Written by Sir John Redwood
~~~ *** ~~~
[This article was first published in ‘John Redwood’s Diary‘ and we re-publish it here with Sir John’s kind permission.]
~~~ *** ~~~
The government’s ambitious plans to move to net zero require the widespread adoption of electric cars, electric heating and much else that will need more power to be generated. It will also of course require most if not all of this electricity to be generated from renewables. The current starting position includes around one fifth of our power coming from nuclear power stations. Most of these are scheduled to close for old age this decade. We also often import around 5% of our power from the continent at some cost to ourselves and the balance of payments. We need to regard this as an unreliable source given the problems with continental capacity and their present reliance on Russian gas and some coal. A substantial but variable portion of our present electricity comes from gas fired stations, depending on how strongly the wind is blowing and how many sunshine hours there are for the renewables.
Germany is becoming more dependent on renewables and has had some outage problems on cold calm days with little sunshine. California has power cuts from her dependence on renewables, despite having a usually favourable climate for wind and sun. As the UK plans its way to net zero it needs to promote getting sufficient electricity capacity higher up the list of priorities.
The UK used to seek guaranteed supply and relatively low cost from its electricity policy. Privatisation in the 1980s drove down costs by replacing old and inefficient coal stations with much more fuel efficient modern gas combined cycle stations. The merit order meant the cheapest power was delivered on base load, only to be topped up by the more marginal dearer power. Environmental requirements were added as a third aim of policy. Privatisation did reduce CO2 output substantially by closing so many coal stations from market forces. Prices of power fell.
As policy has come to be dominated more and more by greenhouse gas considerations, the price of power has gone up and the margin of spare capacity has fallen. Indeed, capacity has become a difficult thing to estimate or measure. The more renewable power on the system the more variable the capacity is, varying from minute to minute depending on weather conditions. The system managers have a more difficult task than before. They are turning to interruptible contracts, to get industry to switch off if the wind stops blowing. They are calling for battery parks to offer stand by capacity, seeking people with stand by diesel generators for difficult times and wanting to flex tariffs to encourage off peak use. All of these methods can help, but they cannot be a substitute for having enough capacity with a decent margin to allow for variability of supply from renewables.
There are some approved renewables or green methods of generating power that are always available or available to a predictable pattern. Biomass or wood burning is as good as coal or gas as reliable power, there when you need it. Certain designs of water power are there on stand by or available for regular times depending on tides, pump systems, and reservoir controls. Reviving water wheels from the past alongside windmills would have given more reliability. The UK has only one main pump storage system. It could do with some more to give the flexibility the system managers will need.
The scale of the task is immense. If the government is serious about ending new diesel and petrol cars from 2030, and serious about the widespread adoption of electric heating, the demand will be greatly magnified from today. Yet today we are close to power cuts every time we have a cold day with little wind or sun. I will ask our latest Business Secretary to do something about our future capacity, as I have asked his predecessors.
The crusade to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to “net zero” is based on the politicians’ assumption that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is the chief cause of global warming, which then causes sea level to rise.
But is global warming really happening, when Venice is still above sea level, despite sinking for centuries ? And does a rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere cause global temperatures to rise, or is it really the other way round ?
The most likely greenhouse gas is water vapour, otherwise known as clouds. But vilification of water vapour gives power-seeking politicians little scope for control over other people’s lives.
Whereas the crusade against carbon dioxide allows global power seekers to control industry, transport, and the entire world’s economy. Science has been prostituted to make carbon dioxide the scapegoat for the fictitious peril of AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming. Science has been prostituted to pave the way for those who want more power over us.
Wind turbines with iced up blades so have to shut down? Photovoltaic solar panels with 6 inches of snow don’t work. We Need to rug up in animal skins and light candles. The future is renewables
OK, Sir John…….(Cap’n art though sleeping there below?) let’s ‘cut to the chase’……..are you aware that China has 3500 Coal mines?
Do you know that China is CURRENTLY opening 17 new coal-mines?
Are you also aware that China is now the joint largest economy in the world?
Could it be within the bounds of possibllity that these facts are connected?
Do you realise that China has promised (Ha, Ha,Ha!) to reduce its Co2 emissions by 2050 (at the earliest) ? (IN THIRTY YEARS TIME)
Do you imagine it would be safe to assume that in thirty years time, given that we have a small but militant committed group of people who refuse to admit the reality of the desperate need for our own competitively priced power supplies, that we will become a third-world country? Or in fact, setting a new low, a fourth-world country?
Plus, should we continue to import the flotsam and jetsam of humanity’s under-class of the world into our ‘green and pleasant land’ ………that few of our Social Services will survive, if any. I have observed you over the years and applauded your part-time dedication to your country.
Unfortunately your words of wisdom have NEVER translated into action…… such a waste of a wonderful intellect…..and such a very capable Englishman has not achieved his TRUE potential. Potentionally you are more than TWICE the man of Johnson………
Sad.
We see these numbers from China, and wonder. are we mad. Are they mad ?. Do they think they have to catch up at something while we stand still?. Does it not concern our leaders? What do our leaders say, or do they ignore it ? . All our clever leaders , havet hey never asked what they think they’re doing? Them, the others ? are they hoping we havent noticed ? what do the crazy demonstrators.believe? Have our mighty newspapers come to any conclusion ? Has our expensive and aristocratic Iintelligence herd any explanation for what we, they andothers think or say? Or are their minds , just baffled and incapable of belief
If 2050 is their target , ours should also be. No idiotic playacting .2050.. Open a lunatic asylum for demonstrators.. I suppose it’s our tired politicians thinking they are world leading lemmings .
Misterpaul5a. I have a feeling J.R. actually does quite a lot behind the scenes.
He certainly seems to work extremely hard for his constituency and with his diary.
I believe he serves on probably more than one HoC committees.
I’m glad he is looking closely at threats to our energy supplies because I suspect his words will get to the appropriate ears.
He is also very good at offering advice on taxation and economic policy and hopefully that also reaches the right ears.
Pauline…Yes! True. But I was thinking more in terms of his taking on a more active tone in the leadership of the centre-right Wing, if they ever cooperate, as they should.
Beds wishes.
Pauline – that should be ROLE!
I’d like him to also. He’d make a good P.M. or Chancellor of Exchequer. But he chose to support Boris.
A lot of the problems arise from the privatisation of electricity generation. In the days of the Central Electricity Generating Board, there was about 20% excess capacity which covered breakdowns and periods of exceptional demand. However this all costs money and we now have less than 10% excess capacity.
Also we are not doing enough with tidal barrages and turbines which are predictable.
There is yet lots of scope for energy efficiency and heat pumps
unfortunately Harry, everyone who owns 2 foot of tidal shoreline looks to becoming Bezos 2
Unfortunately for your theory TG, the shoreline is crown property as is the sea bed.
Sounds a great idea in theory to go for zero. Will the public be supportive still when the power cuts occur?
May be as you say Sir John,
You are far closer to the action than I and have more access to sources of information and indeed probably put a good tale together
Unfortunately I think your approach is far too low key and anodyne, so you are going to ask your right honourable friend/ colleague ( I assume he is that) to do something about future capacity, as you say , I can only describe, as in a very tired voice; you have asked his predecessors, a request presumably you have found unsatisfactory and as I would guess fruitless.
My criticism of your article plainly is not towards content, which although probably not exhaustive does not in my opinion convey the urgency of a required solution to a national scandal where this nation is galloping towards a crisis, much of it fostered by ignorance, inertia on the part of governments to take on board the full consequences of targets they have agreed to on an international basis.
Here words fail me, nincompoops, pathetic, criminally negligent, politically inept, do not describe the creation of this unnecessary crisis caused by our in particular desperation to abandon power fuelled by coal for which I understand we have sufficient reserves to provide us with power for 300 years. And all this based on a flight from global warming on dubious evidence.
Sir John , please please please TELL IT AS IT IS, all I can see is there will again be little or no reaction to your and our fears
Roger Turner. That is what I said to him – it is very urgent.
Well said Roger our Political leaders appear to have no inkling of the impossibility of generating the current 90% of our energy requirements produced from fossil fuels, even were we we to cover every inch of the available land with turbines and solar panels and even if they were to pull off this miracle they would then have to double it again to cover the extra needed to provide for the newly created demand of the millions of petrol and diesel powered vehicles and industrial installations currently using oil and gas but then requiring electric energy. If we then add to this conundrum the fact that both wind and sun are a completely unpredictable energy source the answer has to be disaster.