A ridiculous political fudge that tells me that the Conservative Party are still more focused on conning people than on solving problems. This plan comes nowhere close to producing “cheap energy” and the claim that it would is entirely false.
The notion the cutting systems costs by 20% by 2040 is going to create cheap energy is complete nonsense.If this plan succeeded on its own terms electricity would still be 3 to 4 times the cost of US electricity.
Cheap energy would be cutting the costs paid by the consumer by 65% or more within 5 years; that is an achievable goal from an engineering perspective. Using the target of "systems costs" and not end user cost reductions reveals the lies that eviscerate any notion that this will produce cheap electricity.
The tell-tale giveaways that this plan is either cognitive dissonance run wild, or a politically constructed lie come with at least three clangers:
1) The notion that lowering the cost electricity would see people lining up to buy EV’s and heat pumps is nonsense. It’s not the operating cost, it’s the combination of the purchase price and the fact that they don’t do the job they are intended for very well; e.g. to keep you warm or to move you around at low cost.
2) That they will “stick with existing renewable energy contracts” means that the lunacy of Miliband and his Tory predecessors will be retained for decades is complete corporatist lunacy that guarantees no noticeable relief in electricity costs, ever. This is clearly a policy fudge meant to appease all the Tory wets and donors who themselves benefited from these obscene contracts.
3) The repetition of the false claim that the public care about climate change policies, policies that in the past 30 years have not produced any measurable climate results but have triple electricity costs is rubbish. When pollsters ask people if they are willing to pay £5 a week to help with climate change the answer is a resounding no; yet today they are all paying at least 5 times that to get no change in the climate The only polls that ever favour climate change policies are those that assume there is no cost to net zero madness or that it will all be paid for by taxing billionaires.
This is a political construct and not an economic or an energy based one and it relies on the notion that the truth of this plan’s manifest inadequacies won’t come out; that’s politically stupid. The IEA should be ashamed of itself for printing this rubbish and endorsing it as a solution when its transparently BS.
I resigned from the Conservative party years ago but after reading this I will now be joining Reform.
There is a massive misperception of how UK policy can impact climate change. Just looking at the UK share of annual GHG emissions (<0.8%) actually overstates the marginal impact that UK policy can have on climate. Two reasons.
1. CO2 emissions have a cumulative impact. IPCC AR6 WG3 SPM stated CO2 emissions emissions 1850-2019 were 2400 GtCO2 +/- 480 at the 95% confidence interval. The difference of UK policy 2020-2100 between (1) following the 1.5°C pathway (with net zero in 2050) & (2) constant CO2 emissions 2020-2100 IS ~25 GtCO2. This in a world where emissions will rise 5-10% this decade.
2. Around 60% of global annual GHG emissions are CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Global economically recoverable fossil fuels reserves contain well over 6 times the equivalent GHG emissions to bust the 1.5°C IPCC 2100 warming limit. That is over 3000 GtCO2. The UK government dithers over approving the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields containing <0.3 GtCO2.
The marginal impact UK policy on climate change is orders of magnitude below being significant. The marginal adverse impact of so-called climate policies on the mass of British people is huge.
Just over 150 years ago there was the marginalist revolution in economics. A similar marginalist revolution needs to occur in climate economics.
At last a Common Sense and pragmatic Energy Policy that could save our country from net zero zealots of left and right! Pragmatic Conservativism seems to back in business!!!
Unfortunately not. Just tinkering around the edges of the disaster that’s been constructed over the past two decades.
To understand the true scale of the disaster and the bare minimum that must be done to dig ourselves out of the hole, read David Turver’s weekly Substack (Eigen Values).
A ridiculous political fudge that tells me that the Conservative Party are still more focused on conning people than on solving problems. This plan comes nowhere close to producing “cheap energy” and the claim that it would is entirely false.
The notion the cutting systems costs by 20% by 2040 is going to create cheap energy is complete nonsense.If this plan succeeded on its own terms electricity would still be 3 to 4 times the cost of US electricity.
Cheap energy would be cutting the costs paid by the consumer by 65% or more within 5 years; that is an achievable goal from an engineering perspective. Using the target of "systems costs" and not end user cost reductions reveals the lies that eviscerate any notion that this will produce cheap electricity.
The tell-tale giveaways that this plan is either cognitive dissonance run wild, or a politically constructed lie come with at least three clangers:
1) The notion that lowering the cost electricity would see people lining up to buy EV’s and heat pumps is nonsense. It’s not the operating cost, it’s the combination of the purchase price and the fact that they don’t do the job they are intended for very well; e.g. to keep you warm or to move you around at low cost.
2) That they will “stick with existing renewable energy contracts” means that the lunacy of Miliband and his Tory predecessors will be retained for decades is complete corporatist lunacy that guarantees no noticeable relief in electricity costs, ever. This is clearly a policy fudge meant to appease all the Tory wets and donors who themselves benefited from these obscene contracts.
3) The repetition of the false claim that the public care about climate change policies, policies that in the past 30 years have not produced any measurable climate results but have triple electricity costs is rubbish. When pollsters ask people if they are willing to pay £5 a week to help with climate change the answer is a resounding no; yet today they are all paying at least 5 times that to get no change in the climate The only polls that ever favour climate change policies are those that assume there is no cost to net zero madness or that it will all be paid for by taxing billionaires.
This is a political construct and not an economic or an energy based one and it relies on the notion that the truth of this plan’s manifest inadequacies won’t come out; that’s politically stupid. The IEA should be ashamed of itself for printing this rubbish and endorsing it as a solution when its transparently BS.
I resigned from the Conservative party years ago but after reading this I will now be joining Reform.
You’ve saved me the trouble of commenting!
There is no way to achieve a better energy policy as long as subsidised wind and solar is on the grid.
Net zero IS THERE A MORE DISASTROUS PUBLIC POLICY BLUNDER ON RECORD?
What comes second?
WHAT IS THE POINT OF WIND AND SOLAR ON THE GRID?
Wind and solar capacity is not real capacity because it’s not available during nocturnal wind droughts.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/wind-and-solar-aint-capacity
Batteries are not the answer. Just ask Bill Gates😊
2 MINUTES https://youtu.be/VjgDvG13Hgs
Besides, wind and solar don’t generate enough energy to reproduce themselves. That means they are a net drain on the energy economy of the world.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/wind-and-solar-are-parasites-on-the
TRILLIONS WASTED FOR WANT OF DUE DILIGENCE ON THE RELIABILITY OF THE INPUTS TO THE WIND AND SOLAR FACTORIES.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/criminal-failure-of-due-diligence
WHAT IS THE COST/BENEFIT RATIO OF NET ZERO?
How much has net zero cost up to date, including the cost of the programs and the damage?
What are the benefits?
In other words, how much would you like to pay to get more expensive electricity looming blackouts in catastrophic environmental damage?
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/how-much-would-you-be-prepared-to
AND WHY DID BRITAIN AND GERMANY BET THE FARM ON OFFSHORE WIND, IN THE FACE OF WELL-KNOWN WIND DROUGHTS RECORDED ON OIL AND GAS PLATFORMS FOR 60 YEARS?
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/a-curious-tale-of-the-north-sea-winds/
There is a massive misperception of how UK policy can impact climate change. Just looking at the UK share of annual GHG emissions (<0.8%) actually overstates the marginal impact that UK policy can have on climate. Two reasons.
1. CO2 emissions have a cumulative impact. IPCC AR6 WG3 SPM stated CO2 emissions emissions 1850-2019 were 2400 GtCO2 +/- 480 at the 95% confidence interval. The difference of UK policy 2020-2100 between (1) following the 1.5°C pathway (with net zero in 2050) & (2) constant CO2 emissions 2020-2100 IS ~25 GtCO2. This in a world where emissions will rise 5-10% this decade.
2. Around 60% of global annual GHG emissions are CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Global economically recoverable fossil fuels reserves contain well over 6 times the equivalent GHG emissions to bust the 1.5°C IPCC 2100 warming limit. That is over 3000 GtCO2. The UK government dithers over approving the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields containing <0.3 GtCO2.
The marginal impact UK policy on climate change is orders of magnitude below being significant. The marginal adverse impact of so-called climate policies on the mass of British people is huge.
Just over 150 years ago there was the marginalist revolution in economics. A similar marginalist revolution needs to occur in climate economics.
At last a Common Sense and pragmatic Energy Policy that could save our country from net zero zealots of left and right! Pragmatic Conservativism seems to back in business!!!
Unfortunately not. Just tinkering around the edges of the disaster that’s been constructed over the past two decades.
To understand the true scale of the disaster and the bare minimum that must be done to dig ourselves out of the hole, read David Turver’s weekly Substack (Eigen Values).