of Net Zero still further by using extreme speculations about the costs and efficiencies of all the equipment required in the 2050 grid.
According to Andrew Montford, the Director of Net Zero Watch:
The Royal Society, for example, assumes that the cost of almost everything will halve, and the efficiency of almost everything will soar. It’s not impossible, but it is imprudent to assume that it will happen.
If you correct the modelling errors, and use known costs and efficiencies rather than speculation about what might be available in 2050, you get a very different picture of the future.
The report warns that with current technology, the cost of a Net Zero grid would approach £8,000 per household per year. Montford adds:
The costs may come down somewhat, but policymakers need to be told what it would cost if they don’t. The numbers are staggering. The failure to explain the extreme nature of the underlying assumptions is culpable.
Net Zero Watch is calling for the Royal Society to withdraw its recent “misleading” report on electricity storage.
The Net Zero Watch report can be downloaded here.
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.
If these figures are correct and we have definitely been lied to, which I wouldn’t dispute, then I can say with some certainty that long before 2050 we will no longer have a functioning society.
“The report warns that with current technology, the cost of a Net Zero grid would approach £8,000 per household per year. “
So £8,000 pa by 2050.
How much by 2030, 2040?
A breaking point will arrive long before 2050.
I’m hoping for global warming to reduce heating bills, but there’s no sign of it yet here in Northern Ireland. My heating bills are higher than ever.
Euthanasia will help trim down society. Those incinerators dotted around the UK could be re-tasked to avoid the atmos getting ripe.
But maybe bodies emit more CO2 than coal.
Such matters are not a concern as long as there’s less people. This is from the same stable that brings us continuous wars and mountains of waste.
Fewer, not less
Downvoted because you know the last moments of your physical body could be used to heat an MP’s house.
Or a swimming baths!
Yet according to JUST STOP OIL and all those other bunches of Climate Change Junkies we are “Not Doing Enough” ———ha ha aha ha jeezus.— How much do they want us to fork out per year ? 10,000 quid, 15,000 quid, 30,000 quid? ——–These cloud cuckoo land dreamers need sectioned. We cannot have energy policy dictated by these eco morons, yet government are happy to have them as their useful idiots spreading the nonsense that might make us reluctantly accept the need for all the “green crap”.
Indeed. I doubt it’s possible for the cost per household to reach £8,000 because that is simply unaffordable for many. If these policies are pursued, people will freeze in their homes and only the well off will be able to afford to keep warm, and I expect there will be power cuts, again these will affect the poorest more because the rich may be able to pay a premium for electricity.
Then there will be break-ins, but not for a Rolex, just to keep warm. Maybe some would enjoy the company, depends on who is doing the breaking in I guess.
The NZW report highlights the absurdity of the assumptions thought to be underlying the RS report. Does the RS report detail the assumptions used? If not, why not [rhetorical]?
One thing which I did not notice in the NZW report is that this is only discussing UK Net Zero 2050 efforts. The assumption should surely be that we (the UK) will be in competition with most of the other countries of the world (or at least of Europe) for the resources to build our wind and solar farms and storage. Such competition would tend to drive prices up, not down. If we are not suffering such competition then the others have abandoned the effort and all our effort will be in vain as our energy demand and output is insignificant in comparison to the rest of the world.
We need nuclear power for the base load – asap.
Also: come on you fusion boffins!
We will indeed be in competition for scarce resources and the problem is that some resources needed for net zero are very scarce (on a global scale). I’ve seen 2 different assessments of how long it would take the world to reach net zero based on current levels of production of various minerals. The real killer is lithium for all the EVs and possibly batteries for grid scale storage. One assessment said it would take 7,000 years to produce enough lithium and the other said 4,000 years. There’s obviously a lot of assumptions that go into estimates like this so they’re only rough estimates, but even if massive new deposits were found and output increased 5 fold it would still take hundreds of years to produce enough.
I’m all in favour of nuclear, provided it can compete cost wise with fossil fuels, but it would only decarbonise electricity, and possibly heating if heat pumps could be made effective for all homes. This would still leave transport relying on batteries and mean demand for lithium could never be met.
Nut zero is a scam. There is no point trying to have a debate about whether it is ‘doable’ because the whole subject is a scam.
Yes, but it’s better to ridicule it than ignore it.
Ah, well. While we’re wishing for a fusion breakthrough can’t we also wish for fusion powered flying cars? Come on guys – you’ve got 26 years to crack the science and deploy it worldwide.
Mind you, watching some people’s driving when they have just two dimensions to worry about doesn’t fill me with confidence about their ability to cope with flying. The consequences of a mid-air collision with fusion reactors on board would make current BEV crashes look tame.
I think Lithium is actually quite abundant dissolved as salts in seawater. All we need is another different breakthrough to process and extract enough – it’ll probably be quite energy intensive to do though. Quite what that might do to the marine environment is anyone’s guess; my guess would be ‘nothing good’. I think the main scarcity would be cobalt and the ‘rare earth’ metals.
Since when the cost of anything government did “halve”? ——Are you kidding me? In 2019 the Net Zero Amendment to the Climate Change Act was waved through with no questions asked regarding cost or even if was possible to achieve. ——This is f…ing insane. I am sorry to have to curse but they have forced us in law to do something that is virtually impossible and they could not care how much it costs not only in money but in misery. ——-A few years ago the head of the National Grid (Steve Holliday) warned “We are going to have to get used to using electricity as and when it is available”. The same thing applies to gas (if we ever use any in 30 years time) —-This is progress for you under Green Ideology —-Less of everything but at astronomical cost in the hope you go without. ———-I wonder if Mel Gibson is available to make MAD MAX 3
I wouldn’t worry too much about dystopian predictions of the future. Of course it will be nasty and brutish in many ways but that is the only meaningful path and everything is as it should be in this best of all possible worlds. There is a growing sense that the southern hemisphere will fare better than the northern and this is perfectly rational but I think is untrue. In terms of the nuclear exchanges to come it is true that the north will fare much worse but I believe that shortly after a full nuclear exchange there would be a global cataclysm originating from somewhere else in the cosmos. I don’t think that there is much point in thinkng about strategic relocation. But in regard to net zero I do wonder why the English have embraced it with such zeal. So much so that they pledge to become the first net zero country. Perhaps it is latent romanticism and the trauma of the industrial revolution who knows. More likely the City of London as the overseer of this monster.
The English have not embraced net zero with any zeal, it’s only because the dim and illiterate representatives have voted it through under false pretences from the terminal retards that proposed it.
I shall be going after all adherents to the madness with a pair of large pliers.
That’s true the working class people I speak to think it’s a load of crap.
The Eco socialism will simply pluck money from wealthier bill payers to pay the bills of poorer bill payers. After all what do we think a carbon tax really is? Energy is a new kind of currency and is and will be used to redistribute wealth. ——That is what “climate justice” really means.