My Interventions in the Energy Bill (1)

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):
On that very point—security—what provision is being made for days when there is no wind, given that we will see the closure of most of our nuclear power stations this decade and will have little else to rely on, other than fossil fuel? How are we going to get through?

Andrew Bowie, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Nuclear and Networks:
My right hon. Friend knows that I am a great champion of supporting our oil and gas industry, which continues to supply a large amount of our energy baseload and will do for a significant amount of time to come. As he also knows, we are investing a lot of time and money into ensuring that we deliver the next generation of nuclear power plants, including small modular reactors, so that we have the energy baseload that this country needs so that, as he rightly suggests, when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, people can still be assured that the lights will come on. The Conservative principles that I have spoken about are at the very heart of the Bill, which I am pleased to bring before the House today.

It is true that some time has passed since the Bill was introduced in July last year. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), was but a boy when this Bill was introduced last year. A huge amount of constructive dialogue and dedicated Toggle showing location ofColumn 275work has taken place during that time. I thank all the Secretaries of State at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Ministers and the Prime Ministers who have been involved since the Bill was introduced.

Since the Bill came to this House from the other place, I have met and engaged with colleagues from all sides of House. We debated the Bill in a lively Second Reading and spent 72 long hours in Committee, so I start by thanking everyone across the House, especially the shadow ministerial team, the former Scottish National party energy spokesman, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and all on the Government side, for their constructive engagement in ensuring that we got the Bill to these final stages in a state that, I hope, will be broadly welcomed by most, if not all, Members.

97 Comments

  1. Wanderer
    September 8, 2023

    “How are we going to get through?”

    Most of us won’t, unless net zero is dropped. But it won’t hugely disadvantage the elites like Mr Bowie. They’ll be snug, warm and light, taking as many holidays in the sun as they want and driving their electric cars to their country homes on near-empty roads. Bliss.

    1. PeteB
      September 8, 2023

      Agreeed Wanderer, Mr Bowie glibly talks of “investing a lot of time and money in nuclear power”. Two questions on that:
      1. Agree on the time invested (read wasted), but when will this translate into working generation?
      2. What is the cost of having 30%+ extra power capacity over the amount the UK needs, to cover the times when there is no sun nor wind?
      Renewables are not guaranteed so cannot be counted towards our capacity targets. This makes them horrifically expensive.

      1. I’mEverhopeful
        September 8, 2023

        +++
        GLIB
Yes exactly the right word!

        1. Ian+wragg
          September 8, 2023

          SMRs. We await with trepidation as Fishy awards the contract to Ge/Hitachi pushing out our home grown industry.

        2. Hope
          September 8, 2023

          JR,
          Sunak caved in to sign UK up to Horzon agreement 3 years having been blocked out because, up until Sunak, UK would not give up N.Ireland for the EU.

          What levers will the EU use as Horizon is centrally about improving EU’s competitiveness and growth! Note not UK/GB. It strikes me as another sell out. Frost this morning pointing out the pit falls.

          Sunak today calling himself the son-in-law of India! Clearly demonstrates to me this man is not putting our national interest first. His family ties being more important than our national interest. Why do we have to have millions of Indian visas issued to trade with India? Braverman thinks it a poor deal. Mellor saying we need to change our position to India because of their attitude to UK.

          Is anyone in your party/Govt. fighting our corner?

          1. Donna
            September 9, 2023

            No-one in the Government is, and very few in the Party.

      2. PeteB
        September 8, 2023

        Adding to the lies, BBCs Simon Jack talks today about wind p[ower auctions, claming offshore wind supplied 40% of UK electricity in 2022. Actual figure is closer to 13% (26.8% of demand was met by all on and of-shore wind farms).
        Renewables will not power the UK. End of discussion.

        Reply On the business section of R4 Today we were told wind was 40% of our energy! What a lie.

        1. PeteB
          September 8, 2023

          Agreed Sir John. I have submitted a complaint to the BBC pointing out this falsehood. I predict a reply in several weeks saying “oops, we mixed up total renewable energy figure (40% of demand in 2022) with the wind energy figure, will try harder”

          Funny how the Beeb errors always seem to support the message they are trying to peddle.

        2. Mark
          September 9, 2023

          Since the BBC’s fact checker seems to have lied about her CV, it is doubtful whether the BBC will present the correct facts.

      3. Ian B
        September 8, 2023

        @PeteB – he didn’t say who’s power. The only projects so far relate to the UK Taxpayer subsidising the French taxpayer. With the UK taxpayer never having ownership of the UK’s security.

        Good for the French state, and well done for them in pulling it off. A poor result for the UK taxpayer forever controlled by the whims of politicians that they can never vote for.

      4. Iago
        September 8, 2023

        glib – smooth, slippery; voluble, fluent, not very weighty or sincere. What a waste of time addressing this man.

    2. Lifelogic
      September 8, 2023

      Andrew Bowie seems to have read History & Politics at Aberdeen. So Sunak one assumes thinks he is suitable to be the minister for “Nuclear and Networks” under the minister for the “Department for Energy Security and Net Zero” a contradiction in terms. I wonder if he even has a decent physics GCSE and knows the difference between power and energy and their respective units. Most MPs do not have a clue.

      One senior shadow minister (a lawyer) even said “when the wind does not blow we always have wave power”. What did she think causes the waves? People throwing stones into the sea perhaps? Such total ignorance of the areas they are (allegedly) in charge of seems to be a feature of most of our politicians – especially it seems the ones chosen as ministers.

  2. Sakara Gold
    September 8, 2023

    Sadly, no renewable companies have submitted bids in the 2023 offshore wind auction, announced today. Schraps’ Energy and Net Zero department set a deliberately low maximum price for the auction of ÂŁ44/MWh, when the spot price for CCGT electricity this year has averaged ÂŁ445/MWh. Doubtless, the Treasury was intending to impose a humungous windfall profits tax to “even up” the price difference between fossil fuel generated electricity and wind turbine juice

    Following the Vattenfall fiasco, where a half built offshore windfarm development was abandoned after ÂŁ450million had been spent, this deliberate incompetence marks the end of the deveopment of wind energy resources in the N Sea, and the UK as a world leader in renewable energy. Sunak, Schraps and Hunt should hang their heads in shame.

    1. BOF
      September 8, 2023

      Sadly? No, excellent news, it will save very large numbers of birds from being slaughtered and god knows what other sea creatures are being harmed by these useless monstrosities. Where, I ask, is the RSPB. Have they been bought off?

      1. hefner
        September 8, 2023

        Could it be that the RSPB has looked at the claims of birds ‘massacred’ by wind turbines (specially those offshore) and realised the numbers killed is nothing like the numbers spoon-fed to the credulous.
        So OK, BOF, give us a number of sea birds ‘slaughtered by these monstrosities’ and of the ‘other sea creatures harmed by them’, with references please so that one can check the links to the GWPF or other fossil fuel producers.
        Thanks a lot in advance.

        1. a-tracy
          September 8, 2023

          https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/humpback-whales-strandings-offshore-wind-energy

          NOAA’s fisheries department is currently investigating the 178 humpback whale mortalities reported between January 2016 and January 2023….At this point, says a NOAA spokesperson “there is no evidence to support speculation that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterization surveys could potentially cause mortality of whales.”

          One factor potentially driving misinformation about offshore wind is how challenging it is to get conclusive results from a necropsy—the animal version of an autopsy.
          Only around half of the whales beached in the past seven years could be examined

        2. Hope
          September 8, 2023

          Hef,
          And how exactly would the RSPB produce such figures? However, a US study claims 60 whales were killed off the east coast of the US last year as a result of unreliable wind machines.

          I would be grateful if you could let me know how much energy is used to build, transport, erect and take down a wind machine compared what it produces over its limited life time. Do we need coal to build the machines in Chine and a like?

          1. hefner
            September 9, 2023

            Don’t be daft: how much energy was used to build up any power station, whether running on gas, oil or nuclear power. The ridiculous of your type seem unable to compare like for like, and also unable to realise that the present fossil fuel based energy infrastructure did not come out of nowhere.

          2. hefner
            September 9, 2023

            Hope, ask BOF.
            As for the number of birds flying around offshore wind turbines as anybody who was ever so lucky to take a cruise realises, once away some miles from the coast, the number of birds decreases significantly.

            As for the number of marine creatures killed by the ‘monstrosities’, there are various UK and international charities whose objective is the protection of sea mammals (Marine Conservation Society, Sea Life Trust, ORCA, IFAW, 
). They do not appear as much concerned as the fossil fuel financed think tanks and ‘environmental’ right wing websites about the effect of offshore wind turbines on sea life.

    2. Lifelogic
      September 8, 2023

      Because wind is usually not competitive without subsidies or market rigging one it’s intermittency, costs of back up and the costs of expensive connections to the grid are allowed for. But some deluded people keep saying it is the cheapest form of electrical power generation!

      1. Sakara Gold
        September 8, 2023

        @ Lifelogic
        Once again you demonstrate your ignorance about all things renewable. You have a delusional problem about CO2, and you fail to even try to educate yourself about the facts.

        Renewable electricity last winter displaced more than a third of the UK’s entire annual gas demand for power generation, the equivalent of 95TWh of gas – equal to 110 tankers of LNG, saving us £billions in import costs. In 2022, UK renewables provided 38 per cent of the country’s electricity generation, nearly as much as gas (at 40 per cent) and we became a NET ELECTRICITY EXPORTER for the first time since 2010. Over 1.5 million people are now working in the UK green economy. These are FACTS

        1. Lifelogic
          September 9, 2023

          This from someone whom, the other day, claimed EV cars cause less CO2 to build than internal combustion cars but has not even corrected him or herself.

          UK “renewables” includes chopping forests down and import the wood on diesel ships and trucks to burn at Drax after drying it. Environmental and economic lunacy.

      2. Lifelogic
        September 8, 2023

        ABOUT
        CONTACT
        2015 SEAT POLLS
        2017 SEAT ESTIMATES
        The State We’re In
        Monday, 4 September, 2023 in Economy

        Lord Ashcroft survey a few days ago.

        “Britain is broken – people are getting poorer, nothing seems to work properly, and we need big changes to the way the country works, whichever party is in government.” In my latest polling, an extraordinary 72% agreed with this statement, including more than half of 2019 Conservative voters. Only just over one in five opted took the alternative view that “there will always be problems that need sorting out, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way the country works.”

        Surprising that as many as 28% took the other view. What is wrong with the way the county fundamentally works is taxes are far, far too high, regulation is far too much, public services do not work, we lack freedom and choice, the government is at war with motorists, small business and car users, we have a mad energy and climate alarmist agenda and most of the money is pissed down the drain on things the public do not want or need like HS2, net zero, largely worthless degrees, net harm vaccines, net harm lockdowns, road blocking


        1. Hope
          September 8, 2023

          LL,
          It is the EU way, we are in lockstep even though we voted leave this govt refuses to implement Brexit.

      3. Lifelogic
        September 8, 2023

        The public isn’t told the full truth about the climate threat

        Matt Ridley today in the Telegraph.

        Rather an understatement, they are told a complete pack of lies in fact and bombarded with endless propaganda from the BBC, government, “charities” and corrupted science “bought” from many “scientists” and pushed international bodies. But the article is sound.

        Climate change helps government justify more taxes and ever more control, gives them an excuse for disasters and government failings (not our lack of forestry management or flood drainage plans) but global warming. That is the real agenda here.

        The government claim that switching to a new EVs save CO2 and that walking and cycling cause no direct or indirect CO2
 both are totally untrue claims! Recent warming overcthe last 150 years is not remotely abnormal and much of it (circa 40%) is clearly the URBAN heat effect caused by cities with more heating, roads & concrete nothing to do with CO2 at all.

        A bit more CO2 and slightly warmer is on balance a net positive anyway.

        1. Lester_Cynic
          September 8, 2023

          LL

          To be strictly accurate they are being lied to in an appalling manner
          Everything the government does is accomplished by sleight of hand
          If we behaved in such a fashion we would be facing a long stretch of imprisonment at his majesty’s pleasure

    3. Everhopeful
      September 8, 2023

      Oh SG!
      Some GOOD news for a change.
      (At least to me it sounds like a big spanner in the windmill works?)
      I do hope so!

    4. Donna
      September 8, 2023

      I thought you said wind energy was free?

      Are you now admitting that it is actually very expensive?

      Personally, I think this is good news. Sooner or later the Eco Nutters are going to have to admit that their wet dream isn’t going to work.

    5. Original Richard
      September 8, 2023

      SG :

      As I write (07:27) the 28 GW of installed wind power is generating just 0.15 GW.

      Wind is a parasitic energy that cannot exist without hydrocarbon generation for grid stability and backup when the wind isn’t blowing. The continual ramping up and down does make CCGT more expensive than constantly running but I don’t agree at all with any of your figures.

      The Vattenfall AR4 and AR5 pull outs demonstrates that wind is not as cheap as claimed even without the enormous extra costs to cover for its intermittency.

      The offshore wind companies were looking for a 250% CfD price increase for AR5.

    6. Narrow Shoulders
      September 8, 2023

      Renewables are supposed to be free – why should they attract the current market average when they should be driving the price down?

      What was the guaranteed rate for the a tranche of opportunities before Ukraine?

    7. Lifelogic
      September 8, 2023

      Because it does not make economic or engineering sense without huge subsidies or market rigging. They are farming government subsidies not wind. Does not even save much CO2 after all the concrete, connections, manufacture, installation and maintenance is considered.

      James Sunderland on Talk Radio just now saying what a wonderful record Sunak has after his first year and trying (but failing) to defend the deluded wind power agenda. Sunak has actually taken the party to a circa 90% chance of a wipe out in the next election despite the opposition being even worse. This energy bill, the Windsor framework are both appalling, he still has not cut taxes, stopped HS2 or any of the other vast government waste and is failing on all his five “promises”.

      1. MFD
        September 8, 2023

        Sunak has not achieved anything fullstop ! bar throwing Northern Ireland out of Great Britain

    8. Ian+wragg
      September 8, 2023

      That’s the best news yet. The great wind scam is coming to an end as it is proven time after time to be unreliable and in need of 100% backup.
      We are heading for a bleak few years whilst the farce of the governments non energy policies play out.

    9. Mark
      September 9, 2023

      Sadly, DESNZ smuggled out their “response” to their consultation on juicing up CFDs with extra “non price factor CFDs” today without the courtesy of sending me a copy despite the submission I made to them. Unsurprisingly, they discovered that the industry is in favour of more subsidies. In my response, submitted in May I called for this idea to be scrapped entirely: it was already clear that DESNZ knew that the auction was a failure because they would have had sight of the data on companies applying to pre-qualify. I pointed out:

      Consumers (whether domestic or commercial/industrial) currently rank nowhere. They lost OFGEM as a champion under the 2010 Energy Act that deemed they were always interested in supporting green interests, whatever the cost to themselves. The current Energy Bill will establish net zero targets as the overriding policy aims for OFGEM, and the new “independent“ system operator. There needs to be a strong consumer body with powers of veto over highly damaging net zero policy.

      It is quite evident that BEIS believed their own propaganda models (as they seem to with other things too) about cost and performance trends for renewables, and particularly for offshore wind. They were duped into believing that strike prices in AR3 and AR4 represented real declines in costs, rather than merely being the way to secure the right to build capacity which would benefit from market prices supported by rising carbon prices – and failing to recognise that the contracts did not guarantee that CFDs would be taken up.

      DESNZ have spent 4 or more months faffing around instead of tackling the reality that wind is actually much more expensive than fossil fuel generation by the time you include all the other costs that result from its use. Regular readers will recall the warnings and recommendations I have given.

      This table shows what AR5 has actually procured – including how much DESNZ thinks it will generate which is a paltry 1,000MW or half of Pembroke power station – and what it is more likely to generate, which is only 750MW.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/65ed4144050d58488b5981d67dc8e30b62d23c5f99af591c84e76330e837b34c.png

      Much of that capacity may not appear at all if grid connections are not available. Moreover, when we look at prices and convert them using the Low Carbon Contracts Company’s inflation factor to 2023 prices we see that
      the average price today would be about ÂŁ73/MWh – very similar to current gas based generation. Offshore wind will cost a lot more than that. The auction secured no significant discount to the maximum bid price ceilings for technologies that were bid:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d9e7736745799a04239f7504635564b6c934120a08703faa4181566b55c14aa4.png

  3. M.AN.
    September 8, 2023

    ‘Including modular reactors’ . A vague statement but a statement nonetheless . What’s the predicted timescale for these reactors and how much state support ?£££. The money (deferred taxation etc) for the carbon capture seemed to be allocated very quickly, can we now see the same haste and financial commitments for these modular reactors? Is there a team in Whitehall for this project?

    1. Javelin
      September 8, 2023

      It’s a shambles. The only thing this Government does is import millions of benefit claimants and prosecute British people who disagree with their globalist woke views.

      1. Lifelogic
        September 8, 2023

        +1

      2. BOF
        September 8, 2023

        +1 Javelin
        Post the current trip to India, how many more visas will be granted for cheap labour?

        1. Everhopeful
          September 8, 2023

          +++
          Millions I daresay.
          I heard that India is changing its name to Bharat.
          Probably be an imprisonable offence to say India.

          1. Mark
            September 9, 2023

            Sheesh! Bharat?

      3. Ian B
        September 8, 2023

        @Javelin – That is unkind. This Conservative Government is fabulous at exporting UK Jobs, it is Great at giving UK taxpayer money preferably to foreign entities without requiring responsibility, accountability or just a result. You don’t give them enough credit, after 13 years this Conservative Government has created the highest tax burden in Generations and exported more UK wealth than any predecessor has ever managed.

        Please toe the line – or you will be cancelled

      4. Donna
        September 8, 2023

        2,000 criminal migrants shipped in during this week alone.

      5. MFD
        September 8, 2023

        +1

    2. Lifelogic
      September 8, 2023

      In my view large reactors are better, cheaper and more efficient than modular ones or should be if you can get rid of the absurd planning issues that endlessly delay these projects. Cheaper to protect, run and connect up too. The carbon capture agenda is just pissing tax payers money down the drain. Or perhaps just into the pockets of mates, party donors and vested interests? Negligence & stupidity or corruption?

      1. Mark
        September 9, 2023

        I see that the head of the ONR has been appointed to be the Chair at OFGEM (Brearley is still the CEO, though Coutinho could do with reviewing that). His career was at minor North Sea oil companies (LASMO, Monument). He doesn’t seem to have had much influence on shaping up ONR into a sensible regulator, which is doubtless why he was chosen.

  4. Lifelogic
    September 8, 2023

    Well you tried your best JR but just nine Tory MPs voted against this truly appalling bill. We are government by fools. Nuclear energy is not really suited to provide backup for intermittent wind/solar it means running the nuclear plants very inefficiently. Coal, gas or oil are better suited but even they end up running rather less efficiently and more expensively.

    1. I’mEverhopeful
      September 8, 2023

      I can’t really find words to describe the attitude of that other person.
      How incredibly upsetting.
      And how unconcerning that we ( the people haha) face fines and arrests if we do not follow these “Conservative principles”.
      Surely the most important of those is individual freedom?
      Or is it different in Scotland?

    2. PeteB
      September 8, 2023

      Spot on – we just end up with excess supply (at massive cost), or we accept shortages and blackouts.

    3. Lester_Cynic
      September 8, 2023

      LL

      Correction
      We aren’t governed by fools, they know EXACTLY what they’re doing

      No Referendum on Net Zero
. Because they know they would LOSE, only people such as SG would agree with Net Zero

      It’s an undeniable FACT that there’s NO scientific evidence to support Net Zero, it would mean NO life on Planet
      Earth, the levels are already on the border line, as I’ve mentioned before many, many times it’s a plant food
      When one of the first Apollo missions was returning to Earth, one of the first occasions that the earth had been photographed from space, the wondrous sight of a green and abundant planet 
. without CO2 that would not be possible

      And I hope that Sir John won’t mind me thanking you for your always interesting contributions?

  5. Sakara Gold
    September 8, 2023

    At last, the police are preparing to launch an investigation into maternity cases of “potentially significant concern” at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust.

    Following a lengthy campaign by The Independent newspaper, this police inquiry is set to examine 1,800 cases in what could be the UK’s largest-ever maternity scandal. The Independent uncovered poor care over more than a decade, revealing failures in the cases of 61 babies.

    Once again, for years NHS managers have covered this scandal up, disciplined and even scacked whistleblowers, threatened staff with legal consequences.

    The Nottingham police probe follows another by West Mercie Police, which was launched into deaths linked to the maternity scandal at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital.

    1. I’mEverhopeful
      September 8, 2023

      +++
      Will they scurry around and find a scapegoat though?

    2. Lifelogic
      September 8, 2023

      Cover up and silence and/or fire the whistle blowers is the first reaction of NHS managers in the main it seems. Rarely to they do much to help the patients and those they have killed or injured. As we see with the net harm Covid vaccines and Andrew Bridgen and the Tory Party.

      1. Everhopeful
        September 8, 2023

        +++
        It really is utterly beyond anything that I ever had nightmares about.
        And .I have been expecting something bad for a long time.
        But not as bad as this!

    3. Dave Andrews
      September 8, 2023

      The system demands they cover up. They are responsible both for investigating wrong doing and paying the compensation for the wrong doing they find.
      Rather like a judge having to pay compensation to those he finds in favour of in his judgement. Who’d be a judge?

  6. BOF
    September 8, 2023

    When will the first SMR be ordered? How many more years will be wasted in ‘reviews’ before deciding to buy foreign manufactured SMR’s?

    1. Dave Andrews
      September 8, 2023

      What will be the decommissioning costs when they come to the end of their useful life, and who will pay?
      Who will treat the radioactive waste, seeing as even France sends theirs to Russia?

      1. hefner
        September 8, 2023

        Gee, France sends reprocessed uranium to Russia, not waste but stuff that went through the uranium waste treatment in La Hague!

      2. Mark
        September 9, 2023

        Finland seems to have a workable solution.

    2. Ian B
      September 8, 2023

      @BOF
      Under this Conservative Government UK Taxpayer money can only be ‘given’ to Foreign producers. It is part of the anti-UK doctrine, forcibly remove UK Jobs, forcibly UK Wealth. How else do you set out to destroy an economy?

    3. hefner
      September 8, 2023

      Are you really following the development of SMRs, both on the Rolls Royce or the gov.uk websites, or are you just repeating your Om Mani Padme Om mantra about SMRs?

      1. Mickey Taking
        September 8, 2023

        seems like a fair question to me? Why the reprimand?

        1. hefner
          September 8, 2023

          There has been a clear timeline defined in a gov.uk publication this spring.
          Whether people accept this timeline is another question, possibly to be addressed by Rolls Royce SMR and its scientists/engineers.

          In the last few months I have put references to both gov.uk and RR_SMR websites. BOF’s comment simply shows he/she did not look at them.

          Now tell me, what does BOF expect writing this on Sir John’s website. I’m afraid it just shows how misinformed he/she still is.

          1. Mickey Taking
            September 8, 2023

            IF BOF had written:
            Who believes the stated date of the first SMR to be ordered?
            Who believes many more years will be wasted in ‘reviews’ ?
            Who believes we will decide to buy foreign manufactured SMR’s?
            – would you have left it or still reprimanded?
            Do you imagine we all hang on your every utterance on here as an expert?

    4. Ian+wragg
      September 8, 2023

      Whenever I mentio that Fishy has signed a cooperation agreement with sleepy Joe on civilian nuclear technology he deletes it. It’s obvious where the order is going to be placed.

      1. hefner
        September 8, 2023

        How is it obvious? Have you seen the order papers?

        As far as I can find, the US-UK agreement (The Atlantic Declaration) signed by the PM and the PotUS (gov.uk 08/06/2023 ‘UK and US launched first-of-its-kind economic partnership’) does not mention civilian nuclear technology.

        Do you have other different information?

  7. Everhopeful
    September 8, 2023

    Is this IT then?
    Nothing can be done to ameliorate the worst bill/act since The Bloody Code?
    We will be jettisoned into a time of tyranny not known since
well
ever
 when our poor little “castles” can be stormed and defiled by the over mighty.
    This govt. may well be against slavery but only in the case of some!

  8. majorfrustration
    September 8, 2023

    Welcome to the reborn GDR.

  9. Narrow Shoulders
    September 8, 2023

    Hmmm – there will be no backup but he thanks everyone for their acquiescence during the bill’s motion.

    If sceptics are to be labelled deniers perhaps the people should be labelled enablers?

  10. Everhopeful
    September 8, 2023

    Member for Southampton, “Test (Dr Whitehead), was but a boy when this Bill was introduced last year. A huge amount of constructive dialogue and dedicated Toggle showing location ofColumn 275work has taken place during that time”

    Whatever does that mean? Surely there can be no light talk of concrete/steel construction right now?
    Or is it a different sort of Column 275 work? Some techy computer talk? Or some EU document?
    Should code be used in a bill?

    Why “but a boy”?
    If this is all light hearted banter( and I often misjudge) then I’m so glad the speaker is happy at this point in time.

  11. Wanderer
    September 8, 2023

    Off topic for today but pertinent to yesterday’s posts on the Energy Bill.

    The Daily Sceptic has a piece on the Bill. It appears to let Smart meters be forced on us (ÂŁ15,000 fine/1 year in prison for refuseniks) when our old meters end their use by date. Police assisted powers of entry to force compliance. Also one can be criminalised for not following energy saving measures.

    Three cheers to our host for voting against. This is a deeply authoritarian piece of legislation.

  12. Bill B.
    September 8, 2023

    SJR: How are we going to get through?
    Minister: By talking (a.k.a. ‘engaging’, ‘debating’, ‘welcoming’).

  13. Michael Saxton
    September 8, 2023

    This is, at best, a half baked response, full of congratulatory nonsense and empty of meaningful facts. I really despair at the lightweight calibre of these Ministers who seem so unprepared to provide detailed and accurate information?

    1. Mickey Taking
      September 8, 2023

      selected by bullshitting skills?

  14. Ian B
    September 8, 2023

    Good morning Sir John

    In today’s media “Major wind farm builders shunned a government auction of new contracts to build offshore fields in a blow for the Prime Minister.“

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/08/ftse-100-markets-live-news-wind-farm-energy-contracts/

    The problem? The Taxpayer isn’t going to give them enough money over and above the going rate for the energy price, for them to profit from. So unless their projects like everything else is subsidised by the Taxpayer, the have to Blackmail the UK Government to collect even more Tax.

    These giveaways and so-called subsidies are building and building on the wealth extraction from the UK, form its people and from its future.

    Elsewhere the truth is beginning to be exposed, essentially create hype or get cancelled – https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/08/the-public-isnt-being-told-the-full-truth-about-the-climate/

  15. Bryan Harris
    September 8, 2023

    Good to see some plain speaking by some MPs against this terrible Bill.

    Is the rest of parliament asleep?

    Or are they part of this agenda against the people?

    1. Mickey Taking
      September 8, 2023

      those that are awake and have brain engaged without reference to mobile, merely stick with the ‘follow the leading sheep’.

  16. MFD
    September 8, 2023

    Rolls Royce lead the field, they would provide employment in Britain. Whats the odds we order chinky unproven technology like they did with the long waited Somerset plant. I would say its odds on!

    1. hefner
      September 8, 2023

      Unfortunately it is not quite true. The USA, Canada and the UK ‘have all been investing in small modular reactors’ (13/01/2021 weforum.org).

      More recently (09/01/2023 c3newsmag.com) ‘Five of the world’s leading small modular reactor companies’ have NuScale, TerraPower, Westinghouse Electric Company, BWXT Advanced Technologies, and Kairos Power at the forefront of the SMR-development effort.

      Although I would agree that this last site might be US-biased, there is the awful feeling that RR_SMRs will only be small by name (see newpower.info 22/02/2022 ‘SMR reactors tend towards ‘business as usual’ for UK nuclear’) as their advertised 470MW size make them 50+% bigger than the commonly accepted (300MW and below) size for SMRs and possibly much less ‘flexible’ than those from the competition.

      It also means that a 470MW SMR is not directly produced from a submarine PWR2, PWR2b or PWR3 engines.

  17. Everhopeful
    September 8, 2023

    So will we get imprisoned for disobeying the Grade2 planning rules for putting in double glazing or for NOT insulating with double glazed windows?

  18. BW
    September 8, 2023

    I cannot believe my government is suggesting I am criminalised if I don’t fit a heat pump when told. It also appears that I will not receive a Micky mouse certificate enabling me to sell my house. This is beyond crazy.

    1. Mickey Taking
      September 8, 2023

      and a large poster on the living room wall of the current Dear leader?

  19. John McDonald
    September 8, 2023

    Thank you Sir John for the work and effort you have put into responding to this Bill (1-4).
    It’s existence just shows the Liberal Elite which is outside the control of Parliament is wanting to destroy the economy of the country. You can see a time when the UK is net-zero and the climate is still changing
    due to 95% of fossil fuel CO2 remaining as the countries generating most of the CO2 have ignored net-zero.
    The Ukraine- Russia war is not helping net-zero. The government (tax-payer) is funding this, but OK as the CO2 is being generated by Russia and Ukraine and not by the UK. Obviously the death and destruction does not figure in the CO2 equation but the eventual rebuilding will.

  20. ChrisS
    September 8, 2023

    We are further away than ever from starting to bult any SMRs, thanks to the stupid idea of the Civil Service to go out to tender against our own Rolls Royce.

    This should have been pushed forward as a National strategic priority with Rolls-Royce give the funding and commitment to at least give the company an economically viable share of the market.

    We now face losing our current Nuclear generating capacity several years before work on the first prototype SMR will even be started.

    It seems that everything the government tries to do these days is mismanaged. I don’t entirely blame ministers for this. Even when they try to push through policies that we all know are essential, all that happens is they are accused of bullying and have to back off !

    1. Mark
      September 9, 2023

      Indeed, instead of going out to tender they should be ensuring that there are international partnerships that work to produce the best designs and then develop large domestic and export markets for them and the facilities to supply them. Creating a large market will see costs come down the learning curve much more rapidly and de-risk the whole enterprise.

  21. Ed
    September 8, 2023

    Today at 11.30, wind was delivering 0.1 GW.
    We are doomed.

    1. Ian+wragg
      September 8, 2023

      60% supplied by gas and nuclear. We currently have 2 coal fired stations on supplying 0.85gq.
      We really are doomed.

    2. Donna
      September 8, 2023

      MPs probably produce more than that in a couple of hours.

    3. Mark
      September 9, 2023

      Just think… if the 5GW of offshore wind that the government was supposed to have procured under AR5 was operational, it probably would have added net zero or less to that – because giant turbines have a higher cut in wind speed, and otherwise consume power preventing brinelling and bowing of the turbine shafts. Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner would see a painted turbine upon a painted ocean.

      Meanwhile the wind drought affects the whole continent.

  22. Ian B
    September 8, 2023

    Bloomberg has reported
    ‘China is building new coal power so fast that ‘energy transition’ by the West is meaningless
    Even if the US went completely off coal tomorrow, its plants would be more than replaced’ – by China this year

    To feed the UK’s import only policy, of batteries, battery materials or the finished BEV’s, China is forced to pollute the World. No UK cut back, internal changes, can compensate for the UK Conservative Governments desire to keep importing from the Worlds Polluters. The Government has policy that has aims to destroy the UK and increase World Pollution. The way they are dismissing(exporting) UK Jobs and refusing to use UK Taxpayer money on UK owned projects to increase our security and safety just shows the contempt this Conservative Government has for the people of the UK.

    The UK’s ill thought through energy policy and its bills, are the reverse of the headline. It should read ‘we in Parliament and the UK Government are set on a path to enhance and sustain World Pollution by any means’

  23. Barbara
    September 8, 2023

    Mr Bowie does realise nuclear can’t be turned on and off just like that?
    It is more suited to baseload than ‘back-up’. And if we have it for baseload, we don’t need the unreliables.

  24. Keith from Leeds
    September 8, 2023

    How do we express our despair at this stupid energy bill? Perhaps, Sir John, you could write a draft letter, which we could then copy and send to our MP. Mine, of course, voted with the government. I have written to him on several issues but only get a bland response which suggests the government is right and I am wrong.
    How do we get through to this bunch of thick idiots who cheerfully vote to damage, even to destroy the UK?

  25. ukretired123
    September 8, 2023

    In other news in DT an oil and gas expert with 40 years US oil experience writes :
    “China is building new coal power so fast that ‘energy transition’ by the West is meaningless
    Even if the US went completely off coal tomorrow, its plants would be more than replaced”.
    ExxonMobil’s annual Global Outlook shows the world will use 25 billion metric tons (BMT) of oil in 2050, more than double the 11 billion projected by the International Energy Agency.
    “Unlike Shell, BP and other European oil giants, US major ExxonMobil has never apologized for or scaled back investments in its core business efforts . ..”

    1. ukretired123
      September 8, 2023

      Reliability and cost effective economics rule supply (Stupid to think otherwise).

  26. Rolf Norfolk
    September 8, 2023

    Dear John: is anybody going to stand up for individual freedom, privacy and the preservation of one’s scarce savings against the tyrannical provisions of this Bill with its threats of large fines and even prison? This is unbelievable and especially stunning from a so-called Conservative government.

  27. Christine
    September 8, 2023

    Lying by omission about the so-called climate emergency is duping both politicians and the public. Just read the blog from Dr Patrick Brown who blows the whistle on how scientific publications are skewing the data to fit their wanted narrative. This is leading to the intolerable draconian legislation as set out in this bill. Please Sir John keep calling out how bad this bill is. I doubt you can stop it but at least the public will know it is our own politicians making them colder and poorer.

  28. Original Richard
    September 8, 2023

    Andrew Bowie (History & Politics) : “As he also knows, we are investing a lot of time and money into ensuring that we deliver the next generation of nuclear power plants, including small modular reactors, so that we have the energy baseload that this country needs so that, as he rightly suggests, when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, people can still be assured that the lights will come on.”

    By the decarbonisation date of 2035 we will have a maximum of 3.2 GW from Hinkley Point C (if it is operational by then) or 6% of our electrical energy and the 2023 NG ESO FES for 2050 shows nuclear to still be only 6% of our energy.

    Is 6% now considered to be “energy baseload” ?

    And, anyway, nuclear is not suitable to act as a backup for renewables. It can be done but it is difficult and expensive as it means the nuclear plants require more maintenance. So we will need either inefficicient CCUS with lots of gas or hydrogen storage at a cost of ÂŁ1 trillion or batteries at a cost of ÂŁ4 trillion for just the decarbonisation date of 2035 nver mind the quadrupling required for 2050.

    BTW, in 1997 26% of our electricity was generated by nuclear, which shows the nonsense we are being fed about our energy.

    Our country is being run by an idiocracy who have fallen for the false CAGW narrative and the crazy belief that we can power the country on renewables.

    1. Mark
      September 9, 2023

      I saw today that the Royal Society have estimated that we will need 100TWh of hydrogen storage to cope with doubled electricity demand by 2050. The article pointed out that is about 1.2 billion Tesla car batteries, which rather makes a mockery of the idea that our cars will power the grid. I suppose I can feel mildly gratified that they have confirmed my own work, which suggested that we would need 50TWh of hydrogen storage if we went that route to meet current levels of demand, so double would be the 100TWh. I see they did a reasonably proper job of making the estimate by using (like me) over 30 years of weather data to try to capture the awkward extremes – not something that any of the regular advisors to the CCC, National Grid or DESNZ do. They did not comment on the feasibility of so much storage, but it is doubtful whether we have sufficient salt formations dotted around the country. Nor do they comment on cost.

      My calculation over a year in a chart:
      https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZmrQw/1/

Comments are closed.