In the 9th anniversary of the start of my blog, I’m feeling very encouraged by the growing net zero realism. I have long argued against current climate policies on the basis they are making energy more expensive and less secure, without any meaningful reductions in emissions. Both expensive energy and blackouts harm people – in my view it is illogical to create harm to lives and livelihoods in the name of trying to prevent harm to lives and livelihoods. Particularly when we are meeting net zero targets by off-shoring manufacturing to countries with dirtier energy, and incur additional shipping emissions, meaning global emissions increase while UK jobs are lost.
Net zero scepticism grows
Last year I commented that net zero scepticism was growing, and quoted then DESNZ Secretary of State, Claire Coutinho saying more gas-fired generation would be needed to keep the lights on:
“There are no two ways about it. Without gas backing up renewables, we face the genuine prospect of blackouts. Other countries in recent years have been so threatened by supply constraints that they have been forced back to coal. There are no easy solutions in energy, only trade-offs. If countries are forced to choose between clean energy and keeping citizens safe and warm, believe me they’ll choose to keep the lights on. We will not let ourselves be put in that position. And so, as we continue to move towards clean energy, we must be realistic,”
– Claire Coutinho, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero
While the Conservatives were pushed into Opposition at the July 2024 General Election, they have now gone further and abandoned the net zero target altogether. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch gave a speech, which I attended, in which she said…
“We are a wealthy country, but we are becoming weaker, through complacency. We are losing our resilience. We can’t make things like we used to; we don’t build as quickly. We are spending too much on debt, too much on welfare, and too little on defence…. We assumed that we would always be wealthy and focused on the status quo rather than the future….
… Let’s start by telling the truth on energy and net zero. Every single thing we do in our daily lives is dependent on cheap, abundant energy. When energy became cheap and abundant, living standards began to rise, health and life expectancy grew. Cheap, abundant energy is the foundation of civilisation as we know it today. We mess with it at our peril.
And that’s exactly what we’ve been doing for twenty years. And it’s now starting to cause real pain for everyday people and businesses. The cost of electricity – far too high – much higher than nearby and comparative countries with the real possibility of it going even higher with environmental levies. A big chunk of our existing bills are not direct energy costs.
People are struggling to pay businesses, especially manufacturing businesses are closing down, and there is no real plan for bringing costs down. That surely cannot hold. It’s fantasy politics. Built on nothing. Promising the earth. And costing it too.
As a society, we are – or we have been – trying to do two things at once. Keep energy costs down, whilst reducing our impact on the environment. These are both noble aims….
… We need a serious approach. We’ve got to stop pretending it’s simple. And we have got to stop government by press release announcements without a policy plan. Making promises and not delivering is exactly the reason that the political class has lost trust. The only way that we can regain it is to tell the unvarnished truth.
Net zero by 2050 is impossible,”
– Kemi Badenoch, Leader of the Opposition
While the DESNZ Public Attitudes Tracker (Winter 2024) showed 80% of UK adults being very or fairly concerned about climate change, and 37% stating they were very concerned, they are less willing to make sacrifices to address their concerns. A YouGov survey noted a decline in public support for increased government spending on environmental issues – in January 2020, 37% of Britons prioritised environmental spending but by April 2025, this had dropped to 17%, with 29% believing it should be reduced.
A survey by British Gas in late 2024 revealed that Brits were almost four times more concerned about the cost of living than climate change, with 66% deterred from making home changes to combat climate change due to concern over cost and value for money. Despite more homeowners believing that it is important to install insulation in their home (67% of the public, an increase of 16% from 2022), the survey found that the public’s sense of urgency has declined. In 2023, 25% believed that improved insulation was essential but this declined to 16% in 2024. The survey also found that the public holds the national Government as most responsible for tackling climate change, followed by international bodies, such as the UN, and large businesses. This implies they see individual action and sacrifice as much less important.
With both the Conservatives and Reform rejecting the net zero target, the political consensus supporting climate action in the UK is now completely fractured.
New direction for energy in the US under the Trump Administration
In the past year there has also been a seismic change in the US. Joe Biden was replaced by a second term for Donald Trump who immediately set about unwinding Biden era energy transition strategies, with a “drill, baby drill” ambition for oil and gas. On his first day in office he declared an “energy emergency”, a ban on offshore wind and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
The executive order Declaring a national energy emergency says: “The United States’ insufficient energy production, transportation, refining and generation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to our Nation’s economy, national security, and foreign policy.
“In light of these findings, I hereby declare a national emergency.”
The order defines “energy” as “crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals.” Wind and solar energy were notably missing from the list. The order also says: “We need a reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our Nation’s manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries, and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness.”
New US Energy Secretary, Chris Wright has very clearly set out the limitations of the energy transition. In a speech on 10 March he said:
“Energy is the enabler of everything that we do. Everything. Energy is not A sector of the economy, it is the sector that enables every other sector. Energy is life. I’m honoured to play a role in reversing what I believe has been very poor direction in energy policy. The previous administration’s policy was focused myopically on climate change with people as simply collateral damage….
… Wind and solar, the darlings of the last administration and so much of the world today, supply roughly 3% of global primary energy. You often hear larger numbers quoted but that is because of a thermal equivalent scale-up. I don’t believe that scale-up is justified, hence I stick with the actual energy produced.”
He went on to highlight the importance of fossil fuels:
“Nitrogen fertilisers, synthesising natural gas is responsible for fully half of global food production. Natural gas is the largest source of home heating in the United States. It is central to the rapidly growing petrochemical industry and the largest supplier of processed heat for manufacturing steel, cement, countless metals, gypsum, semiconductors, polysilicon and thousands of other materials. Oh yes, and natural gas is also responsible for 43% of U.S. electricity.”
He promised that the Trump administration will be much more “scientific and mathematically literate” when considering climate change, saying previous energy policy created a “cure [that] was far more destructive than the disease”. He pointed out that “Making energy more expensive has impoverished citizens and displaced energy-intensive manufacturing, along with the well-paying blue-collar jobs. Expensive energy policies do not reduce demand for energy-intensive materials. They simply move where those products are produced and therefore who benefits from their production.”
“I find it sad and ironic that once mighty steel and petrochemical industries of the United Kingdom have been displaced to Asia, where the same products will be produced with higher greenhouse gas emissions, then loaded on a diesel-powered ship back to the United Kingdom. The net result is higher prices and fewer jobs for UK citizens, higher global greenhouse gas emissions, and all of this is a climate policy?”
– Chris Wright, US Energy Secretary
At the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in London in February 2025, Wright labelled the UK’s net zero 2050 target as a “sinister goal,” arguing that its aggressive pursuit has imposed significant costs without delivering corresponding benefits. He went on the say that no-one will make energy-intensive products in the UK any more – this production has been moved elsewhere as the country de-industrialises in the face of high energy costs. “This is not energy transition. This is lunacy. This is impoverishing your own citizens in a delusion that this is somehow going to make the world a better place.” A position supported by the data which show a rapid decline in UK industrial energy demand despite population growth.
But not everyone is waking up to net zero realism
Sadly, not everyone has caught the new net zero realism. Here in the UK, the new Secretary of State for DESNZ is Ed Miliband, a dyed in the wool wind and solar zealot who claims high energy prices are down to “international gas prices” and it’s imperative we reduce out reliance on “dictators”. At the same time he is cosying up to the Chinese for wind and solar equipment and encouraged Labour MPs to vote to overturn a ban on forced labour, with the Government whipping its MPs to vote down an amendment that would prevent green energy materials being purchased by the government from supply chains relying on “modern slavery”.
Lord Alton of Liverpool tabled an amendment to the Great British Energy Bill to stop the newly formed state-owned GB Energy from buying solar panels, among other green equipment, from places where there is “credible evidence of modern slavery”. The Xinjiang of China region dominates solar supply chains, but is an area where more than 2.5 million people have been subjected to forced labour in detention camps. While the House of Lords voted in favour of Lord Alton’s amendment – by 175 to 125 votes – after being whipped, Labour ensured that the House of Commons voted by 314 to 198 to reject it. No Labour MPs voted against the Government although 92 abstained.
Since I began writing this blog, Ed Miliband has made a U-turn and is now proposing an new amendment to the Bill (rather than accepting the perfectly adequate Alton amendment) that WILL restrict GB Energy from purchasing green technology made with forced labour.
Unfortunately in the same week he announced that public money would be spent on experiments aimed at dimming the sun, which is a shame because he is also spending public money on installing solar panels in schools and hospitals, which will clearly work less well is the sun is less bright. As it is, the UK is the second worst place in the world for solar power after Ireland!
And Labour continues with its 78% tax rate on North Sea oil and gas, meaning we must rely more on imports.
In Europe energy policy continues to be a mess with EU net zero goals losing support
The EU remains deeply committed to climate leadership with its Fit for 55 package to cut emissions 55% by 2030 largely being implemented, the Net Zero Industry Act and REPowerEU aiming to boost renewables, clean technology, and energy independence since the start of the Ukraine war, and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (“CBAM”) officially entering its transitional phase in 2023, being phased in more fully over 2026–2034. The spirit of EU energy policy is still strongly decarbonisation-first, with energy security now a close second.
But there are major concerns in Germany de-industrialisation (“Industrieabwanderung”). German heavy industries including steel, chemicals and car-makers fear losing competitiveness due to high energy costs, green regulation, and carbon pricing. German politicians, even the Greens, now openly warn about high energy prices and pushing the public further than it wants to go on net zero. Four in ten industrial companies in Germany are considering cutting production in the country or relocating parts of their production outside Germany due to high energy and regulatory costs.
Climate change has become an increasingly contested issue in German politics, which is important since no EU de-carbonisation strategy would succeed without German participation. While the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (“CDU”), centre-left Social Democratic Party (“SPD”) and Green parties all support reaching net-zero by 2045, with interim targets including a 65% cut by 2030, their approaches differ. The Free Democratic Party (“FDP”) argues that the 2045 target should be pushed back to 2050, to line up with the wider EU target. Meanwhile, the manifesto of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party repeatedly questioned the “supposed scientific consensus” on “man-made climate change”.
Home heating is also a major political issue in the wake of the 2023 Building Energy Act. The CDU, FDP and AfD all pledged to abolish it, while the Green party pledged to provide additional government support for households. Several German parties pushed back in the manifestos on the EU-wide ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, a policy that has been repeatedly attacked in the country over recent years.
While there is general support for renewable energy in Germany, the roles of coal and nuclear power in the country’s electricity mix remain more fraught. The country currently has a phaseout date for coal power of 2038, a policy supported by the CDU and FDP, while the Greens and Left party (Die Linke) want to bring this forward to 2030. The AfD advocates building more coal power plants until new nuclear plants can be built. In its manifesto, the CDU suggested that it was open to revising nuclear power in the future.
As predicted in the polling, there was a political shift to the right during the election, with the centre-right CDU increasing its seats by 12 from the 2021 election, while the far-right AfD increased its seats by 69. Meanwhile, the SPD lost 86 seats and the Green party lost 33. This marked the best-ever result for AfD which secured approximately 20% of the vote, becoming the second-largest party. Despite this surge, mainstream parties, led by Friedrich Merz, have maintained a strict “firewall” policy, refusing to form coalitions with the AfD. Merz formed a “grand coalition” reminiscent of previous government configurations, in a move that has drawn criticism with some accusing Merz of ignoring the electorate’s desire for change.
Elsewhere, the European People’s Party (“EPP”) and other centre-right groups are increasingly warning that the CBAM will hurt EU industry if foreign competitors retaliate, or if the system raises input costs without enough transitional help. It has called for a “pause” or “review” of further green regulatory measures in the next Commission term (2024–2029). EU heavy industry has also expressed doubts about the scheme, and there are questions over compliance with WTO rules.
There are further signs of a breaking consensus within the EU on net zero. In August 2023, Poland filed multiple legal complaints with the Court of Justice of the European Union, challenging key components of the EU’s Fit for 55 package, including the Emissions Trading System (“ETS”) and the CBAM. Poland argued that these policies threaten its economy and energy security, particularly given its reliance on coal. So far the ECJ has not ruled on any of the complaints.
In further signs of net zero realism, the Czech PM has urged the EU to rethink climate goals given a possible lack of global support. Petr Fiala said in November: “Europe might need to reassess whether its current climate policy is the right approach. Europe cannot be expected to finance and carry out everything on its own.” The Czech automotive sector, a significant contributor to the nation’s GDP, has expressed apprehension over stringent EU emission reduction targets. Transport Minister Martin Kupka highlighted challenges in meeting the revised target of 94 grams/km, citing declining demand for electric vehicles. Kupka also said the country wants to assess the EU’s aim to ban combustion engine vehicles in 2035.
Even Italy has pushed back against EU climate policies. Italy’s Industry Minister Adolfo Urso told the country’s Parliament earlier this month, that he would ask the European Union to immediately suspend rules to slash European industry emissions in response to Donald Trump’s tariffs. In 2023, Italy pushed back against a major European Union directive aimed at improving the thermal efficiency of buildings, seeking to delay and offer exemptions to renovations it said neither the government nor homeowners could afford. More recently, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has criticised the EU’s ban on the sale of new fossil fuel-powered car engines after 2035 as a “self-destructive” policy, and committed to persuading Brussels “to correct these choices”.
Countries particularly in Scandinavia going cold on interconnection
There are signs of realism in Norway which is turning away from electricity interconnection as its governing coalition collapsed in January over disagreements over energy co-operation with Europe. Most of the Storting now agrees there should be no more interconnectors while several parties want to renegotiate the deals with Britain and Germany which are seen as importing price volatility into the Norwegian market. This came months after Sweden declined a new interconnector project with Germany, with Energy Minister Ebba Busch describing the Germany market as dysfunctional:
“We cannot connect southern Sweden, which has a large deficit in electricity production, with Germany, where the electricity market today does not function efficiently. That would risk leading to higher prices and a more unstable electricity market in Sweden,”
– Ebba Busch, Swedish Energy and Industry Minister
In December she re-iterated her position, saying Sweden would not go ahead with an interconnector “until Germany gets its system in order”, and suggested Germany should split the country into separate bidding zones. Such reforms would prevent Germany from importing as much of Sweden’s cheaper electricity, mostly generated by hydro, thereby limiting the extent to which costs are increased for Swedish consumers.
At the same time, ACER, the EU energy regulator warned that electricity network costs could double by 2050, “endangering the overall affordability of electricity bills” as more strain was placed on existing grids. ACER said that “containing electricity system costs is key for EU competitiveness” as annual power grid investment needs to double to €100 billion per year. Network costs could increase by 20-40% by 2030, and possibly up to 100% by 2050.
Hydrogen goes off the boil…
Approximately 20% of EU hydrogen projects were cancelled or stalled in 2024, equating to 29 GW of capacity. 23 projects in Europe have been cancelled or stalled across 11 major European countries with issues around high costs, funding difficulties, and insufficient demand. According to Bloomberg NEF, only two markets — China and India — are likely to see green hydrogen become cost-competitive, reaching a comparable price to grey hydrogen by 2040. Norwegian company NEL, one of the world’s leading manufacturers of electrolysers for the production of green hydrogen, temporarily stopped production last year due to a lack of demand.
In September Equinor cancelled a major hydrogen project saying “there was no market”, for the scheme and citing high costs. The project involved producing up to 10 GW of blue hydrogen in Norway and transporting it via a proposed €4–6 billion pipeline. Equinor stated that the lack of a viable business case, including unclear regulatory frameworks and absence of committed customers, led to the decision.
Soon after, Shell decided to abandon its plans for a hydrogen hub in Norway. In July 2021, Aker Clean Hydrogen and CapeOmega signed a Memorandum of Understanding with AS Norske Shell to explore opportunities to develop the Aukra Hydrogen Hub to a large-scale production facility for clean hydrogen using natural gas from the local gas processing plant. The consortium had a goal to use 250 MW of renewable power from existing onshore grid capacity to produce 1200 tonnes per day of blue hydrogen by 2030 and then double capacity by 2035 using blue hydrogen and green hydrogen from offshore wind farms. Like Equinor, Shell blamed market dynamics for the project’s cancellation.
In October, Finnish refiner Neste dropped plans to begin green hydrogen production by 2026, announcing that an electrolyser project at its Porvoo refinery had been deprioritised after a “critical assessment” of its investments. The same month, Uniper cancelled its SkyFuelH2 project in Sweden, while BP appeared to quietly downsize a planned electrolyser in Castellon from 200 MW to 25 MW. In March, BP announced it would no longer continue with its HyGreen Teesside hydrogen project, following its decision to scale back investments in green energy and limit future hydrogen developments.
Repsol has decided to put three of its major hydrogen projects in Spain on hold, representing a total capacity of 350 MW, due to an unfavourable regulatory framework that might impose a permanent windfall tax on energy companies. The three hydrogen projects include a 100 MW project in Cartagena valued at US$ 217 million, a 150 MW project in Tarragona and a 100 MW project in the Basque country. The company has decided to proceed with an electrolyser project in Sines, Portugal.
In the US, Air Products exited all its major US green hydrogen projects, including a US$ 500 million facility in New York and a project in California, due to economic and regulatory challenges. In Australia, Trafigura’s cancelled its AU$750 million green hydrogen project at Port Pirie Project after feasibility studies indicated prohibitive costs and low demand, and Infinite Green, the Western Australia-based hydrogen company collapsed due to financial disputes and challenges in securing investment.
…while nuclear is once again in vogue
Net zero realism is driving renewed interest in nuclear power, particularly in the US where energy hungry AI datacentres are driving interest. Holtec International’s plans to re-open the Palisades reactor continue and now Constellation Energy wants to re-open Three Mile Island Unit 1 to power Microsoft datacentres, and NextEra intends to get Duane Arnold back online. So-called “hyperscale” technology companies including Amazon, Meta and Google have entered into tentative partnerships with advanced nuclear technology developers. Datacentre operator Switch and steelmaker Nucor have also shown interest in advanced nuclear generation. In December, Switch and Oklo announced a 20-year, 12-GW nonbinding “master power agreement” through which the advanced nuclear company would develop, build and operate nuclear plants to power Switch facilities. Small Modular Reactors are being proposed at retired coal-fired power plant sites, where they can take advantage of existing grid connections.
The Spanish government is under pressure to reverse its nuclear ban after widespread protests against the closure of the Almaraz nuclear power station. In February 2025, the Spanish Congress approved a non-binding proposal urging the government to reconsider the phase-out, passing with 171 votes in favour, 164 against, and 14 abstentions. It calls for extending the operational life of existing nuclear plants, citing their role in ensuring energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, 32 companies within the Spanish nuclear industry signed a manifesto advocating for the continued operation of nuclear power plants, arguing that the original 2019 agreement does not reflect current geopolitical and economic realities.
Belgium has decided to reverse its nuclear phase out. In March 2025, Belgium finalised a 10-year extension for its Doel 4 and Tihange 3 nuclear reactors, allowing them to operate until 2035. Australia is also talking about ditching its nuclear moratorium, with nuclear a central issue in the upcoming May elections. Opposition leader Peter Dutton unveiled a AU$ 331 billion plan to establish a taxpayer-funded nuclear power industry, aiming to have the first reactor operational by 2036 and seven commercial plants by 2050. The plan proposes building reactors on sites of retiring coal-fired power stations, including Tarong, Callide, and Liddell.
Even Germany is considering re-opening its closed reactors which until very recently was unthinkable. Germany completed its nuclear phase-out in April 2023, however in March 2025, the country’s nuclear engineering association suggested that up to six reactors could be restarted, depending on their dismantling status. This discussion arises amid concerns over energy imports and economic performance, as Germany imported 25 TWh net in 2024 and faced economic contractions in 2023 and 2024.
.
Finally, I cannot complete a summary of my 9th year in business without referring to the near blackout on 8 January. My coverage of the event attracted a huge amount of coverage, with my original tweet being read 453k times. There is still more analysis to be done on the incident, which I will come back to when certain client projects I’m working on have wrapped up, however soon after the drama, NESO announced an audit of its demand forecasting, which I had also criticised, so perhaps this work is making a difference.
I would like to thank all my clients, colleagues and readers for your ongoing support over the past year, and I look forward to seeing what the next year of Watt-Logic brings.
.
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored,”
— Aldous Huxley
Well-said. Inexpensive energy improves lives, reliable natural gas, LNG, and coal. Climate change considerations will be ignored by China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Pakistan, etc., countries with a huge combined population. They will continue to build coal-fired power stations. Politicians in Europe and America cannot stop these countries from doing so. Pretending that we can is just plain wrong. If climate change is a real problem caused by mankind, still disputed despite the loud voices stifling dissent, we still are helpless to tell more than half the world’s population to sacrifice improved living standards. A fool’s errand indeed.
Nothing said about the absolute decimation that of the Scottish and Welsh countryside that is happening with the vast number of wind farms planned casusing loss of habitat for wildlife, loss of immersive outdoor space, loss of tbe landscape! These are not community led, or will even pay taxes, they are company’s harbouring pension pots for country’s like New Zealand, Australia and the USA, not green, not local, not right! It’s a money making, palm covering, back scratching, brainwashing new sellout without proper information and all led by Ed! It’s appalling. Wales will be changed forever with both to benefit Wales itself!
http://Www.savemynyddmawr,com is but one!
Compelling reading as ever Kathryn. It seems that Keir Starmer is still mesmerised by Ed Miliband’s card sharping. The reality is that any ambition that this administration has for the UK to be an AI leader can never be realised against structural energy deficit and pricing – and the built-in random intermittency that imports cost and uncertainty. .Zonal pricing plans are evidence of demand control through cost due to grid and generation deficit. Any preferrment of certain consumers (e.g. AI) with baseload will simply shove the burden, availability and cost of intermittency onto already suffering domestic consumers. The physics always wins. And Norway has woken up to the fact that they have built capacity – where we have not – to underwrite the UK’s self-inflicted random intermittency. The Norwegians I know will wake up to re-pricing that CAPEX pretty quickly.
Thank you Kathryn for yet another excellent in depth article.
Quote: “It seems that Keir Starmer is still mesmerised by Ed Miliband’s card sharping”
Plus the energy dimwits on both sides of the house.
Hi all…… like the author of the following I worked for 40 years in the transmission power industry & share his despair at the systematic destruction of this country’s power generation capabilities by the Tories. We were all so proud to be part of what we thought was the future, low cost carbon free nuclear energy in the transition from coal. Unfortunately Westminster had different views & totally betrayed us. Unknowingly to us they pursued a different strategy, gas from Russia, multiple interconnections with mainland Europe, North Sea oil/gas, Renewables. Replacing our aging fleet of big nuclear coastal power stations out of favour it seems. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has changed everything threatening UK energy security IMO.
But it wasn’t just the Tories. The rot began with Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act in 2008 under PM Gordon Brown. The act was passed with only five MP’s voting against it…Ed commented it was a great consensus…more like the the unknowing voting with the herd. The five were Peter Lilley, Ann Widdecombe, Christopher Chope, Andrew Tyrie, & Philip Davies. Lilley had studied sciences at Cambridge & Tyrie was one of Parliaments most respected thinkers.
Civil servants produce copious support documents for MP’s to consult when deciding on a Bill. Lilley went to the commons library to look for these, but could’t initially find them apparently because no one had asked for them. Lilley was the first person to read the review that predicted bankruptcy if the Act were implemented.
That vote showed MP’s ignorance on energy matters.
Welcome to net zero insanity.
Barry Wright, Lancashire & thanks to Colin Warburton, North Yorks.
If we had the manufacturing here for the solar panels and wind turbines, and they were only installed by the end-user, it would have been a different scenario, unfortunately with China able to supply most things below the prices in the West, and politicians hell-bent on free-trade, and installing all the renewables at utility scale, manufacturing here has no chance, and we have deteriorating economics.
Welcome to a post-industrial nation, where we can’t/don’t make anything any more.
Many thanks for your insightful analyses of UK and World energy demand and production, Kathryn. Government, and Ed Miliband in particular, need to rethink their approach to electricity production, with emphasis on Small Modular Reactors to provide reliable baseload as soon as practicable.
Really interesting and informative. You are doing a great job countering the nonsense and fantasy that is pumped out by the government, Greens and vested interests. It is going to be a tough job though. Just yesterday on R4 I heard a union leader talking a lot of sense about real jobs being destroyed in Aberdeen, mythical green jobs, huge electrify costs etc.The Green spokesman came out with all the usual misinformation eg renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy! high electricity costs are due to gas prices following the invasion of Ukraine, a green jobs boom is real etc
Thank you for this latest blog post. It paints a picture of immense complexity in UK, European and World energy “production”. What I would like to see is more and better modelling of energy use and production. Initially, and for simplicity, it would be better to concentrate on the UK independently. It is reasonable, I think to pick a date for a possible, but flexible net zero and have cost per kWh as the main diver for speed of changes. The end point would be a mix of wind, nuclear, and other minor contributors where they make economic sense, plus storage to cover intermittency of wind. Over time, and as storage becomes more cost effective, fossil fuels will be needed in lower ammounts. The modelling must reflect how people use energy, with the obvious seasonal and diurnal peaks and troughs. Not a straightforward excercise I would think.
Home heating is where we will see most change. Weaning the public away from gas will be a major problem and it would seem that external incentives will be needed to modify behaviours. If heat pumps are to be the most common means of home heating, how will the infrastructue be beefed up and how fast can this be done? I would also expect domestic thermal storage to allow demand to be better matched to production. This technology is simple and efficient, and the user pays for the hardware.
So, who is doing this modelling? Do they have the expertise and incenive to do it?
Great to have such a detailed analysis of the crazy Net Zero policies
Thank you so much and keep up the good work
Spot on research and commentary.
Politicians are not being advised correctly or even using their common sence.
Thank you for yet another article.
Unfortunately, Ed Miliband’s hubris knows no bounds, so unless he is removed, Net Zero will still play a major part in making us all poorer.
I make short films, and, if I had time, I would have Miliband appearing out of a music box (based on the opening of Trumption) to a totally desolate country where manufacturing has been totally destroyed, and many are forced to scavenge for food.
Wow, Kathryn!
You have written a content.porary history of the policy-political decline of a continental strategy. The EU and UK pinned its hopes for industrial and geoeconomic renewal on renewables fundamentalism.
There were many theoretical flaws in rhe model from the start in ca. 1999 or 2000 in Brussels. 2000.
Contrary to promises to spark a “4th industrial revolution” based on R&D and priduction of “Green energy tech”, one led by Germany in Europe.
It was a naive plan full of hubris, and now Wurope has NOT YET developed a criticism of it beyond – as you document so well – the growing consciousness that it simply isn’t working.
Now, Europe is lost, with no leader, withe no consistent critique, and no ne policy / model on all this.
Let’s defend a way to talk soon and perhaps collaborate.
Best, Tom O’D.
Excellent article Kathryn and should be compulsory reading for all MPs. It needs to be explained to teachers and taught in schools, colleges and universities.
Strange that you omit any references to reports regarding the absolute practical desirability of delivering Net Zero from the OECD, from the World Bank, from the European Investment Bank, from the International Energy Agency, from the European Commission and from a host of other international experts. You don’t even give any credit to the last Conservative government’s major study on how to achieve net zero.
It is all too easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe at those seeking to deliver net zero. Watch out, you are close to making common cause with those commercial interests that prefer pretending that climate change is a hoax
Climate change is not a hoax, it’s more like a cult. The climate has been changing continuously from the moment the Earth was formed and it’s not going to stop just because some PPE graduates want to virtue-signal.
As governments make energy more expensive, so the population and businesses will find cheaper ways to generate their own electricity, or move their business/outsource production to cheaper energy countries, looking for financial efficiencies. Politicians can make things as inefficient as they like depending on their devotion to certain goals, but people always will adapt to survive or to increase income/reduce expenditure/increase profit.
The Norwegians could adopt a different pricing mechanism, but everything is supposed to be “free-market capitalism”, and so, instead of charging a higher price to countries that are importing from Norway, and keeping their own prices low, to benefit their own population, everyone expects to get the same price, and because demand has vastly increased, so too has the price to the Norwegians.
To modify the free-trade arrangements that can work against local populations with abundant resources for themselves, tariffs (surcharges) for external people are a necessary modification to keep local prices low to benefit the local population.
Norway doesn’t need to back off from making connections, it just needs a better market pricing mechanism that doesn’t increase the price of hydro power locally.
With large corporations, it is inevitable that if they have enough free-cash flow, that they might as well sort out their own power generation and cut out the expensive inefficient grid, especially if there are efficiency gains moving to CHP from separate heating and electricity. It’s a case of if governments can’t do it, then companies and their populations will have to do it for themselves.
Governments shouldn’t be banning petrol or diesel cars, but slowly banning the most inefficient vehicles, every 2-5 years, to push the manufacturers to greater efficiencies. What would be the problem with plug-in hybrids with 100 mile battery range that only need petrol or diesel or another liquid/gaseous fuel for long journeys?…….diesel and LPG can be produced from renewable sources already. There is no need to ban them!
Excellent, wide ranging and incisive commentary, but flawed by casual carelessness.
In true Private Eye style, may I be the 94th person to remark that it’s spoilt by the unforgivable mis-spelling of Kemi’s surname.
I would get out more but the day is bad enough already.
Keep up the good work.
You are obviously unfamiliar with auto correct, which likely ‘corrected’ Badenoch to something else, so entirely forgiveable in my view, and now corrected anyway…
Kathryn
Thank you bery much for making the correction
All the best
John
You are obviously unfamiliar with auto correct, which likely ‘corrected’ Badenoch to something else, so entirely forgiveable in my view, and now corrected anyway…
Nothing better for a dose of net zero realism than a gran apagon in Spain and Portugal just days after Spain claimed to have run entirely on renewables (but we assume the nuclear stations stayed on, unlike today when thy were tripped offline, though one has since been connected to assist with blackstart). Still too early to be sure of the triggering event and the reasons for cascading collapse. The French have denied that fire affecting a major transmission line importing surplus solar from Spain was responsible. The Portuguese had a novel explanation talking of voltage oscillations caused by unusual atmospheric effects (not clear if they are really suggesting some kind of Carrington event), while a cyberattack is listed (but with no real motivation other than deflection from the truth I suspect).
The most plausible suggestion so far notes that Red Electrica, the grid operator, has been struggling with voltage oscillations and over-voltages on the transmission grid since January, blamed on attempting to integrate ever larger volumes of renewables and reduced demand on the grid (presumably the result of rising domestic solar). Apparently, they sometimes isolate grid links to stop problems from spreading – but that could easily cause a configuration that is inherently unstable and could lead to a cascading collapse. Alternatively, the voltage oscillations can simply result in lots of equipment tripping out, in much the same way that Hornsea Wind Farm did in August 2019.
The relative lack of grid inertia when solar is at a maximum (the cut hit just after noon with limited hydro and other power running) will not have helped. Inverter based resources such as PV tend to result in significant reactive power flows that contribute to thermal constraints on transmission lines, as well as potentially injecting harmonic voltage oscillations that can amplify. In short, without adequate stabilisation kit the grid becomes unstable and easily flips into a cascading trip.
We wait to see what more formal admissions will produce, but the events suggest there needs to be an urgent brake on NESO’s plans to cut inertia and run a net zero grid. Questions in Parliament, please!
Great Post full of detail as usual. Thanks.
Last week Miliband said: “The critics will not shut up, I’m sure. But the critics need to know, if they want to fight about this, this Government says bring it on. Let’s bring on the fight.
“Let’s have the argument and any day of the week, any hour of the day, any month of the year we will have the argument between cheap, clean renewables that give you energy security, lower bills, the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century, against their case to say no to all that, to stick simply with expensive, insecure fossil fuels which gave us the cost-of-living crisis, which ruined family finances, which ruined public finances, which ruined business finances, and they will say no to these huge job opportunities that are on offer.
“So whether it is political parties or other forces that want to take on net zero and the clean energy transition, they need to know that this Government is not for bending, this Government is not for buckling, this Government is standing firm.
“And, you know what, I think the British people are on our side on this.”
I’m sure we’re up for the debate, and that people are not up for the ever rising bills and supply insecurity from Net Zero policies. I think every single claim he made can be refuted, and that in the end even the Labour government will buckle under the financial pressures it causes – and Miliband will be out.
Do we know the cause of the blackouts in Spain and Portugal ? – did their grid become unbalanced due to too much wind/solar ???
So are you saying climate change and global warming is not a problem? Or are you saying they are a problem that we should ignore? Or are you saying we just have the wrong solution? In which case what would you progress/suggest instead?
The recent Tony Blair Institute for Global Change report and a Times Newspaper article by Steve Gray [the managing partner of Ventex Studio, a climate tech venture, and a member of the North Sea Transition Taskforce] highlight some inconvenient facts that UK demonstrate policy changes are urgently needed. For instance why does the UK have a set of policies that requires it to import 50% of it gas and oil it needs when most of it could be obtained via UK production!
The information is summarised here https://bit.ly/4m2cTYE
I’m not sure whether you’re anti net-zero? Or whether you believe in climate change? But I feel a lot of these posts are critical without setting out a clear plan for what you would do instead?
Gas and nuclear (that I know you have mentioned) cannot compete with wind/solar on price, as whilst gas is cheap to build it is expensive to run. Admittedly the ‘no wind or sun’ days will cause a problem, and things like batteries/hydro/… Are the only solution surely?
Nuclear is the best option as it is cheapest in terms of the full system cost to consumers. It is also the most efficient use of natural resources.
Many of my posts set out a clear alternative, but my regular readers would be very bored if I repeated myself in every post
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored,” – Aldous Huxley
Excellent Quotation. In the same spirit, I suggest reading the NSTA’s latest reserves and resources report and dataset for the end of 2023 to review our remaining Indigenous gas resources.
https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/media/vtjkyqnf/uk-reserves-and-resources-report-as-at-end-2023.pdf
It shows that at the end of 2023, we had the remaining 2P Gas Reserves in production/sanctioned of ~6 TCF and 2C Active Gas Resources that may (or may not) be in development of ~ 4 TCF. A fraction of that was originally there. Since 1970, we have produced 97 TCF of gas, but our gas reserves have been in continual decline since 1994, our gas production since 2001 and we were last self-sufficient in 2004. In 2023, we used 2.2 TCF but produced only 1.2 TCF and had net imports of 1 TCF as we no longer had the resource base to maintain our demand.
We need to admit that the North Sea is nearing its end and no longer contains the resources needed for a long-term indigenous gas production future.
Of course, there could still be a large gas accumulation or play out there, undiscovered, technically recoverable, and economically viable. However, given that we have been looking since the 1960s and have drilled thousands of exploration and production wells, the chances are slim and would not, in any case, change the long-term outlook.