An energy strategy

There are some good developments as the government seeks to change energy policy. There is rightly much more attention to security of supply, and to the need to develop our own energy sources to eliminate reliance on imports. There is an understanding that for the next few years most UK people will have petrol or diesel cars and vans, and will heat their homes with gas or oil or solid fuel boilers. For the period of transition prior to many more people heating and travelling with electricity there needs to be a reliable supply of oil and gas at affordable prices. The strategy accepts that we need to use more of our own oil and gas from the North Sea. There is a review of onshore gas. The best answer to the issues that poses is to adopt a model which allows any community or landowner to say No to drilling, but to allow communities willing to see such developments a share of the turnover or profits or offer them free or discounted energy.

For the longer term the government favours a major commitment to nuclear. There has been a long history this century of PMs wanting more nuclear only to find it is watered down and delayed by a range of forces against. The best hope the government has of changing this is probably to back the development here of a suitable small modular reactor that can be produced at scale mainly in  factories and assembled  on site with suitable substantial concrete workings for containment. The UK could become an exporter of such technology to extend the production runs and lower average unit costs. There are sites around the country where larger nuclear stations are closing who might welcome a new replacement and would have some of the skilled people necessary to run it.

The government still favours more wind farms. It does now accept that these will not satisfy our demands for power on calm days or on days when the wind blows too strongly. It is therefore investigating ways of storing the power on windy days and nights to use on days of high demand and little wind. This is going to be necessary to keep the lights on. It also needs to account properly for the cost of the windfarms themselves and for any backup or storage needed to make them reliable for consumers.

Meanwhile the next few years whilst people still need plenty of fossil fuels for home heating and transport and industry remains fuelled by gas we are going to need more gas as a  stop gap. The government needs to work closely with industry and grant the necessary permits in good time to help this endeavour.

188 Comments

  1. Mark B
    April 8, 2022

    Good morning.

    Despite off-shoring most of our industry we are still consuming more as our population grows. We seem only to be able to tackle, or at least think, of supply and not demand. What little thinking is given over to demand usually comes in the form of metering and pricing. Or to put it another way, rationing. As people do not want smart meters, and pricing is becoming politically too sensitive, what other options does the government have in order to keep the lights on ? Not many as it really will not tackle many of the key issues facing us. It seems that government has to be brought, very reluctantly it seems, to the point of reality that many of us have long be espousing.

    In short – What has taken government so long ?

    1. Julian Flood
      April 8, 2022

      ‘The point of reality…’ Because we are dealing here with decisions which have life-threatening consequences, waiting for reality to strike is the dangerous option. However, seeing the inadequate response to the new energy geography of the world, it seems that the Secretary of State or his advisors have chosen that option.
      So be it.

      As a councillor I signed a document acknowledging that I had a duty of care to my residents. Do senior politicians in government have nothing similar? Presumably if they do then when the reality that the published energy strategy mandates results in breakdown of the Grid, then those imposing it in defiance of physics and meteorology will be liable to charges of corporate manslaughter.

      JF

      1. Hope
        April 9, 2022

        12 years in office and the Tories are thinking of an energy strategy!! Says it all.

        May wanted to copy Miliband and build on his policy even though Cameron in opposition called it Marxist!!

        Tories carried on buying coal and other goods when two persons were killed by the Russian state on our soil. They still do but hope to end it by the end of year!! How frightening for Putin. Especially as he knows the UK could easily produce its own coal!! These Tory zombies have been in power for 12 years without ideas, strategy or vision. They have followed a socialist path even employing former Labour ministers to help them with their socialism while excluding/ bypassing perfectly good former Tory ministers.

        Wake up voters.

    2. J Bush
      April 8, 2022

      +1
      Another point is that nearly everyone they ‘invite’ in (when do we, the taxpayers get a say, given we have to fund them) come from warmer climes, so acclimatizing to northern hemisphere temperatures is yet an additional drain on the National Grid.

      1. Mark
        April 8, 2022

        Winters in Ukraine are rather colder than here.

    3. Rhoddas
      April 8, 2022

      Finally there is now policy movement with regard to independent energy supply.
      I would like to see parallel effort and innovation to insulate old housing stock, for example insulating internal wallpaper for outside walls and ceilings, even effective insulating paints?
      The demand side has a contribution to make too, if I dare add the Insulate Britain protesters make clear too.

      1. Sea_Warrior
        April 8, 2022

        I agree that insulation is important – but I think that it is the responsibility of the home-owner and not that of the state.

      2. Know-Dice
        April 8, 2022

        Agreed, must be a parallel effort – win win [maybe]

      3. Mark
        April 8, 2022

        The issues over insulation and energy saving measures start with the inadequacies of the government’s chosen EPC measure. Now that we are no longer in the EU we are free to reform it into something much more sensible – a big Brexit gain. Policy needs to aim for promoting rapid payback measures, and it needs to move away from trying to impose impossibly expensive standards on older buildings that would ruin their amenity into the bargain. We need to be looking at real building performance and buildings as used (i.e. some families may keep windows open, have children constantly going in and out to the garden etc.), not the EPC model, using thermal imaging cameras on drones to give rapid surveys that can help identify the most fruitful interventions. These can be targetted to help the colder parts of the country. Imposing costly obligations on landlords and in due course on homes for sale is only going to create a housing shortage. Moreover, more intrusive works will require lots of workers to implement them – people we don’t have.

        I can recommend the advice and analysis from Kathryn Porter at Watt-Logic. She has a deep understanding of the failures of current policy.

    4. Iago
      April 8, 2022

      They are for the socialist, internationalist left.

  2. Ian Wragg
    April 8, 2022

    There should be no more windmills
    They are a complete waste of space and require 100% backup.
    It is essential that we start fracking and the green blob must be treated as terrorists as that is what they are.
    The majority of the population want cheap, reliable energy and won’t countenance a small bunch if Marxist idiots standing in the way.
    Net zero must go. How about that for a slogan.

    1. Julian Flood
      April 8, 2022

      I think ‘Power not Poverty’ sums it up nicely.

      JF

    2. Lifelogic
      April 8, 2022

      Wind and Solar are only about 2% of all human used energy worldwide (not just electricity) and it about 5% in the UK. So largely irrelevant.

      Much talk of storing the wind electricity generated when not needed – well firstly they do not have that much free to store anyway but we have no storage methods that do not waste at least 25% of the energy and the cost of all of them is very prohibitive. So called Green Hydrogen storage of wind power electricity and conversion back to electricity will waste about 70% of this energy and be absurdly expensive too. Far better to generate electricity as and when it is needed than to expensively and wastefully store it. Most batteries depreciate by more than the value of electricity they ever usefully store.

      The solutions are get fracking now, more gas and coal production and using less if possible short term and better nuclear then fusion long term.

      I had not realised that the BoE had moronically been ordered to stop and deter any investments in fossil fuels – now finally rescinded. What damn government idiots did this? We are clearly ruled by economically & scientifically illiterate morons drivel by group think lunacy, religion and virtue signalling.

      1. Mark
        April 8, 2022

        We should be encouraging our bankers and energy companies to invest widely in new supplies, and for governments to support them – not merely rescinding a ban. The current shortages (which started long before the Russian invasion of Ukraine) are the direct consequence of lack of investment since these policies have been imposed in the West. Every extra supply around the world creates more competition and alleviates the shortages, so while we should clearly develop our own resources, our longer term security of supply and costs will depend on energy abundance globally.

      2. Stred
        April 9, 2022

        It was agreed internationally by finance ministers last year, as part of the agendas overseen by the likes of Mark Carney and the heads of Black Rock and Vanguard. All agreed at the conference in Cornwall with Johnson and Biden putting it into operation. That’s why the USA is no longer self sufficient in oil.

      3. Liardet Guy
        April 12, 2022

        Quite right. There is no future in ‘storage’. Forget it

        1. Liardet Guy
          April 12, 2022

          Oh, and even the PAC says neither the public nor the Civil Service have the skill to implement a Net Zero strategy. Forget it. We only produce one per cent of global CO2 anyway.

    3. Shirley M
      April 8, 2022

      +1 Ian – anything that cannot produce energy on demand should be devalued in a big way, as it actually doubles costs because we will always need another source of energy production that DOES provide energy on demand.

      1. Lifelogic
        April 8, 2022

        +1

    4. MFD
      April 8, 2022

      Got i one Ian, we also do not want France and China or any other Foreigner involved in the manufacture or supply of our power, it is self defeating our energy security.

    5. Mark B
      April 8, 2022

      Whilst the Marxists are front and centre of all this enviroMENTAL nonsense as always one has to follow the money and the various ‘investors’ into this so called market.

    6. turboterrier
      April 8, 2022

      Ian Wragg
      Too bleeding true.
      The windfarm up the glen was fully commissioned in 2005 and has always had engineers in attendance. The land owner has just been informed that they are replacing them for larger capacity ones needed bigger new bases. He is still waiting to hear on their proposals about the old bases. The existing turbines were supposed to last for 25 years. But it would seem there average performance percentage was 19% but Tey paid for themselves on subsidies and constraint payments. We all know who are paying for them.

    7. glen cullen
      April 8, 2022

      Totally Agree Ian

    8. Original Richard
      April 8, 2022

      Ian Wragg :

      I agree completely.

      The low energy density and intermittency of windmills (7 continuous days last month they provided next to zero power) means that :

      1) Either we will need to run at the same time gas turbines with a capacity equal to the windmills less the power from nuclear. So still burning gas and expensive to be running 2 power generation systems.

      2) Or we quadruple or probably more the number of windmills to enable excess power to be used to provide green hydrogen as storage. An even more expensive option.

      3) Or, we simply live with intermittent power with “volatile” pricing (National Grid’s description) and rolling blackouts so demand matches supply – just as a third world country. This is currently the preferred option.

    9. Original Richard
      April 8, 2022

      The real killer of Net Zero is not just the decarbonisation of our existing and future electricity power requirements (electricity is just a fifth of our current total energy consumption), although this will be very expensive especially when coupled with the cost of the massive increases necessary in grid capacity, but the disastrous effect on our quality of life and our security as a result of the attempt to electrify everything.

      How will the Government persuade us to change to using sub-optimal, expensive and noisy heat pumps from gas boilers? Tax gas so it is many times more expensive than electricity? Stop the sales of gas boilers and replacement parts? Cut off the gas?

      In the case of transport, the Government has already legislated to forcibly end the sale of ices, and a ban on their use will follow. Evs will be expensive, and often inconvenient and of limited use compared to ices. Forget hydrogen fuel cells the production, storage and distribution of hydrogen for general use is totally uneconomic. Charging will become a nightmare because there will not be the power or the distribution capacity to cope.

      1. Mark
        April 8, 2022

        I note the new policy hopes to achieve an over 40% reduction in gas use by 2030. Here’s the composition of demand in the most recent year (to Q3 2021) in TWh:

        268.8 Electricity generation
        29.3 Heat generation
        51.4 Energy industry use (pumping etc.)
        3.6 Losses
        3.9 Iron & steel
        93.7 Other industries
        0.3 Transport
        320.6 Domestic
        93.9 Other final users (offices, shops, hospitals, schools etc.)
        4.5 Non energy use
        870.2 Total

        40% is 348TWh. It’s not a credible figure, since they will have on their own figures barely scratched the surface on replacing domestic use with heat pumps etc., and while most of industry will probably be shut down there is not the slightest sign that wind is replacing gas generation on the grid: it is only driving out baseload generation from coal and nuclear, requiring more gas and imports for grid balancing. There is nothing that looks to be capable of providing the extreme seasonal flexibility of our gas supply: looking at annual totals is not a way to plan our future energy supply. Perhaps you will just be poor, cold and hungry.

    10. MWB
      April 8, 2022

      Banning of ICE cars must go, as well.
      Battery electric ones have too small a range, and are suitable only for short ‘around town’ journeys.

      1. glen cullen
        April 8, 2022

        Government Banning = Social Engineering

      2. Lifelogic
        April 8, 2022

        And save no CO2 after construction considered and we have no spare low carbon electricity to charge them with anyway. Plus very expensive in depreciation and finance costs.

        1. glen cullen
          April 8, 2022

          If the government was serious about co2, they’d pay the public to keep their old cars on the road

    11. DavidJ
      April 8, 2022

      +1

    12. John Hatfield
      April 8, 2022

      Said Ian.

      1. John Hatfield
        April 8, 2022

        Well said that is.

    13. Fedupsoutherner
      April 8, 2022

      Well said Ian

    14. John O'Leary
      April 8, 2022

      I quite agree! This government and Ofgem still haven’t woken up to the fact that wind and solar will never cut the mustard. If you believe in the AGW myth then the near future has to be fracking for gas and longer term nuclear. If, like me, you don’t believe in AGW, then stop decommissioning coal fired stations immediately, re-open viable pits and survey new ones.

      1. Mark
        April 8, 2022

        At current coal prices I suspect that quite a bit of UK coal resource would be economically viable, if less profitable than the cheapest to mine sources.

  3. DOM
    April 8, 2022

    We demand the removal of progressive ideology from government decision making whose purpose is to politicise human life. So we see the politicisation of the way in which human beings interact with the natural world to justify State intervention and State control over a person’s economic life. That’s unacceptable. That’s called fascism or Marxism, take your pick of which evil you want but it all adds up to the same thing, totalitarianism

    Energy output cannot be left to idiotic bureaucrats and ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ politicians like Johnson and Starmer whose only interest is personal rather than nation

    We need an independent body composed of people whose remit is the application of practical ideas to achieve national energy security. That means zero involvement from climate change Marxists and Green socialists who are using the issue of the natural resources and man’s interaction with the natural world as a political tool to further promote their ideological agenda rather than solve the practical problem of energy supply

    Reply Not another quango. Trust the market more and rig it less

    1. Julian Flood
      April 8, 2022

      DOM, such thinking brought us the Climate Change Committee. ‘Nuff said.

      JF

      1. No Longer Anonymous
        April 8, 2022

        JF

        I expect you would support war with Russia over Ukraine and uncontrolled immigration into the UK too.

        And masks.

    2. Lifelogic
      April 8, 2022

      Indeed get the damn state out of the system market rigging and OTT regulation is the problem & not the solution. Gas, Oil, Coal short terms & better nuclear long term. The small modular reactors are likely to cost more in the end than large nuclear and be less efficient too. But you need to get the government and planning blockages out of the way and get the right design.

      Storage of electricity is expensive and wasteful but transmission of it is relatively cheap and easy though. So one are two large nuclear plants perhaps on existing nuclear sites is surely better if you get the best designs.

      1. Lifelogic
        April 8, 2022

        Much talk of Sunak’s wife’s NonDom tax status which is perfectly sensible and legal so good luck to her. NonDom is in place for good reasons in encourages wealthy people to come to the UK and invest here. It is a huge benefit to the UK economy and employment . It was even more of a benefit before that idiot George Osborne attacked and shot the country in the foot.

        If you were rich (and from overseas) with say £100 million would you move to the UK if you had to pay say £5 million PA in UK taxes on your overseas investments? This for virtually nothing of value by way of public services in return worth (perhaps £12,000 or so per person)? We do not even have timely ambulances in the UK!

        As to Sunak he is a tax to death, borrow and piss down the drain, manifesto ratting socialist pathetically pretending to be a tax cutting Conservative. Also a climate alarmist hypocrite on energy with his four cars and many houses and flights to California (I assume he went economy to save half the fuel?)

        So he deserves all the abuse he gets and more. His wife’s position does however give him a very clear & large conflict of interest on the NonDom tax system though. The best you can say is that Labour/SNP would be even worse!

      2. Original Richard
        April 8, 2022

        Lifelogic : “The small modular reactors are likely to cost more in the end than large nuclear and be less efficient too.”

        You may be correct in the long-term but in the short term Rolls Royce have quoted for their 470MW SMRs £40/MWhr (HoL Industry & Regulators Committee meeting 16./11/2021) with supply starting in the early 2030s.

        This price is a third of current wholesale electricity price because of the soaring price of gas and considerably less than half the strike price for Hinkley Point C, although, to be fair, as pointed out by Sir Dieter Helm in an interview with the BBC 04/06/2018 the strike price of Hinkley Point C could have been halved if the Government had financed it themselves instead of the Chinese at 9%.

    3. J Bush
      April 8, 2022

      Reply to reply. It doesn’t need to be another quango.

      Just look at those who are currently or have been in charge of government departments. How many of those have actual qualifications and first hand experience related to that department? As far as I am aware it’s none. They rely on ‘advisers’ and few, if any of them, have the relevant qualifications or experience.

      Enough of PPE, law grads and those with no ‘real world work experience’. The country and its people needs only those with at least 20 years experience in the real world of work in their parliament.

    4. MFD
      April 8, 2022

      The problem is Sir John, the melon community cannot be trusted not to rig the markets for their own power.

      1. glen cullen
        April 8, 2022

        Are you suggesting the energy regulator could be influenced by the governments green revolution, its policy of net-zero and the climate change committee reports

    5. Mark B
      April 8, 2022

      That’s funny. My reply has been instantly deleted.

      ” . . . rig it less.”

      Not a turn of phrase I would use, but hey ho, try again !

      Can we just remove the subsidies and let the market decide. Nice and simple.

    6. BOF
      April 8, 2022

      Reply to reply
      Exactly Sir John. Another Quango = another empire building oportunity. No, no, no!

    7. turboterrier
      April 8, 2022

      Reply to reply
      Not another quango?
      According to promises made over many years there was going to be a bonfire of quangos. By rights there should not be any and market forces should be applied to everything they supposedly manage and deal with.

      1. a-tracy
        April 8, 2022

        They have quangos so they can claim there are only a small number of people in the public sector on over £100k. Just like all the stars paid by the PUBLIC broadcaster on massive sums but not employees.

    8. Neil Sutherland
      April 8, 2022

      ‘The market’ = crony capitalism.

    9. forthurst
      April 8, 2022

      In the bad old days there used to be an organisation whose purpose was precisely to your prescription: it was call the National Grid. This organisation built the high voltage transmission infrastructure that meant that power stations could be remote from the consumer. This has been replaced by a privatised organisation whose purpose is the enrichment of shareholders. Unfortunately, the Tories have never understood that some things should be a public not-for-profit monopoly because of the cost of duplication of the massive infrastructure required to support it and the need to prevent consumers being ripped off; hence the high costs now associated with gas, electricity, railways, telephony all of which used to be run by scientists and engineers but unfortunately with politicians leaning over their shoulders to make their characteristicly catastrophic decisions.

    10. glen cullen
      April 8, 2022

      The Government has (6 April) confirmed that a Future System Operator (FSO) public body will be set up to oversee the energy network. The FSO will act as an independent body aimed at integrating new technologies to enhance grid security…….Sounds like a new quango to me

    11. Mark
      April 8, 2022

      It is a concern that the quangos proliferate: we have
      North Sea Transition Authority
      Gas and Oil New Project Regulatory Accelerators
      Offshore Wind Acceleration Task Force
      Great British Nuclear Vehicle
      Future System Operator
      Electricity Networks Commissioner
      Review of Electricity Market Arrangements
      Clean Green Initiative
      International Climate Finance
      Powering Past Coal Alliance
      Green Grids Initiative

      The Civil Servants and quangocrats must be salivating at the job opportunities.

      1. glen cullen
        April 9, 2022

        Jobs for the boys

  4. javelin
    April 8, 2022

    Please stop going on about a “transition” until there is a proven energy source to “transition” to.

    Reply It is the government view we are in transition. I am telling them to understand the need this decade for fossil fuels.

    1. Bryan Harris
      April 8, 2022

      @Javelin +1

      HMG still doesn’t get it – they can’t simply take away our limited sources of energy to be replaced by a hope and a prayer, some time in the future, possibly.

    2. glen cullen
      April 8, 2022

      Transition should mean; put on stream 100% a one new nuclear power station, before you close down the old nuclear power station…..and not like this governments green revolution dancing on a wing & pray to the wind gods

  5. Sea_Warrior
    April 8, 2022

    ‘The best answer to the issues that poses is to adopt a model which allows any community or landowner to say No to drilling, but to allow communities willing to see such developments a share of the turnover or profits or offer them free or discounted energy.’ Er, no. That’s just giving ‘communities’ the opportunity to be selfish and to hold developers to ransom. If fracking is safe- and I believe it is – then the matter should be between the land-owner, the developer and the state. And the benefit of cheaper gas should be available to all gas-bill payers and not just the selfish few.
    P.S. I applaud the new-found commitment to nuclear-power. Start training the next generation of Homer Simpsons now.

    1. miami.mode
      April 8, 2022

      Totally agree on fracking S_W. It’s typical Tory to favour those with money and influence to get what they want.

    2. Christine
      April 8, 2022

      A land owner drills a hole then goes horizontal for miles under people’s property and they receive no money for the gas/oil extracted from beneath their property, all due to the Government changing the law to state a person doesn’t own anything under their property. Sounds like theft to me.

    3. Mark B
      April 8, 2022

      The funny thing is, if we started to talk about nuclear in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s there would be major public backlash due to safety. Now, thanks to the demonising of fossil fuels we are faced with just two options –

      1) So called renewables with all their inherent problems.

      2) Nuclear.

      Given the choice between the two, and ONLY those two, which ones do you think people would more readily accept given affordability, reliability and energy security ?

      We’ve come, or have been led, a long way in 50 years 😉

  6. BOF
    April 8, 2022

    Well done again Sir John to you and the sensible few who have succeeded in making possible a major change in policy. It is however, laughable that we have to wait yet another three months before a decision is made on fracking .

    1. formula57
      April 8, 2022

      + 1

    2. Mark B
      April 8, 2022

      I think this government is coming to the realisation that you cannot go biting the hand that feeds / elects you.

    3. Atlas
      April 8, 2022

      Agreed.

      Fracking will be essential to our energy security.

      1. glen cullen
        April 8, 2022

        +1

  7. Donna
    April 8, 2022

    The “strategy” still seems to be to believe in 6 impossible things before breakfast. Net Zero by 2050 is still the aim, despite the fact it will make not a shred of difference to the global climate.

    And the Government still seems determined to make most Brits colder, poorer, less mobile and with restricted lives so it can appease the Eco Loon lobby.

    No vote from me.

    1. wanderer
      April 8, 2022

      +1 Donna. Straight to the point. It would be nice if the definition of “Net zero” were to include all the emissions we export to China and elsewhere, then it would be more difficult to drag the electorate down to eco-Hell.

      Meanwhile our host has to work from within to influence the system, I wish him well.

    2. a-tracy
      April 8, 2022

      Donna, who are you going to vote for that would be any different? They all fall into line when they get the keys to Downing Street properties. Boris and the Conservative’s manifesto said 2050 and he brought it forward to 2030.

      1. Donna
        April 8, 2022

        When you want reform it makes sense to vote for the Party that is advocating it.

        I tried voting for the party that advertised itself as Conservative in 2019, and appear to have got Green Socialism, so I won’t be making that mistake again.

        1. Lifelogic
          April 8, 2022

          +1

      2. John Hatfield
        April 8, 2022

        Vote Reform.

        1. Nottingham Lad Himself
          April 8, 2022

          No, reform voting.

    3. DavidJ
      April 8, 2022

      Agreed 100% Donna.

  8. PeteB
    April 8, 2022

    Sir J, This sounded like a strategy without a plan.

    Nuclear is probably the best (only) option in the UK if you rule out gas or tidal development. However the claim there will be 8 new stations by 2030 is a comment from someone living in la-la land. How long has Hinckley C taken?

    As for more wind farms, ask the met office how often we get high pressure nil-wind periods? You could cover e North Sea in windmills and still be short of power. The evidence is clear here – wind power can not be relied upon.

    1. Dave Andrews
      April 8, 2022

      Absolutely no more wind farms until energy storage has been achieved.
      I favour liquid air energy storage which can return around 100W/h per litre. So to last the country 2 weeks at 33GW you need about 44,000 Olympic sized swimming pools. That might sound a lot, but when you consider battery energy storage is similar in volume, the liquid air method is likely to be much cheaper. Plus, when it goes wrong you can fix it with a spanner.

      1. Lifelogic
        April 8, 2022

        How much energy do you think will be wasted/lost in the process electricity to compressed liquid air and back to electricity 60%+ perhaps? How much will this liquid air battery cost per unit of energy stored. Will it make any economic sense as stored energy – compared to stored natural gas or just a pile of coal? I suspect not.

      2. Mark
        April 8, 2022

        The insulated tankage to hold that lot is not cheap. It warms up quite quickly too, so it’s no good for seasonal storage: you have to keep cooling it like your freezer. That means you end up with some very low round trip efficiencies. LAES is perhaps competitive when sited at Milford Haven, where it can enjoy some “free” coolth from regasifying LNG, and some “free” heat from the Pembroke power station and refinery – but only for relatively short term storage measured in hours rather than weeks. It might compete with batteries to store a chunk of solar output between the middle of the day and the evening for example.

      3. Lifelogic
        April 9, 2022

        If they did this it would damage the tax take, inward investment, jobs and the UK economy. Osborne idiotically damaged the tax regime already and just that did huge damage.

    2. SM
      April 8, 2022

      I have read, within the last few days, that coastal and marine windmills are very bad for the ocean environment. Seabirds are either deterred or killed in significantly large numbers, thus destroying their contribution (particularly guano) to growth of submarine plants, upon which much small marine life subsists, which then has a knock-on effect.

    3. Lifelogic
      April 8, 2022

      Tidal is very expensive, has huge environmental issue and silt up and need dredging. Yes predictable energy but very expensive not “on demand” you have to use the energy between the tide movements. Not at all suitable as a backup for wind or solar, neither really is nuclear as ramping up and down is not easy and inefficient.

      If you insist on having wind and solar you really do need to have gas, coal or oil as the back up as these can be ramped up and down rapidly and storage is too expensive and wasteful. Yet our moronic government and their “experts” deterred and blocked investment in fossil fuels while encouraging more wind that actually needs this fossil fuel back up! You also need loads of fossil fuels to build and the wind turbines.

      The government plan to spend loads of taxpayers money on Carbon Capture it seems – not sure why as CO2 is not a serious problem and UK contribution is irrelevant. But if they do want to save CO2 why are the Government fools encouraging/bribing people to scrap their old cars and buy new inferior, expensive, range limited, short lived Electric Ones? This increases CO2 significantly (in the building, charging recycling of those new cars and batteries). We do not have any spare low carbon electricity to charge them with anyway either.

      1. Mark
        April 8, 2022

        Carbon capture is a way of making electricity more expensive, and of using up gas resources far faster than necessary: the higher costs mean that renewables benefit from a higher market price and consumers lose. It also threatens to occupy depleted fields that could be better used for methane storage, like Rough. Of course Rough ended up leaking, which is not what you want with CO2. See Lake Nyos.

    4. DavidJ
      April 8, 2022

      It will also be interesting to see the cost of maintaining windmills in the marine environment.

      1. Lifelogic
        April 8, 2022

        Indeed – using loads and diesel boats and ships.

      2. Lifelogic
        April 9, 2022

        Very expensive and will use lots of diesel ships.

    5. forthurst
      April 8, 2022

      How does tidal work? Water pressure is a function of height not volume.

      1. Lifelogic
        April 8, 2022

        Indeed you get x units of energy per area enclosed times by the tidal height variation. So far less at neap tides plus you generally need to enclose and maintain a large area with sea walls and not remotely on demand energy – so it is very expensive indeed. We do not even fund sea defences very much now so expensive are they.

      2. Mark
        April 9, 2022

        Instantaneous potential power (P) generated is proportional to the product of the impounded wetted surface area (A) and the square of the water level difference (H) between the upstream and downstream sides
        of the impoundment.

        The result looks like this:

        https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/D0N7k/2/

        1. forthurst
          April 9, 2022

          how many turbines will you need and of what surface area to turn all the potential energy into kinetic energy in the available time?

  9. dixie
    April 8, 2022

    Until the start of this year the blackcrap brigade didn’t think we needed any alternative to our increasing import of fuels and that fusion would save the day … in 30 years or so .. after they were gone .. at no cost to themselves. The were either ignorant or chose to ignore the clear signs over several years that we would have to change.

    Either you think about and plan a transition or it will be forced upon you. In this case we would go from economic and secure access to energy to highly un-economic and unsecure even possibly zero access in the case of some sources.

    What is clear is that the people tasked with planning for this country’s future are rubbish – civil servants and politicians. Energy, health, education, commerce, industry; it’s all the same – incompetence compounded by corruption and greed.

    1. Nottingham Lad Himself
      April 8, 2022

      Excellent post, Dixie.

    2. Julian Flood
      April 8, 2022

      Perhaps those who sign off the decisions should have their culpability spelled out below their signature.
      “This decision has a Corporate Manslaughter Risk Factor of…”

      The decisions being made now about the energy supply for the next 30 years have CMRF that is off the plot.

      JF

    3. Mark B
      April 8, 2022

      CS advise, Ministers decide. That’s the way it is and we have had since 2010 a political party and government committed to be the greenest government ever, and that that entails.

      We have no one but ourselves to blame.

      1. dixie
        April 9, 2022

        The issue there is not the “green” goal per se but that like everything else they committed to a goal with no real understanding, strategy or plan. EG Why would anyone consider it rational to increase exposure to intermittent power generation without first buffering it with storage, IE develop the storage capability first, not last?
        Another example is one John has highlighted commit to a humungous increase in funding to improve NHS services/responsiveness without first understanding what improvements were needed and they’re likely actual cost.

        1. dixie
          April 9, 2022

          should be “has highlighted where they commit to”

    4. majorfrustration
      April 8, 2022

      +1 and as usual the tax payer continues to pick up the tab. Sadly there is no accountability for these mistakes and the politicians and the blob continue to move up to the HoLs and enjoy their protected pensions.
      Given Hinkley Point and HS2 – budgets and timing for this new strategy should be questioned

    5. turboterrier
      April 8, 2022

      dixie
      Well said, especially the last paragraph.

    6. a-tracy
      April 8, 2022

      Dixie, it’s not only civil servants and politicians tasked with planning for this Countries future it is also all the Universities. They’ve been getting grants for years but you never hear what comes out of them. How much grant money have they had for the last fifty years specifically for energy replacement and what return have we had on this. How many patents and breakthroughs are the last 50 years of student and postgrad research and development are there? Why doesn’t BP have a research university funded program?

      I don’t understand why the big fossil fuel companies aren’t doing more in reinvention into wind or solar or an other new energy plan, they must be I don’t believe they’re that complacent or they don’t believe its a viable alternative, otherwise they would have got into solar tiles and energy storage ingestion systems years ago, I read the first solar roof in the UK was just over 20 years ago and still no storage solution.

      Necessity is the mother of invention they say.

      1. dixie
        April 9, 2022

        Having interacted with universities as student, corporate partner and investor I have to agree with you about their levels of engagement.
        “Why doesn’t BP have a research university funded program” – I suggest that BP invest a lot in R&D but keep it to internal corporate programmes to preserve corporate secrets and competitiveness.
        Corporate R&D far outweighs public R&D (eg universities) but by it’s nature will be focused on business needs and not shared.
        The energy companies have been working on new areas – in 1972 I recreated an experiment by Shell on a fuel cell in the school lab. They are also branching away from fossil fuels – EG BP operates one of the largest EV public charging network in the UK (BP Pulse).

        1. a-tracy
          April 9, 2022

          Thank you Dixie very interesting, everything just takes so long. I heard about energy reduced cremations a long time ago using a method of freeze drying bodies called promession, it would make great savings, and should reduce the cost of funerals because coffins aren’t used in the process but because its mainly State sector in the UK and I’d guess the councils are making so much money out of it there is no will to change. They’d rather just go on about insulating a loft.

          1. dixie
            April 10, 2022

            From Lab to general market can take 20+ years. Having worked in speculative R&D and product development of complex systems at one of the Bell Labs I don’t wonder at how long things take.
            Even if you can come up with an idea and business case you have internal competition for funding and resources, corporate inertia and ultra conservative dead weights ranged against you. And that’s only the internal barriers, you also have to contend with competitors and the public sector millstones. Throw in the need for standards compliance and trying to sell the ideas and products to customers, then triple it all if trying to market something internationally and it is no surprise things never make it to market or the target market gets changed or has changed by the time the product is ready.
            Even if the senior management and the whole company is 100% behind the product it is still a very difficult problem – eg Tesla has been in the EV business for nearly 20 years but only in 2020 did it really have a product available within a reasonable price point for its target market.

            In the UK we also have to contend with the short termism of financial and governing tribes who have no loyalty to the country as a whole – ie us plebs.
            And then there are the luddites, people who will never accept change. For example Bell Labs developed the first “modern” solar cell 68 years ago and while R&D continues on materials and efficiency improvements they have been a viable means to generate electricity for some years – though you wouldn’t believe they would ever be ready from armchair “expert” comments on this blog.

          2. a-tracy
            April 16, 2022

            Dixie, if you had the power to change it, what would you do immediately to stop the bottle neck quickly and effectively?

            Is it easier in America? What with Elon Musk, Steve Jobs and the apple products making great leaps into touch screen thin mobile devises.

            I guess we had Dyson vacuums, fans, now everyone is making stick vacuum cleaners and the Germans have got on board after holding up his product sales for years.

            I really don’t understand why solar roof tiles aren’t a thing now so new homes are built with south facing roofs made of the tiles automatically.

    7. DavidJ
      April 8, 2022

      +1

  10. dixie
    April 8, 2022

    Who are the “range of forces against” and do they include civil servants?

  11. MPC
    April 8, 2022

    Acknowledging your party loyalty, it’s nevertheless disappointing that you are so welcoming of the government’s simplistic so called new energy strategy of more wind and (long term) nuclear. Why not emphasise an urgent need for immediate ‘transition’ as you like to put it, to a short and long term emphasis on a balanced use of energy sources incorporating nuclear, gas, coal and indeed wind but free of subsidy? Why not more explicit emphasis on the vast increases in system management costs, through the over use of wind, on domestic and business consumers? Why not parliamentary questions explicitly condemning Net Zero with some key facts and calling for it to be superseded by a sensible balanced approach? You and your close colleagues have the knowledge and presentational skills to do it.

  12. Mike Wilson
    April 8, 2022

    I heard some figures on Radio 4 yesterday – I only caught a few minutes of the program, between a quarter to one and one o’clock. The subject appeared to be the whole ‘carbon cost’ of an EV allowing for production etc. I think one of the scenarios considered was ‘you’re about (need) to buy a new car, should you buy an EV? The answer was ‘you’d be causing less carbon after you have done 16,000 miles’.

    LifeLogic often makes the claim on here that over the ‘whole life’ EVs are worse than ICEs – carbon wise. I have asked him or her if they have any figures – but none are ever produced or referenced.

    1. Lifelogic
      April 8, 2022

      What I actually say is that keeping your old similar sized ICU car will almost always cause less CO2 than causing a new EV and battery to be built. Obviously there are loads of variables but an EV might do say 100K miles or less over its useful life (using typically 35KWH of electricity much of which will be gas generated anyway). Just the energy going into the materials, mining, construction, delivery, recycling of a new EV and battery plus recycling will be far, far more than that. Bear in mind there is a lot of pro EV car propaganda and misinformation around.

    2. Lifelogic
      April 8, 2022

      The programme quotes the figure to make a new small EV causes 12 tons of CO2. That is about that same as using 4,600 litres of diesel which would take a small diesel car about 50,000 miles. But the EV still has to be charged and we have no zero carbon electricity to do so. The EV doing the same mileage would use perhaps half as much carbon to produce the electricity per mile as diesel (even wind as a carbon cost and lots of losses at the power station). So break even on CO2 is when the old diesel and the new EV have done about 100,ooo miles. By which time the new EV would almost certainly need a new battery and be worth almost nothing! The new EV would also have cost far more in finance and depreciation per mile and have contributed far less tax to the government despite all this extra cost. Plus the EV will need recycling at end of life and generally are used as low mileage vehicles too.

      It was after all a BBC programme! As I say an EV typical caused more CO2 over their lifetime as compared to running your old car for longer instead. Far more expensive too (other than for things like ULEZ, congestion charges and other government market rigging).

  13. Nigl
    April 8, 2022

    I see Boris says this strategy is righting the wrongs of the past. Yes. Successive Tory governments and as usual with Boris wonderful headlines, big ideas but zero detail and more importantly cost and who pays? Apart from us obviously.

    Umpteen nuclear power stations in 10/15 years. Anyone believe him? Not me. Green hydrogen. The latest technology of the moment. Can they really produce a nations supply by electrolysis. In its early development state. Nuclear fusion. On the drawing board. Wind. No good if it doesn’t blow. Ah yes. Let’s store more. Massive batteries? What cost and how many needed when the wind does blow. Etc etc. Plus zero understanding/costing of the related infrastructure needs.

    We have a phrase, BS over brains. Sums up Karteng. Get Lord Matt Ridley in the job. Now he does know the subject. Unfortunately his facts won’t fit with Boris’s BS.

    Incidentally I see he thinks wives should be kept out of politics. I guess like partygate, for others not him.

    And in that respect, if comment is accurate, with your party in trouble, do you really think the children in No 10 leaking against Sunak is helping one iota? Another example of why it’s not fit for purpose and needs a clear out before it’s too late, politically.

    1. Lifelogic
      April 8, 2022

      Green hydrogen is absurdly expensive, hard to store and very, very energy wasteful.

  14. Everhopeful
    April 8, 2022

    There are going to be an awful lot of unpaid energy bills.
    The price is now unaffordable.
    A lot of people will be made ill or sicker by the results of all this…in addition to those who fell during the plague.
    An extra £2000 a year might make us feel a bit happier but that ain’t going to happen.
    Or will Joe Bloggs, as ever, be called upon to subsidise both the wealthier and the poorer?
    And where pray are all the green alternative products?

    1. Everhopeful
      April 8, 2022

      This is how we begin to “Own nothing”?
      Debt…repossession.

    2. Mickey Taking
      April 8, 2022

      ‘There are going to be an awful lot of unpaid energy bills.’
      And possibly more energy provider businesses going bust?

  15. Florence
    April 8, 2022

    The energy plan is based on ideology not practicality and consequently it won’t work.

    The Chinese are having serious trouble with Taishan which is the same design as Hinckley Point C and the others you propose to build. So they could all be white elephants and always offline. They take 20 years to build anyway.

    There is no way to store huge volumes of electricity for days or weeks on end, so wind and solar are pointless.

    The delay to authorising more oil and gas sounds like kicking the can down the road. Why not authorize it today?

    There’s little doubt now that electricity will be supplied in the UK on an intermittent basis in the future. Time to start getting used to that idea and planning accordingly on a personal basis.

  16. Stred
    April 8, 2022

    gas in short supply not has.

  17. Stred
    April 8, 2022

    This latest reversal of the lamentable policy of the last 30 years at least will bring a UK back to the position of reliable base load nuclear comrising 8 stations the size of Hinkley giving 24GW capacity, or perhaps 25% of a total, allowing some increase for electric cars and space heating. These will not be available until late 2030s. However, the large increase of
    offshore wind and solar will at best give 50% and 5% of the nominal capacity, which will be
    similar to the nuclear, but require 100%
    backup. Nuclear is not sufficiently flexible, so hydrogen from converted methane must be
    part of this. Electrolysis is too expensive and
    gas is likely to stay in short supply and
    expensive. Besides which, the estimated total
    capacity for an wholly electrified UK is 150GW ,which would require at least 30 nuclear
    .stations.

    In other words, it dioesn’t work unless we continue to use gas and coal for electricity and heating and petrol for most transport, which would at least keep us from freezing during at mid winter wind lull lasting two weeks.
    Corrected version.

    1. Lifelogic
      April 8, 2022

      +1

  18. roger w carradice
    April 8, 2022

    Sir John
    How will more nuclear, windmills and solar keep my gas boiler running?
    Roger

    1. glen cullen
      April 8, 2022

      Wait 10 years and ask Boris….remember ‘jam tomorrow’

    2. Lifelogic
      April 8, 2022

      +1

  19. alan jutson
    April 8, 2022

    As usual, too little too late, but better than nothing.

    I note with the promise of eight new nuclear sites, no suggested or planned output was quoted.
    I guess for speed of operation the Rolls Royce type of set up is envisaged, whilst welcome would we not need rather more than eight of these smaller units to make a real difference.
    Land based wind is not the answer without economical and simple functional back up, and certainly fertile land should not be used when we need more food production at home (not re-wilding)

    Given the late decision making on this, millions which will include many full time working families in the UK, will suffer fuel and food poverty/choice for many years.

  20. George Brooks.
    April 8, 2022

    Future generations will not thank this government for littering the countryside or our coast with unsightly windmills. Nor will they understand why we are covering up our farm land with solar panels when the aim is to grow more of our own food and vegetables.

    Please Sir John, will you or anyone who makes a comment point me to where I can find cogent reasons as to why our many tidal streams all around our coast are never mentioned or considered. Come rain or shine, wind or calm they run 24/7 without fail. Please may I have an answer.

    1. Lifelogic
      April 8, 2022

      Tidal Streams – To expensive in general to be worth collecting the energy available also environmental issue on fish, animals, potential flooding…

    2. Stred
      April 9, 2022

      Read Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air by MacKay, available free on the net. It could only produce a small % and has been tried unsuccessfully.

    3. dixie
      April 9, 2022

      From info I’ve seen there are about 20 viable tidal sites around the UK. The problem has been finding a way to generate enough power economically – not just in terms of capital cost but also maintenance and longevity. I’ve help fund the Orbital Marine O2 activity in the Orkneys which has been doing the R&D on solutions and they are now looking to support a tidal stream project off the Isle of Wight. So the engineering issues have been progressed but it will take a while to build installations.
      Even so, as Stred points out, the generating capacity of the O2 generator at 2MW per unit is not as high as other approaches so won’t figure significantly in addressing national power requirements.

    4. BeebTax
      April 9, 2022

      The Severn Barrage…cancelled because the RSPB and others said it would affect birdies etc. A similar idea for the eastern Solent dropped after the Severn was shelved. Add to that marine conservation legislation we took from the EU and our civil servants gold-plated…you don’t have a hope in hell of getting consent to construct a major (or even minor) tidal stream capture system.

  21. Lisa
    April 8, 2022

    How will this transition to electric vehicles work? Where will millions of people charge their vehicles when they don’t have large drives to park them (unlike MPs)? How will the electricity grid that can barely cope with the load now manage to charge all those vehicles? How will vehicles that do hundreds of miles in a day not just a 20 mile commute manage to do that with very limited, slow charging points and short range batteries? How will people that are now struggling to pay for food or electricity manage to buy £40k+ electric cars that only last a few years before the batteries die and are written off? Where will the raw materials to build all these eco follies come from when new mines are almost impossible to build and diesel engines which do all the real work are outlawed? Where will all the materials that make all the unrecyclable turbine blades come from without oil? How will millions of homes be converted to heat pumps that are less efficient than almost any other heating method?
    I could go on but anyone that has actually considered the green reolution must realise that it cannot work and will last only until enough people see that or until enough people are caged in smart cities and prevented from travelling or protesting.

    1. Lifelogic
      April 8, 2022

      +1 the real agenda is to price most people out of their cars!

  22. R.Grange
    April 8, 2022

    I don’t share your enthusiasm, Sir John. On the government website, three out of the four bullet points presenting the intended changes represent an expansion of ‘green’ energy sources:-
    Offshore wind
    Onshore wind
    Heat pump manufacturing
    Your government appears to be doubling down on the most unreliable energy source, and the least attractive way of heating our homes.
    It doesn’t get my vote.

    1. Lifelogic
      April 8, 2022

      +1 or nuclear which will take very many years.

  23. Thames Trader
    April 8, 2022

    There needs to be more encouragements for households to cut their energy use by installing improved insulation – for example external wall cladding. A simple way to do this would be to allow home owners to set the cost against tax over several years.

  24. wanderer
    April 8, 2022

    ” …model which allows any community or landowner to say No to drilling, but to allow communities willing to see such developments a share of the turnover or profits or offer them free or discounted energy.”

    I like the idea of allowing communities to get a share of the windfall profits from solar/wind farms. I would go further though, and say they can’t say “no” to drilling, so long as the application has gone through a (much simplified) planning process. We all need the gas/oil, and I’ve often seen a vociferous entitled nimby crowd block a development that would provide jobs for the masses and boost the local economy.

  25. Bryan Harris
    April 8, 2022

    The government still favours more wind farms.

    That alone should tell us everything we need to know about the viability of HMG’s energy policy.

    There is no point in reiterating just how useless windmills are – everybody but ministers in charge of energy policy have grasped this fact.

    What is it going to take before reality descends on HMG, and their oppressive Net-Zero ideology is thrown into the dustbin of history where it belongs?

  26. agricola
    April 8, 2022

    It still appears a bit wooly to me. I want a plan with dates and costs. Targets that enable everyone to know when we aim to be self sufficient. Statements like government favours a commitment to nuclear are deliberately ill defined.
    For gas , local nimbies can be bypassed using directional drilling techniques that would leave them ignorant of the fracking location. The record 20 years ago was around 11 kilometers. More importantly, protesters should not be allowed to dictate in what is a national crisis.
    I want to see a coherent plan, short term, medium term, and long term that puts the resolution of our energy problems on a war footing. An additional aim should be the removal of foreign finance or control of any part of it. In the process do not forget the Channel Islands need an interconnector.

  27. ukretired123
    April 8, 2022

    Back to earth with a bang for the green behind the ears folly and it will not be solved quickly.
    O/T in the meantime it was interesting to see how countries voted in favour of Russia in the UNHRC and those sitting on the fence or their hands and those under the influence of Russia and China like India. Now we hear Mrs Rishi is wealthier than Her Maj and a nom-dom…

  28. oldtimer
    April 8, 2022

    How much longer will the disastrous (and warring) duo of Johnson and Sunak be tolerated by Conservative MPs? Energy policy is built on fantasies. Tax policies remain a shambles. Voters are treated as mugs who don’t or won’t notice. I have news for Conservative MPs. They do notice and they will vote accordingly.

  29. glen cullen
    April 8, 2022

    I don’t see an energy strategy, I see a green revolution in full flow with a policy of smoke & mirrors
    Nothing has changed apart from Boris maybe throwing in a few nuclear power stations in a decade or two
    The green levy of @25% on energy bills remain

    1. Mark B
      April 8, 2022

      That Green Levy, that’s us paying to make other people rich.

  30. turboterrier
    April 8, 2022

    Please can our government wake up and smell the coffee.
    Our friend (not) across the water is kicking off again about the new energy strategy being proposed, threatening legal action. Did we not leave?
    People want to still be a part of EU?
    Crazy man crazy, just pray that Le Penn can win, get rid of him and change French attitudes.

    1. hefner
      April 8, 2022

      TT, Where did you see that? I cannot find any recent reference to Macron criticising the UK. The only thing I could find was on 06/04 the EU pushing to cut reliance on derivatives clearing in the London Stock Exchange by 2025.
      As far as I could understand, there was nothing involving the UK’s new energy strategy.

      Or are you referring to Lord Frost’s ‘unreasonable French threats to energy supply’. If that’s the case, that news was from October 2021.

      1. turboterrier
        April 9, 2022

        Reported on line with the Daily Express

        1. hefner
          April 9, 2022

          What the Express said on 07/04/2022 is that the new UK energy plan will provide a boost to EDF of which the French state owns 84%. I could not find anything about Macron kicking off about that plan, nor about him threatening legal action.
          You must have your very own dedicated version of the Express website, with news ‘for your eyes only’.

    2. Bill brown
      April 8, 2022

      TT
      If you knew anything about french politics you would not write such absolute BS

      1. turboterrier
        April 9, 2022

        Bill Brown
        All I can go on is history and where I stay. The locals hate him with a vengeance and are sick to death of his politics. The French over centuries did three fifths of naff all for England other than fight with us.Bit like the Scots still living in the past and not letting go and moving on a bit like remsiners whatever that means.

        1. hefner
          April 9, 2022

          Oh I love this comment ‘living in the past’. I don’t know why but ‘beam, speck, and eye’ came to my mind.

  31. Mickey Taking
    April 8, 2022

    VERY MUCH on -topic.
    Grauniad…
    What is non-domicile status?
    A person who is registered as non-domiciled with HM Revenue and Customs is tax resident in the UK but does not have to pay UK tax on income and capital gains earned overseas – including on company stocks or cash made from selling a second home – unless they bring their money into the UK or deposit it into a UK bank account. However, non-doms do still have to pay tax on money earned within the UK.
    How many people have non-dom status?
    A study recently revealed that the number of people who had ever claimed non-dom status in the UK rose from 162,000 in 2001 to 238,000 in 2018. It has also been claimed that from 1m Indians in this country 100,000 claim non-dom status. The fee for having this perk is £30k or £60k delending on how long the claim continues for.

    Well Sir John will the Tory manifesto state you will cancel the financial perk afforded to these 238,000 people while your Chancellor denies £20 per week to the lowest income citizens of this country?
    Have courage and publish this – it is a moral disgrace that should be stopped…..friends in high places eh?

    1. Mickey Taking
      April 8, 2022

      I think we all know thats a No! but should be a YES.

    2. Mickey Taking
      April 8, 2022

      Sir John -how do you feel about your PM and Chancellor continuing to demonstrate their unsuitability for office?

    3. Stred
      April 9, 2022

      If I rent out my French holiday home and make a profit, the French government insists in a tax return and payment. I also have to make a UK declaration and they as want payment. That’s why I don’t rent it anymore. Presumably, Mrs Sunak has to pay tax in India, so why she pay it here when it was on Indian income?

      1. hefner
        April 9, 2022

        S, Well you have indeed to make a French tax return, but if you have pointed out to the French (impots.gouv.fr) that you are a UK resident and taxpayer (you’ll have to give them your HMRC UTR) and have moved your profit to the UK, you’ll only pay once to HMRC on the totality of your income, thanks to the UK-France tax convention.
        The French tax services will provide you a form to be filled for you to prove them that you have included the income coming from France in your UK tax return. Nowadays this procedure that certainly appears complicated can be done on the web: the only thing to remember being that the dates to submit the various forms are different in the UK (usually by end of January if self-assessment) and France (24/05 this year for non-residents in France).

    4. Lifelogic
      April 9, 2022

      If they did this it would damage the tax take, inward investment, jobs and the UK economy. Osborne idiotically damaged the tax regime already and just that did huge damage.

  32. Fishknife
    April 8, 2022

    LL,
    When I said “Off shore wind farms with battery ships?” I was referring to a ship containing batteries, mobile, not taking up valuable land.
    There is a constant bleat about when the wind doesn’t blow – get over it, we don’t stop eating just because crops only come in once or twice a year; take what nature gives, with thanks.

    1. turboterrier
      April 8, 2022

      Fish knife
      It’s not only about the winnot blowing its is aĺ about when the wind is too strong. Batteries like turbines and solar are not the panacea of all that is wrong with the UK energy

    2. Lifelogic
      April 8, 2022

      Batteries far too expensive (and short lived) relative to the value of electricity usefully stored. On ships even more expensive and uncompetitive.

  33. SecretPeople
    April 8, 2022

    According to today’s Telegraph, the company behind plans to develop the North Sea’s Cambo oil field has been bought by Ithaca Energy, part of the Israeli energy conglomerate Delek Group.

    So, does is this move consistent with national energy security? Why must seemingly all our national resources and initiatives be exploited by other countries?

  34. Bryan Harris
    April 8, 2022

    Talking of the NHS…………
    Yesterday I went for my annual chat with a hospital consultant on the state of my back  — Talk about an absolute waste of time. My usual doctor had passed me onto another doctor. She still hadn’t confirmed exactly what they are calling my condition or if I needed another scan.

    The hospital was such a depressing place as well – it’s gone down hill in terms of spirit – it had none.

    We talked about other treatments, like osteopathy – the doctor just confirmed what I already knew — The NHS doesn’t treat people or do anything to make them feel better. They simply diagnose the problems, tick more boxes and so on. 

    I wasn’t expecting a total cure, but there are things the NHS could do — but of course they can’t afford to treat people because they’re too busy hiring more bureaucrats, more managers, and ever more diversity administrators.  There is no money left over to fund anything that will really help.

  35. mongoose
    April 8, 2022

    “For the period of transition prior to many more people heating and travelling with electricity…”

    Sir John, electricity isn’t a source of energy. It has to be made by using other source. BTW the notion of using a windmill to charge a car while it sits at the side of the road is so half-baked it makes my teeth feel funny. The only available sensible strategy is a) local gas (offshore and via fracking) and b) transition to nuclear in the longer term. But I will be dead by the time that has happened.

  36. MWB
    April 8, 2022

    Has your government ordered any Small Modular Reactors from Rolls Royce yet, or are they planning to betray English industry once again and order from foreigners ?

    1. MFD
      April 8, 2022

      Of course they are, to manufacture here would inflate Boris’ precious carbon target and that is more important than employment of our population. Its so obvious!

  37. Mark Thomas
    April 8, 2022

    Sir John,
    It seems to me the only reason the government seeks to change energy policy is because of the war in Ukraine and the demonising of Russia and all things Russian. This also applies to imports of Russian gas and oil. That there was ever a policy to import energy from another country when we have more than enough to supply our own needs is difficult to comprehend. It was not that long ago that MPs were in thrall to the dire warnings of the Swedish doom goblin, to the average person also difficult to comprehend. At least the UK is able to change to a sensible energy policy, unlike so many of our former friends in the EU (they were only our friends as long as we gave them money). Their future energy supplies may not be so secure, having to rely on expensive imports of liquefied natural gas from the US. I wish I knew the German word for schadenfreude.

    1. SM
      April 8, 2022

      +10

  38. X-Tory
    April 8, 2022

    1. “The best answer to the issues that poses is to adopt a model which allows any community or landowner to say No to drilling, but to allow communities willing to see such developments a share of the turnover or profits or offer them free or discounted energy.” NO. This just feeds and panders to the alarmist LIES about fracking. If I allow a large supermarket to be built near me, will I get free food??? The government should be stating emphatically that British fracking poses NO RISKS whatsoever, and any local objections will be overruled.

    2. “For the longer term the government favours a major commitment to nuclear.” NO. Stop falling for these government LIES. The plan is to only marginally increase the share of electricity produced by nuclear power, from the current 20% to 25%. Hardly a “major commitment” in my eyes. And the government’s promises are total hogwash anyway, since they are focusing mainly on the moronic large foreign power stations which are NEVER, EVER built either on time or on budget – and are often not built at all! If the government meant what they said and had an ounce of either brains or patriotism (let alone both – that’s too much to hope for!) they would be focusing on accelerating and expanding the building of the RR SMRs. But they aren’t. Which is why their proposals are total garbage.

  39. Enough Already
    April 8, 2022

    I think Benny Peiser sums it up well,
    “What the government has published today is essentially a wish list of things they want to do in the next 5-25 years – but which has absolutely zero effect on the energy cost and the cost of living crisis. To make matters worse, most of the projects on their wish list will have to be subsidised by tens of billions of pounds, making energy bills even more expensive in years to come.”

  40. The Prangwizard
    April 8, 2022

    Your extremist ‘green’ leader, and also our PM is deliberately sacrificing the comfort and wellbeing of the lower majority of the people of the UK. Our energy home security is needed now, not in a couple of decades.

    He should have announced emergency actions immediately to produce as much gas and oil as possible now, followed by his long term plan, but he is such a fanatical believer in his Netzero policy that our nation, everything, and every body but him and his elite friends must suffer.

    The idea that a review of fracking is needed is disgrace, he could have authorised it now but he is still wholly opposed to it oil and coal, he hopes it can all be stalled in the name of his fame with windmills.

  41. ChrisS
    April 8, 2022

    Common sense might be about to break out but I would not want to bet my own money on it.
    Good news about Nuclear and North Sea exploration, as long both are backed to the hilt.
    The Shetland oil field now to be developed, reputedly contains 1000-bn barrels of oil and very large but unstated reserves of gas. How any government could have contemplated leaving reserves of this quantity and value in the ground is nonsensical.

    These reserves can be brought ashore relatively quickly and will have a production life of at least 25 years. That takes us up to around 2055 so it seems likely that the 2050 net zero target will have to be extended a bit. That won’t make one jot of difference to the climate, given that we already produce less than 1% of global CO2 emissions and our share has been and will continue to fall.

    In the meantime, climate change extremists will rant and rave while we can sit back and watch Sturgeon complain bitterly, althought I bet she will accept and spend Scotland’s share of the revenue !

  42. agricola
    April 8, 2022

    Totally off Piste.
    Our Chancellor and especially his wife are attrracting a lot of criticism for their tax arrangements. My best guess is that those arrangements are within the law of the UK. However squeaky clean they are, the merest hint of anything untoward feeds socialist envy politics.
    I would suggest that good PR in this case would be the creation of a UK manufacturing branch of the family business. If that branch could build to employing 1000 people in the West Midlands, the North East, or Cornwall, it might close down the envious wailing. If you read this diary Richi , give it some thought.

    1. formula57
      April 8, 2022

      @ agricola – your proposed PR move, aside from bringing years of expense and difficulty, might too soon be dismissed as a cynical ploy of obvious transparency though. No, the only salvation available to the Chancellor if he intends to preserve a career in politics is to extend the benefits of non-domiciled status to us all. That would take the wind out of many sails.

  43. Richard1
    April 8, 2022

    Off topic, it’s very odd to see all these self proclaimed ‘progressives’ arguing that Mr Sunak should order his wife’s tax affairs. Although many of these people are unable to define the term ‘woman’, most of them presumably believe that a married woman should not be subject to diktats from her husband over her financial affairs. In this case, since mrs Sunak is an Indian citizen, it is again very bizarre that ‘progressives’ suggest that she should be obliged to give up her citizenship of India in order that she should cease to have to pay tax there and can become British and so pay all of her tax here.

    Do ‘progressives’ think that an Indian citizen should if possible become British and that a man should order his wife as to how she should organise her finances? Curiously, I haven’t heard any of these questions put by BBC interviewers to Labour politicians who are loud on this topic, such as Mr Milliband and Mrs Thornberry.

  44. JohnE
    April 8, 2022

    Sanctioning Russian oil isn’t working. We are just subsidising China and India as there is now a $20 per barrel discount for Russian crude vs Brent crude. That won’t worry Putin as the Russian cost of production is very low so he can just ship more. We aren’t hurting him at all.
    So impose a tax on Russian oil at a starting level of $20 per barrel with the proceeds being paid into a fund to support Ukraine reconstruction. Then at least some good can come of it.

    1. JohnE
      April 8, 2022

      I now read on Bloomberg that Shell are selling a “Latvian blend” of oil that is 49.9% Russian and the rest non-Russian. Apparently this is completely legal as the sanctions are enacted. At least under my taxing Russian oil proposal the Russian component of the blend could be taxed which would remove the incentive.

  45. alastair harris
    April 8, 2022

    I know that the government has set a deadline for banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, and hybrids, but I wonder how they see this translating into the migration from such cars to electric. We can imagine they will use tax policy to try and influence this, but given the “uproar” over the current issues with the cost of domestic energy, you have to wonder how sustainable such a policy is. Not to mention the economic impact of taking people’s cars away. Presumably the government forecasts such things. Are these forecasts in the public domain?

  46. XY
    April 8, 2022

    The last para is the elephant in the room.

    The so-called energy strategy will help the consumers of 2035-2050, but do nothing for the consumers of 2022.

    A “review” into fracking has been initaited (no urgency mentioned) which is Sir Humphrey’s way of saying no, but we won’t make it public yet.

    Kwarteng needs to go, He’s just another net zero acolyte with no qualification or experience for a role in energy generation. He refuses to see that fracking needs to happen now. Cuadrill has said they can have gas flowing in significant quantities in 12 months. From the Cuadrilla web site:

    https://cuadrillaresources.uk/cuadrilla-comment-on-jeremy-warner-article-frackings-false-hope-of-low-priced-energy-security/

    The photo also shows just how small these temporary wells are compared to a massive array of ugly wind turbines. The piece was written to counter an article in the Telegraph which was inaccurate but didn;’t even ask Cuadrilla for comment. Which shows that the media are, as usual these days, writing their own opinions to further their own agenda, or that of the outlet’s owner.

  47. John Hatfield
    April 8, 2022

    “There is a review of onshore gas.”
    What an irritating shower of wasters this government is. For God’s sake just get on with it.
    Where is Oliver Cromwell when you need him?

  48. X-Tory
    April 8, 2022

    Listening to the Downing St press conference I hear Boris Johnson all but ruling out taking any action in Northern Ireland to either activate Article 16 or disapply the Protocol altogether. Whatever discreet, polite, and amicable pressure you and your Brexiteer colleagues in parliament think you have been applying on the government – and on Boris in particular – to solve the problem there clearly HASN’T WORKED. When, for the love of God, are you going to do something effective? This has become utterly intolerable.

  49. hefner
    April 8, 2022

    Why should the government order any Small Modular Reactors from Rolls Royce? Should such a development not be the responsibility of one or several of our energy providers? Do you really want the energy sector to be renationalised?
    BTW the Government (UKRI) has already provided a £210 m grant to Rolls-Royce for SMR development.

    According to rolls-royce.com ‘Small Modular Reactors’, Rolls-Royce SMR Ltd (an independently set up company, which appears to be financed by Rolls-Royce, BNF Resources Ltd, Constellation, and Qatar Investment Authority, supported in Government by UKRI Innovate UK (part of BEIS) and with the following partners Atkins, Assystem, Jacobs, N-AMRC, Laing O’Rourke, Bam/Nuttall, NNL, TWI and KeppelFels) has entered its regulatory assessment phase in March 2022, is expected to have ‘90% of manufacturing and assembly activities carried out in factory conditions’ and its SMRs could be expected to be linked to the UK grid in the early 2030s. So only eight years to wait.

  50. O
    April 8, 2022

    The Government’s energy strategy is for 24GW of nuclear power by 2050 representing 25% of projected electricity demand.

    Since the Net Zero Strategy requires everything to be electrified by 2050 and hence the projected electricity demand includes transport, heating, industry and agriculture, this means the Government intends to halve our current consumption of 1650 TWhrs.

    This is despite an increase in population of at least 10 million people by 2050 at current immigration levels.

    1. Original Richard
      April 8, 2022

      O = Original Richard

  51. glen cullen
    April 8, 2022

    UK set to introduce Zero Emission Vehicle mandate for car manufacturers in 2024
    The Department for Transport (DfT) has set out new plans to require auto manufacturers to produce a certain amount of zero-emission cars and vans from 2024.
    https://www.edie.net/uk-set-to-introduce-zero-emission-vehicle-mandate-for-car-manufacturers-in-2024/?fbclid=IwAR3Q4_bORLHS5vI5fMn3zRwnb7f64naOyiWqVZmsMXuBb_kg7Mz9-GKrqA0
    Don’t remember reading this in the 2019 manifesto

  52. Original Richard
    April 8, 2022

    The Government’s strategy is for 8 (fission) reactors/24GW to be delivered at the rate of one reactor/year by 2050.

    So this will be between 2042 and 2050. And nothing before despite Rolls Royce saying they can start delivering their SMRs by the early 2030s.

    BTW, the Government’s/BEIS’ Energy White Paper of Dec 2020 said they “were aiming to build a viable nuclear fusion power plant by 2040” which would make the fission reactors, and all other forms of energy production, redundant.

  53. Original Richard
    April 8, 2022

    The Government’s energy strategy states: “We will aim to double our ambition to up to 10GW of low carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030, with at least half coming from green hydrogen and utilising excess offshore wind power to bring down costs.”

    What “excess offshore wind”?

    50GW of installed wind capacity by 2030 will only produce an average of 25GW through intermittency (50% capacity factor) whilst our demand will be between 40GW and 50GW.

    And since the electrolysis – hydrogen – electricity cycle is only 30% efficient it is an expensive waste of time for the storage of electricity.

    Furthermore, because of hydrogen’s, small molecular size, poor energy density and requirement for high pressures and/or very low temperatures for distribution it is not suitable for transport and home applications.

    1. Nottingham Lad Himself
      April 8, 2022

      Good old coal gas was up to 60% hydrogen.

      Didn’t seem to have any particular piping or storage issues.

    2. dixie
      April 9, 2022

      What is the overall efficiency of the dig/mine the fossil fuel-store it-transport it-process it-transport it-store it-pump it and burn it cycle?
      What would that efficiency then be if you cannot get the fuel because the owning country won’t sell it to you?

      It makes more sense to process the hydrogen, eg into methane/syngas or other fuel, for domestic and transport applications.

  54. Denis Cooper
    April 8, 2022

    Off topic:

    https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2022/04/08/news/boris-johnson-refuses-to-rule-out-triggering-article-16-of-brexit-s-ni-protocol-2638251/

    “Boris Johnson refuses to rule out triggering Article 16 of Brexit’s NI Protocol”

    I wish somebody would take him on one side and explain that first he needs to get Parliament to pass the laws to protect the EU Single Market that were contemplated in the Command Paper last July:

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/04/07/too-many-wars/#comment-1311241

    Those laws could cover all goods which do not meet EU requirements, not just medicines:

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/04/07/too-many-wars/#comment-1311296

    Because by conceding this arrangement for medicines the EU have accepted the principle.

    1. Neil Sutherland
      April 8, 2022

      Johnson talking tough on Brexit just before election. Will people never learn?

    2. Denis Cooper
      April 9, 2022

      The principle being that of “parallel marketability”, as explained here:

      https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/01/10/has-the-government-met-its-2019-manifesto-commitments-heres-my-assessment-on-where-we-are-at/#comment-1290465

      “A good idea, “parallel marketability”, was proposed in paragraph 152 of the December 2016 document “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, and that better solution could also be applied to the Irish land border:

      “The laws of the European Single Market would apply only to those goods and services traded between Scotland and the rest of the European Single Market … this involves applying the principle of “parallel marketability” whereby goods and services originating in Scotland may be legally marketed in both the UK and the EEA.”

      By analogy, EU laws would only apply to goods and services exported from Northern Ireland to the EU including the Republic of Ireland, not to goods produced and traded only within the UK including Northern Ireland.”

  55. Mark
    April 8, 2022

    Nuclear: the ambition of 24GW by 2050 as being 25% of expected demand is far too low (because the ambition for wind and solar is far too high). Nuclear should be sized at a minimum to provide our anticipated baseload needs, with an eye on increasing that if cost effective flexible nuclear is developed. By the same token we need to get on with replacing what we are losing and have already lost far more rapidly. The good news appears to be that the message that the ONR is an obstruction to be removed or bypassed has been taken on board, and messages about speeding the approvals process by accepting accreditation of foreign standards and moving towards international standards appear to have been heeded. It might have been a good idea to have stated that initial nuclear investment will concentrate on proven technology with a track record of more rapid build times, even if that would upset the French. The Japanese and Koreans can build a new plant in 4 years, so together with an accelerated planning timescale we could actually be looking at 2 completions a year from say 2028. Building a consistent design helps to lower costs and speed build times.

    Later developments will need to concentrate on lower cost, ability to use different fuels (e.g. fast breeders and reactors that burn waste, possibly also thorium if it can be done economically and technically), and flexibility of output to help match demand, perhaps with some other elements such as CHP. SMR designs are likely to be important, as will the need to key in to international JVs with the likes of Moltex and NuScale to help open up export markets and re-develop our own industry.

  56. Bill brown
    April 8, 2022

    Why are we so late with the visa with the Ukrainian?

  57. Mark
    April 9, 2022

    I note that at the end of last month Ørsted sold a 50% interest in their 1.3GW Hornsea 2 offshore wind project to AXA for £3bn. That reveals a huge disconnect between industry and government expectations of the future cost of offshore wind. The project can expect say 600MW average generation, or 5.3TWh per year, 2.65TWh for 50%. The capital charge cost for amortising the investment plus interest is about 8% p.a., or £240m p.a. over the life of the wind farm. That implies over £90/MWh (240/2.65) just for amortisation. Maintenance costs are of the order of another £20/MWh. The current value of the Hornsea 2 CFD is £73.71/MWh.

    It would seem that there is no expectation of taking up the CFD when the project is completed, and an expectation that even allowing for curtailment average revenues will be over £110/MWh. With no CFD protection for curtailment the project can expect perhaps 25% of its potential output to be worthless, so they are expecting production revenue to be over £145/ MWh.

    Kwasi and Boris are deluded if they think that wind is going to be cheap.

Comments are closed.