Electrification has become the default answer to almost every energy and climate question. Heat? Electrify it. Transport? Electrify it. Industry? Electrify it. In policy circles, electrification is often treated as a frictionless substitute for fossil fuels: cleaner, simpler, and largely inevitable. In this new report I take a look at what electrification would mean for the GB power grid, if it went ahead as planned. I also consider the impact of additional demand from AI data centres.
Electrification policy rests on optimistic assumptions
Across heating, transport and industry, electrification targets rely on a similar set of assumptions: that consumers will change behaviour rapidly, that costs will fall quickly and predictably, and that electricity infrastructure will expand smoothly to accommodate new demand. The report tests these assumptions sector by sector and finds them wanting.
The good news is that electrification targets are unlikely to be met without some form of compulsion. In heating, rapid deployment of heat pumps is implausible under current conditions. Consumer resistance remains high, installer numbers are growing too slowly, and both capital and running costs are materially higher than for gas heating. Even where heat‑pump subsidies reduce upfront costs, households still face additional expenditure on larger emitters, pipework and insulation, as well as higher ongoing energy bills because electricity prices remain far above gas prices. These are not marginal issues – they are fundamental barriers to mass adoption.
Transport electrification faces a similar gap between ambition and delivery. Mandates for electric vehicles are running ahead of public willingness to adopt them, while grid and charging‑infrastructure constraints remain severe. These problems are magnified for larger vehicles. There is currently no credible fast‑charging solution for HGVs, and electrifying buses outside dense urban centres is far more challenging than policy documents typically acknowledge, particularly where vehicles do not return regularly to a single depot.
In industry, the constraint is both technical feasibility and economic viability. High electricity prices have driven deindustrialisation across large parts of the UK economy, reducing electricity demand far more quickly than electrification can increase it. In practice, deindustrialisation is the dominant trend, and a stronger driver of demand than electrification across the economy as a whole.
Across all three sectors, the modelling used by both NESO and the Climate Change Committee depends on behavioural and technological assumptions that are optimistic, weakly evidenced, and often inconsistent across scenarios. My report does not assume electrification will fail entirely, but it does find that current targets are unlikely to be met without significant compulsion, which brings its own political and social risks.
The system is under strain even without electrification
The bad news is that, even without electrification, the electricity grid is likely to struggle unless action is taken. One of the most important findings of my report is that the GB electricity system is already heading towards a serious adequacy problem even if large‑scale electrification largely fails.
Renewables cannot provide security of supply during prolonged low‑wind winter events, and reliance on interconnectors is risky when neighbouring systems face similar weather patterns. Meanwhile, just under 5 GW of nuclear generation is scheduled to close by 2032 at the latest, and around 12 GW of CCGT capacity is at risk of closure due to age and declining utilisation.
While Hinkley Point C and perhaps a small amount of new open‑cycle gas capacity may come online over the next five to seven years, this does not come close to offsetting expected closures. Under plausible assumptions, the system could face a capacity shortfall of around 12 GW on cold, low‑wind winter days. In such conditions, meeting demand without rationing would be impossible.
Replacing or upgrading ageing gas generation is constrained by long lead times. New rotors typically require around 5 years, and entirely new gas turbines 7-8 years, reflecting global supply‑chain bottlenecks. These are physical constraints that cannot be resolved by market reform or policy ambition alone.
Britain is not alone in facing a potential problem with system adequacy. Norway, the Netherlands and Germany were all considered as part of the report and in each case, possible shortages are identified. Norway assumes that flexibility, demand response, or batteries will full the gap. The Dutch are less confident and intend to monitor the generation mix in neighbouring countries in the hope of persuading them to maintain enough firm generation to secure the Dutch grid on low wind days. Only Germany has explicitly identified a need to build more gas generation, although its target is likely inadequate.
Flexibility helps, but does not replace firm capacity
One of the report’s central findings is that electrification does not increase demand evenly. Heat pumps, EV charging, and industrial electrification all tend to concentrate demand in time (cold evenings, post‑work charging windows), and concentrate demand in space (residential feeders, urban substations, motorway corridors). Annual energy numbers hide this – a system can look comfortable on a terawatt‑hour basis while becoming acutely stressed for a few hundred hours a year.
Flexibility features heavily in electrification plans with smart charging, demand response, batteries, and thermal storage. While flexibility can shave peaks, this only works where consumers tolerate loss of convenience. In many cases, policymakers ignore real-world constraints such as fire risks associated with overnight operation of domestic appliances, and noise restrictions within multi-occupancy residential buildings. Batteries are energy‑limited and cannot cover prolonged stress events. Many flexibility services depend on digital systems that introduce new operational and cyber risks. Flexibility may reduces costs at the margin, but it does not eliminate the need for firm capacity, resilient networks, or system strength.
Infrastructure challenges present further risks
In addition to the issues with reliable generation capacity, there are further difficulties with distribution and transmission constraints which arrive earlier and are also hard to fix quickly. Key points from the report include:
- Local distribution networks were not designed for mass electrification of heat and transport
- Reinforcement timelines are measured in years, and often a decade or more
- Connection queues and “paper capacity” obscure real‑world deliverability
The report also identifies risks with aging grid infrastructure and the recently identified risks that premature closure of offshore gas pipelines may constrain gas supplies to the grid on cold winter days, limiting the gas available for electricity generation.
What this means in practice
Taken together, the findings point to an uncomfortable conclusion. The GB electricity system is likely to struggle to maintain today’s level of demand reliably, let alone accommodate the additional 7–10 GW of load in 2030 implied by current electrification agendas. AI data centres are therefore likely to pursue off‑grid solutions, not because of technological failure but because the grid is no longer perceived as sufficiently reliable for mission‑critical loads.
Large‑scale electrification of heat and industry before 2030 appears improbable, and likely remains so for several years thereafter. Without decisive policy action, the probability of regional rationing, blackouts and cascading grid failures rises materially.
To restore Britain’s energy security, government must pivot from aspirational modelling to credible planning. This means supporting life extension of ageing gas generation, accelerating procurement of new dispatchable capacity, reforming network investment incentives to prioritise resilience, and reassessing electrification timelines. Net zero targets cannot be allowed to override public safety. Security of supply must once again become the foundational principle of UK energy policy.
ABSTRACT
Britain’s decarbonisation strategy assumes rapid electrification of heating, transport and industry, yet deployment trends and infrastructure constraints indicate these ambitions are unlikely to be met. Heat pumps, EVs and industrial fuel-switching are stalling, while ageing gas and nuclear assets are retiring faster than firm replacement capacity can be delivered. At the same time, AI-driven data-centre growth is adding material new load that the grid is increasingly unable to accommodate.
Without urgent action to secure dispatchable generation and stabilise the gas network, the UK faces escalating risks of supply shortfalls and widespread system failures well before 2030. It will be difficult to meet existing demand without rationing, let alone any additional demand from electrification.
The Government must urgently pivot to ensuring there is sufficient dispatchable power generation available to meet demand on low wind days, making realistic assumptions about what can be delivered by 2030. The UK would do well to follow the example of Germany, which despite its strong commitment to renewables, has identified a need for significant new gas-fired power generation capacity.
Without such a plan, electrification ambitions risk remaining theoretical while exposing the electricity system – and the public – to unacceptable levels of risk. Net zero promises should not be prioritised over public safety. To ensure the electricity system remains secure, new investment in gas generation is essential, even if it is unabated.
Excellent piece from the ever better `Watt-`Logic. What tends to be forgotten is that a significant proportion of the UK population is getting older and may start to simply switch off from the bombardment of internet communications altogether. I for one, at 74, delete and unsubscribe to more emails than I read everyday, wondering how the hell the endless streams of “financial advice” actually came my way!
The fragility of the current ‘dash for electricity for everything’ has major risks. Not least its basis built upon the shifting sands of ideology prevalent within the UK establishment and elsewhere!
https://chp4.org/energy-policies/electrification-can-the-grid-cope
Spot on
Ms. Porter consistantly incorrectly uses the word optimistic when the facts in her own data show something to be not economically possible under any government scenario. There is a real difference, something optimistic can be achieved economically. Most of what this report states as government policy is not economic under any possible scenario. Unless the government forces people and business to implement uneconomic or unreliable solutions none of UK governments policies can ever actually be implemented. That is a fact unless you believe natural gas is going to be given away for free for the extended future.
Not optimistic, try suicidal.
It was never going to work.
The Third World War against CO2 has been lost.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/losing-the-war-on-co2
And coal is holding its ground.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/the-green-energy-transition-is-all
This is an A,I generated summary from an article in the Spectator written by David Turver
Here’s a clear, structured set of **main points** from your text — distilled so the core arguments stand out sharply.
—
## Key Points on the Cost of Net Zero
### **1. Early warnings about high costs**
– **Philip Hammond (2019)** warned that legislating net zero could cost **over £1 trillion**, raising household bills and harming energy‑intensive industries.
### **2. Large system‑wide cost estimates**
– **Neso (2020)** estimated net zero could cost **£3 trillion**, with **£5–6 trillion** in gross outlays when discounted over time.
– Surprisingly, Neso suggested the most aggressive decarbonisation scenario was *slightly cheaper* than failing to meet net zero.
### **3. CCC’s sharply falling cost projections**
– **CCC’s 2020 estimate:** £1.4 trillion in capital costs (2020–2050), reduced to £957 billion after assumed savings.
– **CCC’s 2023/24 estimate:** Net cost slashed to **£108 billion** (2025–2050), just **0.2% of GDP**.
– This reduction was achieved by comparing to a hypothetical baseline rather than presenting absolute costs.
– These projections rely heavily on **dramatic assumed cost reductions** in renewables.
### **4. Real‑world renewable costs contradict CCC assumptions**
– **Offshore wind:** CCC assumes £37.80/MWh for 2035; actual 2024–25 contract prices range **£85–118/MWh**.
– **Floating offshore wind:** Costs jumped to **£282/MWh**.
– **Solar:** CCC assumes £43/MWh; actual contracts **£72/MWh**.
### **5. Low‑carbon technology costs are higher than CCC forecasts**
– **Heat pumps:** CCC projected £6,415 falling to <£5,000; actual median costs in 2025 are **£12,000+** (air‑source) and **£28,854** (ground‑source).
– **Electric vehicles:** CCC estimate £23,160; actual VW ID.3 starts at **£30,860**.
### **6. Discount rate assumptions distort the picture**
– CCC uses a **3.5% discount rate**, far below:
– 30‑year bond yields
– Typical consumer finance rates (5.7–14.9%)
– This makes future savings look larger and upfront costs look smaller.
### **7. OBR estimates are far higher**
– **OBR (2023)** projects **£803 billion** in fiscal impacts alone — far above the CCC’s £108 billion whole‑economy figure.
– The discrepancy is not fully explained.
### **8. Neso’s 2025 update still underestimates costs**
– **Holistic Transition scenario:** £7.6 trillion gross, rising to **£9 trillion** with carbon penalties.
– **Falling Behind scenario:** £7.2 trillion gross, nearly **£10 trillion** with carbon costs.
– Neso assumes:
– Offshore wind at **£53/MWh** (less than half current prices)
– Carbon prices nearly doubling
– No “Do Nothing More” scenario is provided, making comparisons incomplete.
### **9. Overall conclusion**
– Public bodies are accused of **systematically underestimating costs** through:
– Unrealistic price assumptions
– Low discount rates
– Selective reporting of net rather than gross costs
– Without transparency, net zero risks becoming **financially unsustainable**, with supposed savings described as “a mirage.”
—
@Donald – Just provide a link to the article, please! If we want to generate a slop-summary, we can do it ourselves. This sort of stuff simply pollutes the Internet.
Sorry to be blunt, but it is a pet hate of mine..
The problem with an AI summary is that I simply cannot trust anything that it says.. Who has written the ‘system prompt’ which affects what bits to include, what to leave out, and how to bias the wording of the summary? Are the facts that it chooses to cite even correct?
Facts are muddled and biases are concealed, in favour of the tech companies that control the source data and system prompt of these ‘so-called AI’ statistical soups.
And then the AI slop, biased by unknown prompts, gets re-ingested by the statistical machine as if it were authentic human-written text, and the whole system poisons itself with its own excrement.
It occurs to me that we could save an awful lot of energy by simply turning off these bullshit-machines. Kathryn mentions 6GW of mostly gas-fired slop-generating capacity being added to the UK by 2030. Meta alone recently announced plans to build between 10 and 100GW globally. All for a loss-making industry that has scant positive societal impact and innumerable negatives, before even counting its energy cost. But you are unlikely to see that in an AI summary 😉
It’s also shame that articles like Kathryn’s (and David’s, apparently) are so long that people have to resort to AI summaries in the first place. I confess I haven’t read the entirety of the report yet – At ~40k words it’s as long as an MSc thesis. I find this length not only makes it hard to read, but detracts somewhat from its credibility, because if it is so long that it takes AI to read it, then one naturally suspects that perhaps AI has contributed to writing it, even if it hasn’t. This is exacerbated by the imagery, which is mostly if not all AI-generated, that fills every blank space on each page and slows my PDF reader. (Some of them are artistic and I appreciate that, but they don’t need to be on every page..)
I love your work, Kathryn, but please banish the slop. I want to be confident that what I am reading comes from your brain alone, not polluted by some language model.
Hi, I didn’t provide a link as the Spectator is behind a paywall.
My attitude towards A.I is that for the current mass users, the novelty will eventually wear off
It will of course be used for serious research, hut just think of a future where we have reached the physical limits of designs, computer, everything in fact.
What do we do then?
Having over 200 references should be a big clue that it’s not AI generated and I’m insulted you think it is.
I use ChatGPT to assist with research but I verify everything it says. I also used it to assess the probability of blackouts and demand control and I occasionally use it to parse data files and re-format them into versions I can easily manipulate in Excel eg Trading Economics returns all data downloads in a single column that contains multiple datasets which ChatGPT can separate into separate columns faster than I can. Then I can create charts from the data
David Turver’s full report is available here:
https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Cost-of-Net-Zero-Turver-1.pdf
It’s very good – Kathryn also recommends it!
We live in an increasingly technological age, but few politicians and even fewer senior civil servants have any technical background whatsoever. The whole system here in the UK and across most of the rest of the world is predicated on a ‘Top Down’ system. And to be fair this has worked reasonably well over the years, but is now reaching its limitations. But consider the possibilities where individual houses, offices, factories, etc are supplied on a ‘Bottom Up’ system, where the individual user is in charge of their own energy destiny. This would have the effect of reducing demand on the grid, and where excess electricity could be sold back to the grid. It could also save the Treasury, and by implication the tax payer a fortune. This is already done on a limited scale, where individual households have solar panels on their roofs. But imagine a system that works 24/7, and is clean, green, no waste, can be erected at the point of demand, and will reduce the cost of electricity from around 27p per KwH to under a p per KwH. Such a system is not here yet, but is not as far away as one might imagine.
A dim hope, but has battery technology advanced yet with graphene storage? There are vague rumblings that it is finally working. It’s not a final solution but it might contribute to the system if it is a fast charge and lighter. and I don’t know if it would stotre the charge for longer or not.
I will read this, but its format is awful for onscreen consumption. The pdf has 64 pages yet your ToC says references start at p116. The pictures are huge and the text is small, but if I zoom in the text goes off the screen and I have to scroll laterally. Any chance of a version as a simple document without all the pictures?
I think this is a problem with your system – the document is a standard PDF file and no-one else has complained. No, I do no have a version without the images
I have a nice glossy printed version… but I find the pdf display well on my 16:10 laptop screen.
A very good summary.
However, all of this was known by technical people who either worked in the utility business or to support them, a very long time ago, back when the climate change fad started. They talked about it, but the politicians and the activists pooh-poohed it and shamed into silence everyone who presented the hard evidence. None of the climate change faddists have any idea about what you say, and have no rebuttal other than hope and the expectation that rationing will occur, and only the evil consumers will be cut off – the righteous ones will continue to be comfortable.
The great masses will not understand anything you say. They get their “news and information” from the MSM and activist websites, which will refuse to publish your report. The great masses will not realize what has happened until they start to freeze in the dark, and start to look for someone to blame. The climate change industry already has a scapegoat available – the techlords who are building data centers and “hoarding all the electricity that should be going to consumers”. That is the message that will go out when the lights go out, and the data centers will suffer the modern-day fate of the peasants attacking them with pitchforks-in-hand. The activists will remain untouched and unblamed, because they are holy “scientists”, and the politicians will blame their predecessors for their corruption by the techlords.
Maybe if only the UK goes down, first, while France and Switzerland and Germany stay energized, they may notice who is suffering, and who is not, and notice the different in the energy planning. Maybe.
Hi, I didn’t provide a link as the Spectator is behind a paywall.
My attitude towards A.I is that for the current mass users, the novelty will eventually wear off
It will of course be used for serious research, hut just think of a future where we have reached the physical limits of designs, computer, everything in fact.
What do we do then?
Fury as Ed Miliband’s net zero fanaticism set to cost taxpayers ‘more than £9 trillion’
Daily Express
Thank you for your work Ms. Porter, you are a very valuable source of great information. Unfortunately I feel very pessimistic about the future stability of the electrical power generation/distribution system in the the UK. And in the USA where I live.
I know you have concerns about the stability of the power grid when renewable prime mover energy source is utilised. Have you seen this development in China?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVbXI3RTm9E Kevin Walmsley discusses problems that China has experienced with the stability problems you have written about.
They have developed a solution: A “DC Transformer” that they insert into their HVDC distribution lines. Apparently it stabilises the grid.
Actually it isn’t a “DC Transformer”, such a thing doesn’t exist:
https://www.ourmechanicalworld.com/archives/798
Whichever way you slice it this is an amazing piece of equipment: 1.2 million VDC in and out, 750 MVA, with power electronics providing a high frequency transformer with “power through” controls.
I find myself trying not to think of the impact on UK Defence capabilities.
I find myself trying not to think of the impact on UK Defence capabilities.
Yet another thorough, scientific, and convincing report from Watt-Logic.
Thankyou.
However, it is (rightly) limited to comment on the present government policy of Net Zero, which is clearly shown to be non feasible within time and resource constraints that exist. But we need to go further.
Net Zero is, in turn, based on the Establishment paradigm for Climate Change, ie “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW). There is a growing number of scientists who no longer support AGW, including, for example, the 2k+ who have signed the Clintel Declaration that “there is no climate crisis.” Many consider that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant at all, but a fertiliser. Others suggest that the effect of carbon dioxide on world temperatures accounts for less than 10% of the observed changes in recent decades. If either of these views is true, then Net Zero is shown to be a blind alley (or nearly so).
Others have been predicting a midcentury drop in temperatures lasting several decades. Having been an AGW disciple, I found the scientific basis for AGW unconvincing. I was persuaded by an ex colleague to look at the work of Prof Valentina Zharkova, based at Northumbria University in Newcastle-upon-Tyne (in the UK). What eventually made me pay serious attention to her work was that it was not a theory, a hypothesis, or a conjecture. It was a calculation. She started from data about the magnetic fields emitted by the Sun which had been measured by NASA, and which are regularly and reliably used to predict space “weather” to help managing the many satellites in our skies. To this data Prof Zharkova applied a mathematical technique (I think it is called Hamiltonians) which is regularly used by engineers to cope with cyclical vibration problems in (e.g.) diesel engines. (I vaguely remember being taught this at university, but it was at the limits of my mathematical comprehension). It enables systems to be understood where there are more than one cyclical drivers happening at once, a situation that classical Fourier analysis cannot tackle. So we have a reliable set of data to which a proven and tested mathematical process is applied. It is like saying “Here are six eggs; I eat two; so there are four left”. The result is what it is. Prof Zharkova’s analysis identified a ‘double dynamo’ effect in the solar output that had been suggested by others. It predicted the solar output in about 2008 that successfully predicted solar output for the recent solar cycle 25, and suggested a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) between about now and 2053. It also mapped onto past climate records (“hindcasting”) and picked up well known events such as the little ice age, the Maunder Minimum, the medieval warm period and even the Homeric period – something none of the IPCC climate modles have achieved.
Even more amazing was the fact that Prof Zharkova’s team spotted a curious anomaly in the data. The origin of the solar oscillations did not ‘live’ on the zero line – it oscillated too. The Covid lockdown gave Prof Zharkova (who also has qualifications as an astrophysicist) the opportunity to use NASA data (confirmed by the Paris Observatory) to demonstrate that the anomaly was explained by what is known as Solar Inertial Motion (SIM), which is the oscillation of the Sun about the centre of Gravity of the Solar System caused by the gravitational effect of the giant planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus). an effect that has been evaluated by other scientists. This meant the Sun-Earth distance was varying on a cycle of about 2100 years. We have been in the phase when the Sun Earth distance has been reducing since early Victorian times, and the extra heating that results explains all the global warming since the pre-indusrtrial age, without the need for AGW. Moreover it explains why the Romans were able to grow grapes in Scotland in early Medieval times. The warming process is likely to continue until about 2500AD.
The key insight is that climate effects are cyclical, not (as proposed by AGW) linear.
But in the short term we have the sudden drop in temperature that is a cyclical effect related to the Maunder Minimum about 450 years ago. At that time the Thames froze and growing seasons were shortened resulting in food shortages. So, we are not out of the wood yet!
Yes it seems remarkable and unreal. But have you noticed that the last three winters in North America and mainland Europe have been colder (e.g. snow in Florida), and we have recently seen a very cold snap in the UK, with the jet stream oscillating all over the place? Since 2008, Prof Zharkova’s results have been predicting exactly this. The Arctic melt has been on hold for a decade – though the Establishment media do not report that. And there are many more examples. Remember, this is not theory – it is calculation! The trend downward in solar output began in about 2001, but has been masked by
▪ the maximum of solar cycle 25
▪ a strong el nino, now dissipating to a la nina
▪ short term effects caused by the Hunga Tonga underwater volcano eruption that put an unusual amount of water vapour into the upper atmosphere
We are only seeing the early effects. By 2030, effects will be more evident. When that happens, how will the Climate Establishment explain falling temperatures while Carbon Dioxide concentrations continue to rise?
One has to admit that the stranglehold maintained by the Climate Establishment will be hard to challenge, especially in the face of media bias ther by BBC and others. But, luckily, a similar problem arose during the Covid crisis, and UK government commissioned an Inquiry chaired by Baroness Hallett. The Module 1 report from that Inquiry looked at the organisation that addressed the situation, and its conclusions and recommendations map well on the the Climate debate. So I developed an essay using the skilled, legalistic examination of the Covid Inquiry to see what might have happened if the Covid Inquiry recommendations had been in place a decade earlier. Of course it is not proof, but it may form an interesting basis for discussion on how we can migrate from the flawed, unscientific basis of Net Zero and AGW to a more rational view of how we address Climate chage. Above all, it could just stop the present disastrous rush toward an unachievable Net Zero that may not deliver any climate security at all.
My essay titled “Climate Lessons from the Covid Inquiry” can be viewed by clicking on the link below.
https://mvteal.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/COVID-Lessons-neutral-V04.pdf
It contains much more detail and references to other scientific wirk. As a minimum, it suggests how we can evaluate likely scenarios, eliminate the impossible, but prepare for those that could happen within human timescales.
CGR Jan 2026
As I see it we have two separate problems to address:
1) How to limit the damage imposed by Miliband in the nearby future while he controls the reins of power and can magic up £890m p.a. of extra wind subsidy “just like that” among other things;
2) How to prepare to unwind the damage when a more rational government takes over, which entails working out which bits must be unwound in which order and which changes should and can be made to lower costs while keeping the lights on.
This report from Kathryn is really aimed at the first and more pressing issue. Miliband and his quangocrats can be bounced into changes, so we have to keep the pressure up. He has been forced to accept the recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce which will make a huge difference to the ability to implement nuclear more rapidly and at low cost without regulatory cost burdens. He was also persuaded to end the value destroying Eco Homes scheme, and has had to concede on the need for continued subsidy for the less well off because his magical system isn’t getting any cheaper. Getting him to patch the dispatchable grid is a key objective.
Not to say that we don’t need to work on how to patch things up as well – it’s going to be very complex, even though both the Tories and Reform are now committed to unwinding the Climate Change Act which has an underpinning role. However, repeal will still leave huge amount of legislation and grid codes and assets on the ground and assets we need but don’t have that frankly need more urgent attention, since the CCA can be fairly easily neutralised by declaring a new soft target long surpassed without the heartache of trying to get repeal through the Lords and the judiciary.
Thankyou. Very constructive comment
Thank you for your work Ms. Porter, you are a very valuable source of great information. Unfortunately I feel very pessimistic about the future stability of the electrical power generation/distribution system in the the UK. And in the USA where I live.
I know you have concerns about the stability of the power grid when renewable prime mover energy source is utilised. Have you seen this development in China?
They have developed a solution: A “DC Transformer” that they insert into their HVDC distribution lines. Apparently it stabilises the grid.
Actually it isn’t a “DC Transformer”, such a thing doesn’t exist: Whichever way you slice it this is an amazing piece of equipment: 1.2 million VDC in and out, 750 MVA, with power electronics providing a high frequency transformer with “power through” controls.
Sorry about the double post. I thought your filter may have trashed me because of the links.
Kathryn Porter’s simple and logical analysis is always impressive and appreciated.
My MP came round canvassing recently. I had a good chat with her about energy but unfortunately there is a very large gap between what her party wants ideologically and what’s technically feasible. I raised many of the issues covered on this site and her answer was SMRs, large scale grid storage and “Consumer led demand” aka rationing. Unfortunately my challenges on technology readiness and availability as well as the extremely short time to 2030 fell on deaf ears. My MP reassured her self that she’d led a debate confirming her position apparently not appreciating that engineering problems are deterministic and not debatable like a point of law. This is who we have in parliament though – not people with any technical ability but people who can only understand the world in subjective and legalistic terms and until there are more MPs with STEM backgrounds that wont change.
The Energy Realists of Australia strategically pivoted from climate realism to energy because people are not interested in climate science and they are interested in the cost of power and the risk of blackouts.
Moreover, they can understand the energy issues if they are clearly explained. They need to know that wind droughts and the lack of grid-scale storage mean that there will be no transition to wind and solar.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/losing-the-war-on-co2
And they can learn to go to the dashboard of their local grid to find how much power wind and solar are contributing at breakfast and dinnertime.
That will indicate whether the meal could be served hot if heating depends on the intermittent providers that are wasting resources that should be spent on conventional power.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/will-windpower-heat-your-breakfast
I took note of the wind drought over Christmas 2024.
The turbines were barly generating 1Gw at times, and there was almost zero solar.
Just when we needed the power.
Ivor Williams is a meteorologist and he reported that severe wind droughts have been recorded on oil and gas rigs in the North Sea for 60 years.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/a-curious-tale-of-the-north-sea-winds/
At present it is 9.45 am in UK and the wind is providing 17% of demand, solar 1%!
https://grid.iamkate.com/ This will change, of course.
Yet, these do not appear to have been taken into account when all the analysis was done on the viability of wind. Even if Miliband triples the number of turbines – we might only get 3Gw at certain times. This is a rotten return on investment.
I have just finished reading Kathryn Porter’s report on electrification, primarily in the UK. It is the most impressive report I have ever read on this topic. It clearly establishes the need for new gas-fired electricity generation capacity to replace the 12GW of capacity that will be lost by 2030. I think it is particularly important to note her argument that this new capacity will be required irrespective of the speed at which the electricity grid is decarbonised. The report rightly highlights the issue of electricity grid congestion; however, I would like to know more about how feasible the National Grid’s plans are for upgrading the UK’s transmission and distribution networks to address this issue. Also, I couldn’t see an analysis of the contribution made by biomass to electricity generation. And on heat pumps, Kathryn is of course correct to say that they cost a lot more than gas boilers but it is not correct to say that their ‘running costs are higher than gas boilers since electricity is more expensive per unit than gas’ (p22). Yes, electricity is indeed more expensive than gas per unit, but heat pumps are 3-4 times more efficient to run than gas boilers, so the overall running costs are similar. Over to you, Kathryn.
Does the world have enough economically recoverable copper for all the extra cables and wiring that will be required?
The answer is NO WAY, several studies have demonstrated that the net zero programs of the world demand astronomical amounts of minerals.
Years ago the International Energy Agency calculated that the needs for “energy transition minerals” such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metal would rise by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, respectively, by 2040. Refer The Role Of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions
In cautious and bureaucratic language the report noted that the world doesn’t have the capacity to meet such demand and there are no plans to fund and build the necessary mines and refineries.
Very worrying. Perhaps Ed Miliband should be presented with this fact at PMQ.
There is a simple answer to the current problems, but none of the politicians or the senior civil servants are interested; And in the case of the civil service they are violently opposed. The solution is to change from a Top Down system, where the consumer is at the bottom end of the food chain; to a Bottom Up system where the end user is in charge of their energy destiny. The technology to make this happen is not as far away as you might imagine.
Please watch this video. It shows, like yours, just how stupid the whole net zero is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0AYl0g0Cbs