Just 20% of world energy is delivered as electricity, and just 30% of that electricity comes from wind, solar and hydro power as renewables. That means that just 6% of the current world energy takes the form of renewable electricity, so beloved by the campaigners for an early and energetic move to net zero. To get to net zero China and India, the two world giants still increasing their CO 2 output need to go through major changes. To get there the bulk of energy currently burned in petrol and diesel engines, in jet engines, in domestic gas and and solid fuel heating systems and powering most of the world’s factories needs to be converted.
Those who say the world can easily switch over to renewables in the form of solar and wind power need to understand the magnitude of the ask. They need to tell us where and when there will be a massive expansion of electricity grids to take all this extra power. Presumably we will need three or four times the present miles of cable and numbers of pylons. They need to say how most people and businesses will be persuaded to switch to heat pumps, electric cars and electric factories and how they will afford this. They need to tell us what the CO 2 impact will be of making all the things for this massive transition, and how the West will gain from this all the time China has cornered the markets in rare earths, minerals for batteries and the manufacture of EVs, solar panels and turbines.
If we are to rely more on renewables we need to know how they will handle periods of no wind, low sun power and an absence of water in hydro schemes. We need to know whether they will go for making plenty of hydrogen and its derivatives out of renewable energy so we will have synthetic fuels for our transport and heating? Will they want to up the percentage of green gas or liquid used in transport fuels and domestic heating or do they really think there can be the conversion of most to electric equipment?
This all has to be practical and affordable. It requires huge buy in by billions of people, and needs them to have the capital to replace all their current equipment. People will want cheaper and more practical proposals than a Tesla and a heat pump.
January 30, 2024
Good morning.
The initial purpose of Nut Zero is to de-industrialise the West with everything moving East. We will then become totally reliant on the East for most of our needs. Food will be next. With restrictions on both what and the amount we eat. Of course this will be wrapped up in the form of saving us from illnesses caused by being overweight.
China and India will never give up coal, or any other fossil fuel.
The future is East.
January 30, 2024
+++
Agree 100%
Itâs called exterminating the bison!
January 30, 2024
We read in todays papers Michael Gove MP living in One Carlton Gardens, reserved for Foreign Secretary, since his split from his wife! Why is he allowed to live in a publicly owned building because of his marriage failures?? Is the taxpayer footing the bill for Gove? How about his carbon footprint in such a large publicly owned building!!
Tell us JR why this allowed?
February 4, 2024
More to the point perhaps is, if it is provided free of charge or at reduced rent, is Gove declaring it as a âbenefit in kindâ and paying tax on it at market value as any other taxpayers would legally have to. What about the Bishopsâs palaces too? One set of tax laws for you and quite a different set for MPs, Lords, Bishops, Ministers.
Gove the socialist fool who like the dire Kier Starmer and Labour want 20% VAT on private school fees to try to kill off very many private schools or push them overseas. Gove the climate alarmist nutter who takes advice from Greta Thunberg – he is an Oxford English Graduate it seems. Gove who stabbed Boris in the back and so we had to suffer the dire Brexit means nothing & Net Zero Theresa May.
Reply MPs follow the same tax laws as anyone else.
January 30, 2024
This barmy government is giving half a billion pounds to Tata to close down the last remaining blast furnaces at Port Talbot and guess what, they’re building a mega new one in Indian to cope with increasing demand.
You couldn’t make it up.
January 30, 2024
@Ian wragg – its called off-shoring UK Taxpayer money. More galling when we now have to pay twice for the same output. Sunak has now handed Tata ÂŁ1 billion of UK Taxpayer money in the last year all focused on increasing World Carbon emissions – rewarding the Worlds largest polluters
January 30, 2024
Sub them three times as we’re importing huge numbers of their low wage citizens subsidised by English tax payers.
January 30, 2024
We know Ian, non of those pushing for change for the worst have any engineering background and frankly, they are totally ignorant of the difficulties they talk about!
I intend to fight these fools, and will not comply. They need driven out of Great Britain.
January 31, 2024
This is the same in all professions in that they bull themselves up with quotes from those who know s… and put everyone else down ;then they become indignant when they are met with the same treatment assuming they are in some way superior.
Narcissistic.
One can give an opinion and are met with ‘who does he/she think they are.’
January 30, 2024
We should do a deal with USA to take their steel in return for something.
Why line the pockets of TATA for their commercial failure.
January 31, 2024
Tata have not failed, they have moved work to India, and increased their overall profits, which was their plan all along.
It is the British state which has failed in it’s complete naive approach.
February 1, 2024
It helped having an employee as the Chairman of the UNIPCC who no doubt managed to persuade our non technical politicians they were saving the planet. I believe only 5 didn’t vote for the CCA 2008 madness. I wonder if Sir John knows how many billions have been transferred to Tata during this process.
January 30, 2024
Mark B, I totally agree. Just look at the latest casualty in the Blast Furnaces of the Port Talbot, Steel Mills. The UK can no longer make high quality steel. Arc furnaces will be too expensive to run from the national grid without huge subsides and can only recycle low grade steel. Net Stupid is an abomination!
January 30, 2024
Our leaders are betrayers of us and happily sacrifice our national interest for what they see as their personal and party benefit. Maybe some have more loyalty to foreign states.
In the same breath they say the future is dangerous. Where will we get steel of quality needed for ships, submarines and armaments when they decide we cannot make it ourselves? How can we tolerate such traitorous behaviour and why do people close to them let them get away with it?
January 30, 2024
If the UK reached Net Zero today, even that current tiny 6% of world energy attributable to renewables reduces. The massive increasing consumption of 2.8 billion Indian and Chinese users drives Net Zero backwards faster than the rest of the world can keep up.
January 30, 2024
Why and who would want this, though, Mark? Who in the West is directing this theoretical power switch?
January 30, 2024
Didn’t Sir John just the other day assure us that there is no one or no group behind it, that practically all the world is in on it and that it is all a Conspiracy Theory? Well it seems that these conspiracy theories have more truth in them than many politicians would like us to know and are coming truer every day. If I have misunderstood or misquoted you, Sir John I apologise no doubt you will ;put me right.
Reply I said it is the world establishment view supported by many governments, institutes, universities and the rest. It is not just a couple of rich billionaires who believe and promote this.
January 30, 2024
The world run by fools.
January 31, 2024
Pretty much what I said then.
January 30, 2024
@Mark B – ‘de-industrialise’ just one of the anti-uk motivations that this Conservative Government has successfuly achieved.
‘China and India will never give up coal, or any other fossil fuel.’ The VW Group, Porsche, Audi even Bentley and many more in the Group, rely on their own owned and run Coal Fueled power stations. The UK Government buys from them in preference to any UK production using UK taxpayer money. A new fleet of Audis to replace Government Jaguars all made from their reliance what Government says is creating nasty pollution There is the extent of their double standards and integrity
January 30, 2024
The globalists thought they could control the world’s population through controlling the world’s resources through controlling the world’s market mechanisms and payment systems and enforcing the use of the $.That is falling apart due to the rapid expansion of BRICS/SCO which bring together immense consumer groups(ie big populations), vast reserves of natural resources and huge manufacturing capabilities(and increasingly sophisticated technologies).They do not need the west to act as parasitic intermediaries.They already have their own financial architecture for trade which is likely to be further developed this year under Russia’s Presidency of BRICS+.Expect further significant announcements in this regard this autumn at the BRICS summit.
There are also huge changes going on in Africa;the Russia-China axis is developing a corridor of economic and military influence right across resource-rich sub-Saharan Africa from Guinea in the West to Ethiopia/Somaliland on the Red Sea.Announcements are coming at a dizzying pace.Chad is the latest domino to fall(France 24,25/1/24:”Leader of Chad nails ties with Putin on historic visit to Moscow”).You have seen Niger,Burkina Faso and Mali(which are considering federating;all have military pacts with Russia)all withdraw from ECOWAS with immediate effect at the weekend.And the Ethiopia/Somaliland tie-up which I said here a couple of weeks ago was potentially very significant is ,on doing further research, hugely so -trade from Ethiopia (which is considered to have amongst the best growth prospects in Africa) will be re-directed from Franco-American controlled Djibouti(which had a virtual monopoly due to Ethiopia being landlocked) to the UAE controlled port of Berbera in Somaliland;as protection,a naval base will also be built by Ethiopia(effectively for Russia) in Somaliland.Further transit trade will come from neighbouring South Sudan (where Russia is mapping out the natural resources for the government) and resource-rich Central African Republic(which,last week, confirmed a Russian military base is being established).
Exciting times!
January 30, 2024
Mark B absolutely, I think it’s named, The New World Order!
Food is already under attack. That’s why the farmers are rebelling in various countries! Re-wilding doesn’t produce food!
Those who are all for the net zero are either those who benefit monetarily, or are useful idiots, being funded because they are activists.
January 30, 2024
John – you must realise that if the objective is to reduce emitted CO2 that it canât be done. UK one percent, China 31%. Most CO2 is ânaturalâ. See the Moana Loa Keeling Curve and have a good laugh! Even COVID deindustrialisation had no effect. WHY? We are ruining ourselves for a futility. Speak to Craig McKinley who seems to have some sort of a feeble grasp.
January 30, 2024
If anyone would like to watch the knowledgeable and engaging 84-year-old Professor William Happer explain clearly why CO2 is vital to life, his IPA lecture of September 2023 in Brisbane is well worth looking up:
‘The Crusade Against Carbon Dioxide’.
January 30, 2024
Yes I’ve watched that, and I sincerely hope he’s got it correct as it destroys the eco-loons argument completely. Not seen anyone attempt to overturn his argument, have you?
The bit that needs clarification is the chart showing that even doubling the proportion of CO2 in the air, there is no increase in heat absorption from the current level of @ 400 ppm.
January 30, 2024
Well what he shows is that even a doubling of atmospheric CO2, all other of the millions of factors affecting climate being the same, will not cause any âsignificantâ warming to any harmful levels. Also that on balance a bit more CO2 plant, crop, seaweed and tree food is a net positive anyway. Happer is right in my view. Net zero is surely a scam.
If they really believed in net zero they would surely not use and fully ban private jets and helicopters, five litre cars, empty aircraft flying, economy flights only, EV cars as they actually cause increased CO2, Prince Charles from flying in his private helicopter from Sandringham to London (using perhaps 30 times the fuel of a car). I was not expecting him to cycle the journey!
Exporting out steel production is moronic too in CO2 and economic terms.
Sunak justifies this by saying he need to use his time effectively. So does everyone else Sunak so stop blocking the roads you fool. Alas Sunak spends most of his time lying or other idiotic distraction (from his huge failures) politics like his smoking and vape bans hardly priorities. The Inflation his policies caused has reduced to just double the target what about his other four promises. Immigration, NHS waiting lists, public debt and growth – pathetic Sunak. Removing Sunak will not do much but is better than keeping him. Nothing to lose.
The last thing we need Starmer & Labour for 15+ years with large majorities.
January 30, 2024
Perhaps, but I can’t stand the thought of more of the same from the next Sunak hoisted up like an idol.
January 30, 2024
LL, heartfelt appreciation of the five punchy paragraphs of your comment.
Appreciation too of DOM and MFD for similar reluctance to ennoble and validate the nonsense of the foolish pursuit of the daftest (or wickedest) policy from a government in my lifetime (nearing eight decades).
How on earth did such utter foolishness get passed by so many representatives of the populace?
Can idiocy be measured in units of megamilibands?
January 30, 2024
@Mary M & @Peter Wood – this Conservative Governments stance was never abut science, logic or the ability to think things through, it has always been about control and punishment to deflect why they cant manage, can’t control spending.
January 30, 2024
Read too Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’ book. He worked among others for BP and the Obama administration; before that he was an academic physicist.
In particular, it seems that the models in use can’t really explain the rise in average world temperature seen for about 35 years from 1910-45. That was nearly as steep as the increase seen in the past ~50 years.
Koonin appears to believe that a) humans are having a marked effect but that b) part of what we observe, maybe a substantial part, has been natural. I currently think that’s about right. How can the BBC use the word ‘settled’? It’s remarkably complicated. Anyone who pretends otherwise is a fool.
January 30, 2024
well as a starter for 10, examine how many wars 1910- 45 excessive factory outputs, fires, explosions, transport of warriors and food, raw materials etc. A very large output of heating the atmosphere?
January 30, 2024
CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation within narrow bandwidths which are far less in total than those for water vapour. This is a function of the natural vibration frequencies of the molecules. Once all the radiation of a given frequency which is capable of being absorbed has been, increasing the concentration of the gas has no further effect.
January 30, 2024
I’ve read their original papers, and I studied the underlying physics. The ideas are correct, and their calculations are more detailed than earlier similar ones by e.g. Herman Harde. The agreement between their theoretical calculations and the spectra measured by satellites is impressive confirmation.
February 1, 2024
âThe agreement between their theoretical calculations and the spectra measured by satellites is impressive confirmationâ. No, it is not. If it had been so good the authors would have plotted a spectrum of the differences, and there the large differences between theory and actual measurements would have appeared clearly, ie in all the important absorption bands, 15 micron CO2 (around 660 cm-1) but also 9.4 and 10.4 micron bands of CO2, 9.6 micron band of ozone (around 1050 cm-1) and non negligible part of the rotation band of water vapour spectrum (between 400 and 550 cm-1) (see the full paper on arxiv.org, Fig.15).
Similar work, properly done, had been published by Clough et collaborators in 1992 and 1995
S.Clough, M.Iacono, J.-L.Moncet, 1992 âLine-by-line calculations of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates: Application to water vaporâ, J.Geophys.Res. doi:10.1029/92JD01419.
S.Clough, M.Iacono, 1995 âLine-by-line calculation of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates: 2- Application to carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide, and the halocarbonsâ, J.Geophys.Res. doi:10.1029/95JD01386.
So not only Happer & Wijngaartenâs work is not novel, as it only appeared in 2020, but it does not prove what it pretends to be proving: 1/ the agreement between theory and observations is not particularly good, and 2/ it does not consider the impact of the increase of greenhouse gases on the vertical distribution of the fluxes and associated cooling rates.
February 5, 2024
I suggest you review Figure 22 of W&H’s full paper from 2019 which shows the remarkable agreement between satellite measurements and theory for three different atmospheric columns, covering the Antarctic, the Sahara, and temperate climates. I can find no equivalent diagram in the CIM paper, although it does claim good agreement with satellite measurements of the day.
Back in 1994 the CIM work was no doubt state of the art, using the HITRAN92 database and the rather less powerful computers of the day. In consequence it appears that their results rely on dividing the atmosphere into 61 levels, compared with 501 for W&H, while the resolution they report is no higher than 5 cm-1 compared with 2 cm-1 for W&H available via HITRAN2016: indeed the main CIM results are smoothed with a coarse 25cm-1 filter. Measurements with modern instruments of the spectra have improved resolutions. Harde’s work dates from 2013, and is intermediate in complexity and resolution, as might be expected. There is little evidence of fundamental differences in methods, save that the limits of computation and resolved line measurements back in the 1990s saw CIM develop their water vapour continuum model, rather than calculating with individual lines.
February 8, 2024
Mark, thanks for your comment.
As I see it the âtrickâ used by W&H is in the analysis that creates Table 6. For a mid-latitude atmosphere (that is very close to a globally atmosphere, To=288.7K, tropopause height at 11km, instantaneous impact of increase of CO2 Ύ΀ at 1.3K), they donât consider the subsequent impact that this 1.3K has on the absolute humidity even if the relative humidity profile remains exactly the same.
Clausius-Clapeyron equation linking temperature and humidity gives a 7% increase in humidity for a 1K increase in temperature. So a properly adjusted atmosphere heated by 1.3K would have a bit less than 10% increase in humidity, and that is a positive feedback on the temperature.
That is exactly the point originally put by S.Manabe and colleagues in the 1970s (first in their one-dimensional radiative-convective model, 1964, 1967, then in their first three-dimensional general circulation models, 1975) that is being confirmed every day by the meteorological analyses.
Please see a review article published when Manabe got his Nobel prize in Physics:
journals.ametsoc.org âManabeâs radiative-convective equilibriumâ, 14/11/2022, N.Jeevanjee, I.Held, V.Ramaswamy, doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0351.1 Bull.Amer.Meteorol.Soc., 2259-2269.
January 30, 2024
Dr Stephen Koonin is also worth reading and watching. He was a science advisor to President Obama. He too pours cold water over the rush to Net Zero, arguing that adaptation over time is the way to go based on actual experience not the false predictions of phony models.
January 30, 2024
Daily sceptics have an article about how the reality of net zero is causing it to begin to die, but that its policies are taking down the UK (and Germany) with it.
The half joke, that net zero will take us back to cave man days, isn’t far off the mark!
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/01/23/net-zero-is-dying-but-its-taking-us-down-with-it/
January 30, 2024
The vast majority of the people in the world are not wealthy, so will not want to sacrifice the little they have in order to reduce CO2. Leaders in many poorer countries realise this, and even if they are not benign, they recognise that they endanger their hold on power if they force their population to submit to net zero measures so loved by the wealthy west.
In the West our leaders are often less in touch with their population, and slightly more deluded about having an invincible hold on power. They think they can push ordinary people’s standard of living down without consequences. I think they will find they are mistaken.
January 30, 2024
@Wanderer – it is deeper than that, Germany and its car exports to the UK are free of any NZ legal restriction, so they get to undermine UK Industry. China and all those EV’s flooding in, no legal restrictions. India looking to export its steel to the UK no legal restriction. Then there is the USA and so on. They have all enjoyed us off-shoring our carbon emissions. The World the curtain this Conservative Government hides behind is now more polluted simply down to their actions, that is illogical, UK Industry is punished, the UK Citizen is punished. They have deliberately and maliciously set out to destroy the UK
January 30, 2024
Less in touch with the population because both the government and the main opposition agree on much net zero nonsense, so the electorate are given little choice.
January 30, 2024
You do Iain Gill, ignore them and boycott foreign imports!
January 30, 2024
Exactly. They play games knowing its just a Punch and Judy show from the Uni-Party who take it in turn to pretend to lead. Only Reform can change policy direction and lead the UK out of the net zero, mass immigration, high welfare, high taxation, high debt, non Equality anti English men laws madness. And on and on. People are waking up to this rubbish but as usual Rishi has a plan………..to ban vapes FFS!!!! The Snake is a joke….on us.
January 30, 2024
Good Morning,
An excellent post today, asking all the right questions — have you sent these to the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero? Please send a written question, asking the Minister, and add in request for costs for each part and a timetable.
We look forward to hearing his full and complete reply….
PS, how are the small nuclear reactors plan coming along?
January 30, 2024
Agree Peter. All very sensible questions. Why were they not raised and answered prior to our parliament signing up to net zero legislation?
January 30, 2024
The Minister read Philosophy and Law but failed even that degree so he is unlikely to have anything sensible to say on the topic. Is he for energy security or net zero as the two are not really possible or at least not until we crack controlled fusion.
January 30, 2024
Agreed +++
January 30, 2024
Small nuclear reactors are less efficient than large ones and more costly. But then the large ones need to have the endless planning and legal challenges overcome far more quickly.
January 30, 2024
@Lifelogic agreed, but the UK taxpayer is forced to buy those from the French Government and is in the hands and the whims of whoever the French leader is, only a week ago the French Government demanded and got another ÂŁ35Billion of taxpayer money to finish an already late existing project. The sleight of hand is the Taxpayer is paying now for the build and will pay the French Government again for their consumption of the output.
January 30, 2024
LL :
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are no less efficient (in fact more efficient In land space) and can supply electricity already at prices comparable with the larger one-off reactors. With improving technology and the enormous advantage of being able to manufacture multiple modules In a controlled environment (eg welding in a factory every day rather than waiting for the right conditions on a cold, wet, windy open-air site) will bring down prices and improve quality.
SMRs are also more capable of load following and their smaller output makes them more suitable for many applications including shipping and, for larger, more sparsely populated countries, reduces the need for extensive and expensive grids.
One SMR company was even bold enough at a recent HoC ES&NZ Select Committee evidence session to say they expected to be able supply electricity by the early 2030s at ÂŁ28/MWhr, which is 72% cheaper than fixed offshore wind at the next renewable auction round (AR6). Not that we need to wait, RR SMRs could be ordered today.
January 30, 2024
You say that RR SMRs could be ordered today, but would you know when RR will be starting to deliver them? And how long before they start to produce their first kWs of electricity?
Furthermore
– committees.parliament.uk, Keeping the power on enquiry: ESNZ Committee holds session on role of nuclear. The 32-page transcript of the 15/11/2023 session is available (and well worth reading, if only to see where the ÂŁ28/MWhr figure is coming from: the MoltexFLEX reactor, not the RR SMR).
– gov.uk 02/10/2023 âSix companies through to next stage of nuclear technology competitionâ
– rolls-royce.com on 02/10/2023 âRolls-Royce SMR selected in GBN competition saying ânow letâs move at pace to secure the first orderââ.
– rolls-royce-smr.com 11/10/2023 âRolls-Royce SMR select UK based fuel solutionâ.
– ,, 08/11/2023 âRolls-Royce SMR and BAM Infra Nederland explore collaboration for the deployment of SMRs in the Netherlandsâ.
– ,, 18/12/2033 âSir Stephen Lovegrove KCB appointed as Chair of Rolls-Royce SMRâ.
It would seem from the gov.uk document that the timeline is for the final investment decision in 2029, for some SMRs operationally functioning by mid-2030s, and this timeline being supported by Energy Security SoS Claire Coutinho, Minister for Nuclear and Networks Andrew Bowie, and CEO of Great British Nuclear, Gwen Parry-Jones.
February 1, 2024
hefner :
I did say that the ÂŁ28/MWhr figure came from a HoC ES&NZ Select Committee evidence session. It was to indicate the downward direction of travel of nuclear power generation costs as the technology improves. Unlike wind where, as expected, costs have doubled since 2022. RR have consistently said they can start delivering in the early 2030s and if this isnât happening it will be down to the ONR (Office for Nuclear Reduction, sorry, Regulation). RR SMR power is already 25% to 50% cheaper than fixed offshore wind at the next Auction Round 6 price and 70% or more cheaper than floating offshore wind needed as we expand into deeper waters.
February 3, 2024
How do you know it is 25 to 50% cheaper when RR has not yet produced its first working 470 MWe unit, not even a working prototype? The estimated cost at £1.8 bn per unit is for units ⊠once in full production.
How many units will be necessary to get to that price? Does that assume that RR will have to sell its units outside the UK? Will the original price for such a unit in the UK be the same that the price in overseas market?
There are many questions that need to be asked, and I find rather surprising that you appear to be so easily taken in by what, up to this day, has only been clever advertising.
See sgr.org.uk 14/03/2023 âSmall Modular Reactors: the last-chance saloon for the nuclear industry?â
January 30, 2024
The cost if rapacious is largely determined by the extent of unnecessary impositions from regulators who see their job as proving that nuclear us uneconomic.
January 30, 2024
Sir John has the right approach here. The Eco-Zelots have successfully conflated many different issues into one (seemingly) unmanagable problem. We need to stop having the “Carbon is good for Plants” argument, whatever it’s merits. Much more to the point is, if we accept man-made climate change (and I do not fully do so) then how can the UK best tackle it?
Frankly, if Carbon Emmissions really are the problem, then there is nothing the UK can do to effectively reduce Global Emmissions (and please don’t give me any old cobblers about “Setting an Example” or “Our Global Leadership”). Let’s be honest about the creative accounting that is Net Zero and if we are going to change anything, then let’s start investing here at home in ways that minimise any impact. We can’t change what China, India and the US do but we can try and protect ourselves from any possible impacts. Better Flood & Storm Defenses & much improvec Water Management (Reservoir) Policies to protect against either too much or too little water. Carbon Policies that protect actaully UK Industry and UK jobs would also be welcome. No more “Green Jobs” claptrap. If they are there, then that’s great but I don’t want gamble my future well-being on someone elses wishful thinking.
January 30, 2024
A project to renew 19th century palm houses at Edinburghâs Royal Botanic Garden has focused on net zero construction. But the team has found that reality is hamstringing its ambition. With all the setbacks in the low carbon initiatives – and all three electric machines having to be replaced by diesel alternatives – the project has failed to produce the significantly lower carbon emissions hoped for.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/the-future-of/royal-botanic-garden-edinburgh-project-reveals-obstacles-to-net-zero-construction-30-01-2024/?fbclid=IwAR0O06ZRm-kG1f7x6n2xPK7DPxMAEmB9aLfQ2b0N13iGrVLRxMUtyYOV4tY
January 30, 2024
Stop playing your readers John, you’re a bigger man than that. You know full that NZ is an act of political authoritarianism and totally unrelated to any concerns about the health of our environment. This political approach is very much the now favoured tactic of the Tories. It is a very subtle endorsement of a political ideology they abhor but choose to endorse it anyway for reasons that are obvious.
Reply Never happy! Why do you spend so much tine abusing those of us who are engaging to change things?
January 30, 2024
The banning of things for bogus health reasons has often been carried out by regimes we have been taught to despise and fear. Often we are not even allowed to speak of them.
It can be done for authoritarian reasons maybe or for more mundane reasons like boosting productivity.
Pity the nation that suffers from these constraints since they certainly are not concerned with our well -being.
First they came for the tobacco then they came for the vapesâŠthen the beefâŠ.
January 30, 2024
It all started in 31 Jan 1983 when the government introduced a car safety-belt law ….it was easy, too easy and governments have been banning and curtailing our freedom ever since …..no party ever said ‘but what about the people freedom, their freedom of choice, their freedom to make their own decisions about their own health & safety’
January 30, 2024
I beg to differ. It all went tits up when parking on bomb sites was replaced by charging for parking on tarmac. Clever guys thought ‘blimey these mugs PAY for parking’…..and freedom was lost.
January 30, 2024
A long time ago, I used to ride around in Army Landrovers and sometimes speculated what kind of mess the gun rack (on the dashboard) would make of my face in the event of a collision. Around that time, some people I knew well, hit a lamp-post coming back from a night out one Saturday. I got to see what actually happens when someone goes through a windscreen. He told me later that he wished he’d been the one that was killed that night. As soon as I had a car that was fitted with seat belts, I wore them – always! If you’d seen that guy’s face, so would you and you wouldn’t complain about it either.
January 31, 2024
I’m not suggesting that people shouldn’t wear safety-belts, only that it should be their choice …..compulsory hard-hats next
January 30, 2024
Reply to reply
Just how are you trying to change things and how successful have you been?
January 30, 2024
Setting out the realities in this blog is a very good way to help to change things. It helps provide focus on the reality that net zero plans are ill thought out, reliant on bogus studies, unaffordable and unattainable. Only when that message is publicly recognised can we hope to see a change in policy, which is in reality set by the purveyors of those bogus studies such as the Climate Change Committee, National Grid, and DESNZ. There is increasing public attention on the inadequacy of that work. The more, the better.
January 30, 2024
Reply to reply.
You witnessed Sunak back tracking on his false slowing down of net stupid? It was all words no action.
If your party was serious it would scrap Red Edâs climate scam act today. The climate committee used one years evidence for their scam. Scrap it. Another unnecessary quango for the boys.
It is unaffordable, makes cold poor and hungry and the nutters at Westminster, 150 Tory MPs trousering money to promote scam, keep their foot to the peddle!
January 30, 2024
Unwinding the consequences of the Climate Change Act and subsequent legislation is no simple task. We have to keep energy supply going and allow for the investment lead times a better policy would involve. It requires reset in other policy areas too – such as foreign policy. I think that for example Reform have greatly underestimated what is involved, and their ideas would fail in consequence.
January 30, 2024
Fracking on Fracking on Fracking on Fracking off Fracking on Fracking off
January 30, 2024
Hope, ++++++++. !!!!!!!
January 30, 2024
Probably because your methods are insufficient and too weak.
January 30, 2024
Probably Sir , Dom does not want a reduction in living standards like me. I intend, probably like Dom to fight the changes for the worst!
January 30, 2024
As a naive voter, I should have assumed that all these questions needed answering and full costings needed to be carried out and published before the Net Zero agenda was so readily accepted by Parliament!
January 30, 2024
That’s because you’re treating NZ as a matter of rational economic calculation – what we need, what we can afford, how we will benefit, and so on. But if people are sufficiently frightened, Martin, don’t you reckon they’ll go for whatever seems to offer safety, almost as a reflex? Thinking about a cost/benefit analysis will come later (if it does). You only have to go back 4 years to remember how the Covid crisis began. Then it was ‘There’s a killer virus that’s a threat to us all. Going out without a mask, you could kill Granny’. With NZ it’s ‘We’re killing the planet we live on, think of our children’s generation’. The MO is much the same – play on fear and guilt to force through measures that no sane person would accept otherwise.
January 30, 2024
The Nodding Donkeys haven’t been selected by their Parties so they’d ask pertinent questions and possibly become trouble-makers.
January 30, 2024
It was pushed through by the Blair government. At the time it was accompanied by data provided by a Treasury economist making dubious assumptions about the cost of capital. Later when Cameron was PM he only persuaded institutional investors to invest in green energy by offering them “guaranteed” returns. Needless to say these rates of return were not those used to justify NZ in the first place
January 30, 2024
Martin
Those who voted for all of these changes are the naive ones for not actually having the discussion outlined above in the first place.
We are told that LED light bulbs are the way to go to help save some electricity, but the Government still charges 20%Vat on their purchase, hardly an incentive given they are more expensive in the first place.
Insulation for the House 20% Vat, Boiler controls 20% Vat, New and more efficient boiler 20% Vat, Purchase a more efficient ICE car 20% vat and a premium on Road tax of ÂŁ400 per year for 4 years if the ORIGINAL new sale price is over ÂŁ40,000. But even if you did not pay that as you purchased second hand, you are still charged if less than 4 years old.
As usual Follow the money, because their is no incentive at all !.
January 30, 2024
Indeed a full cost benefit analysis before we adopted this insane net zero policy (or the climate change act or the net harm Covid Vaccines (even moronically for the young and people who had had covid already) and before the net harm Lockdowns. But then we are government by mainly totslly deluded, innumerate art graduate ministers often looking after vested interests.
JR says just 6% of total world human used energy is electricity from renewables. But of this about 3% is hydro. Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal only about 3% so largely irrelevant. We should drill, frack, mine and invest in better nuclear research using all the vast sums of money we save doing this. Rather than pissing it down the drain on the CO2 devil gas lunacy.
January 30, 2024
The sensible now Lord Peter Lilley put the cost of the Climate Change Act at ÂŁ300 Billion – see his GWPF article. Benefit zero indeed negative and I suspect ÂŁ300 Billion is a huge under estimate too if we really went for Net Zero we will not of course as it is not even realistically possible anyway.
Note the circa 50% of the renewable electricity that comes from hydro (circs 3% of total human used energy) is hard to increase very much as most suitable sites for hydro are taken already.
January 30, 2024
Wot. The ” I have a little list guy” ( YouTube )
Can’t see comments anymore on youtube !
NZ – Just do it slower, no dates ( solved)
January 30, 2024
frog in warm-hot water
January 30, 2024
Yes. Meeting that normal fundamental expectation would have prevented the immense folly that prevails.
January 30, 2024
Possibly you have not come across the political concept called “Gesture Politics”?
January 30, 2024
Unilateral ânet zeroâ is as ridiculous as unilateral disarmament. If the western leaders really want yo reduce the carbon footprint in their countries, they would close the borders and remove all immigrants currently therein.
There is a different agenda altogether that the drug-damaged and sick minds of western leaders committed to. What could it be? Do they think that the eradication of their race will ensure their own survival? Well, they are stupid enough, so maybe.
At last Texas has normal people taking action. Where are the normal people of Europe?
January 30, 2024
Or your Gov. (and any potential Labour Gov.) can carry on virtue signalling to the world. ‘Look at us, we’re saving 1% of 0.045% of Earths atmosphere’ Whilst destroying our diminishing industry (see Port Talbot) and pushing the population to poverty and death by freezing.
January 30, 2024
Whilst importing 1.2 million poor people every year, plus illegals and then there families at English taxpayers expense and fury. That’s going to work to reduce Government spending and reduce the debt they took on against our wishes.
January 30, 2024
Exactly, a great summary of the current status quo. Putting the theories into practice needs huge investment & commitment. By everyone & that cannot be in place for 2050. A proper NetZero project plan is needed not a mishmash of unattainable goals & untested theories. Based on unproven doomsday scenarios.
January 30, 2024
If China and India and others erect billions of windmills the wind speed of the world will be reduced to uselessness. OhâŠto net zero!
Never mind conscriptionâŠpeople will be required to stand on hilltops and blow!
WhoopsâŠ.CO2
lolâŠcircular rubbish and nonsense.
January 30, 2024
As Ed Muliband is going to be the next Energy Minister, why not write your post today as a public letter to him and then press him, and Labour, for a reply.
January 30, 2024
I just got a shiver thinking about Ed as Energy Minister âŠthe horror
January 30, 2024
Too many people in the world wanting too much consumption.
Net zero zealots must address this first.
Why not a global law that says your smart phone must last 4 years before you replace it? Maximum size of TVs, clothes must be worn at least 20 times before replacement? Tell the third world they must stay without technology? One child policies?
These measures are more practical than much of net zero doctrine and would have more impact. When I see them adopted I will know there is a climate emergency until then……..
January 30, 2024
NS, they are addressing it. Labour in London and Wales have started to provide free school meals. It will start with one day per week of no meat, another day per week, and another trial until they do away with meat altogether and introduce insects and genetically modified food. The poorer parents will just be relieved they get to keep more of their benefits for themselves. Are the middle parents going to carry on making sandwiches when all the meals are free…
These children are being taught their parents and grandparents generations are killing the earth and their very future will be bleak if they don’t change everything. It won’t take long, two decades at most.
January 30, 2024
Sir John, as I’m sure you know Nut Zero has nothing to do with the climate.
It’s about control: transferring money from ordinary people in the west to Globalist organisations and suppressing our economies in order to allow economic growth in 2nd and 3rd world countries. The virtue-signalling “elite” have jumped on the bandwagon because they see an opportunity to make ÂŁbillions out of the scam.
It doesn’t matter what we in the UK do to eliminate the 1% of CO2 emissions we contribute to the global total, it will make NO difference to the climate. But it will destroy manufacturing jobs like those in Port Talbot and impoverish the British people.
You are trying to slow the clattering train ….. but you represent and support a Party which is deliberately leading us to destruction.
January 30, 2024
…….leading us to destruction……..and its own demise, thankfully.
People don’t want electric cars or heat pumps.
January 30, 2024
Half of that comes from hydro. Hydro is great if you have the mountains and lakes that enable it. If you donât then itâs not applicable. So wind and solar – which are the renewables potentially scalable globally (although solar only really makes sense at scale at lower latitudes) – account for just 3% of total primary energy. Not much to show for the hundreds of billions of subsidies and all the laws and regs promoting them.
The question as to how we are going to electrify the whole economy and not generate electricity from fossil fuels remains unanswered
January 30, 2024
Richard, the other day I saw an advertisement about emerging technology – solar windows. No more climbing onto rooftops, the windows themselves are the solar electricity power generators. Transparent solar panels When the Chinese get to produce these at a cost people can afford will be effective as windows on the sunny sides of buildings often have to be replaced every 10 years.
January 30, 2024
Difficult to see how they would work unless they face south or south east/west and are set at an angle of 30 degrees or less to the horizontal.
January 31, 2024
Look at Constable paintings
January 30, 2024
Aside from the environmental aspects, a quick look on the Internet reveals an estimated 50 years before we run out of oil.
It’s not too soon to research alternative energy sources. Nuclear (fission or fusion perhaps), geothermal, wind, wave, tidal, then synthesizing liquid fuels to replace depleted petroleum.
January 30, 2024
50 years ago it was ‘predicted’ that it would all be gone by now. Usually during the North Sea Oil bonanza, the oil firms would say the wells were running dry when negotiating new licences, only to ‘discover’ some hidden new stocks once the licences were granted. Don’t lose sleep over the nonsense they put up on ‘the internet’. We will be using oil well past the next 50 years.
January 30, 2024
In 1980 there was supposed to be less than 30 years oil supply left, at much lower rates of consumption than today. Nearly 45 years later we have 50 years of identified supply.
January 30, 2024
Big oil has done it’s level best to cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific evidence that the world is rapidly heating up – and that burning their products is the cause. They have used their powerful lobbying power to obfuscate, delay change and demand humungous subsidies from world governments to continue extracting hydrocarbons from uneconomic fields.
The fact that millions of migrants are on the move north, from what are rapidly becoming uninhabitable equatorial areas of the planet, should be a warning to us here in the UK. About 1.4 million people managed to get in here last year – despite 14 years of government promises to “control” immigration.
Under Sunak’s incompetent pro-fossil fuel, climate crisis denying government, Britain has lost it’s once respected leadership at the COP conferences. Approval has been given for completely unecessary new coal mines (Whitehaven) and uneconomic new oilfields (Rosebank). His “Net Zero” flunkey Schrapps killed off any further UK investment in renewable energy, upgrading the National Grid or more EV charging points. Doubtless, when he eventually leaves office, a lucrative directorship at one of the oil majors awaits him.
January 30, 2024
Time to come clean SK. You have no idea how the electricity will be generated when the wind does not blow, or does so too strongly, nor when the Sun does not shine.
You have been asked often enough!
January 30, 2024
National Grid: Last November we were told N G was to spend ÂŁ 15-19 billion across the country ” to rewire Britain for Net Zero” and that both the Government & Labour Party are supportive of the plans to expand Britain’s grid. Not sure if that is considered a significant investment or not, adding to that the expense of any forthcoming ‘bribes’ I suppose that may be offered to those of us having to live close to the proposed infrastructure, impacting our landscapes with thousands of new pylons & cables; a “massive expansion” to the existing high-voltage transmission network & existing pylons being needed to power all the heat pumps destined to replace Britain’s “25 million” domestic gas boilers and EVs replacing the “32 million” petrol & diesel vehicles. (DT 10/11/23)
February 1, 2024
The figure is per year until 2035 – some ÂŁ200bn in total. It IS a very significant sum, but still only a small part of the total cost of net zero. Perhaps we should be worried that National Grid failed to do their sums properly in estimating how much capacity will be needed to handle years of poor renewables output (as the Royal Society has pointed out), because it means there would also need to be a much bigger grid investment than they have forecast (and more wind and solar farms and some costly form of storage with hydrogen caverns being touted by the Royal Society peppering North Yorkshire and Cheshire). Also, they appear to think that we can accept very substantial reductions in our standard of living that come with being forced to use much less energy. You will be poor, you will be cold, you will be hungry.
February 1, 2024
You will own nothing and be happy perhaps…
January 30, 2024
SG :
âBig oilâ is very happy with the Net Zero Strategy. Firstly because renewables cannot exist without hydrocarbon fuelled grid stability and grid-scale backup (or even the vast quantities of oil in the wind turbine gearboxes!), secondly because renewables will quadruple at least the price of all energy including that from oil and thirdly because restricting exploration and supplies of oil increases its price for all its other uses such as pharmaceuticals, fertiliser, plastics, hygiene products etc.etc.
A less well known fact is that global warming and cooling occurs mainly at the poles and higher latitudes. The temperature around the equator hardly changes at all. In fact for the last 500m years since the Cambrian explosion there has been more time with no snow at the poles than with snow. So those people living towards the equator have no real reason to believe they will experience a much hotter climate. Humans are a warm climate creature anyway and had to learn to make fires, clothing and shelter to move northwards. More likely they are being encouraged by communist agencies and countries to move north to destabilise the West.
The Net Zero Strategy is the modern equivalent of âthe Emperor has no clothesâ but eventually this CAGW fraud will be exposed and come to an end. In the meantime many people will be impoverished or even die as a result. The 2022 Nobel Physics prize winner, Dr. John Clauser, has described CAGW as âa dangerous corruption of science that threatens the worldâs economy and the well-being of billions of peopleâ.
January 30, 2024
Well said Richard.
An excellent post.
January 30, 2024
So there are no ‘humungous’ subsidies on the renewables then? My bills say different and at least oil is reliable and efficient.
January 30, 2024
NetZero, a gigantic and expensive con trick, swallowed whole by the Blob and ignored by most of the rest of the World. I can only assume someone is out to bankrupt this country, I wonder who?
February 1, 2024
The “winners” in the Paris Agreement (another foolish pact). The promise to destroy ourselves (the west) and allow our rivals to “catch up” whilst putting billions into a pot can only be described as insane.
January 30, 2024
OK I get that. Now on the other side of the coin we need to know. What is the magnitude of a failure to meet net zero targets please?
January 30, 2024
We won’t be able to lecture others on how to save the planet, that’s all. Nothing else will change. China, India and lots of other countries will carry on with their plans for growth and energy security via fossil fuels. As now, the world will get a bit warmer in some places, a bit colder in others. And… that’s it.
January 30, 2024
But they are all clamouring to commit suicide and end the world they inhabit don’cha know? They are simply ignorant of the ‘settled science’. Yeah, very likely.
January 31, 2024
Reuters – “China has been the world’s largest and fastest-growing producer of renewable power for more than a decade, and its lead has widened with an acceleration of solar and wind power capacity in recent years.”
“China already has an estimated 54 million âgreen jobsâ, with over 4 million jobs in renewable energy. China has also announced that it will no longer build coal-fired power plants abroad and will step up support for other countries in developing green and low-carbon energy.” Worldbank
“China’s $890bn investment in clean-energy sectors is almost as large as total global investments in fossil fuel supply in 2023 â and similar to the GDP of Switzerland or Turkey. Including the value of production, clean-energy sectors contributed 11.4tn yuan ($1.6tn) to the Chinese economy in 2023, up 30% year-on-year.”
They do, whilst we talk about it. Their people are on slave wages and we all import so much from them…
February 1, 2024
In 2022 8.1% of China’s energy came from renewables, while for the UK it was 18.6%. Its per capita CO2e emissions were 8.33 tonnes, while the UK only emitted 5.26 tonnes CO2e per capita. China has a lot of catching up to do. It continues to grow its coal consumption.
February 3, 2024
Thank you for the clarification Mark, these news reports should give better overall facts.
January 30, 2024
JM :
A loss of atmospheric CO2 which would help to green the planet and allow more food to be grown, as is already happening.
Even the Met Office don’t follow the deluded and false idea that CO2 controls the temperature. It is possible to find on one of their web pages figures for the atmospheric CO2 concentration when the average global temperature rises by 1.5 and 2 degrees C above pre industrial (really Little Ice Age) levels and not vice versa!
No doubt calculated using Henry’s Law.
January 30, 2024
John, nothing in the Net Zero proposals is exagerate, affordable or desirable. Almost all assessments and premises put before Parliament exagerate, distort and amplify the role of CO2 in climate, the role of humans in emitting it or the miniscule role of GB in these emissions. Further the scale of the undertaking to transform the electricity system to be ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ (solar and wind being neither of these) let alone transform heating and transport is a colossal fools errand. It is not feasible in mining nor engineering terms, not affordable and obviously the complexity of the system will mean things are overlooked, don’t go to plan or supply chains dry up. Just look at Hinckley Point nuclear plant, or HS2 a relatively minor undertaking in comparison!
Net Zero government centralised dictat and imposition of solutions imposed by laws and taxation must stop. It’s just so Soviet! And it never works!
January 30, 2024
Yes. Enforced by ivory tower virtue signalling elites. Craig McKinkey in DT today spot on.
âNonsense policies taking us down the road to rack and ruinâ
January 30, 2024
What we need a real criminal court case with experts who can persuade a judge beyond reasonable doubt that Net Zero is possible.
Personally I would want a criminal trial and not one where a politician or climate change leader can just walk away and leave the tax payer on the hook or declare bankruptcy.
January 30, 2024
The advocates of renewables here in the UK need to ask in particular what difference it would make to world temperatures in 2050 if our relatively tiny land mass reached Net Zero in circumstances where our neighbours both near and far had not done so, leaving the air above their land masses to be mixed in with ours. In circumstances where the advocates’ plans involve quality of life as we know it being wrecked for no corresponding net benefit, the answer “we don’t know what difference it would make” is not one that we can be expected to accept.
January 30, 2024
They would argue that they have a different atmosphere or advocate some sort of air border to stop their CO2 bogy gas. Carbon Capture hah hah hahahahahahahah…………..the biggest con ever thought up.
January 30, 2024
You say âPresumably we will need three or four times the present miles of cable and numbers of pylons.â
It is actually far worse than four times, this as connecting up many wind arrays and solar farms is far less efficient than connecting up a few large gas, coal or nuclear plants. Also wind and solar need a grid that will take their maximum output (when on average they will perhaps only output 20% of this) so vast wastage of cabling not used most of the time. Connections under the sea are far more expensive to build and maintain too.
January 30, 2024
The more I look at the electricity grid enhancements needed should we all go for EVs plus heat pumps the more impossible it all looks. The GRID might need to be about 15 times the capacity of the existing one. So how much money and how many new engineers would be needed to build and maintain this (perhaps 20 times the current numbers)?
A house heated on gas and just using electricity for lighting, TV, computers washing machine⊠might use only 200w average of electricity. One with two or three EV cars and heat pump heating & hot water might easily need 30 times as much power on average. Simply will not indeed cannot happen.
The real plan is to price people off the roads and keep them rather cold it seems.
January 30, 2024
What do you mean, ‘it seems’, LL? Surely it’s quite clear by now.
February 1, 2024
If you peruse the future grid plans and such documents like c40 cities for example, you will observe that they way to achieve this green utopia by 2050 is to reduce items such as personal vehicles and flights by approx 70%, so no worries about EVs, you won’t have one.
January 30, 2024
Cabling and pylons are also subject to the weather we get now. How many times in a normal winter do we get thousands of properties cut off when there is a bit of wind or snow? They are predicting that we ain’t seen nothing yet weather-wise, the storms will become more severe, they say so what is the risk of losing our power? Surely this great new grid should not be built above ground, but they are going to proceed with it through the eastern counties with every higher and more ugly pylons, regardless of public opinion (as usual).
January 30, 2024
You have it backwards;
You need to tell us how you are going to meet our energy needs in a sustainable way. Where are the plans, funding and programmes for nuclear build out?
Or do you seriously believe the country can rely on European interconnectors, LNG tankers from the US and Middle East – not sure who I trust less.
Bleating about losing precious ICE vehicles, stamping your feet and demanding you get your petrol/diesel/gas fix won’t cut it. We need to change how we generate, fuel, manage, distribute and use energy and you politicians and government need to figure it out very quickly because there is rapidly increasing competition for resources and it looks like you are failing this country, yet again.
I suggest promoting a consumerist, locust lifestyle where all goods, foods and energy are imported but mostly discarded while very little of tangible value is produced and exported is likely not a good long term solution.
January 30, 2024
You say âIf we are to rely more on renewables we need to know how they will handle periods of no wind, low sun powerâ well clearly they wonât cope as all the systems of storing electricity are vastly expensive and waste a huge % of the energy in the process. The way to store electricity is as a pile of coal, nuclear fuel, diesel or gas tanks, or a reservoir of water (but we have few ways/places to increase reservoirs).
February 1, 2024
There are about 8 “potential” sites in Scotland including one that would be the largest in the world, however, that only takes the capacity to 1.5 – 2 days worth of “current” demand. Don’t know how all the water gets pumped back up if we have a weeks blocking low. Clean coal is the way forward, proper researchers are even working out how to filter CO2 rather than the fake capture scam.
January 30, 2024
It is the sheep in Westminster who are naive, and the leftie rent-a-mob in the CS that are the problem.
Neither are keen on forensic evaluation of their wishes.
Friends of friends are happy to be laissez-faire, their interests always come first.
January 30, 2024
Most of the anxiety nowadays, particularly amongst younger people, is a lack of education in History, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Many people might blame social media for spreading fake info and making frightening predictions but well educated people are able to question what is posted. Of course, the national education system is to blame.
I have lost count of the number of times that main stream media has irresponsibly claimed that we are suffering from an increase in extreme weather. I am 70 years old and I can tell you that the weather has always been thus. I remember a conversation last September when a group of us ‘oldies’ were asked by one or two university educated 30 somethings what we thought about global warming after the summer heatwave. We chuckled as we told them about the summer of 1976 and the very much cooler summers before and after it. We also told them about the very cold and prolonged cold spells in the early 1960s. They seemed to loose interest in the conversation after that.
January 30, 2024
Feb/ March 1947 – – -6 weeks of snow followed by floods…..
1962/3 – 2 months rarely above freezing.
We could list peaks and troughs back through time.
January 30, 2024
Yeah the data is all there, for hundreds of years of data ….not the climate change committee, they where happy with the single days data they received
January 30, 2024
Former minister: I quit my ÂŁ120,000 job because I couldnât afford my ÂŁ2,000 PM mortgage.
Well a room in a shared flat in London is typically now ÂŁ1,000 PM+. Consider a junior doctor age say 25, ÂŁ100k of student debt + ÂŁ7,000 of student interest PA (just interest not capital) and rent of ÂŁ1,000 for a small room in Central London on ÂŁ34,000 PA gross. How are they expected to pay rent, interest, council tax, commuting, heat & eat?
Note an MP also gets his commuting costs paid tax free on expenses unlike the Doctor.
January 30, 2024
If a doctor starts their medical training at 18, what year does their clinical training with pay start? How old are the brightest ones that are on FY1?
January 30, 2024
Lifelogic, I read this ‘After completing your undergraduate medical degree, the next part of your training as a doctor involves the two year Foundation Training programme. This is in effect your first paid job as a doctor.’ Health careers.
So the Undergraduate medical degree is usually 5 years age 23 for people starting on their medical degree at 18. So wouldn’t a 25 year old have finished their FY2 and registering with the GMC starting at a higher grade?
“The Standard Entry Medicine course is usually five years long, but in some institutions, it is six. It can have different abbreviations, such as MBBS or MBChB, but all result in the bachelor’s degree in medicine.” Source Medical schools council.
MBChB Medicine (2024 entry)
The University of Manchester
https://www.manchester.ac.uk âș undergraduate âș courses
Our five-year MBChB Medicine degree gives you the breadth, knowledge and clinical skills you need to be the best doctor you can possibly be.
January 30, 2024
Yes, five years minimum but many do six with an inter-collating specialist degree in say cardio-vascular or similar or start with medical science and convert later to medicine so it ends up as six or more.
January 31, 2024
Does this enable them to rise up the ranks faster or something else, such as better foundation year training in more specialist subjects to enhance their pay faster with their extra knowledge and skill learnt in that extra year? There must be a financial benefit of doing an additional year somewhere along the line.
If they chose the longer path, then they can’t complain about it, I suspect it is to buy them an advantage on clinical placement.
January 31, 2024
Lifelogic, I think it is odd that a 3-year course graduate nurse starting work at 21 on a minimum basic ÂŁ28,407 earns just ÂŁ1000 less than a graduate doctor after five or six years of training. I think the government just explain why this is the case, I wonder do they work less weeks on the ward than a graduate nurse? Do they have university-length holidays in FY1 and FY2?
January 31, 2024
And they still can’t function on their own.An absolute waste of time and space.
The real training is on the job where peers and seniors swap information.
All these self opinionated people who think that degrees give them the right the practice are dangerous.I have observed first hand and worked with these people since 1968 and also have degrees so that probably qualifies me to actually have a more accurate picture of the reality which the NHS faces.One minute you complain about the NHS and then support more of the same ridiculous academic longevity where most need to refer to Google and the British National Formulary.
You really wear the most delusional blinkers.
January 30, 2024
I thought it was mortgage hike from ÂŁ800 to ÂŁ2000, on a ÂŁ86k secure salary?
That will have millions dreading the next few months, Sunak should have called his election earlier.
Firms making ‘For Sale’ boards will do very well.
January 30, 2024
It’s a load of cobblers in my opinion. After the next election, the market of ex politicians will be flooded. If he really can’t manage on that salary, he has no business trying to run the country and the evidence of his and his peers efforts, of the state they have left us in is there for all to see. Far too many low grade people on too high salaries. He won’t be missed. nor will most of them. Never any shortage of candidates wishing to board the gravy train. No sign of ‘market forces’ in politics.
January 30, 2024
‘It requires huge buy in by billions of people, and needs them to have the capital to replace all their current equipment.’
Print the capital.âGive it to the people to spend on green technology, hoping to buy votes.âForce them to ditch their market-evolved solutions with legislation.âSuffer their voting-booth bite as they fume at the ineffective and inefficient subsidy-evolved replacements.
It is the modern equivalent of paying one mob to dig a hole and another crew to fill it.âIt ‘creates green jobs’.âIt ‘boosts the economy’.âNo, it does neither.âFiat money encourages this foolishness by allowing monetary inflation.
January 30, 2024
Although the proponents of net zero refuse debate I remain optimistic that the truth will out – which is already happening: wind turbine, electric bus and car fires; low take up of heat pumps; ludicrously high insurance costs for electric vehicles; car manufacturers scaling back significantly on EVs; mounting concern among firms and people vis the farmer protests in France, Netherlands and Germany; continuing high subsidies for wind farm developers and operators resulting in ever increasing energy costs for firms and individuals; continuing closures / offshoring of high energy using manufacturing plants.
This mounting evidence about the insanity of net zero ultimately gives politicians a way out without admitting theyâve been wrong all along.
January 30, 2024
A little research will show that CO2 is no problem, so why are we pursuing Net Zero, which we will never achieve?
As another comment says, surely our Government and MPs should have asked all the questions in today’s article before accepting the nonsense of Net Zero, and insisted on a fully costed plan.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see!
January 30, 2024
Net Zero is unachievable without a return to pre Industrial living standards, population size and goverrnance.
Initiated by the fifth column communists to destroy the Westâs access to cheap, abundant, reliable and secure energy, the necessity for any civilised, democratic society, CAGW and its âsolutionâ, Net Zero, was then taken up by the WEF feudalists, then the energy grifters and finally through the BBC et al propaganda, useful idiots.
There is no CAGW caused by the burning of hydrocarbon fuels. It’s a fraud. Not only does the historical climate data, such as the non-anthropogenic warming of the planet to exit the last ice age 11,000 years ago, the Roman and Medieval warm periods (vines grown by Hadrian’s Wall and barley grown in Greenland) and CO2 following temperature in the Antarctic Vostok ice core data, show it to be hysterical nonsense but in addition the calculations of Happer & Wijngaarden on the real atmosphere, including water vapour, omitted In the IPCC models, have proved that doubling CO2 produces a negligible increase in the GHG effect because of IR saturation. See the CO2 Coalition website for their paper and details or type âWill Happer, Gas of Lifeâ into YouTube.
January 30, 2024
Sir John,
Those of us who have researched this know it is all based on a politically motivated lie. It is a Marxist-inspired project to transfer the wealth of the West to the rest under the auspices of the United Nations and that is what we see.
CO 2 does not control the climate. The Sun, ocean temperature and currents, cloud cover, cosmic radiation and irregularities in the Earth’s axial rotation, tilt and orbit all combine to do that in ways that no-one yet understands.
Above all, CO2 is the gas of life. It is arguably the most important gas there is; it is from CO2 that oxygen is released through photosynthesis. No CO2, no life on Earth. Less CO2, less life on Earth and the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the more life on Earth there will be. We see this right now in the ‘greening’ of desert areas and improved crop yields around the globe. We need MORE atmospheric CO2, not less.
The ONLY thing to do with Net Zero is cancel it. Then repeal the ridiculous Climate Change Act which is ham-stringing our industry and economy.
When will your Parliamentary colleagues wake up?
January 30, 2024
Please explain how photosynthesis acting on present values of 420 ppm of CO2 (ie, 0.00042) or on past atmospheric concentrations of 250-300 ppm before the 1850 (ie, 0.00025-0.0003) has created an atmosphere with a O2 concentration of 21% (ie, 0.21).
Could the cyanobactoria around 3.0-2.5 Gyears ago have played a role, at a time when no vegetation existed?
January 30, 2024
answer – – when dumped out of the job.
January 30, 2024
could do a similar analysis of “how hard it will be for the UK to pay its way in the world if only selling services to the rest of the planet”
or
“how hard it will be to sustain a reasonable standard of living with continual high levels of immigration”
its all obvious but the blob are still crashing the UK into a cliff face
January 30, 2024
But it is so much easier for politicians to demonstrate their virtue by shouting about their commitment to something that is unachievable and, in the short term, unmeasurable, than face up to the challenges of giving us a working health service, policing, education and, particularly relevant at the moment, adequate and effective defence for our country.
January 30, 2024
The Net Zero ‘policy’ entered into law by Theresa May (a so called Tory PM) is the most damaging piece of legislation riding on the back of the Climate change Act introduced by Labour in 2008 and brought into play by Ed Miliband.
The Climate Change Committee (CCC) chaired by Lord Deben or John Selwyn Gummer to use his real name was responsible for persuading government back in 2019, Net Zero was something that needed to be adopted.
That advice from a wholly uninformed but politically motivated state funded body has driven the final nail into the UK’s manufacturing heart.
Not only were the CCC uninformed and completely wrong about climate change, they were also completely above caring what the consequences of their actions would be?
The last vestiges of UK heavy engineering i.e. steel production is about to close, all due to Net Zero driven energy costs. The nation will be unable to produce one of the key construction materials required for modern civilisation to exist.
With a population now well north of 70 million people on this island of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, how do the state officials imagine, the needs of that population will be met with no domestic manufacturing allowed at prices people on average earning can afford?
January 30, 2024
We all understand that present political power denies anything which will stand in its way and vice versa.
We know that dependence on fuel from the abroads makes us vulnerable.
We have observed global warming.We know plants cannot survive without CO2 but the residual atmospheric CO2 is a subjective for debate and action.It is a way of utilising Pascal ‘s Wager.
In trying to reduce CO2 ,the advantage is in trying.We should not follow others just because they abuse the atmosphere.
January 30, 2024
Sorry subject.. predicted text
January 30, 2024
Is there a Mr Bates that could look into Net Zero, likely to be the only way Westminster will have reality thrust upon them and do something sensible
January 30, 2024
Please, please watch the talk by Prof. William Happer mentioned above by Mary. You too Mr Redwood. I admire your clarity in highlighting the difficulty in complying with the net zero agenda. But what about the fact that it might be based upon a lie?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/09/29/professor-william-happer-ipa-lecture-the-crusade-against-carbon-dioxide-september-2023/
January 31, 2024
An Interesting point of view which I am sure many other “experts” hold, which makes it all the more difficult to understand why governments think the argument/science, which never happened, is now settled.
Personally I think population growth and the activities of the Sun play a very large part in any equation.
The fact that historical data going back more than a hundred years seems to have been in many cases ignored, is also of huge concern.
January 30, 2024
Sir John
Is it possible to explain why those we compete against in the commercial World have not been handicapped by similar laws as the UK
Net zero legislation can be found across the world: but only 6 countries have adopted legally binding net zero targets. The EU is just âconsideringâ a proposal to legally adopt a net zero Law, but they haven’t – they are ‘thinking’.
So out of 197 Countries in the World, 191 have chosen to look after their people and their economies first. At a rough guess that means more than 95% of the World has not been crippled by their own Governments.
If there was a once of credibility, or integrity in the Conservative Government and they truly believed in this doctrine that doesnât have full scientific baking, they would be taxing imports from those Countries that are not punished and handicapped in the same way as the UK.
The UK is being forced by its own Government to compete with one hand tied behind its back
January 30, 2024
The EU has called for ‘gendered language’ such as ‘no man’s land’ and ‘Joe Public’ to be axed.
A 61-page document advises policymakers, legislators and the media to revise the order of common phrases such as ‘King and Queen’ or ‘brother and sister’ in which the male comes first. How is this going to work with french and all those gendered nouns and agreements.
It suggests we ‘try swapping the order of these phrases sometimes.
Thank God we have left the EU. I am sure she would not approve of this lunacy!
January 30, 2024
which God, whose God? All Gods?
January 30, 2024
You know which God
January 30, 2024
Midas.
January 30, 2024
Absolute clarity. Not so fully embedded then? Maybe it is only European governments that are so willing to immolate themselves on this altar? And take all of us down with them. And for nothing. Yay…
January 30, 2024
IMO the days of on demand electricity are coming to an end in the UK. There will be power cuts. They will become regular. People will get by in the summer but in the winter our heating systems wonât work. So forget on demand central heating too. When? Not sure, but would say this is likely to start within the next 10 years. I donât see anyone in politics now who can change course. Probably Cameron/Clegg was the last chance to put a long term plan in place. The only ways to survive will beâŠ. have your own petrol driven generator or leave the country.
January 30, 2024
So all those trees being planted to enhance our environment and bio-diversity will end up as fuel. The inevitable social unrest will be very uncomfortable for the governments of the time.
Incidentally, I’ve heard a claim (unsubstantiated) that an EV owner was checking their House Insurance policy and found a clause insisting that no EV must be kept within 15 metres of the building. An alternative insurer was found.
January 30, 2024
It would help if certain MPs would actually do their job and back the planning for and implementation of the coming changes rather than spending all their time complaining and half the time pretending that climate change is not a problem.
January 30, 2024
Net Zero is merely shorthand for the issues relating to our current (and forecast) use of energy. CO2 is not the problem it is the effect this has on our lived environment. The expectation is that we will run out of oil by around 2052 – less than 30 years away. This needs replacing with renewables and nuclear backed up by minimal gas and coal – the government needs to get on with it.
January 31, 2024
‘The expectation is…’ Whose expectation, Paul? People have been making these sort of predictions since the 1950s, when M. King Hubbert predicted that crude oil production would peak in the 1970s and then drop drastically over following years. Nothing like this happened of course.
January 30, 2024
Those of us vehemently opposed to the aim of achieving Net Zero by 2050 are likely to have a problem when it comes to casting our vote in the forthcoming general election. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of continuing up the dirt track that they hope will lead us to Net Zero. However I was shocked to discover that there are 115 Conservative backbench MP’s that are members of The Conservative Environment Network’s Parliamentary Caucus. This number obviously does not include those would be supporters that are in Government. One of the aims of this group is for the UK to continue to lead the way, not only in promoting adaption but also in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There is a picture of one member holding a placard ‘TIME FOR A NET ZERO WORLD’.
Surely, if we are to keep faith with our democracy, voters need to be given a choice on major life changing policies that affect the whole nation. Even pro Net Zero fanatics should be able to see that. I believe that failure to address this issue is much more likely to put off natural Conservative supporters that those of the other parties. Cameron gave us a choice on Brexit. Sunak must pluck up courage and promise us a choice on Net Zero and watch, with a smile, the narrowing of the polling gap
January 30, 2024
A lovely old metaphor âif you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggingâ
The UK entered purgatory on the back of the Blair/Brown desire to rip things up so they could rebuild us all in their image.
The people didnât quite get the full extent of the damage they had done, as the bulk was hidden in the debt mountain we are still paying down today. We then finished up with the Liberal Democrat Cameron (he was never a Conservative) and his buddies continuing to create the Socialist fudge. That crowd now in charge didnât change direction but instead picked up the Blair/Brown traits of destruction. The âholeâ became âexpenditureâ, the metaphor changed to keep spending and if that doesnât work spend more â so the debt mountain had to grow and the taxes have had to grow to pay it off.
The Conservative Government mentality changed from being Conservative and âmanagingâ the Country, âmanagingâ the economy, to digging holes (bigger debt mountains) with uncontrolled expenditure. In 14 years, all the expenditure has had the focus of creating debt, not creating Wealth.
Then we had âMayâ a remain die-hard that capitulated at every turn gave us NZ Laws that the world doesnât care about. Today we have Sunak/Hunt spending, spending and spending â no return required; the BIG UK give away. They could have removed âMayâsâ Laws, they refused it is better to cripple the Country than to causeâ it to stand on its own two feet and compete on a level playing field.
There is a GE coming it should never be every 5 years, 4 years was always enough (that Cameron again). Listen to any of the wannabees, who think you loving them is paramount without exception they are all saying we will take more money from you so we can bribe you with it. Not one is suggestion there should be a return on the money they steal from your pockets.
January 30, 2024
The whispers suggest Sunak/Hunt will soon announce they will take less money from us in order to put an X in their love me âboxâ. They forget to mention, they are growing the State, spending like there is no tomorrow, so will need to borrow to keep their new Empires afloat. It will still be the voter, everyone on the hook to pay it back.
January 30, 2024
There is only one person who has any explaining to do, Rishi Sunak.
Firstly he has to justify the science behind the statement that CO2, which is generated from burning fossil fuels, causes climate change. Climatologists have shown that this is not the case. In fact, they say that CO2 is beneficial for the planet.
Secondly I would wish to know why he flies in the face of common sense by insisting that we reduce our minuscule quantities of CO2, whilst China, India and others maintain their CO2 emissions. This puts our country in the situation whereby we are sacrificing our manufacturing capacity and handing it on a plate to China. China happens to be one of the countries in the Axis of Evil.
January 30, 2024
Don’t forget Boris and his miraculous conversion into net-zero when elected PM
January 30, 2024
There is no point whatsoever to Net Zero. CO2 is plant food and an essential part of photosynthesis. Without CO2 plant life will die followed shortly by all animal life including humankind.
How the world actually accepts the concept of Net Zero is beyond explanation. Did none of its cheerleaders go to school?
January 30, 2024
There’s millions and millions of plebs of all colours, religions,
non religions etc in uk.
The monied class and MPs think the plebs are thick.
They have “little lists”
No, we are looking on, coldly appraising.
The name of the game is sidestepping the “rulers”
in a legal and non violent way.
and caring for our neighbours.
We too have a little list and we hold the names on it in utter, utter contempt.
January 30, 2024
”The monied class and MPs think the plebs are thick”
We are thick ….we keep voting for them
January 30, 2024
Clear, absolutely !
January 30, 2024
Forget the magnitude of the net-zero task …
What of the magnitude of the net-zero COST and loss of FREEDOMS
January 30, 2024
What you have written is correct.
However, many people have been saying this for a long time.
Also, carbon dioxide is NOT the main driver of climate change.
If the population of this country were forced to live like medieval peasants (aka net zero) it would have absolutely zero impact on global climate
January 30, 2024
Dear Sir John,
As others have mentioned, I am not without reservations about the removal of large amounts of carbon from our atmosphere. Will plants and crops grow less vigorously, therefore giving the polluting nations currently benefiting from Net Zero a double benefit?
But assuming we must get to Net Zero, the most beneficial way to do it (a lot of it anyway) is to dress agricultural fields with rock dust (consisting largely of basalt I think), which means the earth itself draws carbon from the air. This can be accurately measured by scientific tests on the soil, so we know precisely how much CO2 is being eliminated, and has a number of other benefits, helping with soil erosion, and remineralising agricultural soils so that produce contains more of the healthy minerals that we need, and farmers’ yields potentially increase. Research by Sheffield University suggests 45% of our Net Zero target could be met in this way. Doing it would require a Government task force similar to the vaccine task force, to get mining (it can be mined in the UK) and get farmers to dress the fields. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/managing-uk-agriculture-rock-dust-could-absorb-45-cent-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-needed-net-zero
This isn’t happening because (apart from anything else) Net Zero is built into the energy department as if decarbonising the economy (and the negative effects of that on the economy) is the only way to reduce the amount of carbon in the air. There are also other creative means like the one I outlined, but effectively nobody to put them into place, so the economical strangulation continues.
I think there should be a new Department of the Environment, Net Zero, and Climate Optimisation. Within their remit, they would have budget to pursue creative solutions to Net Zero that did not involve off-shoring carbon-intensive industries. The energy security department would become just that – it is disastrously compromised by its Net Zero role at present. Farming Fisheries and Foods likewise.
Currently there’s little to no push for this anywhere – it would be lovely to think that a little more of a creative and economically beneficial approach to Net Zero might form part of the Tories’ next manifesto.
SR
January 30, 2024
UK emits one per cent globally. One per cent. Futile arm waving. China 31%. CO2 hardly affects the weather . IPCC says no change in extreme events for 100 years. Get with it
January 30, 2024
Trying to obtain Nett Zero as an absolute would be futile and unnecesarily expensive. Settling for 90% of nett zero might be more realistic.
I would approach it first by gathering all the main players together to set out what I was trying to achieve asking them in turn to come back to me with their thoughts on how it might be achieved. I would emphasise that solutions would need to be user friendly and cost effective without any form of government hand out that resulted in a tax on the end user, or a subsidy from government that falsley made it look attractive. I would offer stage incentives based on achievment in the form of Corporation Tax rebates. If it isn’t already, all R&D costs could be offset against tax. We might then achieve some paths to Nett Zero that were marketable.
I know that climate is changing as it always has done. I do not buy into CO2 the great satan. I do buy into the fact that man has, and continues to inflict great harm to the Earth and those who live in it. The effect on our seas and environment by the mass use of plastic wrapping makes us just as guilty as those who wantonly slaughter elephants for their ivory. Getting this right would have great health benefits.
Government could usefully mitigate against the negative effects of climate change, by for instance building sea defenses where erosion is a problem.
Do I see any government, formed from the present parliamentary incumbents, understanding the challenge or responding to it ; absolutely not. The writing of laws does not in itself achieve anything beyond expanding the Statute Book. Consider all the modern day ills that proliferate despite a plethora of law. There has to be a democratic revolution before anything meaningful can happen in the UK.
January 30, 2024
#French farmers – beginning to glimpse the realities of the future we are all being being force marched into.
Soya bean gruel for us all…
January 30, 2024
The science INSâT settled on manmade co2 contribution 0.04% climate change
The four seasons continue
The sea-levels havenât changed
The Great Barrier reef is flourishing
Hurricanes have actually reduced in number and strength
The Arctic and Antarctic have actually gain ice
Worldwide, the people are healthier and wealthier than at any time
Worldwide, we are producing more food than at any time
So why the need for NET-ZERO âŠ..control & power
January 30, 2024
I see that the commons today is debating the âFossil Fuels & Political Lobbyingâ, when are they going to debate âClimate Change & Political Lobbyingâ âŠ.for balance !
January 30, 2024
The number of companies that went bust last year in England and Wales hit a 30-year high, according to the latest figures. – BBC reporting
Nothing to see here, nothing to do with policies, regulations and costs of net-zero
January 30, 2024
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pledges to go full steam ahead on Net Zero policy, the UKâs Climate Change Committee has admitted privately that its Net Zero recommendations to parliament were based on bad calculations about the potential of wind energy
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/uk-climate-change-committee-misled-parliament-on-net-zero-measures/?fbclid=IwAR3fC6V2mzyQapovzF1Cxq5I9VuCB5KFqckE0ZP99VBeyVkQdu3hvB7Pu-U
January 30, 2024
we can’t do Full steam ahead. Its the lack of coal you see!
January 31, 2024
Ask yourself what would happen if all of the world’s power stations that currently run on raw coal were to be converted to ‘clean’ (decarbonised) coal. There would be the capital cost of conversion. After that, the cost of producing electricity would increase by about 30%. The decarbonisation process is not perfect – there would still be a small amount of CO2 produced. However, there would be a major reduction in the 30% of world CO2 emissions currently produced by burning raw coal.
Prominent among the countries burning raw coal are the big four federations – China, USA, EU and India. I think that the UK should busy itself campaigning for the end of coal burning and for world zero population growth. Our politicians should be thinking about how best to do this. We shouldn’t allow China and India to plead poverty. If a nation can afford nukes and can land a rocket on the moon, it is not poor.
January 31, 2024
L+M :
There’s no such product as “decarbonised coal”. Same as there no such product as dehydrated water. I think you ae referring to CC(U)S? Carbon (dioxide) Capture (Utllisisation) and Storage where the CO2 emitted when burning hydrocarbons is captured and stored away underground? Well it doesn’t work.
Instead of thinking about ending coal usage and population growth I would recmmend anyone worried by CO2 emissions to view the calculations on the real atmosphere by Happer & Wijngaarden where they have shown that doubling the level of atmospheric CO2 has a negligible effect on GHG warming. Search ” Will Happer, CO2 the Gas of Life” on YouTube. Their calculations are so impressive in matching the oberved data that they even show, correctly, that CO2 COOLS rather than warms above Antarctica.
February 1, 2024
First off you would need an expansion of coal production by 30% plus an expansion of shipping to get it to power stations, and coal resources would be used up correspondingly faster. I don’t think that is a good idea. Better is to invest in modern high efficiency coal plant which consumes at least 30% less coal to produce the same amount of electricity.
January 31, 2024
Since Global Warming causes more storms and hurricanes (and every other natural disaster) it does at least guarantee the reservoirs will be full, so hydro-power will always be there!!!! It is actually so good at filling reservoirs that it bursts the dam walls designed before this global threat was identfied.
There is so much that does not make sense in the catastrophists arguments it is a wonder the political establishment has fallen for it. It can only be explained by their having another less benign agenda. It is yet another of those synthesised threats that only governments can save us from. So we will vote for them and convince ourselves to believe they would not inflict painful remedies on us unless it was essential for our own good. Now where have we heard that before, ‘for our own good’?
January 31, 2024
Well done, Craig Mackinlay MP.
January 31, 2024
As far as man made warming problems and levels of. CO2 are concerned I can only read and this is the same for all reading a subject at university.
As far as observation is concerned I can see that cities and buildings are numerous and growing rapidly and they all require heating and lighting.It. is simply a matter of very basic science to understand that concomitantly ,the surrounding ground is also affected.