A new report this week from the National Energy System Operator (NESO), has blown up Ed Miliband’s mad Net Zero plans.
According to NESO, aiming for an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, instead of the current 100% target, could save the UK £350 billion, £14 billion a year. NESO is the official, state-owned body responsible for planning and running the UK’s energy systems, so what they say carries a lot of weight.
In the summer, they published a set of Future Energy Scenarios, FES, mapping out how we might achieve Net Zero by 2050. They considered different pathways, such as full electrification and mass rollout of hydrogen technology. Their central case was called the “Holistic Transition”, a balanced mix of everything.
But they also developed another scenario, called “Falling Back”, which only achieved an 80% cut in emissions, compared to 1990 levels. This was, of course, the original target set in the 2008 Climate Change Act, before it was amended in 2019 to 100%.
The trouble is that all these options cost money, lots of it. Renewable electricity remains much more expensive than gas power, particularly when all the indirect costs are added in, such as standby capacity, grid balancing, storage and constraint costs. The cost of upgrading the grid to meet Net Zero will run into hundreds of millions – NESO estimate that it will cost £133 billion just to upgrade the local distribution network to handle the greater demand for electricity, on top of £75 billion for
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
For delay, read scrap. Extrapolate that to the whole climate change scam and some form of normality might return.
Delaying Ed Miliband would save much more.
I’d prefer to hurry his life up, relative to ours. So yes, you are indeed correct, the theory of relativity states that we need to slow him down. Maybe put him into deep freeze.
He could be used for actual science.
If a 20% reduction yields £14 billion a year in savings, does that mean that hot having a reduction target would yield a £70 billion a year saving? We could fill the governments black hole several times over.
Without delving into their publications, it would seem that scrapping equipment early (compared with the original project plans for a given installation) would increase costs, compared with replacement in line with historic depreciation & long term replacement forecasts. Ask an accountant about that.
Good point – at least in part this “saving” may actually be real rather than just expenditure postponed, if it allows functioning equipment to reach end of life naturally.
You need to take into consideration any backups that need to be maintained or purchased, or damage due to lack of supply.
That’s true – unless all the “old” infrastructure that can be ditched* including all the duplicated stuff and the backups, spare parts etc come to end of life at the same time, which seems unlikely/
*Can be ditched once scientists learn how to harness unicorn farts to power an industrialised nation.
OK, Miliband is the European and World Champion of Phony Planet Savers and licks the backsides of the UN/WEF Eco Socialists and its Sustainable Development and Net Zero Agenda’s, but let’s not forget who brought the Net Zero Amendment to Parliament. It was Teresa May, supposedly a Conservative who did that, and it was waved through Parliament in 2019 with no debate, no cost/benefit analysis and NO VOTE
—So in actual fact the entire Political Class have foisted this scam on us and it is only now with Reform rising in the polls that Conservatives are saying they will ease up on some of it, when infact it all needs to be DITCHED. ——Lets hope REFORM can make that happen and maybe our electricity bills won’t be the highest in the world like what they are now because of this phony planet saving FRAUD
Well surely it’s not really a saving – just expenditure postponed?
The truly “holistic” approach would be to throw all the legislation in the bin and let people get on with their lives – the best solutions would evolve naturally.
Yes, but what’s the point of saving all that money if the earth tips over, 99.9% of species become extinct, we’re suffocated by cow-farts, the sea rises 400m, and the sun falls on my poor bald pate?? You tell me that, eh?
Apparently we already passed that tipping point so it’s time to party, what else can we do?!
John…..we maybe in climate change but not crisis.
With hydrocarbons we have the cheapest & MOST efficient energy to ADAPT.( if needed)
Note: all disaster predictions have been false, and if we keep talking of planetary extinction it’s not surprising our kids are “not bothering ” with Life caused by Mental Illness.
Things are so bad that I can’t tell if you’re joking or not. 🙂
Meanwhile in the real world, last year China commissioned 94.5GW of new coal fired electricity generation to add to its current fleet of approx 1200 coal fired power stations. As I write, the UK is generating only 34.3 GW from all sources, gas, nuclear, wind, solar etc etc
Perspective
A concept unfamiliar to the brainwashed save the planet crowd
Not much solar in East Yorkshire today…….
Reduce the emissions reduction target to zero, CO2 is plant food and hence necessary for all life on earth, it’s not a pollutant.
Then put Mad Ed in a cage and charge admission.
I wouldn’t pay to see that monster!
(I’d pay to have him put in an oubliette)
Worth reinstating an oubliette just for him.
Did you mean omelette?
He will forever be known as mad Ed.
And then labour can give it to wasters,grifters and gimmegrants!