This week, as part of Labour’s election pitch, Keir Starmer declared that: “Heating our homes should not mean leaving our front door open to Russia.” According to Labour, the party’s plans for a publicly-owned Great British Energy company will help “close the door to Putin”. The Standard reports that Starmer accused the Government of “gambling with family finances by opposing investment in homegrown clean energy”, and said GB Energy would help protect the country from global energy shocks, such as the natural gas price spike in 2022 attributed to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But Labour’s lumping together of the issues of geopolitics and national security, energy security and household finances is too ambitious and has no foundation in reality.
Putin coming through our front doors and no doubt pocketing whatever catches his eye is an emotive image. But Britain has never been dependent on Moscow for heat. Since the turn of the century, natural gas from Russia has amounted to less than 1% of our energy imports. Russian gas did flow to the U.K. in the years 2017 to 2022, peaking at 6.19% in 2021. But this was quickly halted at the outbreak of the war and by far the biggest supplier of gas to the U.K. has long been Norway, at 66.78% of our gas imports. A distant second is Qatar, which has provided 11.91% of our imported gas, and which as far as geopolitics goes ought to be as concerning as imports from Russia, given allegations that the Qatari monarchy has supported Hamas and groups linked to ISIS.
A further problem arises out of the misconception that recent price spikes were caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But as the following data show, the invasion, which came in the last week of February 2022, immediately preceded a radical fall in gas prices from that month’s spike, before spiking again into the summer of that year. Moreover, prices had been climbing above their historical highs for the entire year previously. The reason, of course, was nothing to do with Russia, but recovery from lockdowns, reckless money printing and years of under-investment caused by ESG and related interventions by shareholder activists, green billionaires and financial institutions and regulators.
That’s a problem for Keir lockdown-sooner-harder-longer Starmer and his desire to champion Net Zero. And not just for the obvious reasons that the price rises were caused by lockdowns and environmentalism.
First, no matter how successful GB Energy will be in decarbonising power generation in the U.K. by building countless new wind and solar farms, those renewables will need to be backed up by gas-fired generators.
Second, by far the majority of homes in the U.K. are heated by gas, not electricity. GB Energy does not mitigate the problem of high energy prices or the risk of Russia ‘weaponising’ energy resources.
By emphasising renewable energy, rather than North Sea oil and gas production, which Labour intends to squeeze by imposing windfall taxes to finance GB Energy, Starmer’s policy agenda will discourage investment. This will reduce domestic production, increase gas prices and make the U.K. more vulnerable to gas market volatility. Far from learning from history, Starmer seems to be bent on repeating it.
“But heat pumps!” complain the green blob chorus. Yet even if Labour was to announce a radical programme of heat pump installations, and was to succeed in ripping out the gas boilers from a million homes a year, it would take a quarter of a century to complete the project. And those homes would still not be protected from gas price volatility because the green generators still need gas backup.
Meanwhile, of course, those homes will be lumbered with the costs of retrofitting. According to the Government’s statistics, the average air source heat pump installation cost £13,332. And despite a £7,500 grant, and despite energy price spikes, just 34,322 homes in England and Wales applied for the free money to help them with the cost between May 2022 and February 2024. Households facing the repayments on those retrofits and higher electricity prices may yet ask themselves whether Putin knocking at their front door would have been preferable to Sir Keir’s intrusion into their homes.
Britain’s indigenous gas production peaked in 2000 at 1.2 million GWh equivalent. By 2023, this fell to 382,726 GWh. Meanwhile, imports increased from 30,464 GWh to 493,887. Britain became a net gas importer in 2010, amid practically no reflection in Westminster about how the green agenda was transforming our industries and economy. Between that peak in production in the early 2000s and the lockdowns, electricity prices tripled.
Most of the energy we use in our homes is used to create heat. Gas is the superior form of energy for this application because it exists in immense quantities, is easy to extract, requires minimal processing, and is easy to store, transport and use. It is thus cheap. Conversely, electricity must be produced, i.e., converted, either from gas, or from kinetic energy such as wind. This makes electricity more expensive than gas. Heat pumps can do a good job, in theory, of increasing the efficiency of electric heating, to make the cost of fuel equivalent to gas heating but only at a huge initial outlay – many times greater than the cost of a gas boiler.
Consequently, in any normal context, it is impossible for renewables to produce power more cheaply than gas. But we do not live in normal times. Green energy policy in the U.K. and Europe has disfavoured oil and gas exploration. And financial institutions have increasingly been used to limit services available to hydrocarbon energy companies. Costs rose, investment fell and scarcity pushed gas prices up, even before lockdowns. And this gave birth to the idea that high electricity prices were caused, not by green policy restricting supply, but by the inherent instability of gas markets.
Policymakers’ and others’ focus on electricity has therefore been a huge and dangerous distraction. Ultimately, the Net Zero agenda requires the ‘electrification of everything’, including heat and transport. But there exists very little evidence of consumer demand for EVs and heat pumps without massive subsidies. And that is because the technology simply does not exist – and may never exist – to meet policy targets without imposing huge costs on consumers and taxpayers. Merely ‘decarbonising’ the grid does not make EVs and heat pumps viable any more than it protects people from foreign tyrants, international market price volatility or the cold.
The myth of our susceptibility to volatile Russian gas prices persists. But Britain has never been dependent on Moscow for heat. Since the turn of the century, natural gas from Russia has amounted to less than 1% of imports. In spite of Starmer’s offering seemingly being an alternative to the last 14 years of Conservative Government, he manages to epitomise the political Establishment’s total divorce from reality. Promises to protect the country’s homes from despotic Norwegian warlords would be scarcely more plausible than his promises to reduce our bills and protect us from Russia, markets and the elements. Wrap up warm, because it’s going to be an increasingly cold five years, and possibly much longer.
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.
The last thing you want to look after your chickens would be FOX. And the last thing you want to look after our energy supply would be government. (Any government that is onboard with Net Zero) Just as the Fox wants to reduce the amount of chickens you have by eating them, so to government want to reduce the amount of energy you use by pricing you out of using it.
Ignore completely any politician or climate activist on TV News who tries to tell you that wind is now cheaper than fossil fuels. This is FALSE. Comparing wind energy to coal and gas is like comparing a Helicopter to a Jumbo Jet. It is like saying a bicycle is now cheaper than a car. Yes ofcourse it is but the bicycle cannot do what the car does, and wind cannot do what fossil fuels do. Which is why 85 % of the worlds energy comes from fossil fuels and this will not change very much moving forward despite western governments playing the eco socialist game of pretending to save the planet and forcing up the cost of energy. Notice that the countries with the highest electricity prices are the ones that use. The most wind (Denmark, Germany and the UK), so it isn’t as if we all don’t have the evidence right in front of us. ——-WIND IS EXPENSIVE. So Starmer’s idea of a government energy company is the last thing we need as having more and more wind only means one thing—Higher prices.
Despite the price of energy going up since we started using lots of wind, the population have not seen the worst of it yet, because what will arrive soon is “dynamic pricing”, where the smart meter will enable charging according to demand. The more demand the higher the price, and it will also know if the following day is to be windy or not and set the price accordingly.
“Just as the Fox wants to reduce the amount of chickens you have by eating them, so to government want to reduce the amount of energy you use by pricing you out of using it.”
Correction:
Just as the Fox wants to reduce the amount of chickens you have by eating them, so to government want to reduce the number of people by pricing you out of using it.
The reality is that a population struggling to keep itself warm will be a physically and mentally more poorly population. So it looks as if GB Energy is part of the Agenda 2030 scenario and that of course involves depopulation.
The intention to de-industrialise coupled with a chronically poor and poorly population would seem to be just what the Davos Deviants require; much easier to control and especially if there are fewer of us.
Crippling the country via Nut Zero is and never was what this is really about.
Yes you are adding another aspect into it there and I am fully aware of the link between climate policy and population growth and the Malthusian fears of limited resources in a world of 8 billion people.
There is way more to this eco socialism than the general public are being led to believe. Almost all of my family and friends think it is really only about the climate and if that is representative of the population at large then we have a big problem. Because most people in this country get their News from BBC, not from the Daily Sceptic, and certainly not from the likes of you and I.
All we can do is keep educating ourselves and trying our best to pass comment here and any other places and hope that some of that we have learned sticks or at least gives some people cause to question why BBC and most mainstream media never questions any aspect of this issue. Because if it were really about science shouldn’t they be questioning everything?
Thanks for the response.
Your last para mirrors my comments back when DS went to a subscription service. If our commentary on here can help to wake some people then it is worth every penny. And for sure MSM cannot provide the consistent quality journalism we obtain from DS and the many other sources that we have the opportunity to link to.
I have come across many gormless politicians in my 62 years but this one, bugger me is he out on his own. Firstly, we aren’t buying Gas or Oil from Russia. Second, and most importantly, he intends to close down the little home grown resouces we have left!
I wonder how long it takes his Jewish wife to tie her antisemitic leaders shoelaces in the morning?
Does this Great British Energy stink of “Long Grass” and “Gimic” to you? The anti-British party needed to pretend they suddenly love Britain and have “dealt with” the antisemitic issue. Making things up about Corbyn and Long-Bailey was pathetic and obvious. Starmer posing every time next to a British flag is hypocritical to say the least.
I loathe people like him who will say and do anything to gain power. Can anyone anywhere in the country genuinely say they trust him?
Incidentally, why will he not say how many tens of billions it will cost to setup Great British Energy? For that matter, where is the fag packet his policies are not written on?
Our energy policies are already a disaster, with all and sundry fully committed to Net Zero. But Labour and this GB Energy nonsense will just double down on the disaster that pretending to save the planet is causing, with misery for us all in astronomical energy costs since i all involves using more and more wind and we can clearly see that Denmark and Germany have already made that mistake and have the highest electricity prices in the world. ——–Also to call it GB Energy when it is going to be following what the UN Politics on climate says and not what GB people say is a wolf a sheep.
The Westminster Uni-Party’s energy plans are a disaster. The Not-a-Conservative-Party is just as dangerous.
The Climate Change 2008 Act should be repealed. No-one has voted for the Net Zero Tyranny.
Net Zero was actually in all the major party’s manifestos. But in 2019 there was little debate, no discussion of the astronomical cost or even if the technologies were available to achieve this nonsense. There was not even a vote and it as simply waved through by a political class who pander to the phony planet saving politics of the UN and Sustainable Development instead of to us the voters.
All as part of their Nut Zero push will be tax rises. They say they won’t increase NI or Income Tax: they didn’t say “but we will tax everything else”. I fully expect at least £20 on car tax, 20p on petrol, 50p on Diesel (once Labours “clean” fuel) a minimum of £1 on cigarettes, 20p on a pint and a sugar tax increase. Plus, of course, Khan’s “Green” taxes across the entire country allied with Pay Per Mile.
As Sunak said the other day, get saving.
Don’t forget those standing charges which will soon be £1 for gas and £1 for electricity per day plus 5% VAT which is £14 per week before you even flick a switch.Do mention these to the people canvassing for your vote.
I thought I was the only one who remembered diesel cars being pushed by Blair and the EU.
I’ve never forgotten, it was a major betrayal and pushed the price of petrol up. Companies like the one I worked at all changed to Diesel. Then Labour decided Diesel was the Evil of All Evils and Diesel went through the roof. It’s typical Labour and, under Antisemitic Starmer’s party it is now far, far worse than Blair ever was and I loathe Blair so much I’d happily kill him. To put it in context: Blair sent my son to Iraq.
Everyone I mention it to seems to have erased it from their memory. One of my brothers worshipped Blair, he has now joined the communist party!!
Typical Bollocks from our putative NWO/WEF puppet.
Yes, it’s all Putin’s fault.
Can’t wait to see the next stage of playing chicken with Russia – Storm Shadow launched from Ukraine (programmed by our forces) hits military target inside Russia.
Glad I don’t live near the North Yorksire moors or a BAE Systems factory….
I recall Starmer saying that he much preferred WEF to Parliament because “more gets done”.
It was…
Westminster or Davos?
“Oh, Davos definitely. More gets done”
I am so glad you reminded me of that. What a squirming parasite that cretin is.
Talk about advertising your true allegiances.
Every one of these ‘initiatives’ is a disaster, because bureaucrats cant forecast what the people want, and the people will do as they please. How many unfulfilled 5 year plans did the USSR have before they gave in to market forces..?
I was with you until you said ‘Heat pumps can do a good job, in theory’.
It’s not just the huge cost of installation, but the insulation and the electrical burden of running the pumps, day and night.
A total con, basically.
The answer my friends is “Blowing in the wind”. ——-You cannot have affordable electricity if you use it. ——–The evidence is as clear as day. Denmark, Germany and the UK all have the highest prices and they all use the most wind. —–But wasn’t wind supposed to be FREE?
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-climate-scaremongers-junk-data-trashes-the-met-offices-reputation/
And this article from Paul Homewood at TCW, which references Chris Morrison’s earlier work, is the perfect complement. Some extremely interesting but devastating facts rather than Kneel’s lies.
“Labour’s plans to add more renewable energy to the mix will mean subsidies increase by about £14billion a year, more than doubling the existing cost. Consequently households will be more than £500 a year worse off, not better off as Sir Keir Starmer claimed.
As for his ‘Great British Energy’ company, announced with great ceremony in Scotland last week, it was quickly exposed as a sham by the SNP, of all people. Contrary to Ed Miliband’s repeated hints, GBE won’t generate any energy, nor will it act as an energy retailer. It certainly will not replace the Big Six energy companies.
The simple fact is that its budget is so small that it will be little more than just another quango.”
‘It’s never about what they say it’s about.’
The data Mad Bacon Milliband used to start all of this in 2008 was falsified and Milliband knew it was. East Anglia University, still getting massive grants for false data, found that the data did not match their modelling so they changed the data.
Now, logically, you fix the model but there was no money in that. To keep the bungs rolling in they had to deliver what Millibacon wanted.
The fact they were doing it came out in 2009 when “hackers” (my guess is students) released a series of emails which showed what they had done. Unsurprisingly East Anglia University is still falsifying figures and still being paid immense amounts by you and me for doing it.
If you didn’t realise it, Millibacon will be in charge of Net Zero if Labour get in. Gives you a lovely warm glow like the Ready Brek you won’t be able to afford doesn’t it?
Cheers.
Horrific isn’t it? —–Miliband anywhere near energy.
All of these issues so madden me, we need politicians who tell the truth and are effective at getting the point across. I mentioned to my wife that I was thinking about applying to stand for Reform but the last candidate was a pretty effective local businessman and I thought he’d stand again. I met the new candidate last week. I should have applied as my wife said.
Some others of you should stand, your opinions and fact finding are excellent. Look at The Covid Years and how so many of us knew more than The Great And The Good. If at least one of us can’t kick the crap out of Millibacon on this subject I have no idea who can.
Given that climate change is mostly due to things we can’t control (sunspots and magnetic field changes, volcanoes etc) fiddling with human energy use is a waste of time. Net Zero must be abandoned. Does the fact that the Tories have been delaying mean they are more likely to do this than Labour? Certainly the election rhetoric points that way. As the public seems so credulous perhaps we need a King Canute of modern times to make things clear – or ban voting for those who cannot think.
‘But this [gas] was quickly halted st the outbreak of the war.’ Don’t you mean the blowing up of the Nordstream pipeline by the Americans Mr Pile?
To put it simply, net zero is technically impossible. Electrical grids have to be balanced, all the time. The more so called renewables are in the mix, the more difficult it is to keep balance. Building more turbines will not only increase the cost of energy, it will eventually cause massive blackouts when the grid collapses.
We are ruled by morons.
We know in our hearts that Net Zero is a monumental mistake.