Nuclear, wind and gas – the energy question

I read that the government is debating amongst itself how much additional commitment to make to new nuclear and new wind energy as it responds to the current energy crisis. As one of the few that has been advising successive governments over the last ten years of the pending energy shortage and the need for more national self sufficiency I am glad they are now actively discussing these matters. It is quite clear today we import too much and have too little spare margin to keep the lights on and the wheels of industry turning.

I have no objections to government making a substantial commitment to new nuclear . It could well make a good contribution to our needs in fifteen years time.Ā  It needs to do so understanding three crucial matters.

  1. Whatever it now does nuclear will represent a considerably smaller part of our electricity output in 2030 than today because all but one of the existing stationsĀ  are scheduled to close, with only one new plant coming on stream. Nuclear agreed in principle today will not be producing any power this decade.
  2. To bring off this nuclear growth the UK will need to rebuild our nuclear industry and secure good intellectual property under out control. We should not want to have the Chinese or others controlling the IP and capable of using it as leverage over us.
  3. The state will need to be involved in financing. A way would need to be foundĀ  to ensure some competitive discipline and genuine risk for the private sector partners to avoid the taxpayer ending up with plants that are much delayed and massively over budget bankrolled by the taxpayer.

I have no objections to the government encouraging more offshore wind farms. I would accept more onshore windfarms as long as landowners and Planning authorities had a veto over locations, and Ā could share in the revenues as compensation.Ā  The government needs to understand that whilst windfarms could be put in much more quickly than nuclear, they too will not solve our current energy shortage without tackling three problems they pose.

  1. On Monday wind energy supplied just 1% of our electricity. On Saturday writing this wind was only supplying 5% of our electricity. If you are going to rely on more wind there has to be breakthroughs in storage technology to allow you to harvest the wind power when it is not needed and supply it when the wind is not blowing.
  2. If you press ahead with more wind energy you need to understand that will still leave us short of total energy, as renewable electricity only accounts for around 5% of our total energy. Most energy is still needed as gas to heat our homes and fuel industry,Ā  and as petrol and diesel to fuel our trucks and cars. We cannot rely on more renewable electricity all the time most of our transport, heating and industrial energy is not electrified. It will take time for the electrical revolution to convert every home, factory andĀ  vehicle to allow electricity to take more of the strain away from directly used fossil fuels.
  3. If you encourage more renewable power you need to allow more back up power generation for the times when the wind does not blow. All of this entails more cost.

The governments energy policy needs to back more domestic oil and gas for the current decade, all the time people have gas boilers and petrol cars.

262 Comments

  1. Lifelogic
    April 3, 2022

    All good points but ones that will doubtless be ignored by this government as Boris seems to be guided by Theatre Studies Carrie and the alarmist carbon devil gas religion. Actually it is essential tree, crop, plant and seaweed food and the source of the oxygen we all breath.

    I would add that Electricity is only about 20% of human used energy anyway. So what about the other 80% needed for transport, heating, industry, chemical productionā€¦

    Wind turbines (when construction, installation, maintenance and back up for intermittency are fully considered save little CO2. Indeed they increase CO2 at least for the first ~ 10 years. Lots of energy intensive concrete is needed. Burning wood rather than coal at Drax is clearly insane on every measure.

    1. Peter
      April 3, 2022

      We definitely want control of any future nuclear plants. No repeat of Hinkley Point and taking chances on unproven technology.

      We definitely want full control of the financing of these investments. No further PFI projects paying a fortune to make the books look good.

      Energy is such a long term investment that chancer politicians think it can be neglected and the failure will be someone elseā€™s problem.

      1. Shirley M
        April 3, 2022

        +1 Peter – if the newspapers are correct, then EDF is going to have a big slice of our future nuclear plants. France! The energy blackmailer who hates the UK and Brexit and does everything in its power to make life difficult for the UK. Do our politicians never learn, or are they working on behalf of France and the EU, instead of the UK?

    2. oldtimer
      April 3, 2022

      Exactly. Johnson’s failure to promote the further development of UK natural gas resources makes him Gazprom’s, and therefore Putin’s, most useful idiot (to borrow Lenin’s phrase). Gazprom, of course, backed the anti-frackers (more useful idiots).

      1. Lifelogic
        April 3, 2022

        +1 though Boris used to claim to be a climate realist before Carrie!

        1. Donna
          April 3, 2022

          He also claimed to be a Conservative-Libertarian.

          And just spent 2 years proving that he’s a liar.

    3. glen cullen
      April 3, 2022

      100% agree – the proposed energy report misses the point about the immediate problem of energy prices going up 3 fold year on year……its always jam tomorrow
      And an energy that doesn’t include ‘fossil fuels’ is only a green energy policy

    4. Hope
      April 3, 2022

      What about huge hike in standing charges for energy. Is this another govt con? Is the rise to pay for bankruptcy of private companies? Why is the taxpayer on the hook? We had this with banks, they make profits we taxpayers pick up the losses.
      Please clarify JR.

      1. glen cullen
        April 3, 2022

        ā€˜ā€™standing chargeā€™ā€™ is theft and our own government is the culprit

      2. Dan R
        April 6, 2022

        Yes the bankrupt energy companies financial commitment to paying green Levy’s will now fall upon the remainder. It’s now another financial year for many gone bust.

    5. Ed M
      April 3, 2022

      I think we need to be careful about being too negative about Green Energy. Stuff like that.
      Small example. I had my bath re-enamelled, recently. The re-enameller told me not to use strong, chemical-based bath cleaners as this destroys the enamel. So my sister told me to use this thing called Ecover that’s made from vegetables and stuff (ec0-friendly or whatever word is). Anyway, I used it. And it’s great. Plus, I don’t inhale horrible toxins. Plus, I discovered this brand can be used for lots of other household goods. So I now use this product. I did some research on this company. It’s Belgian and it is now making a tonne of money, appealing to greenies but also to people like me who don’t want to ruin their bath. Plus the stuff really cleans well. And I can use it on my quartz top which requires careful cleaners.
      This is a small but important example, where British companies really need to jump onto the green bandwagon so that we cash in.
      Plus, look at cars now. The way they hard make any noise. Use up far less petrol than say back in the 70’s.
      I accept a lot of your arguments but at same time, I also think we need to be embracing green tech to a degree too as that’s what customers want (whether you agree or not) plus green tech can be effective.
      Lastly, green tech needs a chance. 100+ years ago, the Wright brothers managed to fly some kind of plane thing on the beach. Everyone was amazed. Who would have thought a few decades we’d be sending men to the moon, involving space shuttles, and creating stealth fighters that rocket along and can duck and dive and do all sorts of extraordinary things.
      We can have our cake and eat it. But it does require imagination, patience, courage, the spirit of adventure / entrepreneurship and inventiveness and the rest to produce this new, revolutionary tech so that we can have a strong economy – and a strong culture / civilisation which requires a strong economy – as well as a strong, healthy environment …

      Re-Enamelling

      1. Shirley M
        April 3, 2022

        Agreed Ed. I have been using natural cleaners for years now, and my ace is a non-toxic oven cleaner that is kind to skin AND lungs. Ovens are the worst job in my diary. However, I only use these environmental products because they do a good job, are easier and safer than traditional cleaners. If they only did half, or a quarter of the job, or took 10 times along to do the same job, then I wouldn’t bother.

        This is the basis of good improvements that have the support of the consumer, just as we have evolved in many technologies. When governments force you to use less good products at a much higher price then it can only lead to disappointment. These less good products usually require heavy subsidies on the less good products and high taxes on the ‘good’ products to discourage use of them. The tax and subsidise route is the road to ruin for everyone and cannot be maintained. This government seem intent on taking us backwards in many areas, particularly power. Candles anyone?

      2. John Hatfield
        April 3, 2022

        “But it does require imagination, patience, courage, the spirit of adventure / entrepreneurship and inventiveness and the rest to produce this new, revolutionary tech ”
        Not sure that anyone in the current goverment possesses any of those qualifications.

      3. Peter2
        April 3, 2022

        Great post Ed M

      4. turboterrier
        April 3, 2022

        Ed M
        But it does require imagination, patience and courage……

        Pity we have not got a government and especially leader that recognises that.
        Sadly lacking on all points.

    6. Lifelogic
      April 3, 2022

      David Davis says were the Conservatives to become known as the party of high taxes, the damage to their economic reputation would be as deep and lasting as that inflicted on John Majorā€™s government by the disaster of Black Wednesday in September 1992.

      Rather worse than this alas they clearly are already the party of very high taxes, high NI, blatant manifesto ratting on pensions and tax, the vastly expensive & net damaging extended lockdowns plus lunacy of the expensive, net zero, unreliable energy religion on top of all this. Political suicide Boris!

      More like the ERM fiasco and the poll tax times by about 10.

      1. Dan R
        April 6, 2022

        Another political suicide announcement today. Gone at the next election I dare say. It would be quite easy for another new political party to make gains by just pointing out the ludicrous policies and high taxes of the past years of conservative rule. People will say they had long enough to make a difference, and they have, a destructive difference. I voted brexit for a political shake up and we’re not finished with that shake up.

    7. Ed M
      April 3, 2022

      Also, I came across quite a few greeny skeptics who used to go on a lot about the problems of batteries in electric cars. Well, last year, scientists invented a new type of electric vehicle battery that is reported to be cheap, recharges in 10 minutes and will make any car ‘drive like a Porsche.’
      Whether this is an exaggeration or not, I don’t know. But if there is some truth in this, then this is remarkable progress in electric cars. And imagine what this battery will be like in 5 or 10 years time?
      So for the sake of the environment, but just as importantly, for the sake of the economy, and the amount of money to be made out of green technology, we in this country need to be focusing on how best to benefit from this revolution in green tech and not get left behind, whilst steering a sensible course between the leftie greenies and the more right-wing, gas-guzzling dinosaurs.

      1. Lifelogic
        April 3, 2022

        The problem is range (battery capacity), weight, cost of the battery and the slow recharge times. Yes they can be quick – but alas not for very many miles.

        1. Ed M
          April 4, 2022

          Yeah, OK, but the car batteries innovation was still pretty good. And an example of what can be done with car batteries. I’m sure if man could send man to the moon in 1969, we should be able to improve on the car batteries even more before long.

          Also, not an expert on Elon Musk, but I do sure admire his CAN-DO attitude. That can-do attitude is vital in innovation and achieving innovations that seemed near impossible one or two or five years ago.

    8. DavidJ
      April 5, 2022

      +1

  2. Lifelogic
    April 3, 2022

    The only real solutions are gas, coal & oil short to medium term, better nuclear, nuclear fusion and synthetic fuels and fuel cells longer term. The intermittent renewables are largely irrelevant (as is hydrogen outside a few specialist areas).

    Solar photovoltaic and wind power still only supply rather less than 2% of total human energy and do so only intermittently too. Time for government to grow up.

    One energy question is why do we have History graduates in charge of it like Kwasi, Gummer, Handsā€¦ rather than engineers, scientists, physicistsā€¦ if we must have history graduates can we have sensible, rational & numerate ones like JR please.

    1. Mark B
      April 3, 2022

      Wind and solar should only be used locally / individually. It can then be stored or used to offset demand when needed. eg If I install solar panels on my roof I could use it to charge an EV or Hybrid car.

      1. Lifelogic
        April 3, 2022

        Except it cannot really be stored cost effectively. Storing it wastes at least 25% of the electricity and the batteries cost far too much and do not last long. Often the cost of the battery exceeds the value of the electricity stored. Plus the battery is mined and manufactured using loads of fossil fuels and they need recycling after a few years too – again using fossil fuels.

        1. Lifelogic
          April 4, 2022

          Car batteries also have to be light and have other significant design constraints so they are even more expensive than heavier stationary batteries. Anyway people do not want their car battery to be flat when you need it.

    2. Richard1
      April 3, 2022

      Sir John is a history graduate I believe, and shows excellent understanding of all these issues. By contrast there are plenty of science graduates who talk arrant nonsense.

      Reply I last studied history when I was 21. Since then I have studied economics including energy and transport and qualified as an investment adviser -FCSI.

      1. Lifelogic
        April 3, 2022

        I agree some history graduates talk sense and some science graduates (often Biologists) talk nonsense David Attenborough springs to mind. But in general they are rather different types of people who choose to study maths & physics alas not all Feynman types. Only someone who does not understand the basics could think that for example new EV cars, walking, public transport wind or solar saves any (or any significant) CO2 or that we can run the country (and afford to eat) sensibly on intermittent solar, wind, hydro and tidal, bio fuelsā€¦

        1. DavidJ
          April 5, 2022

          +1 especially in regard to Attenborough.

      2. Lifelogic
        April 3, 2022

        Yes but a fairly logical, rational and numerate one. Unlike Kwasi, Hands, Gummerā€¦

        Nigel Lawson read PPE Oxon yet still talks sense despite this. Though I think he was initially going to read maths or similar.

        1. Mike Wilson
          April 3, 2022

          Iā€™m not saying you are wrong about energy, but sometimes it sounds as though anyone who agrees with you is ā€˜rightā€™ and ā€˜ā€™soundā€™ and everyone who doesnā€™t is a PPE half-wit. I am of the view that renewable energy is, by definition, desirable and that burning fossil fuels is undesirable (because it is a filthy, polluting practice). I have read that enough solar energy hits the earth every hour to power all human energy needs for a year. Surely, for a scientist such as yourself, that is the challenge.

          I wonder what the effect would be if every house in the country had 3kw of solar panels on the roof. If they produced 1kw of energy for 8 hrs a day that would be something like 20 million (houses) x 1 kw x 8 hrs or 160 million kw/hrs per day. As I have no idea how much electricity we use, would that be a significant contribution?

          I think there must be lots that can be done – even if it costs money – if you arenā€™t stuck on believing it is fossil fuels or nothing.

          Where can one find information to back your statements about the true carbon cost of wind turbines, EV cars etc.?

          1. Original Richard
            April 3, 2022

            Mike Wilson :

            According to Money Saving Expert it would take someone living in the middle of the country anywhere between 9 to 11 years to recoup the costs of installing solar panels for a typical home – depending on how much electricity you use and when you use it, and what you’re paid under the smart export guarantee.

            Also, not all homes are suitable for solar panels – it depends on roof size, type, orientation, strength, shading etc. etc.

            20 million house fitted with solar panels would be a great order for the Chinese running into hundreds of Ā£billions and BTW the energy costs to produce solar panels are very high owing to the high temperatures needed for the glass etc.. And Chinaā€™s power is mainly from coal-fired power plantsā€¦.

            And what do you do at night?

            So either you buy expensive batteries from the Chinese again with again high energy costs to produce the batteries ā€“ or you use the National Grid.

            The Government have already planned for this scenario in their Net Zero Strategy and decided that at some point in the future anyone who exports electricity to the Grid from their solar panels will be charged higher electricity prices for using Grid electricity to cover the fixed costs of running the Grid. This is already in place in California.

          2. alan jutson
            April 3, 2022

            Mike, I do not think anyone wants to deliberately poison the earth or indeed the air, if sensible alternatives are available, which are reliable and cost effective for all of us.
            The big problem is the time scale that the Government is putting on it all, and the way the so called solution is being calculated.
            Has anyone worked out the amount of greenhouse gas, and financial cost of simply manufacturing a windmill, then maintaining it offshore, it’s life expectancy, and then it’s eventual de-commisioning or replacement costs, likewise with solar panels.
            Seems to me we are only hearing one side of the argument, and that is the so called emissions whilst running, and the costs (with a huge subsidy)
            I see expired life windmill blades are being now used in landfill, because re-cycling is at the moment not a viable proposition.
            Yes work is under way to see if they can be shredded, but that is still in the early stages of development.
            I am all for moving forward and protecting the environment, but let us not run before we can walk, and cripple ourselves financially at the same time.
            Is a high roof the best place to put a solar panel when it may need some maintenance, or the glass surface needs to be cleaned regularly for it to work at its highest efficiency !

          3. turboterrier
            April 3, 2022

            Mike Wilson
            It is alright getting the power produced it is getting the infrastructure to be designed to manage it. As it is it is virtually incapable of absorbing all these small inputs and balance the system. Yet another example of how despite all the warnings and concerns voiced all those years ago the industry started urinating before it had its flies open by conning the government to heavily subsidise turbines.

          4. Lifelogic
            April 3, 2022

            If you have Ā£3kW of solar on you roof this is the max power you get on a clear day around midday in summer. Over the year, day and night, cloudy days etc. you might get an average as low as ~ 20% of this.

          5. Lifelogic
            April 3, 2022

            Nigel Lawson read PPE and is sound on this topic. The exception that makes the rule perhaps.

          6. Mark
            April 3, 2022

            I can recommend you consult former Government Chief Scientist David MacKay’s SEWTHA, easily available online, which goes into the maximum potential of various types of renewables and how much space they would occupy, and looking at some of the problems that arise from trying to use them at scale. Bear in mind that in the final interview he gave before his untimely death he described renewables as a distraction for the UK.

        2. Atlas
          April 3, 2022

          Agreed. I do wonder what Mrs Thatcher would have made of the present man-made Climate Change Science. Remember she had a Chemistry degree. Also I note that Graham Stringer, MP, who also has a Chemistry degree, has his doubts about the Science as well. If the the Climate Change Science has been over egged (for political reasons?) then the urgency for Net Zero is removed and we could proceed at a more measured pace and get solutions that could be proved to work in the real world.

        3. miami.mode
          April 3, 2022

          LL, you waffle on about Nigel Lawson but he was the Chancellor who shadowed the Deutsche Mark for more than a year as an alternative to joining the ERM and resigned when ‘Matters came to a head in a clash between Lawson and Thatcher’s economic adviser Alan Walters, when Walters claimed that the Exchange Rate Mechanism was “half baked”‘. That would suggest that he was enamoured with the ERM. Perhaps he should have stuck with his study of maths.

          1. Lifelogic
            April 4, 2022

            Lawson was certainly wrong on that, Thatcher should have listened to the sensible Alan Walters on that issue and certainly never have appointed John Major as Chancellor.

      3. Richard1
        April 3, 2022

        An excellent mix

    3. Original Richard
      April 3, 2022

      Lifelogic : ā€œOne energy question is why do we have History graduates in charge of it like Kwasi, Gummer, Handsā€¦ rather than engineers, scientists, physicistsā€¦ ā€œ

      More worrying still are the qualifications and experience of those who head BEIS and gave evidence to the HoC Public Accounts Committee on 25/10/2021 on the subject ā€œAchieving Net Zero : Follow Upā€

      One studied PPE at Oxford followed by Economics at the LSE.

      A second did Modern Languages at Cambridge

      And the third was drafted in from the Department of Health and Social Care.

      Now, for me the Transition to net zero CO2 is essentially an engineering problem once the political decision has been taken to implement it.

      So I find it amazing that not one of these people has a qualification in physics or engineering.

      1. turboterrier
        April 3, 2022

        Original Richard
        Find it amazing not one of these people has a qualification……….

        Richard its a case of situation normal

    4. Mickey Taking
      April 3, 2022

      ‘ if we must have history graduates can we have sensible, rational & numerate ones like JR please.’

      There you have it – – politicians not people from business, science, numeracy.

    5. Hope
      April 3, 2022

      What about coal? I think people would prefer it to being cold or be penniless!

      1. MFD
        April 3, 2022

        Well said! Hope

    6. Ed M
      April 3, 2022

      Now, I don’t give a monkeys about the politics behind this. All I care about is our long-term economy (I don’t want our economy / civilisation turning into something like in the film Mad Max) and long-term environment (I don’t want people walking around with two heads or shrunken genitals or whatever in 30 years time because we were too lazy to come up with alternative solutions – especially as human beings are pretty incredible at coming up with solutions for serious problems).
      I believe we can have our cake and eat it. Bu that it requires hard work, imagination, courage etc to get there.

    7. Ed M
      April 4, 2022

      ‘Solar photovoltaic and wind power still only supply rather less than 2% of total human energy’ – that’s not a good example / argument as that includes countries such as Eritrea, Laos and Congo. But if you look at countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Germany, then things are really very different.

    8. Ed M
      April 4, 2022

      Also, let’s please look at this subject OBJECTIVELY which you’re not. Forget the greenies, politics and short-term economic gain. Instead let’s look at more medium to long-term economic gain and economic stability – and all the other benefits of this.
      And if people are over-invested in shares with fossil fuels, then they’re probably already rich enough at it is – they need to get out a bit more, go travelling, feel the warm sun on the skin, drink a cold beer, have great s-x with their wife, enjoy some great art, smoke a cigar, listen to Mozartn, whatever, life’s too short to be wedded to fossil fuels (the same goes for the hysteria of greenies).

  3. Sea_Warrior
    April 3, 2022

    ‘The state will need to be involved in financing.’ Then perhaps the state should take a look at the workings of NS&I’s Green Energy Bonds, which pay a paltry interest rate and probably invest in the kind of projects that have propelled the country into this energy crisis. There’s a ton of private capital wanting to be put to work.
    P.S. I see that China has secured that Welsh ‘chip’ factory. And that CNOC has investments in North Sea oil & gas. And that its paws are all over a massive cyber-attack on Ukraine just prior to Russia’s invasion. All I need right now to send my blood-pressure off the scale is for some former chancellor or PM to refer to China as a ‘strategic partner’.

    1. Iain Moore
      April 3, 2022

      The people ruling us have no concept of national interest, they probably think it racist , that is why they allow our assets and infrastructure to be flogged off to China, not our outright enemy , yet, certainly not our friends.

      1. turboterrier
        April 3, 2022

        Iain Moore

        +1

    2. Mickey Taking
      April 3, 2022

      China has always been a strategic threat, not partner. I’m baffled as to why for years people cannot see it.

  4. Ian Wragg
    April 3, 2022

    Wind, wind wind, that’s all the government can think of. 100% backup required at all times requiring fossil fuel.
    The road to insanity.

    1. Mark B
      April 3, 2022

      Ian

      Yes, but it is a nice little earner for those who in the know šŸ˜‰

      1. DOM
        April 3, 2022

        Yes, wind does indeed represent the ultimate and costly expression of green virtue signalling. The idea that the taxpayer is being abused for party political gain is so OFFENSIVE that I find I can barely contain myself

        Thatcher understood one thing, that the State is capable of great evil, She wasn’t wrong. I saw her last night on TV following the Falklands War victory and felt sad to see our nation’s last great leader ‘doing her stuff’…

        We live in a shithole deliberately constructed by bastards for political gain and and an evil ideology

        1. Lifelogic
          April 3, 2022

          The so called ā€œrenewablesā€ agenda is clearly driven by vested interests/corruption and it is mainly ā€œgovernment grantā€ farming & not wind or solar farming.

          1. John Hatfield
            April 3, 2022

            Exactly right LL.

      2. Sharon
        April 3, 2022

        Mark B

        It is indeed a good little earner for those producing these productsā€¦ mostly the Chinese.

        I read an article that offshore wind farms are affecting the tides and sea currents. There are always consequences to things, the solar panel farms are killing off wildlife under them and using up food growing fields.

        But hey, Ho – the green topic is something that affects us all and is being used well to empower those that want a one world government. Itā€™s a good way of drawing us all in. Global this, global that organisation, for a good cause – to save the planet! [sarc]

        And the Epoch Times had an article the other day, WHO want to keep charge of all aspects of world health and are drawing up a treaty to ensure it happensā€¦permanently!

        1. Mickey Taking
          April 3, 2022

          Sharon – was that on 1st April?

          1. Mickey Taking
            April 3, 2022

            ‘offshore wind farms are affecting the tides and sea currents.’
            I missed the paste.

          2. Sharon
            April 3, 2022

            No it wasnā€™t the 1st April!

          3. hefner
            April 3, 2022

            Sharon, May we have the reference of that article, not that I do not believe you but I find strange that tides could be modified by even hundred offshore turbines.

    2. ukretired123
      April 3, 2022

      Agreed all wind and net-zero generation no storage but massive costs plus the consequential missed opportunity costs
      Seems the Cost v Benefit accountability rulebook went out of the window after New Labour tore it up and we now follow this new false Green Goddess.

      1. ukretired123
        April 3, 2022

        “If you press ahead with more wind energy you need to understand that will still leave us short of total energy” – they refuse to see this but we are experiencing their insanity.

    3. MFD
      April 3, 2022

      What do you expect Ian, when you have a windbag like our PM pushing a false narrative of Global Warming.
      The other problem is most people in general cannot think in the round, considering ALL sides of the problem. That needs a technical background not inky fingers of a journalist.

    4. Fedupsoutherner
      April 3, 2022

      Ian. Yes madness but all the time we have the likes of the boss of Octopus energy pushing wind we have no chance. He said he’s had thousands of people wanting a wind farm near them because according to new proposals if people live within sight of the turning blades they will get half price energy when it’s windy. What about those unfortunate enough to live close enough to listen to the damn things? Have people thought about the reduction of the value of their homes? All bonkers and it will do nothing to stop our dependency on gas so why not frack and supply our own?

      1. SM
        April 3, 2022

        +10

      2. Lifelogic
        April 3, 2022

        Grant farming not ā€œwind farmingā€ and a rigged energy market. Vested interests and perhaps even blatant corruption seems to be the only realistic explanation to me. They surely cannot be that stupid otherwise?

        1. Original Richard
          April 3, 2022

          Lifelogic :Grant Farming :

          The green industry use the word “clarity” to mean “subsidy” as in “All we’re asking from the Government is clarity”.

          1. Lifelogic
            April 3, 2022

            +1

      3. turboterrier
        April 3, 2022

        F U S
        It always amazes me that these committed environmentalists totally ignore the impact on wildlife effects on water tables, sea beds and the eco infrastructure.

    5. Ian Wragg
      April 3, 2022

      Rather puzzling that a for over a week now we have been exporting between 1 and 2 gigawatts to France.
      Surely if we wanted to conserve gas we should be keeping the interconnector at zero or Importing.
      Or is it a case that the interconnector is owned by EDF and we are subsidising the French consumers.

      1. hefner
        April 3, 2022

        All four (five?) interconnectors appear to be owned by Fluxys Group (76%) and/or SNAM(24%). Fluxys is a multinational company with a large number of subsidiaries (see fluxys.com ā€˜Fluxys companiesā€™) whose HQs are in Belgium. SNAM is an Italian company.
        I have not found anything showing the French being involved in the interconnecting (infrastructure) business.

        1. Mark
          April 3, 2022

          Interconnexion France-Angleterre (IFA) is a joint venture between the French Transmission Operator RTE and National Grid – IFA1 is 2GW, currently only 1GW available following the fire at Sellindge
          IFA2 has the same ownership, and 1GW capacity.
          BritNed Development Ltd, a joint venture of National Grid and TenneT subsidiary NLink International has 1GW capacity
          Nemo Link interconnector is a joint venture between National Grid Interconnector Holdings Limited, a subsidiary company of the UKā€™s National Grid Plc, and the Belgian Elia group and has 1GW capacity
          ElecLink is now 100% owned by Eurotunnel and has been testing its 1GW capacity
          North Sea Link (NSL), a joint venture between National Grid and Norwegian system operator Statnett has 1.4GW of capacity – only half is currently available due to converter problems.
          The Moyle interconnector (500MW, limited to 350MW of export to GB by SONI currently) is owned by Mutualenergy – a mutual, with no shareholders. Members are appointed to represent the energy consumers of Northern Ireland and fulfil many of the roles of shareholders in other companies.
          The East-West Interconnector is 500MW, currently shut for maintenance until sometime in May and owned by EirGrid.

  5. Shirley M
    April 3, 2022

    Regardless of cost, wind will never be reliable enough to be truly considered a viable alternative.

    It has been made more expensive than necessary, and no doubt the same will apply to all ‘green’ alternatives. Virtue signalling does not come cheap. You have to ‘buy’ loyalty for such unworthy ideas and make it worthwhile for the investors, which will be very costly for the ‘alternatives’ currently available, as none of them produce power on demand.

    Maybe nuclear will be the exception, but it will never be cheap, and involving the Chinese and the French in our nuclear program does NOT fill me with confidence! Relying on unproven technology (and potentially hostile ‘partners’) is not a risk worth taking!

    1. Iain Moore
      April 3, 2022

      Windy Miller in Trumpton knew the wind didn’t always blow , a concept beyond the ability of our Government to comprehend , who are probably completely flummoxed as to why millers gave up using windmills to grind the grain.

      1. MFD
        April 3, 2022

        +1 well said Iain

      2. Shirley M
        April 3, 2022

        +1 Iain. I have been saying for a while now, that there is very good reason why windmills were consigned to history!

    2. Original Richard
      April 3, 2022

      Shirley M : “Maybe nuclear will be the exception, but it will never be cheap, and involving the Chinese and the French in our nuclear program does NOT fill me with confidence! Relying on unproven technology (and potentially hostile ā€˜partnersā€™) is not a risk worth taking!”

      Agreed, a big security risk to involve the French and particularly the Chinese.

      Sir Dieter Helm, professor of Energy Policy the University of Oxford, told the BBC 04/06/2018 :

      “The sheer cost of building new nuclear power stations means it makes sense for the government to help finance projects like this,” he said.

      Governments can borrow much more cheaply that private companies and that lower cost of borrowing can drastically reduce the ultimate cost. Hinkley Point C would have been roughly half the cost if the government had been borrowing the money to build it at 2%, rather than EDF’s cost of capital, which was 9%.”

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44363366

      Weā€™re governed by idiots.

      1. Mark
        April 3, 2022

        So far as financing is concerned I’d bet that pension funds would have salivated at the terms offered to the Chinese. Historically a large chunk of utility finance was via government guaranteed bonds. There is no reason not to go back to that, with the benefit of keeping the funding recirculating in the British economy.

        We should of course be aiming to develop initial nuclear investment on the basis of proven technology that can therefore be fast tracked for technical approval, and where the construction risks and timelines are greatly mitigated by previous experience: with determination, we could be seeing the first plants operational before 2030 if we sideline the obstructive ONR bureaucracy which was set up to try to prevent nuclear development. There are several candidates including Japan, Korea and Canada with good designs. SMRs are for the future, and may offer a number of useful attributes, such as using different fuel, including an ability to burn up current “waste”, and more flexible operation. It’s worth pushing the research to get these right, and keeping an eye on developments elsewhere.

  6. Lily
    April 3, 2022

    We are an island surrounded by incessant and reliable waves. Why is the government not investing in wave energy?

    1. Nottingham Lad Himself
      April 3, 2022

      Cost versus benefit.

      The systems have to be capable of withstanding storm conditions, which makes them expensive and energy-intensive to build and to maintain.

      The output, like wind and solar, is also variable.

      1. Lifelogic
        April 3, 2022

        Wave power is driven by wind and so suffers the same issues as wind it is not at all reliable.

        Tidal is at least predictable but not ā€œon demandā€ as you have to use the energy between each tide movement or it is wasted and far less power from neap tides than spring ones. Not really used much as capital, maint. and running costs just too high for the energy you get back.

        1. Nottingham Lad Himself
          April 3, 2022

          Well paraphrased, LL.

    2. Bob Dixon
      April 3, 2022

      The sea shore supplies the answer to your question.Tides and storms alter the shores and cliffs and any turbines to harness the power of storms and tides would soon be destroyed.

    3. Fedupsoutherner
      April 3, 2022

      Lily. Two big projects were funded in Scotland to test wave power. Both schemes failed at a cost of millions. I always remember Alex Salmond saying ‘Scotland will be the Saudi Arabia of wind and the wind is free’. Yeah of course it is you idiot.

      1. glen cullen
        April 3, 2022

        +1

      2. Nottingham Lad Himself
        April 3, 2022

        And the Tories told us that nuclear electricity would be so cheap that there would be no point in metering it.

        1. Peter2
          April 3, 2022

          Greens often say that wind and solar create “free” electricity.
          It’s the same claim as the nuclear one you stated
          As long as you ignore capital costs.

          1. glen cullen
            April 3, 2022

            And they say costs donā€™t matter when saving the planet

        2. Mickey Taking
          April 3, 2022

          and then no point in building them….

        3. Original Richard
          April 3, 2022

          NLH :

          It was the Atomic Energy Commission chairman who in 1954 predicted that within 15 years nuclear power would make electricity ā€œtoo cheap to meter.ā€

          He was referring to ZETA – Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly – a first attempt at nuclear fusion, which of course failed.

          The current Government’s Energy White Paper of December 2020 states :

          “We aim to build a commercially viable fusion power plant by 2040.”

          If they really think this is feasible then building all these windmills to decarbonise by 2035 will be a complete waste of money and very expensive to remove.

      3. Mickey Taking
        April 3, 2022

        first Alex, then Nicola …..what is about the Scots who pick losers?

      4. Lifelogic
        April 3, 2022

        Kwasi used to witter on about ā€œthe Saudi Arabia of windā€ too even a Spectator podcast with that name and with him on it – talking mainly drivel, and Kwasi is depressingly rather brighter than most MPs I suspect.

    4. glen cullen
      April 3, 2022

      Why isn’t our government investing in fossil fuels

      1. Mark
        April 3, 2022

        Or at least encouraging our financiers and oil and gas and mining companies to invest in them. Best to leave it to those who know something about it, which the government does not. Its policy of refusing to finance fossil fuel projects and of planting Mark Carney to tell banks not to do so has come back to bite it in short order, and needs to be reversed. Getting regulators to stop being obstructive would also be a good idea. Best signalled by appointing a new broom to head the OGA: preferably an industry man, not a politician.

        1. glen cullen
          April 4, 2022

          Correct – I meant ‘encouraging’ investment in fossil fuels

  7. Stred
    April 3, 2022

    Perhaps, after all this time, the green activists in the government could read the analysis and suggestions in the acclaimed Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air by the late Prof MacKey and listen to his opinion given before he passed away. This was that despite his admiration of the wind turbines, we should build nuclear and run them all the time, just as the French have for the last 60 years. Also that there is no economic way to store electrical energy in the UK. We don’t have enough mountains, unlike Norway.

    In order to buy new nuclear stations sufficient to power the pie in the sky total electrical UK, we will need to build about 10 Hinkley sized large stations and many more SMRs. We have 15 possible existing sites and ten could be offered to tender using the much cheaper and practical designs already being built around the world in 7 years average. We could finance them and take part ownership as the Finns have done. We do not need to redesign from scratch or keep choosing EPRs,which are the only failed type which have caused enormous problems in France, Finland and China.

    1. BeebTax
      April 3, 2022

      Good points. Iā€™d add that to save years of planning wrangles, the local ā€œcommunitiesā€ in places where these are getting built should be bought off (in part) by money transfers direct into the pockets of the inhabitants (e.g. equivalent Ā£ to the Council Tax Bill in eternity, etc) rather than being given shiny new community centres and things most of them donā€™t want or need.

      Reply Of course.

    2. Leslie Singleton
      April 3, 2022

      Dear Stred–What happened to using essentially the same small reactors as those that power submarines and just buy them off the shelf from Rolls Royce? Changing gear, how many people know that Thorium reactors have a lot going for them but were vetoed by the military because Thorium cannot be made in to a nuclear weapon?

      1. Mark
        April 3, 2022

        Submarine reactors are very small by the standards of grid electricity: the RR SMR is about 9 sub reactors’ worth in its present design. They are designed against performance criteria, with cost being secondary. Scaling them up to reduce cost and be more economic requires a bit more work – so although some of the basic concepts of design can be used, the detail must be properly worked out to have a safe design that does the job.

        The problems with thorium go a bit deeper – again more research is needed to make a cost effective safe system. There is a very full write-up at the World Nuclear Association here:

        https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx

    3. Fedupsoutherner
      April 3, 2022

      Far too sensible Stred. They’d rather go for the easy option and yet more failure.

  8. Richard1
    April 3, 2022

    Excellent post – point 2) in the second issues list (renewables = only 5% of total U.K. energy consumption) is especially important, and itā€™s very rare to hear a U.K. politician point it out. I often wonder whether ministers are even aware of it. Certainly most environmental zealots are not.

    1. Lifelogic
      April 3, 2022

      And that 5% includes idiotically burning ā€œyoung coalā€ (wood) at Drax and hydro (which has very little scope for any expansion as very few new good sites now available to dam.

      Far less than 5% worldwide.

      1. Richard1
        April 3, 2022

        Yes 1-2% worldwide I believe

    2. glen cullen
      April 3, 2022

      I often wonder whether ministers are even aware of why we’re going net-zero and following a green revolution…..are they just scared of opposing the climate crusaders

  9. Lifelogic
    April 3, 2022

    Nadhim Zahawi on Choppers Politics at least seems to know what a woman is. But asked ā€œare you a tax cutting chancellorā€ he replied ā€œyes and so are the PM and Chancellorā€ as his nose tripled in length, obviously deluded or dishonest. Like most education secretaries and politicians he also said or actually thinks academic talent is the same in all areas across the country. Clearly it is not as can easily be proved.

    We know such ability it is highly heritable, rather different profiles of people live in South Kensington as do in Knowsley (on average that is of course).

    He also says 1/3 of school leavers do so with unsatisfactory Maths and English. Since we have nearly 50% going on to university how many of these then go on to do three years at university and acquire Ā£50k of student debt plus interest? Then again Zahawi himself and JCVI did not correctly do the basic maths on vaccine priories in the vaccine roll out between men and women.

  10. Mark B
    April 3, 2022

    Good morning.

    So finally they have noticed that the lights are going to go out if something is not done pretty soon. Sorry, but that boat has sailed !

    Successive governments planned on using other countries (French) generating capacity and rationing through high prices and Smart Meters to offset spending on expensive and politically sensitive projects. This reminds me of the old saying:

    ā€When you fail to plan, you end up planning to failā€

    Your government and party are, quite rightly, going to get the blame for all this. This and on top of much else is why I think you are going to suffer greatly at the polls and, I believe that is why you have been writing to your constituents as you do not want to be a victim of the Tsunami that is heading your way.

    1. IanT
      April 3, 2022

      Sir John has been steadfast in his views over many years and it is a great pity that his party (and it’s leadership) has diverged from these beliefs since Thatcher. The opposition in Wokingham is the Lib Dems, so whatever I might feel about Boris and his crew, I’d rather vote for Sir John than an even bigger bunch of eco idiots. We shouldn’t be where we are but successive governments have led us here. I don’t hold out much hope for improvement but perhaps when people get angry or desperate enough, we will get some practical solutions. But I’m not holding my breath… We have to save the world you know, even if that means everyone going back to living in caves.

      1. Julian Flood
        April 3, 2022

        IanT, when the lights flicker the government will tremble. When the lights go out the government will fall, and will deserve to do so.

        JF

        1. Mickey Taking
          April 3, 2022

          I think it is evident the Government is in the dark already, without a power cut.

      2. Original Richard
        April 3, 2022

        IanT : ā€œThe opposition in Wokingham is the Lib Dems, so whatever I might feel about Boris and his crew, Iā€™d rather vote for Sir John than an even bigger bunch of eco idiots.ā€

        Correct.

        The one redeeming feature of the Conservatives is that they are prepared to ditch their leaders and dramatically change policies in order to win elections.

        So there is a chance that when the lights start to go out their policies will change.

        Whilst the Lib Dems believe in the green religion so strongly that, like communists, they believe that the ends justifies the means and will pursue the Net Zero Strategy to its bitter conclusion ā€“ high and volatile electricity prices with rolling blackouts.

  11. Richard1
    April 3, 2022

    It is reported that ā€˜senior government figuresā€™ (civil servants or ministers?) are letting it be known that fracking was banned because it causes earthquakes. For no good reason the maximum tremors allowed for fracking are much lower than those for other sectors such as mining, and a fraction of the level which has proven to be perfectly safe in the USA. I bet a good number of these people donā€™t know how the Richter scale works, or understand what a base 10 logarithmic scale means.

    1. Shirley M
      April 3, 2022

      +1 An opencast mine operated next door (literally next door) to our property for a few years. There was nothing between us and the opencast other than a mound of soil classed as a sound and buffer zone. The blasting caused the properties nearby to shake so badly that items fell off shelves. We didn’t receive cheap coal, or anything else for that matter. Maybe somebody did, but not the residents whose homes and lives were affected although there was minimal ‘compensation’ for damage caused to properties. Why was that ok for us, and not for those near fracking sites? Why do those near fracking sites have to be ‘paid’ to allow something that helps the whole country? The usual double standards, as in maybe we didn’t have anyone important, or with influence, living nearby? Or maybe those with influence were ‘bought off’ with taxpayers money?

      1. Fedupsoutherner
        April 3, 2022

        Shirley. Indeed why? Few people in Scotland whose properties have been affected by turbines and noise have been compensated. It has taken years and alot of money and time to get anything having to fight well financed lawyers working in the wind industry. The local environmental officers in the council don’t have a clue how to proceed and are out of their depth. I know first hand how some have suffered and how years later they are still fighting to have the upheaval in their lives compensated.

      2. hefner
        April 3, 2022

        Was it the opencast mine on the Blagdon Estate in Northumberland?

        1. Shirley M
          April 4, 2022

          No hefner, the site was West Yorkshire. A previous mining area left to rot after the pits closed. No wonder the Conservatives lost the northern vote. They destroyed many communities in the North, and did nothing to help them recover. Nothing at all, and now the Conservatives do it again, except this time they are making the whole country poorer!

          1. Mickey Taking
            April 4, 2022

            so that endless supply of readily available quality coal lies waiting to be dug up?
            Really?

      3. Mark B
        April 3, 2022

        I would imagine that those site deemed suitable for Fracking are either Conservatives seats and / or key marginals.

        As always, money and politics go hand in hand.

  12. Nigl
    April 3, 2022

    Yes. Suffering from the governments failure over umpteen years. We are now seeing the desperate spinning of nuclear, power stations vast cost maybe available in 30 years time, mini nuclear, technology nowhere near, more wind farms, what difference will that make when as you say, the wind isnā€™t blowing, because they know they are in trouble.

    For fracks sake, get fracking.

    1. Julian Flood
      April 3, 2022

      Nigl, a well thought out plan to use fracked onshore gas while building a first tranche of SMRs has a chance of being acceptable to all but the most rabid of green hysterics. Then, when the wheels fall off the renewable energy bus, we will be in a strong position to keep our society solvent. Unyielding opposition to everything these STEM-illiterates believe in is needed but how to keep them quiet while the real solution to the (actual) energy crisis is built?

      “The only way we can persuade people that Net Zero is achievable is by offering them a transition which will lead them unwittingly to our goal. It will be a great sacrifice but if we allow onshore fracking then we can extend the gas grid and ban oil-fired central heating. Then we can ban oil and diesel engines in cars, boats, trains, HGVs and buses: although fracked gas is a fossil fuel it is made up of four atoms of hydrogen to one carbon so is more than halfway to the hydrogen economy. By 2035 we will be well on the way to Net Zero, and eliminating the last vestiges of the fossil fuel economy will be easy. Patience, Bristers, the future is Green!!!!”

      Sorry, getting carried away.

      A sensible road to Net Zero is possible without trashing our future even if the climate crisis is deferred for a few decades or centuries. And AGW it turns out to be based on better science than is normally exhibited by those proposing extreme measures, we will be ready.

      It’s called politics.

      JF

      1. MFD
        April 3, 2022

        Flood, I am glad Iā€™ve had my life and will probably be dead before the the green loons destroy life on earth. There is nothing sensible in so-called net zero.

  13. Donna
    April 3, 2022

    The current Energy crisis is the result of 15 years head-in-the-sand “Green” Idiocy from the Governing Class.

    It is based on faulty climate modelling; corrupted “science;” “elite” group-think ; blatant propaganda and silencing dissent (just like the Covid lunacy) . The Establishment panders to – and encourages- Eco Extremist groups who disrupt ordinary people’s lives. They know that they are virtually immune from any serious consequence because the Establishment is using them as the provisional wing of their movement to “nudge” our behaviour in the direction they want.

    And the electorate has been prevented from having a choice by a Westminster CONsensus protected by the FPTP electoral system. There is no genuine mandate for Net Zero or the “green” idiocy being foisted on us and that includes the ban on fracking; the decision to destroy our oil/coal/gas power stations or cover our countryside and seascape with windmills – let alone charge us a fortune for them via subsidies.

    Whatever cobbled-together Energy Policy Johnson comes up with now to try and solve the problem Westminster and Whitehall have created, he has no mandate for it.

    As far as windmills are concerned, we have had a clear demonstration this winter that it doesn’t matter how many you install: they are useless when the wind doesn’t blow and they are useless when it blows too hard. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    Perhaps the Government’s objective is to demonstrate collective insanity?

    1. Nottingham Lad Himself
      April 3, 2022

      The war in Ukraine has rather messed up the Right’s attempts to blame expensive energy bills and sunflower oil shortages etc. on “the metropolitan elite”, hasn’t it?

      I see that 18% of UK diesel hitherto has come from Russia.

      1. Hat man
        April 3, 2022

        If you mean the Ukraine war has given our rulers a way of diverting attention from their energy policy failings, lad, (and other failings), I’m sure you’re right.

        Russia is still supplying us with diesel fuel for the time being. Who’s not happy with this and wants it to stop ? Emily Armistead, programme director at Greenpeace UK, according to the BBC today. Anyone driving a diesel vehicle should take note of what taking a stance on the Ukraine war means for them.

      2. Donna
        April 3, 2022

        No, the Ukraine war has nicely demonstrated the absolute lunacy of expecting a 21st century economy to be powered by windmills and solar panels.

        It’s also demonstrated that globalism and extended supply chains means a scarcity of goods/components when a crisis occurs.

        And it is shortly going to demonstrate that increasingly relying on imports to feed your population whilst you (a) cover farmland with solar panels and (b) rewild farmland so it is no longer productive are foolish policies.

        1. Nottingham Lad Himself
          April 3, 2022

          It has demonstrated the polar opposite, Donna.

          If the UK were not dependent on fossil fuels then lack of imports from Russia would have no effect.

          1. Julian Flood
            April 3, 2022

            A UK powered by renewables (when available, i.e. not including power cuts and rationing) would be too poor to buy imports from Russia. So you’re correct — we’d just carry on being cold, and poor, and eating turnips.

            JF

          2. R.Grange
            April 3, 2022

            I think Donna is basically right, lad, about the West’s global supply chains and how they are endangered by geopolitical friction. The EU recently produced a report expressing concern about how raw materials for windmills and solar panels were to be sourced.
            https://eitrawmaterials.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/04/rms_for_wind_and_solar_published_v2.pdf
            It’s an interesting read. Look at the map on p. 7: A large part of the supply comes from China and also Russia.

          3. No Longer Anonymous
            April 3, 2022

            NLH

            Alas we are dependent on fossil fuels NOW and that is the reality.

            Renewables are nowhere near ready yet. For whatever reason. We need the quickest and most effective way out of this situation and the rush to Green (destroying coal power stations too early) is part of the problem.

            It is on the Tory’s turn (with an 80 seat majority) that the music has stopped and the turd bomb in the parcel has gone off.

            “Not *enough* EU” “Not *enough* Green” “Not *enough* Leftism” always seems to be the answer when any of these three fail.

          4. Donna
            April 3, 2022

            You seem to be forgetting that we have our own “fossil fuels” under our feet and under the north sea. We wouldn’t need to import energy from Russia, Norway or France … if we used our own reserves.

          5. Peter2
            April 3, 2022

            Is there a nation in Europe that isn’t dependent on fossil fuels?

        2. Shirley M
          April 3, 2022

          +1 Donna – plus the massive amount of good arable land (and additional grazing) lost to new roads and housing crammed together with barely a postage stamp of a garden, and still we fill hotels with uninvited guests.

      3. Mickey Taking
        April 3, 2022

        price have anything to do with chosen supplier?

    2. BeebTax
      April 3, 2022

      +1 Donna. While the FPTP system does protect that Westminster consensus, Iā€™m not sure that PR would help unless the media are more neutral in their reporting.

      Iā€™m currently living in Austria where, it appears to me, the two parties which donā€™t follow the consensus seem unable to break through because one (the largest) is demonised by the media and the other gets virtually zero mention (despite making some headway in support).

      The vast bulk of people seem to swallow what the MSM tells them, and canā€™t be bothered to find other channels of information.

      1. Fedupsoutherner
        April 3, 2022

        Beebtax. You are so right about the media.

    3. Shirley M
      April 3, 2022

      +1 Donna

    4. MFD
      April 3, 2022

      You have that problem summed up correctly Donna

  14. DOM
    April 3, 2022

    Good morning

    A sensible article and one I agree with but it rests on the assumption that a change in government would not see a change in energy policy which I believe cannot be ruled out.

    1. glen cullen
      April 3, 2022

      Only the Reform Party are proposing the use of fossil fuels….every other party is mad on the pursuit of green renewable

      1. Everhopeful
        April 3, 2022

        +trillions
        We know where to put our X then?
        Apparently Tice is garnering a lot of support.
        If only he could turn out to be genuine and circumnavigate the usual establishment onslaught of dirty tricks and smears etc.
        We can but hope.

      2. Mickey Taking
        April 3, 2022

        glen – you didn’t need to add ….’on the pursuit of green renewable’

      3. Fedupsoutherner
        April 3, 2022

        Glen. A great reason to vote Reform. More jobs, more tax income and more reliable energy. What’s not to like?

  15. Nigl
    April 3, 2022

    And in other news we see that the amount lost through fraud due to Treasury institutional failures re Covid loans has been quantified at Ā£37 billion with Lord Askews suggestions still ignored.

    Once again easier to put up our taxes than make any effort at improving efficiency.

    1. Shirley M
      April 3, 2022

      It shows a complete lack of respect for the people that governments are supposed to serve.

    2. Sea_Warrior
      April 3, 2022

      What a lot of SMRs that would have bought.

      1. Fedupsoutherner
        April 3, 2022

        +many

      2. hefner
        April 3, 2022

        According to S.MacFarlane-Smith, Head of Customer Business at RR, the fifth SMR installed could cost Ā£1.8 bn, so Ā£37 bn could buy nearly 20 SMRs and produce a total of 9,400 MWe, ie a bit less than three Hinkley Point C output (9,600 MWe).
        nuclearuniversities.ac.uk, 08/09/2021.

        1. Julian Flood
          April 3, 2022

          Remind me… how much has Hinkley C gone up to now? I have trouble keeping up with the cost over-runs.

          JF

          1. hefner
            April 3, 2022

            I was comparing MWe. As for the cost, I guess we will have to wait till the first five SMRs are actually built and running to know whether the prospective price of Ā£1.8 bn for the fifth SMR is really obtained.

          2. Iain Moore
            April 3, 2022

            Hinkley C, they were guaranteed an eye watering price for the energy, but that wasn’t good enough for EDF , they also demanded the sale of British energy to them, which they got, and just to help French Government owned EDF with the purchase price the British Government had RBS ( then British Government owned) to lend them the money. This loan was put down as help for British industry to fulfil the requirements put on them for the state to bail out the bank.

          3. Mark
            April 3, 2022

            CFDs got an inflation linking boost on 1st April. Some highlights:
            Hinkley is now Ā£113.83/MWh
            Drax is Ā£126.37/MWh

            Both are assessed against the Baseload Market Reference Price, which was Ā£102.45/MWh over the winter so Drax was still collecting CFD subsidies despite much higher market prices. It will be interesting to see what the new level is when it is published, probably in the next fortnight.

            Offshore wind highlights include Ā£187.47/MWh for Walney, Burbo Bank and Dudgeon: this is not so far below average market proceeds for wind, so consumers should not expect a bonanza of CFD repayments. Also, almost every price is now above Ā£50/MWh – the exception being the troubled Forthwind demo project off Methil, Fife which is probably getting other funding as a prototype. However, perhaps the more important news is that it seems that wind farms that have only recently come onstream since market prices went ballistic do not appear to be taking up their CFDs where the strike prices are now substantially below current market levels. An example is Triton Knoll, which commenced its CFD on the first and second phases in May and July last year, but the third phase, which was commissioned in January this year has yet to commence the CFD payments according to Low Carbon Contracts Company data. The strike price was Ā£88.59/MWh, increased to Ā£94.81/MWh on 1st April, which is a long way below typical market prices of over Ā£200/MWh.

            There is nothing in the CFD contract that requires the counterparty to actually take up the CFD: the incentives to do so are that it may be cancelled and therefore not be available to rely on should market prices fall; there is no protection when short term prices do fall to low or negative levels so the wind farm may find itself curtailing at times of oversupply with no compensation (unless it can wangle some on grounds of “alleviating grid constraints”); and the firm may be excluded from the next round of CFD allocations, which is no penalty as all these contracts are with special purpose vehicles designed to hold just the phase of the wind farm. This is perhaps the early evidence that the low prices bid for future CFDs are now meaningless, because the wind farms are now happy to accept market prices where they are underwritten by high gas prices and high levels of carbon tax, except at times of wind surplus. Consumers will feel heavily cheated. But it does square the circle that more recent CFD prices do not appear to be high enough for wind farms to make a profit. This is of course what GWPF have been saying for some time.

    3. Mickey Taking
      April 3, 2022

      I don’t think people in ‘high places’ want the stone to be turned over for examination.

    4. anon
      April 3, 2022

      Suggest they do not want the fraud pursued because it would lead to large scale embarassment or worse.

      All good points.

      It must be UK controlled & financed entirely within the UK. No to EU involvement, China or the US. The US has too much leverage on the UK. We go it alone.

      No more billions to the EU under the guise of supplying cheap reliable electricity at some ever delayed decade in the future.

      What about now and the next 12 -18 months?

      We need to allow non-subsidized renewables fast track planning authority.
      – Compulsory purchase of any land at agricultural plus 10% maybe admin costs. No revenue sharing. The landowners can suffer inflation like the rest of us.
      -Compulsory purchase of land suitable for energy storage as above. Liquid air storage
      -Water companies should be instructed to build new resovoirs & storage systems perhaps in conjunction with the above in mind.
      -We should keep all existing & needed fossil plant to balance supplies when forecast or otherwise. It does not require 24/7 100 % spinning reserve. Only enough to time to fire up plant efficiently.
      -Liquid air storage should be planned at suitable facilities, LNG import terminals,thermal power sites of geo-thermal resources. This could be paid directly for by HMG , much cheaper & quicker than nuclear.

      Perhaps we need to nationalise the gas & nuclear energy production.

      Offshore subsidies if any should be limited to connection, energy storage facilities or savings in use of fuel/gas extracted. See the German designed turnkey solutions for offshore to land grid connection.

      The rate at which renewable has expanded is very small and not even replacing plant that is being closed pre-maturely because of laws imposed with no democratic mandate.

      1. anon
        April 3, 2022

        Maybe a balanced side deal with Norway for use of storage to smooth output of wind. We on average take back what we produce.

  16. MPC
    April 3, 2022

    So, although you provide some caveats, you have no fundamental objection to the government encouraging more offshore wind farms even though you know that that encouragement will be by continuing, or even enhanced, subsidy and cost to consumers and businesses. You would also accept more onshore wind farms. I thought you would be arguing for a phase out of the subsidies and a gradual return to an undistorted market in energy.

    Reply I do not support subsidies for new wind projects

    1. Mark
      April 3, 2022

      Wind farms are subsidised in many different ways. The obvious ones have been the direct payments under the ROC and REGO and CFD schemes. Less obvious is carbon tax levied on competitors that forces them to price their output to cover the cost, thus driving up the market price for the wind farm – it’s a protective tariff. Also, there are extensive subsidies built in from the fact that wind pays almost nothing towards the increased grid costs for new transmission lines necessary to actually deliver output to customers, and likewise suffer no penalty for failure to provide power, with all the backup and grid balancing costs that are incurred. The guarantee to take or pay for wind output is also a massive subsidy not accorded to even nuclear output which has to bid low to ensure it is used. Many of these hidden costs rise faster than pro rata the more wind we put on the system.

  17. Denis Cooper
    April 3, 2022

    First question: How much of this EU entanglement still applies in the Northern Ireland condominium?

    https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/energy_en

    Second question: When are Tory MPs going to insist that Boris Johnson reclaims control of that part of our national territory, even if it has to be unilateral action and the EU retaliates by cancelling his trade deal?

    Third question: Why issue a Command Paper saying that the UK stands ready to pass new laws to protect the EU Single Market from contraband goods being carried across the land border – which might take the edge off the EU’s wrath if the UK suspends the NI protocol – but then do nothing about passing those laws?

    Fourth question: Is there no Tory MP who could at least table a Private Members’ Bill to move this on?

    Reply You need to win a ballot slot for a private members bill. the ballot is once a year. You are unlikely to get a private members bill through if the government opposes it. The best route for this idea is a government bill backed by a 3 line whip to secure passage.

    1. Denis Cooper
      April 3, 2022

      Thanks.

      But shouldn’t Tory MPs have been pressing for the laws to be at least drafted and published for comment?

      From last July, nine months ago now:
      https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1008451/CCS207_CCS0721914902-005_Northern_Ireland_Protocol_Web_Accessible__1_.pdf

      ā€œ43 We also stand ready to bring in new legislation to deter anyone in Northern Ireland looking to export to Ireland goods which do not meet EU standards or to evade these enforcement processes.ā€

      ā€œ62 Once again we are also ready to put in place legislation to provide for penalties for UK traders seeking to place non-compliant goods on the EU market.ā€

      Start with export licences, freely and flexibly issued but on condition that these laws must be observed.

  18. Bryan Harris
    April 3, 2022

    The so-called Greens would tell you that we should stop using the ground for farming and fill our pastures and fields with windmills. They will say that we will just have to put up with having no electricity at times, with the cost astronomical.
    If we follow the green path it will certainly mean we will not have enough energy to satisfy the needs of the country, even on good days when the wind blows ‘just right’. It is the path to economic and national ruin.

    As we can see no possible new and real – innovative solutions in the pipeline – and we are unlikely to for a very long time, we should proceed with what we know. KISS:

    1. Start a program of building nuclear that will satisfy our needs for the next 100 years.
    2. Commence with fracking, and let’s not forget about oil & Gas. Let’s thoroughly ignore the ridiculous mantra of ‘Keep it in the ground’.
    3. As Nuclear comes online slowly phase out coal, oil, fracking, but keep some of these in reserve. Not to save the planet, but to satisfy the requirements of the inept green thinking that runs through all government policies.

    Then Boris will have no need to impose impractical and expensive home heating solutions on us.

    The climate is NOT going to change dramatically over the next 50 years, so we have plenty of time to do all of this without moving our society back to the dark ages. Let’s see some common sense applied here, and have the petty dictators put to bed!

    1. Fedupsoutherner
      April 3, 2022

      Bryan. Yes yes yes!

  19. Iain Moore
    April 3, 2022

    “I have no objections to the government encouraging more offshore wind farms”

    I do , it is going to vandalise our countryside , but then the Government doesn’t really care about our countryside or the identity we get from it. I sometimes wonder if there is a vindictive agenda going on here to destroy any sense of Englishness, and part of that is to destroy our connection with the countryside. The agenda of early settlers in North America was to wipe out the native Americans by wiping out the buffalo , destroy their identity by wiping out an essential part of their culture. Destroy the English countryside and you rip up the roots the English have with their lands, you turn us into another itinerant people and turn the country into a transit lounge, a people without a sense of ownership, just the thing the globalists desire, for then they can get on with flogging off the rest of the country without any opposition.

    And did those feet in ancient time
    Walk upon England’s mountains green?
    And was the holy Lamb of God
    On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
    And did the countenance divine
    Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
    And was Jerusalem builded here

    1. JoolsB
      April 3, 2022

      + 1,000,000 Iain. Just one more thing on top of many. It has been the deliberate policy of this Government and the Labour one before it to deliberately destroy Englandā€™s identity. They wonā€™t rest until the word England and all things English are obliterated. Itā€™s in their DNA, donā€™t speak of England at any cost. Even our host who used to purport to speak for England has now dropped it from his heading.

    2. Everhopeful
      April 3, 2022

      + many, many
      The whole agenda is so unashamedly evil it just hurts to even think about it.
      Whoever is doing this ā€¦they want to possess and destroy everything.
      And no one with any power is lifting a finger to stop them.

      (Oh sorryā€¦Sir Christopher Chope is tryingā€¦unsuccessfully. Who is backing him up?)

      We are probably entering another dark and satanic era.
      Blake is said to have likened Satan to a miller who ground down human souls.
      The persistent horror of windmills?

      1. Mickey Taking
        April 3, 2022

        A miller was pretty essential to life, these days it seems politicians have taken over.

        1. Everhopeful
          April 3, 2022

          +1
          Yes indeed.
          The Miller had huge power I guessā€¦controlling the food supply, bread being a main staple.
          Millers, I believe, were regarded as mean and not liked one little bit! They took your corn to grind into flour and helped themselves to an unfairly large portion of said flour as payment.
          Ummmmm!

      2. Iain Moore
        April 3, 2022

        Yes it does hurt, you sit there fuming with blood boiling at what they are doing. It is the powerlessness of it of being a spectator at our country’s destruction.

    3. Mike Wilson
      April 3, 2022

      Do you object to the electricity pylons that are essential to our national grid?

      1. Everhopeful
        April 3, 2022

        Well they do actually carry electricityā€¦ie they WORK.

      2. Iain Moore
        April 3, 2022

        In protest at the vandalism of the countryside people did cut down electricity pylons.

      3. Nottingham Lad Himself
        April 3, 2022

        Excellent post, Mike.

      4. Mark
        April 3, 2022

        It would be nice if we didn’t have to build lots of new ones simply to handle all the renewables output. Already the grid is almost double what it was to transmit less electricity than it used to in terms of final demand. Power stations used to be relatively local, so the grid only had to cope with providing cover for periods of maintenance from more distant generators. Now, we must move large amounts of electricity from Scotland to London because the wind is blowing.

    4. hefner
      April 3, 2022

      IM, How are offshore (repeat: OFFSHORE) wind farms going to ā€˜vandalise our countrysideā€™?

      1. Iain Moore
        April 3, 2022

        I failed on the cut and paste, should have included the later sentence.

      2. Fedupsoutherner
        April 3, 2022

        Hefner. They won’t but we don’t want to see what has happened in Scotland repeated in England.

      3. Mark
        April 3, 2022

        Pay a visit to Creyke Beck, where they have massive substations for many of the offshore windfarms, and follow the pylons out from there.

        1. hefner
          April 4, 2022

          They are pylons out from any power stations.

    5. Fedupsoutherner
      April 3, 2022

      Iain. What a great post. Thank you.

  20. Julian Flood
    April 3, 2022

    A retired executive of EDF boasted that the finance arrangements for Hinkley were designed to pay for the renaissance of the French nuclear industry. Sizewell will be the same.

    Is there a climate crisis or not? If not we don’t need EPRs, the almost unbuildable EU designed reactors that come in years late, billions over budget and, judging by the fuel rod distortion in the newly operational Taishen reactor, needs a redesign of the containment vessel.

    If it is an emergency then the only way to get a timely nuclear contribution to reducing anthropogenic impacts is to build the prefabricated small modular reactors which are already being prototyped by Rolls Royce.

    Adding more wind and solar to the Grid will increase its instability and greatly increase the cost to those who use electricity, particularly the old, the poor and the sick who spend proportionately most on keeping warm. The risk of this can be (slightly) alleviated by refusing connection without a guaranteed capacity factor of 90%+.

    Sir John, I joke about the performance of PPE graduates in government but I am delighted to be proven wrong about at least one of Prof. Bogdanor’s protĆ©gĆ©s. Thank you for ploughing a hard furrow.

    Now, about the ‘f’ word…

    JF

    1. Roy Grainger
      April 3, 2022

      The problem with small modular nuclear reactors is no one will accept them being built anywhere near where they live – the planning enquiries alone would take years.

      1. Nottingham Lad Himself
        April 3, 2022

        That’s just one problem.

        They also need enriched uranium to fuel them.

        There are more.

        1. Sea_Warrior
          April 3, 2022

          Why do you object to the use of enriched uranium?

          1. Nottingham Lad Himself
            April 3, 2022

            I’m just reminding people of the cost, supply difficulties, and security (non-proliferation of weapons) implications.

            I object to all nuclear installations which generate dangerous-for-millennia waste.

          2. Mickey Taking
            April 4, 2022

            It’s potential misuse !

      2. Sea_Warrior
        April 3, 2022

        I’ll go out an a limb here and suggest that they could be built on the existing nuclear power-stations sites. The SMRs are S-M-A-L-L.

        1. Nottingham Lad Himself
          April 3, 2022

          Makes sense as the cabling is already in – if we must.

          1. Mickey Taking
            April 4, 2022

            WE MUST !

      3. Original Richard
        April 3, 2022

        Roy Grainger : SMRs :

        They can be built at all the existing and previous nuclear sites – multiple SMR’s at each location – where there already exists the necessary security, willing workforce and the grid interconnections.

        About 14 sites I think.

      4. Fedupsoutherner
        April 3, 2022

        Roy. Many in Scotland didn’t want bloody great wind farms near them but they got lumbered with them anyway.

    2. Mickey Taking
      April 3, 2022

      was that fraud or failure?

  21. Walt
    April 3, 2022

    Agreed re gas and nuclear. Please do it, HMG.
    Not convinced re wind: too little or too much wind and the windmills do not work; the windmills use a lot of resources to make and much of them cannot be recycled; they are disruptive to sight and sound; they have and may continue to harm wildlife.

  22. Nigl
    April 3, 2022

    According to Sunday Times Toyota has told the government it will cease production unless it waters down its drive for only EV production.

    Add this to the fact that the technology is way off producing an acceptable alternative to hybrids in terms of cost, range etc and a recent report from Volvo indicated that EVs are only CO 2 better after 90000 miles ish, you would hope the government would re evaluate its approach.

    On the basis they are in the grip of ā€˜green terroristsā€™ they obviously wonā€™t and like the energy crisis, we will all
    suffer.

    1. glen cullen
      April 3, 2022

      MPs just don’t understand that a private sector worker on Ā£25k can’t afford an EV costing Ā£35k…..its hard enough just surviving

      1. Donna
        April 3, 2022

        They understand it very well. The intention is to force people to give up their cars by a combination of affordability (they won’t be able to) and road pricing.

        1. hefner
          April 3, 2022

          The candidate Macron (that most of you loves so much) might have an idea:
          bloomberg.com ā€˜Macron pledges electric-car leasing to wean drivers off gasolineā€™, 18/03/2022. Also tellerreport.com, 21/03/2022, together with the conversion and ecological bonus, it could make the leasing of a small EV as low as ā‚¬100/month.

          1. Nottingham Lad Himself
            April 3, 2022

            No, the petrolheads have to own them, caress them, and know that they truly belong to them, Hefner.

          2. glen cullen
            April 3, 2022

            Taking away choice is social-engineering

          3. Peter2
            April 3, 2022

            Yet another state subsidy presumably.

          4. Peter2
            April 4, 2022

            And you are wrong NHL
            Over 70% of new car sales are on monthly leases.

          5. hefner
            April 4, 2022

            I guess one would still have the choice of owning a car or leasing one. Anyway in the UK at present already 1.6 million cars are leased.
            As for the state subsidy comment I am afraid it might be a misinformed one as Macron and the Renault-Peugeot-Stellantis group see such an endeavour as a way to make cars more affordable and less environmentally damaging without any intervention from the state.
            Maybe a consortium of the Japanese and Indian car manufacturers active in the UK could try to think along the same lines?

          6. Peter2
            April 4, 2022

            It isn’t a misinformed comment hef, because the low lease price is plainly subsidised by the government.
            You may feel it has a virtuous intent but it still is a state subsidy.

          7. Peter2
            April 4, 2022

            And it is a big subsidy if it is from ā‚¬100 per month.
            The cheapest lease for a small EV car I could see on the Internet was Ā£255 per month with Ā£2500 deposit
            A 3 year deal based on 6000 miles per annum

          8. hefner
            April 9, 2022

            P2, thanks for this clarification on the UK EV lease market.

        2. Fedupsoutherner
          April 3, 2022

          Donna. Well with one bus an hour going into a city only 9 miles away and nowhere near our vets, doctors, hairdressers or shops and the last one even on a weekday returning from the city being at 5.45 our life without a car will be impossible. Mps have got their heads firmly planted where the sun doesn’t shine.

        3. Original Richard
          April 3, 2022

          Donna :

          “Yes”, the Net Zero Strategy calls for “active travel” and public transport.

          And in December 2021 transport minister, Trudy Harrison warned us :

          “Owning a car is outdated ā€™20th-century thinkingā€™ and we must move to ā€˜shared mobilityā€™ to cut carbon emissions”.

          So I don’t believe the Government is expecting or wanting a large number of people to be owning an ev.

          For a start the grid would break down each evening when the evs were connected for re-charging.

      2. Mike Wilson
        April 3, 2022

        The powers that be expect lowly paid private sector workers to drive a second hand, electric mobility scooter and be grateful for it.

        1. Mickey Taking
          April 3, 2022

          bicycle or Shank’s pony?

      3. Mickey Taking
        April 3, 2022

        I feel a Labour slogan coming on – send it to Starmer – you might get an advisor role !

        1. glen cullen
          April 3, 2022

          fossil fuel is the future fossil fuel is labour

  23. William Long
    April 3, 2022

    Quite appart from windless days, which predominate in high barometer cold weather, as has been said above, wind farms save no CO2 for many years and do considerable ecological damage both above ground, and below, due to the deep excavations needed for their foundations.
    I am interested that you do not mention Solar in your post. This functions efficiently with up to 70% cloud cover, meaning that it suffers substantially less outage than wind, and developments in battery storage mean that 24 hour usage will soon be feasible. Solar arrays in rural locations are certainly unsightly (but arguably less so than wind farms) but there remain huge areas of warehouse and retail rooftops that should be covered in panels.

    1. agricola
      April 3, 2022

      Yes William I use solar of 1982 vintage, layered black pipes, to heat my pool. It is very effective.
      I also use it to heat domestic hot water via panels of2010 vintage. again very effective. I have to suffer three days minus the sun before I have to resort to electricity. While I accept that living on the Mediterranean coast
      is an advantage, the principal particularly for domestic electricity generation in the UK is valid. It needs government to create a coherent, financially advantageous scheme for UK households. Electricity companies should be made to pay for home generated power at the same rate as they charge for it.

  24. agricola
    April 3, 2022

    There is something slothful about government that prevents us from having a coherent energy policy. It is as if they are in rehab following their over indulgence with nett zero.
    The answer to the immediate crisis lies beneath our land and maritime territory. For some bizarre reason we are forced to buy what is already ours at World crisis prices. I still await a coherent reply to this simple question, why. For answers I am inclined to believe that one should follow the money trail. Correcting the supply chain faults, removing the green levy and VAT would resolve matters. Surely this would be better than the current electoral suicide note.
    In the medium term we should drive for Nuclear SMRs, spread around the UK rather than any more mega plants in hoc to foreign interests rather than our own. In this area I would highlight China and France neither of whom are in our interests. In the medium term, wind power should be for hydrogen production, it is not reliable as a source of main power.
    Government should cease, through taxation and dictat, forcing the market in vehicle propulsion means. Let the market decide. All government has achieved to date is the partial destruction of our motor industry and the enhancement of imports. Long term get behind Fusion Energy. Do not forget the need for an interconnector to the Channel Islands.

    1. Mark
      April 3, 2022

      The economics of wind power for hydrogen production are not attractive. Almost all hydrogen is produced via steam reforming of methane or as a byproduct of oil refinery processes (reforming naphtha to make gasoline), where most hydrogen is used to desulphurise oil products or in other chemical processes to make lighter products from heavier ones.

  25. Roy Grainger
    April 3, 2022

    Boris always caves in to NIMBYism. Thatā€™s why thereā€™s no
    new planning regime for extra houses and there will be no new nuclear power or onshore wind or fracking under his government.

    1. Mike Wilson
      April 3, 2022

      Caves into Nimbyism! I think not! NOT ONE PERSON IN WOKINGHAM and Bracknell wants the 10,000 houses built in the last 10 years.

      1. Mickey Taking
        April 3, 2022

        except the thousands who have moved in?

        1. Mickey Taking
          April 4, 2022

          and by the way – what effect on Sir John’s majority of thinking in Wokingham…

  26. glen cullen
    April 3, 2022

    We need a conservative party that will start fracking for shale gas and develop more oil fields to reduce energy prices to the people….and stop praying to the wind gods

  27. BOF
    April 3, 2022

    Little to argue with in your post this morning Sir John.

    You say there needs to be a breakthrough in storage technology. What if there isn’t? It simply is not feasible to keep erecting these monstrosities that defile the countryside and seascape plus kill vast numbers of birds, bats and flying insects in the HOPE of this new technology. So far the large storage systems will only supply electricity for two or three hours at most which is useless.

    Also, the more of these wind and solar farms that spring up, the more complex the grid becomes.

    I have seen research (I cannot recall from which body) where it was found that the more intermittent energy installed, the more conventional base load power was required to back it up. So without breakthrough (or pie in the sky) storage technology, it is hard to see any point in it at all.

    Perhaps in the brave new world we will only be allowed to use electricity when the wind blows and the sun shines. Ah, yes! Now we know the purpose of smart meters!

  28. miami.mode
    April 3, 2022

    Simple solution is to produce our own gas and oil by whatever means. Government can set any conditions they like on production and can control profits by saying it would tax excess income and refund consumers.

  29. oldwulf
    April 3, 2022

    Sir

    One reason we are where we are is the apparent ineptitude of this Government and also of previous Governments. Ramping up the production of wind, solar and nuclear energy should help solve the problem at some point in the future, but there are millions of people in the UK who need to be able to heat their homes NOW. Current demand for energy has significantly increased its price. More supply is needed in order to balance the demand with the aim of reducing prices. Using our taxes to buy its way out of trouble in the short term, although necessary to help these millions, will be expensive for the taxpayer and is not a good look for the Government.

    The decision to rely on others for imported energy made no sense as another country creates the jobs, makes the profits and collects the taxes. Also, we cannot guarantee that other suppliers will always remain our friends and/or will be able to make supplies available to us. Itā€™s unfortunate that the Government has had to learn the hard way.

    Hopefully, the next Government will do a better job.

  30. ChrisS
    April 3, 2022

    The only additional, reliable energy sources we can bring on stream before the end of this decade are gas and oil from the North Sea. Especially if existing platforms and pipelines can be used to bring the fuels ashore

    The questions that need to be answered are :
    1. With gas and oil at current prices, how large are the reserves under the North Sea that are economic to recover and can these be recovered using at least some of the existing infrastructure ?
    2. If the green light was to be given today, how long will it take to start the flow of new oil and gas coming ashore ?
    3. Can some of our nuclear stations have further life extensions to bridge the large and forthcoming gap in supplies ? If so, what would be the cost ?
    4. Given that electricity has always been far more expensive than gas, ( usually FOUR TIMES the price of gas), where do economists expect the relative prices of the two fuels to settle by the end of the decade, assuming the currently predicted mix of sources from gas, oil, nuclear, wind and solar generation ?

    Only with the answers to these questions can we work out what is the best course of action. From what I can see, the government has no idea of the answers and therefore even less idea of what it is going to lumber us with. One thing is certain : Net Zero by 2050 is a non starter : it has to be postponed out to 2060-2075 and will probably be dropped altogether.

    1. ChrisS
      April 3, 2022

      By a more enlightened government than this one !

      1. Mickey Taking
        April 4, 2022

        more enlightened? – I look but don’t see ANY !

    2. alan jutson
      April 3, 2022

      Chris S
      I would have hoped that the Questions you pose would have already been answered with factual and approved calculations.
      Sadly I would guess that not a single thought has been given to the above.
      Likewise on the opposite side of the equation, they do not even know what all this Zero Green fantasy is going to cost, as a recent Select Committee found out to all of our costs.
      Thus they do not have a clue where the crossover point would even be on a graph that highlighted the curves of both of the above.
      They are Clueless, absolutely bloody Clueless.

      1. ChrisS
        April 3, 2022

        That they are clueless is undoubtedly the case – or could it be that they know the answers but are not prepared to share them with us Why not?

        Perhaps our host would be kind enough to submit my four questions to the relevant minister ?

  31. Original Richard
    April 3, 2022

    BEIS/the Government have clearly given up on nuclear with only one new build, Hinkley Point C, in work and which will be the only working nuclear plant by the decarbonisation date of 2035. And a plant which whose electricity will be at twice the price it should have been according to Sir Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Oxford, as a result of using expensive Chinese funding.

    This is despite nuclear being the only low carbon technology which can provide affordable, weather independent, and hence reliable, energy. It is also the safest of all fuel types by TWhrs/death.

    1. Mark
      April 3, 2022

      I saw a recent interview of Sir Dieter Helm by a Japanese think tank. He provided an excellent explanation of the current problems with Western energy supply and made many very sensible points about how to try to cope now. Why he isn’t the first port of call for advice for Kwasi and the quangos I do not know. I found myself agreeing with almost everything he had to say (the exception is he is much more pessimistic about climate than I am).

  32. Original Richard
    April 3, 2022

    If BEIS/the Government are intending to use intermittent renewables such as wind and solar then they will need to decide whether supply matches demand or demand matches supply.

    The former, which is the system currently employed, will be very expensive as either fossil fuel generators will still be needed for grid stability and backup (working inefficiently) and CO2 emissions will continue or, even more expensively, they will need to build 4 or 5 times more installed renewable capacity than the final energy required in order to compensate for the power losses incurred in providing a non-fossil fuel back-up, such as hydrogen.

    If the latter option is chosen, that is, demand matching supply, together with severe reductions in energy use, the option in the Net Zero Strategy and much discussed at the HoL Industry & Regulators evidence sessions on the subject ā€œOfgem & Net Zeroā€, then we can expect intermittent power with ā€œvolatileā€ pricing (National Gridā€™s description at one of the evidence sessions).

    For those with sufficient resources there will remain the option of home produced solar electricity. Expensive battery storage will be required if fossil fuel generators are banned.

    A definition of a third world country is one where electricity is expensive and intermittent and only available to the powerful and wealthy.

  33. Sea_Warrior
    April 3, 2022

    Today’s exam question (Business Studies): An air heat-pump installation costs Ā£7000-13000. (Source: today’s Sunday Times.) The government would subsidise your installation – by taxing others – to the tune of Ā£5000. How much would a heat-pump cost if the government cancelled the Boiler Upgrade Scheme and left eco-loons to pay for their own home improvements? Show your workings, and make reference to the government’s past success in subsidising solar panel installations.
    P.S. Back to my gasketting.

    1. Mickey Taking
      April 3, 2022

      the eco-loons would blow a gasket at your implied criticism.

      1. Sea_Warrior
        April 3, 2022

        šŸ™‚

    2. glen cullen
      April 3, 2022

      but itā€™s the governments job nay duty to fund & subsidise the rich and climate crusader in the pursuit of the green dream at all cost

  34. Barbara
    April 3, 2022

    ā€˜If you encourage more renewable power you need to allow more back up power generation for the times when the wind does not blow.ā€˜

    Back up = power which is cheap, plentiful and reliable.

    If you have the so-called ā€˜back upā€™, then you donā€™t need any of the expensive ā€˜foregroundā€™ – ie the nutty, unreliable green schemes.

  35. Original Richard
    April 3, 2022

    ā€œIt will take time for the electrical revolution to convert every home, factory and vehicle to allow electricity to take more of the strain away from directly used fossil fuels.ā€

    Fossil fuels have an energy density 23 times greater by volume and 60 times greater by weight than current battery technology.

    Unless the ā€œelectrical revolutionā€ includes a totally revolutionary battery or electrical energy source that has the energy density of fossil fuels and can be re-charged instantly then electrification will become a serious security risk.

    Plus the danger of a single successful hack into our National Grid bringing down all our power supplies, computers and communications.

  36. Denis Cooper
    April 3, 2022

    Off topic, this morning I had occasion to look at various articles and reports from November 8 2018, full of hysterical lies and misrepresentations about the supposed danger of us “crashing out” of the EU “without any deal”, “any form of Brexit will make us poorer”, our economy will “take a hit”, a torrent of unspeakably deceitful tripe from the government and the Bank of England repeated throughout most of the mass media , and I thought what an utterly disgraceful episode that was, it is not how a democracy should operate, and here we are now supposedly supporting democracy in Ukraine, and then I came across this:

    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2018/11/29/futile-project-fear-figures/

    And the first comment was from Peter Wood who said:

    “This dishonesty, and the willingness on the part of senior politicians from the PM down, to obfuscate, miss-direct, and tell only partial truths is so damaging to democracy. It is simply not possible to believe any word uttered by our Prime Minister, nor that of most of those in her cabinet. Her performance yesterday, was a clear demonstration of this. If we lose confidence in those who are supposed to govern, then we are headed for far worse than Brexit. Both main parties are equally bad.”

    How depressing that nothing has changed in that regard, apart from the name of the Prime Minister.

    1. Clough
      April 3, 2022

      Spot on, Denis.

  37. Stephen Reay
    April 3, 2022

    I’m cold now. Waiting for cheaper energy in about 15years time will be too late for me and many others.

    1. Mickey Taking
      April 4, 2022

      we will be hot eventually — for a short gas burn in the crem!

  38. Iain Moore
    April 3, 2022

    Hinkley C, they were guaranteed an eye watering price for the energy, but that wasn’t good enough for EDF , they also demanded the sale of British energy to them, which they got, and just to help French Government owned EDF with the purchase price the British Government had RBS ( then British Government owned) to lend them the money. This loan was put down as help for British industry to fulfil the requirements put on them for the state to bail out the bank.

  39. X-Tory
    April 3, 2022

    Oh for hwaven’s sake, can we be logical about this?
    1. We need energy independence and self-sufficiency, to avoid being hostage to price fluctuations and EU (and especially French) political pressure, so relying on interconnectors is something that only cretins and traitors would do;
    2. Wind energy is crap, as this is unreliable. And supplementing this with energy storage solutions makes it uneconomic (and the stored energy cannot be guaranteed to be sufficient anyway), so this is a crap solution;
    3. In the short-term, the answer is to boost North Sea gas and (to a lesser extent) oil output;
    4. In order to reduce gas prices long-term (and gas is likely to be needed for domestic and commercial use in both the short- and medium-terms) we need to invest in FRACKING;
    5. I’ve absolutely no stupid, ideological objection to sensible ‘renewable energy’ solutions, and therefore I am a big fan of deep geothermal energy, which is reliable, constantly available and reasonably priced, and can supply 25% of our electricity. The fact that this government is not pushing this just shows what a bunch of morons they are;
    6. The medium-term solution is NUCLEAR fission energy – but NOT the cretinous, foreign-designed power stations the government supports and which will NEVER be built either on-time or on-price. Hinkley is a total fiasco and so will all the other moronic foreign designs be. The ONLY SOLUTION is the RR SMR. This needs to be ACCELERATED by the government so they can start to come on stream well before the end of the decade.
    7. The ultimate solution is nuclear fusion. The UK is making great progress here, and the government needs to invest a lot more into this so that we can get these plants designed and built by 2050, which is actually a totally reasonable and realistic prospect.

    1. Nottingham Lad Himself
      April 5, 2022

      The ultimate solution is a global grid.

      The sun never sets.

      The wind never rests.

      1. Mark
        April 7, 2022

        The wind can drop to almost nothing over all the land and the reachable ocean, globally.

        The energy losses on a global grid would be enormous, and the cost unaffordable

  40. MFD
    April 3, 2022

    I now hear that Boris wants to build a colossal wind farm in the Irish sea , is that to provide the lights in that tunnel he is building between Larne and Stranraer?

    Yeh! Live old horse!

  41. Mike Wilson
    April 3, 2022

    Why does the USA have cheap gas and petrol? Our politicians, all of them, seem to think our energy must be at ‘global prices’. Why is that?

    1. glen cullen
      April 3, 2022

      USA have a policy of domestic market first with surplus to international market
      UK have a policy of only international market
      Its a government policy thing

  42. glen cullen
    April 3, 2022

    Any government that doesnā€™t start immediately fracking for shale gas are enemies of the state, traitors to the people and communists to our future

  43. John E
    April 3, 2022

    Nuclear doesnā€™t have to be massive multi decade builds. We should be moving forward with the Rolls Royce mini nukes. No reason not to put some in Aldermaston to prove the technology for civil use. Itā€™s well proven already in military applications. They only need two football pitches.

    1. Nottingham Lad Himself
      April 3, 2022

      Even better – turn all those ugly stadiums into something useful.

      1. Mickey Taking
        April 4, 2022

        examples please and local willingness?

  44. XY
    April 3, 2022

    I see the new energy policy will be “up to” 7 nuclear reactors “by 2050”.

    Even 7 doesn’t sound much, especially since the rest is apparently to be created by wind power, which rarely produces much of our needs now, despite hectares of land being devoted to it and no way to store what it does produce.

    What happened to the Rolls Royce SMRs? If they are part of the 7 – or all of the 7 – then that will leave a very large proportion of needs to be met by wind.

    What about the transition period? Why not have a tidal capability? With a little ingenuity, that could also be adjusted to serve a dual purpose as a defence against illegal immigrants in dinghies.

  45. Mickey Taking
    April 3, 2022

    more on my predicament…..do I heat or eat?
    gas 77% electricity 23%.
    so, we do not sit in the dark. We can boil water, use a microwave – -affordable.
    Apart from plugging in an electric fire – ( would it be cheaper? )
    Gas heating is prohibitive.

    Let the sun shine, please and no cold evenings.

    1. glen cullen
      April 4, 2022

      You can bless the tory green revolution….and its only going to get worse with the publication this week of the tory energy plan

  46. Tom Oliva
    April 3, 2022

    Nuclear wind and gas ? – if the Environment Agency is involved we’re doomed…..

    The obstruction of progress by a carnival of public sector “agencies” / NDPBs for a plethora of self interested reasons is a profound problem. Even when they’re deeply, irrevocably in the wrong bureaucrats want to maintain arbitrary control …. – even when the Ombudsman has adjudged them to be the perpetrators of damage they lurch onwards like Monty Python’s legless and armless Black Knight.

    see

    https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/20032744.environment-agency-row-140-permit-turns-12-year-legal-battle/

  47. rose
    April 3, 2022

    Mrs Foster suggested this morning that the Chancellor is a hostage of the Treasury.

    And from Budapest: “This is a victory so big you can see it from the moon, but you can certainly see it from Brussels!”

  48. corky
    April 4, 2022

    The worst corruption of power is the conviction of omnipotence. Ally this with a political culture of utter contempt for the very idea of understanding how things work. The result is an utter catastrophe of energy policy making from generations of ministers.
    Everyone baby-steps around the real staringly obvious facts, that climate change is not an emergency (the IPCC says not), that attempts to control carbon dioxide are doomed to failure, that wind and solar are appallingly unsuitable intermittent power sources with enormous footprint and use of materials, that energy storage is completely unaffordable, and on and on….
    The real tragedy is the same people trying to get us out of this with the sole aim of getting re-elected.

    1. glen cullen
      April 4, 2022

      Spot On

  49. Con Voter
    April 4, 2022

    If the Cons want to claw back some goodwill they need to look at Elec daily standing charges.
    I’m a human smart meter and have submitted daily readings for years.
    I’m Economy 10 and my daily standing charge is apparently now over Ā£5 .
    actual electric circa
    Ā£2 per day Ā£60 pcm
    Standing.Charge
    Ā£5 per day Ā£150 pcm
    Easy to see if you manually submit.
    I’m going to get them to disconnect me.
    I will spend Spiderman’s Ā£150 having cups of tea in caffs with internet access.
    ( or use library where I can charge phone too.)
    Read by torchlight
    Cook by Kelly Kettle
    Heat by Hot water bottles.
    Incidentally never ever trust a man with bright white teeth.

    1. Con Voter
      April 4, 2022

      I expressed an interest online to one of the providers of the Gov Grant scheme for insulation etc for low income people the other day. They rang back pronto,
      but were only interested if there was gas in my place.
      So afterwards, duh, I realised grants are for converting gas users to electric not for what I need ie internal wall insulation for 3 walls.
      I’m quite looking forward to cutting off my electric for a bit
      but I would prefer to rejoin the electric “family” as my provider calls itself before next winter if our overlords can get it sorted by then.
      Having read a bit more the standing charge may contain green tax or something, who knows.

    2. Mark
      April 7, 2022

      You may do better to come off your white meter. It gets a large standing charge because they assume you are using a lot of electricity. Talk to your supplier, or look at a switching site to see if you can’t get a better deal.

  50. Con Voter
    April 4, 2022

    ok. Last post before I disappear. I’ve just started watching Russel Brand on You Tube. Today’s is called Oh its just…..

  51. DavidJ
    April 5, 2022

    “Greening” is a political project, not a practical one.

Comments are closed.