Net zero is utterly nuts. % CO2 in atmosphere (which doesn't drive temperature): 0.04% Of which due to humans: ~0.015% Over about 150 years of industrial activity => 0.0001%/year UK contribution now ~1% (0.01) => 0.000001%/year Nothing we do will make diddly squat of a difference to global climate. So why is our government pursuing this ruinous policy?
Thats like saying a disease can't kill you, because the mass of the virus makes up a tiny percentage of your body mass. Current co2 levels are the highest in millions of years, the last time they were this high were in the Piacenzian Warm Period. where sea levels were 25 metres higher than today.
Or more personally, why did Alok Sharma publish a video of himself literally blow ing up Ferrybridge powerstation. a perfectly functional and vital piece of national infrastructure?
Because if they destroy the industry here their pals from wef will buy for pennies on the pound and they line their pockets for doing so. So basically treachery…
Your maths is weird and regardless, spewing toxic chemicals into the athmosphere is not smart. We need to have longer term strategic thinking and stop letting the planet take the hit in the name of profit everytime.
Can you imagine being in opposition for 14 years then winning an election and not having a plan for government. Maybe they could run a national competition for ideas.
She hasn’t got any idea how to generate growth. Every policy she’s enacted so far has been anti-growth. As for increasing the uks production output, well she’s no chance of doing that with the current or forecast energy prices and the war she’s waging on SME’s. If she’s talking about deregulation in financial services then yes, we may see growth there. Those big multinationals financial institutions don’t pay a lot of tax though. So you may have growth but it will be useless growth.
@@robinjones5169 on the basis that 600 pre-born citizens are termin ated in the womb every day in this country (accordiing to the figures for 2022), we could stop doing that
Not according to the Climate Change Committee. Factoring in losses of fossil fuel jobs and those needed for retrofit etc we're looking at anywhere from 135,000 to 750,000 extra jobs. Most sources, LSE, Oxford etc agree that net zero provides more jobs than the status quo. Potentially double the jobs. Of course the London IEA are well paid by fossil fuel interests to put out the opposite.
Taxing you to travel during rush hour is not the solution. Its building more roads so that like the air port slots it doesn't become a scares resource.
Theres the concept of induced demand. If you build more roads, people will travel more, undoing those gains. For example, the absolute distance to your place of work doesn't matter, its the travel time. If a road is built halving that travel time, you may well move further away, or get a job further away, undoing the gains.
@ I didn't say there was no benefit. benefits include companies having access to a wider pool of workers, and workers having access to more jobs. But there are diminishing returns. And anyway, youve now changed the subject to transport. public transport and cycling takes traffic of the road, has health benefits in the case of cycling. Theres a better case for either of those than building more roads.
@@benholroyd5221 I would say another benefit is improved productivity. With better roads one can guarantee journey times meaning less time spent doing nothing.
Induced Demand...watch videos on the 8 lane highways in Texas and China. Congestion became worse once they built them. The same with slip roads in the UK. All they did was create more traffic. The solution is convincing mass transport: people to take coaches and trains. How? Congestion charges and improved services (more frequency and better comfort).
Hi Guys, Can you do podcasts comparing the economy of the UK with other countries? You could start with Norway, which has used her North Sea oil resources to build-up massive sovereign wealth funds.
Point of order. Australia also underwent their greatest ever economic liberalisation under a Labor govt. The Hawke-Keating Govt in the early 80s. John Howard, Australia's conservative PM from the mid 90s thru the 2000s commented that Hawke made reforms that the conservatives could have never got away with. It lead to a new consensus and propelled the country into an economic boom that lasted 40 years that only COVID put a halt to.
The answer is no. The ONLY way you can get “net zero” anywhere near affordably is by all energy coming from hydro, geothermal, biomass, or nuclear - that is to say, base-load energy sources - and for all of those sources to be able to be built CHEAPLY and QUICKLY. Labour will never allow that to happen because they are fixated upon continuing wind, solar, tidal or whatever, and battery storage, which will drive energy prices up much further than they already have been. The answer - the ONLY way to achieve bet zero - is BASELOAD POWER PLUS MINIMAL REGULATION. There, hours and hours of time spent pondering this issue saved.
And also completely wrong. Maybe it would have helped spending some more hours pondering the issue. Where in the UK are we building all this hydro? If you haven't noticed, we don't have an Amazon or a Yangtze, or very many mountainous valleys or gorges. Where are we tapping this geothermal from? Are we suddenly on a tectonic plate boundary? We're building new nuclear, great, but you haven't happened to have perused the latest costings, have you? Cheap it will not be. And any time soon? No chance. Everything you listed as driving up prices, will, according to people with more knowledge than you - aka the grid operator, NESO - drive prices down in the long term, as they are fundamentally cheaper, even while making costing allowance for a strategic reserve of gas fired generation to backstop variability issues. They are also faster to deploy, and drive the expensive part of our energy pricing (marginal natural gas production) out of our energy mix, which would lower the wholesale price most of all.
Clean policies arent responsible for higher energy prices. In fact, imagine if we didnt have wind, how much more expensive LNG we'd be importing from the Middle-East and the USA? Inflation is. Worldwide inflation causes everything to increase in price. Including the wages, materials, spare parts, metal, gas, batteries, vans , computers etc that energy companies need to operate.
@@stevevenus1 Easy, because you have been run by fools who want to say they changed the world not that they made their people richer or better off, No, western leaders from the USA to Western Europe have made their people poorer and colder. China and India are building coal power plants non stop and why shouldn't they, they are looking out for their people. I hate to tell people mother earth will take care of herself and always has, she survived events that killed off the dinosaur's and Ice age's and she will survive global warming and so will mankind, why because more people and animals die of the cold and thrive in the heat of the sun...
@@stevevenus1Because our electricity prices are linked to gas prices. We have a marginal pricing set up for the way we price electricity, essentially it is set by the most expensive generating medium. Which is gas. It has been this way since 1989 and will remain that way until the REMA consultation completes and actually enacts some change. This is why when wholesale gas costs tripled (or more) in 2021 your electricity bill doubled. Renewables were still broadly decreasing in cost at that time, they may have had a slight blip around then but it was because of increased demand for solar because the gas cost got so high!
They need to invest in the community level infrastructure like community centres and youth services. We do not have a growth problem we have an escalating welfare budget issue. We will never out grow this, it needs to be resolved as the highest priority. 1. Solve the escalating welfare budget root causes. 2. Invest in infrastructure resilience and sustainability over net zero. It will likely be net zero anyway.
Welfare is a social and cultural issue. If we keep giving welfare for poor lifestyle choices (single mothers, broken homes, alcohol and drug abuse) and enable welfare for ridiculous reason (anxiety and depression), lo and behold, those things become chronic, rampant and the norm in every town and city in the country.
@jerryappleton6855 I am talking about the why you are talking about the what. You fix by looking at the why. If you think you can fix the what you are too late. It's pointless, what exactly do you think will happen if you just stopped all that welfare now? We need to prevent future generations continuing this trend and then loop back and figure out the current generations issues. We are bleeding out.
When a public sector wants your money they will spend every penny with absolutely no consequences, these people are not creators. Give the people the power to innovate with low energy costs and low regulation.
Youre complaining about current electricity prices as if they are caused by renewables. The opposite is true though. What would have happened to Europe if we hadn't built these renewables? At the moment we have less reliance on expensive gas, because of those renewables. Youre correct that at the moment the market is set by the highest price unit of electricity, but newer renewables contracts have a price ceiling, and as youre economists, why don't you suggest a model that fixes the issues, rather than complain about the current one.
Renewables create a dependency on gas and the UK does not have the domestic gas production to support renewables. Getting 100% renewables requires an investment in at least 4X name plate capacity plus battery storage and still that's no guarantee. The cheapest form of renewables is the Texas model since you can open and close gas wells based on demand and current renewable generation. You need 1/4 of the wind and solar to support the grid as you don't have the problem that requires a multiplier of wind and solar nameplate.
Exactly. Parts of the populace are being gaslit into believing renewables were at any point a part of the problem with pricing, when it has always been the expensive natural gas component. As if being MORE dependent on natural gas would have worked out cheaper for us... But wind with a guaranteed strike price of £44-73 per MWh is the problem, when gas peaker plants are routinely charging £750 per MWh? Enough nonsense. The sooner the fossil fuel merchants and their propaganda are made irrelevant, the better.
@@barryraymond9004 Would not 4 x name plate capacity cost a fortune. Would we not then be paying for all the wind farm operators to shut the turbines down when we don't need the power. (like we do now....£1.3 billion last year I believe)
@@stevevenus1 the trick is to find a use for that cheap power and store it for later. If you have 4x the name plate capacity you only need a storage method that is 25% efficient. That's in the realm of hydrogen, which can be stored and burnt in the gas power stations we already have. In reality, you can use a lot of that energy straight away, if you have 4x the name plate capacity, you only need to start using that storage when wind drops below 25%. So 4x is a worst case.
Offshore Wind should be the main energy source 125%, 25% onshore with 25% nuclear for base load when theres no windywoosflaggen (Or whatever the Germany word is) use 12.5% of gas turbines on standby for fast spin up in the event of a unplanned event, all our carbon energy should be exploited if its economical to do so, its ludicrous not to, most of climate change is the weather and the problems caused by incompetence!?!
Net Zero only works if you tariff the crap out of imports that were produced in a non net zero economy. Otherwise you just outsource your industry and make no difference in net world carbon emissions.
@@barryraymond9004 What industry are we meant to be outsourcing? We're an advanced services economy. We have not for a while, and will not ever compete with manufacturing nations like China on heavy industry. We just need energy independence and cheaper electricity, which is what turbines, panels and batteries buy you. We'll keep exporting advanced goods and services, and importing manufactured consumer goods. That's our comparative advantage on the world stage. If you think the future is reopening British coal mines and steel foundries and trying to outcompete the US, China and central Europe, then I think we fundamentally disagree on the direction of travel.
@@robinjones5169 How many people buy turbines for their houses? And the capital costs of solar panels and batteries have to be taken into account. And what of the majority of the population who can’t afford panels or batteries? Are their electricity bills cheaper? Of course they aren’t, they’re considerably more expensive due to the government’s insane sprint towards weather dependent electricity generation which also relies on gas for backup.
We are currently at a mid temperature in the Holocene, neither the hottest nor the coldest. The activists always draw graphs relative to the beginning of the industrial era. If drawn relative to the other temperatures in the Holocene then you will see that there is nothing extraordinary. Also the higher temperature seem to give rise to greater civilisations, Minoan, Roman and Medieval. Finally, the greatest danger is the ice age which seems to be late.
They can prioritize the TOP TIER industries only. Not Retailers, Hospitality and SMBs. This is an integrated transition would look like. Phase by phase, until the hardware's and grid infrastructure aee thoroughly tested to determine the operational risks smd cist of lifetime maintenance.. ChiCom EVs will not race anywhere due to looming stagflation
No government 'can save the economy' as such. The only way that a government, any government, can do that is go right away and let us, the economy, sort out their mess. Job one then. Shut down The Blob.
No net co2 into the atmosphere. So theoretically you could carry on exactly as before, and pump the equivalent amount of co2 out of the atmosphere and store it, and you would be net zero. Of course the plans for carbon capture havent really panned out.
Net zero is not mutually exclusive with economic growth. If the private sector wants to bid for and invest in wind farms and solar panels, and the guaranteed strike price they are being offered is less than the average price charged by coal, gas fired and nuclear power stations - which it is, massively less, half or a third as much, then what's the issue? There is no subsidy if wholesale prices are high - the producers repay the difference to the government, the taxpayer wins. And when prices are low, the consumer wins, which is again, also the taxpayer. These "costs" everyone seems so concerned about, what are they exactly? Our electricity prices are only so high because they are pegged to the marginal cost of gas peaker production, not because of private sector investment in renewables. Grid upgrade funding in the standing charge is a much smaller part of bills than the wholesale price of Natural Gas. And grid upgrades are always a good investment, regardless - as most infrastructure spending is. And regarding EVs, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, long term, they are the much superior technology and they will eventually supplant ICE with or without mandates or subsidy. The car industry is struggling not because they were forced to transition, but because they delayed doing it for too long. Asian car manufacturers ate their lunch and have far more efficient supply chains by developing them over a decade sooner. The "costs" incurred in that regard are self-inflicted, not government imposed. If they weren't encouraged to transition at all, then we'd have no car industry whatsoever in 10 years time, because our market would be flooded with cheaper EVs than Europe can build ICE, with longer ranges and less maintenance and superior performance. There won't be enough bring-back-the-victorian-era boomers left to prop up ICE sales. And to say China "isn't signed up to this agenda" is just absurd. They are transitioning faster than anyone, by some margin. They produce and deploy more renewables than the rest of the world combined, and EVs now make up over half of all car sales in China. If you want to tie yourself to last-generation tech while China and Asia powers into the future and leaves us behind, go join the American camp, but I know which horse is better to back in that race.
Good points. re EVs though. I think there are some chicken and egg problems re charging. If you live in a terrace without off street parking, there needs to be a solution, before you can get a car. Id like to see a system set up where people can get their own domestic rate based electricity from chargers, and actually make sure enough of these chargers are available. A lot of that can be helped, by the government guaranteeing there will be a market, by setting minimum sales. I think a lot of our net zero issues currently is that all these technologies are imported. we don't have any domestic turbine producers, we don't really have any fingers in the EV, solar, or battery pies. we are taking a moral lead, but everyone else is taking the manufacturing lead. So at this point, people can point to the supposed costs, because energy prices are high, but we cant point to all the jobs generated for this supposed cost.
Let the market decide, rather than the government legislate. The most cost effective technology will win. It could well be that there would be a mixture of technologies competing for many years.
You could not be more wrong. China is deploying green energy like it deploys empty apartments. They are not building to ROI but to socialist GDP numbers. They are STILL building coal at enormous rates because they know the new green crap is just for show and not reliable. Your assumptions will turn the UK into a 3rd world country. The UK GDP per capita is already lower today than it was in 2007. The UK is not wealthy enough to play around with green tech. The USA is now twice as wealthy as the UK. One of the poorest states in the USA is West Virginia and they have a higher GDP per capita than the UK now. Only a couple thousand pounds separates the UK from the poorest state of Mississippi.
@@danelias8658 the problem is co2 has various externalised costs, so to let the market decide, you would need a carbon tax. So then you would be making petrol, gas and coal massively more expensive today and cause a lot of short term damage. Or you could put in place a system where we introduce the full tax slowly, but as we have seen with the EV mandate, everyone leaves it to the last minute, so you have headlines of hardworking families freezing because of the tax, ignoring the fact that the government has given them, or their landlords 10 years notice. And even then, industries often need help to get started, EVs are only now becoming price competitive, as solar and wind have for a few years. If they weren't in the range of being competitive, the market would have settled on coal, gas and petrol regardless of the carbon tax. Finally, there's many moving pieces. Let's say I want a heat pump, that still relies on green energy if I want to avoid the tax. So even if you are forward looking, you could still be caught by the tax simply because the entire economy is based around fossil fuels.
@@danelias8658 The market is BS unless electricity is traded on a futures market with huge penalties for non-delivery. Let the producers solve the reliability problem instead of socializing the cost.
Net zero is utterly nuts.
% CO2 in atmosphere (which doesn't drive temperature): 0.04%
Of which due to humans: ~0.015%
Over about 150 years of industrial activity => 0.0001%/year
UK contribution now ~1% (0.01) => 0.000001%/year
Nothing we do will make diddly squat of a difference to global climate.
So why is our government pursuing this ruinous policy?
Thats like saying a disease can't kill you, because the mass of the virus makes up a tiny percentage of your body mass.
Current co2 levels are the highest in millions of years, the last time they were this high were in the Piacenzian Warm Period. where sea levels were 25 metres higher than today.
Or more personally, why did Alok Sharma publish a video of himself literally blow ing up Ferrybridge powerstation. a perfectly functional and vital piece of national infrastructure?
Because if they destroy the industry here their pals from wef will buy for pennies on the pound and they line their pockets for doing so. So basically treachery…
Ignorance and willful destruction ..
Your maths is weird and regardless, spewing toxic chemicals into the athmosphere is not smart. We need to have longer term strategic thinking and stop letting the planet take the hit in the name of profit everytime.
Can you imagine being in opposition for 14 years then winning an election and not having a plan for government. Maybe they could run a national competition for ideas.
She hasn’t got any idea how to generate growth. Every policy she’s enacted so far has been anti-growth. As for increasing the uks production output, well she’s no chance of doing that with the current or forecast energy prices and the war she’s waging on SME’s. If she’s talking about deregulation in financial services then yes, we may see growth there. Those big multinationals financial institutions don’t pay a lot of tax though. So you may have growth but it will be useless growth.
Imagine adding 15 million immigrants who just decrease wages and productivity for all and expecting a growing economy.
So how do you suggest we support an aging population without immigration.
@@robinjones5169 the cause of the lower birth rate is mass immigration, how do you suggest we deal with that without dealing with immigration.
@@robinjones5169 and those immigrants will get old also
@@robinjones5169 on the basis that 600 pre-born citizens are termin ated in the womb every day in this country (accordiing to the figures for 2022), we could stop doing that
@robinjones5169 AI, isn't the worry about ai that people would lose their jobs? Therefore AI can take up the slack
Net Zero = Net Zero Jobs
Not according to the Climate Change Committee. Factoring in losses of fossil fuel jobs and those needed for retrofit etc we're looking at anywhere from 135,000 to 750,000 extra jobs.
Most sources, LSE, Oxford etc agree that net zero provides more jobs than the status quo. Potentially double the jobs.
Of course the London IEA are well paid by fossil fuel interests to put out the opposite.
@@robinjones5169 They all say what they are paid to say.
Taxing you to travel during rush hour is not the solution. Its building more roads so that like the air port slots it doesn't become a scares resource.
Theres the concept of induced demand. If you build more roads, people will travel more, undoing those gains.
For example, the absolute distance to your place of work doesn't matter, its the travel time. If a road is built halving that travel time, you may well move further away, or get a job further away, undoing the gains.
@@benholroyd5221by this logic there's no benefit to enhancing transport at all? That's got to be nonsense.
@ I didn't say there was no benefit. benefits include companies having access to a wider pool of workers, and workers having access to more jobs. But there are diminishing returns.
And anyway, youve now changed the subject to transport. public transport and cycling takes traffic of the road, has health benefits in the case of cycling. Theres a better case for either of those than building more roads.
@@benholroyd5221 I would say another benefit is improved productivity. With better roads one can guarantee journey times meaning less time spent doing nothing.
Induced Demand...watch videos on the 8 lane highways in Texas and China.
Congestion became worse once they built them.
The same with slip roads in the UK. All they did was create more traffic.
The solution is convincing mass transport: people to take coaches and trains.
How? Congestion charges and improved services (more frequency and better comfort).
Hi Guys, Can you do podcasts comparing the economy of the UK with other countries? You could start with Norway, which has used her North Sea oil resources to build-up massive sovereign wealth funds.
Point of order. Australia also underwent their greatest ever economic liberalisation under a Labor govt. The Hawke-Keating Govt in the early 80s. John Howard, Australia's conservative PM from the mid 90s thru the 2000s commented that Hawke made reforms that the conservatives could have never got away with. It lead to a new consensus and propelled the country into an economic boom that lasted 40 years that only COVID put a halt to.
I must admit that I did not realize this. Thank you.
Something similar happened in Geruin the 2000s with the Hart 4 reforms.
It had nothing at all to do with selling minerals to china nothing.
The answer is no. The ONLY way you can get “net zero” anywhere near affordably is by all energy coming from hydro, geothermal, biomass, or nuclear - that is to say, base-load energy sources - and for all of those sources to be able to be built CHEAPLY and QUICKLY. Labour will never allow that to happen because they are fixated upon continuing wind, solar, tidal or whatever, and battery storage, which will drive energy prices up much further than they already have been. The answer - the ONLY way to achieve bet zero - is BASELOAD POWER PLUS MINIMAL REGULATION. There, hours and hours of time spent pondering this issue saved.
And also completely wrong. Maybe it would have helped spending some more hours pondering the issue.
Where in the UK are we building all this hydro? If you haven't noticed, we don't have an Amazon or a Yangtze, or very many mountainous valleys or gorges. Where are we tapping this geothermal from? Are we suddenly on a tectonic plate boundary? We're building new nuclear, great, but you haven't happened to have perused the latest costings, have you? Cheap it will not be. And any time soon? No chance. Everything you listed as driving up prices, will, according to people with more knowledge than you - aka the grid operator, NESO - drive prices down in the long term, as they are fundamentally cheaper, even while making costing allowance for a strategic reserve of gas fired generation to backstop variability issues. They are also faster to deploy, and drive the expensive part of our energy pricing (marginal natural gas production) out of our energy mix, which would lower the wholesale price most of all.
@@MidnightSouls Would that be Ed Milliband’s NESO?
how about we build some power plants atop coal fields and generate electricity at 2p/KWh like it was in the 90s up to 2003?
Clean policies arent responsible for higher energy prices.
In fact, imagine if we didnt have wind, how much more expensive LNG we'd be importing from the Middle-East and the USA?
Inflation is. Worldwide inflation causes everything to increase in price. Including the wages, materials, spare parts, metal, gas, batteries, vans , computers etc that energy companies need to operate.
But why in the UK do we pay 4 times as much for our electricity than USA?
@@stevevenus1 Easy, because you have been run by fools who want to say they changed the world not that they made their people richer or better off, No, western leaders from the USA to Western Europe have made their people poorer and colder. China and India are building coal power plants non stop and why shouldn't they, they are looking out for their people. I hate to tell people mother earth will take care of herself and always has, she survived events that killed off the dinosaur's and Ice age's and she will survive global warming and so will mankind, why because more people and animals die of the cold and thrive in the heat of the sun...
@@stevevenus1Because our electricity prices are linked to gas prices.
We have a marginal pricing set up for the way we price electricity, essentially it is set by the most expensive generating medium. Which is gas.
It has been this way since 1989 and will remain that way until the REMA consultation completes and actually enacts some change.
This is why when wholesale gas costs tripled (or more) in 2021 your electricity bill doubled. Renewables were still broadly decreasing in cost at that time, they may have had a slight blip around then but it was because of increased demand for solar because the gas cost got so high!
They should have got the economy growing before trying to tax more.
Some people say that the IEA is sponsored by foreign interest including Big Oil.
They absolutely are, particularly American ones like the Koch brothers and Sarah Schaife Foundation.
Opposing net zero,
one of the rare moments I think Mont Pelerin, doing some good.
They need to invest in the community level infrastructure like community centres and youth services.
We do not have a growth problem we have an escalating welfare budget issue. We will never out grow this, it needs to be resolved as the highest priority.
1. Solve the escalating welfare budget root causes.
2. Invest in infrastructure resilience and sustainability over net zero. It will likely be net zero anyway.
Welfare is a social and cultural issue.
If we keep giving welfare for poor lifestyle choices (single mothers, broken homes, alcohol and drug abuse) and enable welfare for ridiculous reason (anxiety and depression), lo and behold, those things become chronic, rampant and the norm in every town and city in the country.
@jerryappleton6855 I am talking about the why you are talking about the what. You fix by looking at the why. If you think you can fix the what you are too late. It's pointless, what exactly do you think will happen if you just stopped all that welfare now? We need to prevent future generations continuing this trend and then loop back and figure out the current generations issues. We are bleeding out.
A great episode - thanks to all involved.
I'm loving the podcast, great to hear more of the classical liberal voice!
Rarely do I come across a discussion I totally agree with
When a public sector wants your money they will spend every penny with absolutely no consequences, these people are not creators. Give the people the power to innovate with low energy costs and low regulation.
Youre complaining about current electricity prices as if they are caused by renewables. The opposite is true though. What would have happened to Europe if we hadn't built these renewables? At the moment we have less reliance on expensive gas, because of those renewables.
Youre correct that at the moment the market is set by the highest price unit of electricity, but newer renewables contracts have a price ceiling, and as youre economists, why don't you suggest a model that fixes the issues, rather than complain about the current one.
Renewables create a dependency on gas and the UK does not have the domestic gas production to support renewables. Getting 100% renewables requires an investment in at least 4X name plate capacity plus battery storage and still that's no guarantee. The cheapest form of renewables is the Texas model since you can open and close gas wells based on demand and current renewable generation. You need 1/4 of the wind and solar to support the grid as you don't have the problem that requires a multiplier of wind and solar nameplate.
Exactly. Parts of the populace are being gaslit into believing renewables were at any point a part of the problem with pricing, when it has always been the expensive natural gas component. As if being MORE dependent on natural gas would have worked out cheaper for us...
But wind with a guaranteed strike price of £44-73 per MWh is the problem, when gas peaker plants are routinely charging £750 per MWh? Enough nonsense. The sooner the fossil fuel merchants and their propaganda are made irrelevant, the better.
@@barryraymond9004 Would not 4 x name plate capacity cost a fortune. Would we not then be paying for all the wind farm operators to shut the turbines down when we don't need the power. (like we do now....£1.3 billion last year I believe)
@@stevevenus1 the trick is to find a use for that cheap power and store it for later.
If you have 4x the name plate capacity you only need a storage method that is 25% efficient.
That's in the realm of hydrogen, which can be stored and burnt in the gas power stations we already have.
In reality, you can use a lot of that energy straight away, if you have 4x the name plate capacity, you only need to start using that storage when wind drops below 25%.
So 4x is a worst case.
Offshore Wind should be the main energy source 125%, 25% onshore with 25% nuclear for base load when theres no windywoosflaggen (Or whatever the Germany word is) use 12.5% of gas turbines on standby for fast spin up in the event of a unplanned event, all our carbon energy should be exploited if its economical to do so, its ludicrous not to, most of climate change is the weather and the problems caused by incompetence!?!
Save your life 47 minutes- the answer in no
1:30 “being interviewed by the Economist magazine at Davos this week which is a sign they’re courting the populist vote” - is that a satirical joke?
Net zero or how to kill an economy 101
Net Zero only works if you tariff the crap out of imports that were produced in a non net zero economy. Otherwise you just outsource your industry and make no difference in net world carbon emissions.
@@barryraymond9004 What industry are we meant to be outsourcing? We're an advanced services economy. We have not for a while, and will not ever compete with manufacturing nations like China on heavy industry. We just need energy independence and cheaper electricity, which is what turbines, panels and batteries buy you. We'll keep exporting advanced goods and services, and importing manufactured consumer goods. That's our comparative advantage on the world stage. If you think the future is reopening British coal mines and steel foundries and trying to outcompete the US, China and central Europe, then I think we fundamentally disagree on the direction of travel.
@@MidnightSoulsIf there’s one thing that turbines, panels and batteries DON’T buy you, it’s cheaper electricity.
@@SisterAbdullahXThat's clearly why people buy them for their houses, to spend more money.
Seriously, what planet are you on?
@@robinjones5169 How many people buy turbines for their houses? And the capital costs of solar panels and batteries have to be taken into account. And what of the majority of the population who can’t afford panels or batteries? Are their electricity bills cheaper? Of course they aren’t, they’re considerably more expensive due to the government’s insane sprint towards weather dependent electricity generation which also relies on gas for backup.
We are currently at a mid temperature in the Holocene, neither the hottest nor the coldest. The activists always draw graphs relative to the beginning of the industrial era. If drawn relative to the other temperatures in the Holocene then you will see that there is nothing extraordinary. Also the higher temperature seem to give rise to greater civilisations, Minoan, Roman and Medieval. Finally, the greatest danger is the ice age which seems to be late.
Why can't they radically slash business tax and work on getting guarantees of foreign investment?
They can prioritize the TOP TIER industries only. Not Retailers, Hospitality and SMBs. This is an integrated transition would look like. Phase by phase, until the hardware's and grid infrastructure aee thoroughly tested to determine the operational risks smd cist of lifetime maintenance..
ChiCom EVs will not race anywhere due to looming stagflation
No government 'can save the economy' as such. The only way that a government, any government, can do that is go right away and let us, the economy, sort out their mess. Job one then. Shut down The Blob.
What is net zero?
Strategic economic suicide
Controlling and crushing the plebs.
No net co2 into the atmosphere. So theoretically you could carry on exactly as before, and pump the equivalent amount of co2 out of the atmosphere and store it, and you would be net zero.
Of course the plans for carbon capture havent really panned out.
And for some reason we've forgotten about trees@@benholroyd5221
"mitigates against" - what's that in English? Does he mean "militates against" or just "mitigates"?
Labour takes ore money from rich funders than the Unions.
Spend most of the budget of net zero nonsense into fusion development and small modular nuclear.
Net zero is not mutually exclusive with economic growth. If the private sector wants to bid for and invest in wind farms and solar panels, and the guaranteed strike price they are being offered is less than the average price charged by coal, gas fired and nuclear power stations - which it is, massively less, half or a third as much, then what's the issue? There is no subsidy if wholesale prices are high - the producers repay the difference to the government, the taxpayer wins. And when prices are low, the consumer wins, which is again, also the taxpayer.
These "costs" everyone seems so concerned about, what are they exactly? Our electricity prices are only so high because they are pegged to the marginal cost of gas peaker production, not because of private sector investment in renewables. Grid upgrade funding in the standing charge is a much smaller part of bills than the wholesale price of Natural Gas. And grid upgrades are always a good investment, regardless - as most infrastructure spending is.
And regarding EVs, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, long term, they are the much superior technology and they will eventually supplant ICE with or without mandates or subsidy. The car industry is struggling not because they were forced to transition, but because they delayed doing it for too long. Asian car manufacturers ate their lunch and have far more efficient supply chains by developing them over a decade sooner. The "costs" incurred in that regard are self-inflicted, not government imposed. If they weren't encouraged to transition at all, then we'd have no car industry whatsoever in 10 years time, because our market would be flooded with cheaper EVs than Europe can build ICE, with longer ranges and less maintenance and superior performance. There won't be enough bring-back-the-victorian-era boomers left to prop up ICE sales.
And to say China "isn't signed up to this agenda" is just absurd. They are transitioning faster than anyone, by some margin. They produce and deploy more renewables than the rest of the world combined, and EVs now make up over half of all car sales in China. If you want to tie yourself to last-generation tech while China and Asia powers into the future and leaves us behind, go join the American camp, but I know which horse is better to back in that race.
Good points.
re EVs though. I think there are some chicken and egg problems re charging. If you live in a terrace without off street parking, there needs to be a solution, before you can get a car.
Id like to see a system set up where people can get their own domestic rate based electricity from chargers, and actually make sure enough of these chargers are available.
A lot of that can be helped, by the government guaranteeing there will be a market, by setting minimum sales.
I think a lot of our net zero issues currently is that all these technologies are imported. we don't have any domestic turbine producers, we don't really have any fingers in the EV, solar, or battery pies. we are taking a moral lead, but everyone else is taking the manufacturing lead. So at this point, people can point to the supposed costs, because energy prices are high, but we cant point to all the jobs generated for this supposed cost.
Let the market decide, rather than the government legislate. The most cost effective technology will win. It could well be that there would be a mixture of technologies competing for many years.
You could not be more wrong. China is deploying green energy like it deploys empty apartments. They are not building to ROI but to socialist GDP numbers. They are STILL building coal at enormous rates because they know the new green crap is just for show and not reliable. Your assumptions will turn the UK into a 3rd world country. The UK GDP per capita is already lower today than it was in 2007. The UK is not wealthy enough to play around with green tech. The USA is now twice as wealthy as the UK. One of the poorest states in the USA is West Virginia and they have a higher GDP per capita than the UK now. Only a couple thousand pounds separates the UK from the poorest state of Mississippi.
@@danelias8658 the problem is co2 has various externalised costs, so to let the market decide, you would need a carbon tax. So then you would be making petrol, gas and coal massively more expensive today and cause a lot of short term damage. Or you could put in place a system where we introduce the full tax slowly, but as we have seen with the EV mandate, everyone leaves it to the last minute, so you have headlines of hardworking families freezing because of the tax, ignoring the fact that the government has given them, or their landlords 10 years notice.
And even then, industries often need help to get started, EVs are only now becoming price competitive, as solar and wind have for a few years. If they weren't in the range of being competitive, the market would have settled on coal, gas and petrol regardless of the carbon tax.
Finally, there's many moving pieces. Let's say I want a heat pump, that still relies on green energy if I want to avoid the tax. So even if you are forward looking, you could still be caught by the tax simply because the entire economy is based around fossil fuels.
@@danelias8658 The market is BS unless electricity is traded on a futures market with huge penalties for non-delivery. Let the producers solve the reliability problem instead of socializing the cost.
Get rid of the nett zero bullshit ..... WE CANNOT AFFORD IT
No.
plant food. wakedafuqup!!