The Energy Secretary, Claire Coutinho, warned recently that Labour’s plans to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 could lead to blackouts. It was a bit rich, given that her own party’s plans will have exactly the same effect, the only difference being five years later.
Unfortunately, neither party seems to have any understanding of how our energy system works, nor any policy for how to keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
As energy experts know, there are often times during the year when wind power generation is at extremely low levels in the U.K. These wind lulls can last for weeks on end in winter, often cutting wind generation to less than 5% of capacity.
Solar power is no better. In mid-winter, output averages below 2% of capacity, and none is available at the peak demand periods of breakfast and early evening.
Reliance on imported power from Europe also carries with it an extreme risk. Not least because wind lulls around the U.K. usually mean similar conditions on the other side of the North Sea. Politicians who waffle on about energy security are happy to play Russian roulette when it comes to getting electricity from Europe.
National Grid projections say that peak demand for electricity could double to 100GW by 2035, thanks to extra demand from EVs, heat pumps and so on. Decarbonisation will mean that we will only have around 10GW of dispatchable and baseload capacity by then, mainly nuclear, biomass and hydro – power that we can rely on day in and day out. On top of that, we may have 20GW of interconnectors to Europe.
Clearly, we cannot rely on wind and solar to bridge the gap, no matter how many wind and solar farms we build. Twice nothing is still nothing!
In February I wrote an open letter to Claire Coutinho, following one such windless spell, asking her what plans she had to maintain the supply of electricity in 2035, once all the coal and gas power plants had been shut down. A colleague of mine, who happened to be one of her constituents, forwarded my letter to her.
We received the usual bland reply, assuring us that the Government was working on plans to provide low carbon alternatives, including nuclear, tidal power, hydrogen and storage. Her letter exposed the shocking naivety of those in charge of our energy policy.
So we replied with another letter, pointing out that none of the solutions would be available at scale in 10 years time. Hydrogen, for instance, would need hundreds of billions spending on electrolysers, distribution networks, seasonal storage and a new fleet of hydrogen burning power stations. On top of that, there simply would not be enough wind and solar capacity to provide the power needed to produce the hydrogen in bulk.
Carbon capture, which has still not been proven at scale, would also require a new fleet of gas power stations, as most existing ones cannot be modified. There are no plans, however, to begin building these.
As for energy storage, this is a pipe dream. Batteries are only capable of storing enough electricity for an hour or so’s use. They are useful for short term balancing of the grid, on a minute-to-minute basis, but will be useless when we go days on end with little wind power.
None of these “solutions” will be ready in 10 years time, never mind the five years proposed by the Labour Party.
The only way we can prevent blackouts is to start building new gas power stations now, and lots of them. We currently have around 30GW of gas power, but many plants will shut in the next few years, either because of old age or because they are not economically viable.
At a minimum we will need 50GW of new capacity, along with a plan to keep existing plants open as long as possible.
All of this was explained to Coutinho. It was therefore a great surprise to receive this reply from her Department. (My highlights).
In short, everything I had said was correct. It simply is not possible to shut down all coal and gas power stations and hope to rely on renewables. And now even the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero has acknowledged the fact.
So why did Claire Coutinho not admit this in her letter? Does she not understand how our energy sector works? Is she just spouting the propaganda fed to her by a small clique of advisers? Or does she know that she was talking nonsense, but didn’t dare admit that the Government’s decarbonisation plans are impossible to achieve?
Let’s be absolutely clear about the implications of the Castro letter. It drives a coach and horses through the Net Zero plans of both the Tories and Labour.
It is no longer possible for either party to pretend that we can decarbonise our power grid in the timescales they propose. Neither will it be possible at all without massively expensive alternatives, such as carbon capture, hydrogen and energy storage.
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.
”It is no longer possible for either party to pretend that we can decarbonise our power grid in the timescales they propose. ”
The worry of course is that they will go and do exactly that, putting the UK back to the stone age. Smart meters will become compulsory with the amount and timing of electric usage being strictly controlled. Will anyone call a halt to this nonsense before it is too late? There is little sign of that at the moment, somewhat the opposite in fact as I rather fear that Starmer’s Labour Gov will ‘drive’ this net-zero stuff with fervent zeal and if we do not do it by persuasion it will be energy immiseration by legislation.
My only hope is that the ‘Starmer’ effect will be so bad that it will generate a backlash as people’s eyes are opened to the reality of what is going on. Otherwise it will be a case of; this is the way the UK ends, not with a bang but a blackout.
It is an odd policy since a shortage of energy and fuel would kill off the capitalist structure that keeps the top types in money.
Billy & the gang are no match for the Chinese who have been building up reserves of everything ready to take advantage of this very situation. They would also ‘take care’ of Billy and the gang so they would never have a chance to enjoy their dastardly plans.
Exactly correct and people like you and I have been on here and probably many other places warning not of the “Climate Emergency” , but of the “Climate Policy Emergency”
“A spokesman for the Minister replied that according to the best scientific advice from acknowledged world experts, Something Will Turn Up.”
And Something must be Done – and it has been, by creating a Department!
And if neither if the above… lessons will be learned.
And the rest of us will suffer, AGAIN!
They want ppl to die that’s the obvious answer.
I think I have made this point more than once.
Yep, I don’t understand why ppl are voting down. What could more wreckless and cruel than making energy more expensive/less reliable and needlessly endangering life? Ppl need to accept most ppl in positions of authority are psychopaths who would gleefully slaughter if the political stars aligned. Would anyone on here leave their child alone with Toby Blair?
Less people yes. ———–I suppose you could phrase it as wanting more people to die.
Jobs for the servants in that department, evidently. Just to clarify, Hydrogen can only ever be a method of storage in the medium term. It needs power from somewhere to generate it – maybe surplus output from somewhere else. They never talk about it’s efficiency.
As to tidal power, attempting to invest in any is quite likely to need more than 10 years. There have been a number of projects to promote it over the years, but if they do become active, there will be no shortage of objectors – e.g. Severn Barrage, Cardiff Lagoon, Swansea Lagoon. Worth looking up if you’re interested in those.
The good thing about tidal schemes is that they would, in principle, be predictable. The other side of the coin is that the tidal output wouldn’t always satisfy demand.
All three of those depend on the tidal range of the Bristol Channel, which is one of the most, err, energetic globally.
In everything GREEN ideology trumps common sense. The most obvious example is passing NET ZERO through parliament in 2019 with not a single question as to cost or practicality being asked and the entire political class simply waved it on through. But the most devious thing about it was that is enshrined in law. So that we are forced to reduce emissions, or we will be breaking the law. Which means if we don’t get an electric car that will be against the law, don’t get a smart meter, that will be against the law, don’t spend 15,000 quid on a heat pump—–you get it, against the law.
But since all human activity involves the release of some CO2, then everything humans do can and will be against the law. It gives the bureaucrats the power they have long craved. The ability to control all human activity and every aspect of our lives.
So the entire political class (with labour probably the worst) don’t care if what they propose makes sense or if the costs are astronomical, because it is the mugs on the fuel bills that will be paying for it all. They don’t need to care if the technologies required can even be invented. It is all to be done because they have decided it will be and they never even voted on it. They just waved it through.
I do not believe that all of these squirming politicians don’t understand how energy works and how you cannot run industrial society on the wind. They must know. Or is it really the case that they are collectively as thick as s..t? They surely cannot all be as dumb as Grant Schapps, who when he was Net Zero Minister was asked on GB News not long ago if heat pumps are any good. —-His astonishing reply was “I don’t know”
It is group think madness all filtering down from the UN Bureaucrats seeking to control the world with their Sustainable Development down through all western National Governments (except Trump) and through all local councils with their Sustainability Officers and climate assessments. ———How did we get here so that science has just become another government department?
I believe it was Schapps who, when asked about electricity going off, he stated people would still be able to heat their homes with a boiler. Is there anybody in there? You know that funny little thing on your wall with numbers on it Chris?
And the CE circulation pump and electric igniter.
You would think that after the massive mistakes in reaction to Covid/flu, that politicians may not want to be the first over the cliff again. Many politicians must be aware that 99%+ of the harms came from their over reaction.
Some will realise that huge amounts of money are going to be wasted on Net Zero for ‘zero’ return, bar virtue signalling. (This is assuming CO2 is causing the planet to warm rapidly which readers here know is utter rubbish).
So, if they actually stood up to the ‘the Science’ and gave up on Net Zero there would be a lot of extra money in the long term budgets to build roads, houses, hospitals and any other pet projects they liked. There must be some appeal in this?
“You would think that after the massive mistakes in reaction to Covid/flu, that politicians may not want to be the first over the cliff again. Many politicians must be aware that 99%+ of the harms came from their over reaction.”
Er well, from where I sit it looks like they were well aware of the harms last time, and didn’t care, still don’t care, and are happy to do it all again. The principal “mistake” was made by Joe Public in believing the lies they were told.
“Many politicians must be aware that 99%+ of the harms came from their over reaction.”
Cock-up theory. Otherwise known as BS.
Politicians aware? You must be joking.
The problem is the cancer of vested interests has metastasised to corrupt the entire public sector. Of course there is no climate emergency or anything remotely alarming, but a massive industry, including thousands of jobs in the institutions that live off taxes depends on maintaining the illusion that there is.
Our puppet Uniparty politicians are simply bending to the will of their globalist overlords. The real purpose of Net Zero is to drag the country down into legally stitched-up deindustrialised immiseration. The only way to avoid this is to stop voting for the Uniparty.
https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax
“Isn’t the only way to save the planet to destroy Industrial Civilisation? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? —Schwab. ——–I reckon 95% of the public sill think all of this is about climate. How easily manipulated can people be?
Starmer / Millibacon are even worse. They talk about “Energy Security” and how we have to be self-reliant yet they intend to put 25,000 people out of work in Scotland, shut down all our home-produced gas and oil along with everything else except wind and solar. We therefore will have to import electricity, gas and oil.
Hydrogen is a joke, it is highly volatile for a start, but most importantly it would require more electricity to produce than the grid would hold on the days there is some sun and / or wind.
Speaking of which, not long ago I read about the average number of days it is not sunny and / or windy enough to generate power. The average is 110 days, that is over a quarter of the year. No lights, no power, no cooking, no heating, no industry, no internet. That is the reality of what these fools propose to do.
“Renewables” currently at 25.9% – that is less than what is coming in from France, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Related Side Issue:
I’m thinking of getting a non-electric wood burner simply because of the lunatics on all sides bar one. I saw a bag of logs this morning for £11. Does anyone know how long that would last on average? How many logs a day?
Given that within 5 to 10 years time we are going to face selective power cuts and outright national cuts I want some form of heating. Hence why I said “non-electric”. I cannot risk our health on twonks such as Millibacon, Sunak and Kiernocchio.
Move closer to the equator.
And yes, get a wood burner.
If you control the supply of oxygen properly and have an N shaped chimney, a log one foot long and half as thick will heat a small room for two hours. Just make sure you first set a strong enough fire to get the heat into that log and then throttle the oxygen so it doesn’t burn too quickly. Toasty.
I have a small ’70s house with no chimney and no-where to have a flue installed. So I have got two bio-ethanol fires: a large one in my lounge and a small one which can easily be moved around to heat smaller rooms when I am using them.
They don’t need any installation. You just pour the bio-ethanol liquid into the storage chamber, strike a match and you have instant fire. I’ve currently got a year’s supply of bio-ethanol stored in my garage.
They’re a good alternative to a wood-burner. The only downside being you can’t go out into the woods to collect and dry your fuel. I wouldn’t keep the bio-ethanol supply in the house, for the obvious reason, but that is easily remedied.
PS Each litre bottle of bio-ethanol costs around £2.70 and will burn for 5-6 hours. I only pour about an hour’s worth into the storage chamber at a time as it does evaporate.
And where will you get the bio-ethanol when it cannot be produced or transported?
That’s the obvious problem, which is why I highlighted the downside to being able to wander off into the woods to get fuel. However, I have a decent stockpile which I will be adding to. At the moment I don’t use a great deal, but it’s a back-up for when/if we get power/gas cuts. And its kept my gas bill down quite considerably over the past couple of years.
My solution would be to buy defunct electric vehicles cheap which still have usable power that can be extracted even though it is insufficient to give any practical range, coupled with an inverter connected to the house mains.
And when things get really cold and the batteries are nearly kaput, a nice little short circuit will geterate a good warming conflagration which will give off heat for days.
If gear needed urgently, get a hammer and drive a spike into the battery. Immediate, spectacular results follow.
How much wood? If you intend to heat home and water – a lot.
And if things get as bad as you think, why do you imagine you will be able to get wood? It needs cutting down, processing, transporting, etc – all of which needs power, of which their won’t be any.
Only buy logs in bulk, never in nets or bags. I pay about £130 for 2.5 cubic meters of logs. There will be about 600 good sized logs. Enough for 3 months with our small open fire, longer with a wood burner.
“Unfortunately, neither party seems to have any understanding of how our energy system works, nor any policy for how to keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.”
I’m sure they know very well how it works, they just choose a different course for political reasons.
An 11 year old could work out in 5 minutes that these plans are unworkable. Unless you build enough nuclear power stations to supply more or less the whole grid (which will need a lot more than it does now because of EVs and heat pumps) the plan will NEVER work – not in 2030, not in 2035, not in 2135.
I think you could have stopped after ‘any understanding’.
Indeed- they put what they know and understand to the very back of their minds, for various reasons
Copied from another discussion:
“….the UK still has 2 coal fired power stations left, but with only one of them working, the other is offline and awaiting decommissioning. This means we have fewer than Zimbabwe with 3 and SA with 18 (although they probably don’t know how to use them anymore). Germany still has 58, Russia 68, Indonesia 91, Japan 93, those nasty Yanks 210, but the top two are India with 282 and, with a whopping 1142 comes China with 128 under construction and 198 in pre-construction.”
Do we have the most stupid politicians in the world?
It is nice to know that Britain leads the world in something, even if it is political stupidity.
It’s neck and neck with the Germans – may have to go to penalty shoot-out after extra time.
Of course, they could be planning to have a great many fewer people in the world to demand energy?
We need to get fracking now.
Our World in Data has some useful graphics on this subject. Below are CO2 emissions per capita and next to it deaths from air pollution. Just Stop Oil said this in justification for desecrating Stonehenge
“Stonehenge at solstice is all about celebrating the natural world – but look at the state it’s in! We all have a right to live a life free from suffering, but continued burning of oil, coal and gas is leading to death and suffering on an unparalleled scale.”
Ah…the conflating oil for energy with reducing our impact on the globe and nature. Funny then that the countries that have cheap energy are the ones that can raise themselves from the grind of just trying to keep their families fed and alive, and be interested in higher things, like conservation. We have to press on with the project to raise more people out of poverty through economic growth.
It is so blatant how good oil, coal and gas have been for raising the most out of poverty.
Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Guess which country has the wealthier more industrialized economy, and which one has less industry?
Here are two more graphics showing deaths from fossil fuels and deaths from air pollution generally. I show this because it shows that indoor air pollution and general air pollution affect the same countries. Notice that deaths from fossil fuels has numbers of deaths while air pollution generally has percentages. The percentages would be way more alarming if using the same scale as the fossil fuel graphic. This is the kind of statistical sleight of hand that Khan uses to justify ULEZ (and I’m preaching to the choir).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGMm6PKuNAI
UN claims it ‘owns the science’ on climate change
The essence of this article is not about how we achieve Nett Zero, but why do we need to in the first place. As a proposition it is hardly ‘case proven’, and as 90% of the rest of the world seem to be ignoring it would surely pose further questions in the mind of anyone capable of a smidgeon of critical thought..
Is his name Sherlock?
Net Zero will be sunk by copper.
Copper is essential in all things electric. The vast amount of copper required for an all-electric global economy and society in turn needs a vast amount of copper ore.
The increase in scale and rate of output of copper ore mining cannot be achieved within the timescale for entirely practical reasons – possibly after 60 or 70 years.
Bonus: in the USA permits for increased copper ore extraction are being refused because of lobbying by environmentalists.
As the Net Zero lunacy progresses, copper demand will far outreach supply driving prices up for all goods – electric and otherwise – made from copper to the point where many things will be in affordable, jobs will be lost, businesses closed.
Or of course New Technology will magically appear to replace copper, right after the fix is in for nuclear fusion reactors, hydrogen power, and batteries big enough to power the entire Country for days on end when there’s no wind.
But don’t worry Sir Kneel has a ready plan to pull lots of jobs out of a hat, and create a State-run green energy company and decarbonise the UK – decarbonise = destroy.
How do they weigh co2, a gas lighter than air? Where are the scales?
I have attached my note on the farcical IPCC for your information and education. The IPCC has been going for 36 years, produced 6 reports and 28 annual COP meetings and yet its expert authors cannot agree on the temp increase by the end of the century! I have suggested that the temp increase due to a 50% increase in CO2 to 600 ppm due to natural and human effects is only 0.55 Deg C and this is over 74 years! This is established from the IPCC,s own results. See my note attached.
The so called “experts” estimates of the temperature increase range from 1.5 deg C to 5 deg C. The most likely result is that the “experts” have not got a clue as to what the temperature rise is, due to human activity, and that they certainly would not support the “correct” result using the IPCC’s own figure of 0.0165 deg C. However, even that is probably far too high as Dr Happer and Dr van Dr van Wijngaarden’s results are probably far more technically correct.What a shambolic organisation the IPCC is and what fools people are for supporting it
<Climate Change The Farcical IPCC 3.pdf>
One attachment • Scanned by Gmail
As hundreds of the top scientists continue to state, man’s production of CO2 is not controlling nor effecting earth’s climate. There is no climate crisis. There is no need at all to decarbonize, whatever that means. There is absolutely no need to stop burning fossil fuels. Most of the world knows this as their use continues to grow worldwide.
I am amazed that politicians in general are prepared to lie again and again to be elected, to agree a manifesto that they have zero capability to implement, or even to appear in Parliament to tell more lies at the dispatch box. The only party to point out the manifesto issue is Reform, and they are making a legal contract with the electorate, and they are telling no lies. The latest smear campaign against Farage is criminal in intent, what the MSM is saying is simply not true, as he is pointing out. He is the last person on Earth to support Putin or Russia in any way, and in fact warns about both Russia and China at length. Do NOT vote for the proven LIARS, you have only one option. Vote Reform, because the others will finish Britain in the next few years. The only reason they lie must be because they are being paid, partly by the Treasury but partly by others buying favours. There is NO other explanation of Labour or Tory actions for the last 20 years! The Lib Dems, Greens etc appear to be just deluded nutters. You know the above makes sense!
Simple solution. everyone who holds any posts in government whether MP’s civil servants or members of devolved assemblies must have their homes disconnected from the grid and solar panels and wind turbines added to their properties.