British PM Embraces 2050 Zero Emissions Target

Left: Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science, Oxford University. Right: Theresa May, outgoing British Prime Minister. By UK Government –, OGL 3, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Prime Minister Theresa May has responded to climate scientist Myles Allen and others urging her to commit Britain to 100% renewable energy by 2050, and has demanded other countries follow Britain’s lead.

Climate change: UK government to commit to 2050 target

By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analyst

Greenhouse gas emissions in the UK will be cut to almost zero by 2050, under the terms of a new government plan to tackle climate change.

Prime Minister Theresa May said reducing pollution would also benefit public health and cut NHS costs.

Britain is the first major nation to propose this target – and it has been widely praised by green groups.

But some say the phase-out is too late to protect the climate, and others fear that the task is impossible.

Number 10 said it was “imperative” other countries followed suit, so there would be a review within five years to ensure other nations were taking similarly ambitious action and British industries were not facing unfair competition.

But there will need to be a massive investment in clean energy generation – and that has to be funded by someone.

The government hasn’t yet spelled out if the cost will fall on bill-payers, or tax-payers, or the fossil fuel firms that have caused climate change.

Read more:

British politicians have set the the goal; it is now up to Britain’s engineers to step up and do their part, to prove the doubters wrong, and figure out how to make solar power work during prolonged nation wide low wind conditions in the middle of a 50° North winter.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 13, 2019 6:12 am

Anyone who equates CO2 with ‘pollution’ can be safely labelled an ignoramus.

Reply to  Ricard
June 13, 2019 8:39 am

Yes exactly Ricard, it seems that the common folk are equating real pollution with CO2, and then lump it all together and call it carbon. And plastic bags are made out of ‘carbon’ and the rivers and oceans are full of plastic pollution, so therefore CO2 is pollution and bad so must be banned.

Bryan A
Reply to  Earthling2
June 13, 2019 10:00 am

In the case of Parliment…

Reply to  Earthling2
June 14, 2019 1:25 am

Prime Minister Theresa May said reducing pollution would also benefit public health and cut NHS costs.

She still here? I thought she’d gone. I guess she’s desperately trying to make a “legacy” move before being pushed out of the door.

She is correct, so instead of wasting money on “carbon footprints” she should be suggesting doing something about real pollution. CO2 is certainly not costing NHS anything. Warmer winters ( whatever the cause ) would be good news for shivering pensioners who cannot afford “clean energy” prices or who have to accept contracts which can mean you get cut off first if they cannot supply demand during extreme cold weather.

Organic chemistry is all about carbon based compounds, by definition. Carbon is the basis of all life on Earth and CO2 is the bottom run on the ladder of life.

The Miles Allen is another dishonest player who has got a nasty case of noble cause corruption. He seems to be getting a lot press in the UK recently.

Reply to  Ricard
June 13, 2019 9:27 am

May is a traitor working for the one world order. Freedom is a thing of the past. We The People is a thing of the past.

Hot under the collar
Reply to  Ricard
June 13, 2019 11:08 am

Unfortunately, this is the final act of the UK’s worst Tory Prime Minister ever. She’s listened to every alarmist Looney Tune going (including the indoctrinations of the alarmist and left wing BBC) and her final act is two fingers to any scientific evidence or sanity.
Even the Conservative candidates for leader have swallowed the ‘climate alarm’ rhetoric, yes, even Boris Johnson, the likely future PM (who’s girlfriend is a green activist). Regrettably, most of the public have also been indoctrinated by the media, alarmist scientists and school teachers. Anyone questioning the climate religion or asking for evidence or cost analysis is ostracised and banned by the BBC.
We will be lucky if we don’t eventually resemble Venezuela (which has been held in esteem as a model nation by the BBC and Labour party leader ‘Red’ Jeremy Corbyn). This is likely to happen when we fail to leave the EU by Halloween – leading to a vote of no confidence and a general election – resulting in the Brexit party vote splitting the Tory vote (both climate skeptic and vote leave parties) leading to Jeremy ‘Marxist’ Corbyn becoming the next Prime Minister by default.

June 13, 2019 6:17 am

Was that before or after the World Peace commitment and no child shall live without a fluffy kitten?

Reply to  observa
June 13, 2019 7:05 am

Kittens, cats, dogs and all other forms pet animals will be banned as unnecessary consumers of food and therefore producers of carbon. Cats as compulsory carnivores will be doubly banned.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  observa
June 13, 2019 7:07 am

Don’t you know that fluffy kittens EAT MEAT? No, the kids will have to make do with lovely teddys made from recycled polar bear furs, with a nice picture of Greta Thunberg, admonishing them to live a life of climate fear.

June 13, 2019 6:18 am

Is she just deliberately punishing Brits for not supporting her attempts to get out of the referendum? Perhaps she thinks this will be her legacy instead of only being known for failure?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Greg61
June 13, 2019 6:35 am

Will be failure either way.

Bryan A
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 13, 2019 10:02 am

AYUP Instead of being known for Failure, her lagacy will be one of Utter Failure

J Mac
Reply to  Greg61
June 13, 2019 10:50 am

A time worn adage is ‘If you shoot yourself in the foot, don’t reload the gun!’
The fumbling weak leadership of Theresa May has not only shot the UK in the foot and reloaded the gun, but has just shot the UK in the other foot! Then she invites ‘other nations’ to follow her ‘leadership’… as she attempts to reload yet again! Is there no end to this self-destructive insanity???

Don’t look back Union Jack. Get yourself Free! Make the United Kingdom Great Again…..

June 13, 2019 6:25 am

We’re doomed!

Fortunately, so is she, but not quickly enough.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  dak
June 13, 2019 7:19 am

Followed by? The very people making these suggestions.

Doomed indeed!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 13, 2019 8:48 am

Sadly these are not just suggestions but may actually become what passes for law around here.

Jeff Alberts
June 13, 2019 6:31 am

“tackle climate change”

There’s that idiotic phrase again. So they plan on stopping the Earth rotating on its axis, stopping the moon from orbiting the Earth, stopping the Earth from revolving around the Sun, and stopping the Sun from shining? That’s the only way they’re going to “tackle climate change”. Idiots.

John Bell
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 13, 2019 7:08 am

I laugh at all their colorful euphemisms: “address climate change”,”tackle climate change”,”take on climate change” ad nauseum.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Bell
June 13, 2019 10:04 am

Yes, they are deficient by a single word…Alarmism
Address Climate Change Alarmism…

Stop the Chicken Littles of the world from taking over.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Bell
June 13, 2019 10:07 am

To show just how futile they are change the prefix word to Eliminate or End.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 13, 2019 7:36 am

If you stop the sun from shining, the other things no longer matter.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 13, 2019 8:24 am

Those three words are *everywhere* in UK. Signs on buses, bus stops, and in radio adverts as justification to get one of those so-called “smart-meters” to be installed.

Say it often enough, eventually the words work.

Here’s proof, I guess.

Reply to  rms
June 13, 2019 9:24 am

Fascist Big Brother world.

Ian W
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 13, 2019 8:54 am

Where is King Knut when you need him?

Michael Ozanne
June 13, 2019 6:31 am

Lame duck makes dim-witted quack…. How is she intending to impose this on her successors?? British Parliamentary doctrine does not allow her to do so.

Reply to  Michael Ozanne
June 13, 2019 9:18 am

Most MPs across all parties support this drivel. As long as this sad situation remains, such targets can be passed into law (as was the Climate Change Act) and we’re stuck with them until such time as there are enough sane MPs to repeal the legislation. A similar situation arises with the law that requires us to squander a percentage of GDP (or some other measure of national income – I forget the detail) each year on overseas aid. It is virtue signalling of the highest order.

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
Reply to  Michael Ozanne
June 13, 2019 10:15 am

The same way politicians foisted the EU on us without asking and then when we voted to leave, try to get us to have to vote again and then just ignored it.

Jeff Alberts
June 13, 2019 6:33 am

“solar power work during prolonged nation wide low wind conditions in the middle of a 50° North winter.”

Don’t think solar cares whether the wind blows.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 13, 2019 7:27 am

It cares whether there is daylight or not.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 13, 2019 8:12 am

no but when turbine dont spin and snows on pv panels
uks gunna be up sh*tcreek
deservedly so
this reminds me of uhbummers nasty gift of millions just as he was booted out.
if she wasnt loathed enough? this’ll make sure she is

Michael Ozanne
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 13, 2019 9:51 am

But it does care about night, cloud, low angles, fog ……

Look at the last year graph bottom right here :

Solar is doing next to jack-all 8 months of the year, and wind is quite variable even in winter months went it’s regularly more windy…

Paul Rossiter
Reply to  Michael Ozanne
June 14, 2019 1:47 am

I see that biomass is regarded as renewable. Just as well that burning wood pellets doesn’t produce any of the dreaded CO2!

Michael Ozanne
Reply to  Paul Rossiter
June 14, 2019 6:55 am

“The renewability of trees, unlike fossil fuels, helps explain why biomass can eventually reduce GHGs but only over long periods. The amount of increase in GHGs by 2050 depends on which and how forests are ultimately harvested, how the energy is used and whether wood replaces coal, oil or natural gas. Yet overall, replacing fossil fuels with wood will likely result in 2-3x more carbon in the atmosphere in 2050 per gigajoule of final energy (Supplementary Note 2). Because the likely renewable alternative would be truly low carbon solar or wind, the plausible, net effect of the biomass provisions could be to turn a ~5% decrease in energy emissions by 2050 into increases of ~5–10% or even more (Supplementary Note 2).”

AU – Searchinger, Timothy D.
AU – Beringer, Tim
AU – Holtsmark, Bjart
AU – Kammen, Daniel M.
AU – Lambin, Eric F.
AU – Lucht, Wolfgang
AU – Raven, Peter
AU – van Ypersele, Jean-Pascal
PY – 2018
DA – 2018/09/12
TI – Europe’s renewable energy directive poised to harm global forests
JO – Nature Communications
SP – 3741
VL – 9
IS – 1

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 20, 2019 4:59 pm

So no one contradicted what I said, but proceeded to tell me what solar does care about.

June 13, 2019 6:35 am

[…] it is now up to Britain’s engineers to step up and do their part, to prove the doubters wrong, and figure out how to make solar power work during prolonged nation wide low wind conditions in the middle of a 50° North winter.

Somebody needs to remind them that the Sun isn’t renewable. Once the Sun dies out, then what are you going to do? You’re stuck with a boatload of useless solar panels, that’s what.

There’s no need to worry about ‘Global Warming.’ Soon enough there will be so many satellites in orbit that no sunlight will be able to get through.

Tom Halla
June 13, 2019 6:36 am

I cannot remember who said that nothing is impossible for someone who will not have to do it, but it seems to apply here.

mark from the midwest
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 13, 2019 8:17 am

A.H. Weller

June 13, 2019 6:37 am

Solar power works just fine in the summer and wind in the winter… and those aren’t the only options for the UK.

We get an average of 5 days a year of low wind winter conditions and most of those are high pressure with clear skies. Plus we have GW of connectivity to the continent.

The facts are renewables can and will supply our electricity… the few days of dull low wind are not an insoluable problem.

Reply to  griff
June 13, 2019 11:27 am

Just when I think you couldn’t post anything more deluded, dishonest, or stupid, you surpass yourself.

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
June 14, 2019 3:37 am

We must value Griff for his ‘diversity’, seemingly……

Reply to  griff
June 13, 2019 11:40 am

I can assure Griff that the 300+ turbine Whitelees wind farm spent far more than 5 days idle last winter, as did the vast number of other smaller arrays that scar the uplands of South Lanarkshire. Couple that with 6 hours of daylight in mid-winter and where exactly will the fantasy power come from to heat people’s homes when gas fired central heating is banned and we all want to charge our electric cars overnight. Solar will never be viable in northern parts of the globe as it provides no power for 18 hours of the day.

And it’s not surprising that within a generation of the arrival of steam-powered, ocean-going vessels, sailing ships which had been used for millennia were replaced by coal fired ships. Somehow people in the 19th century realised that reliance on an unreliable, inefficient renewable power source like the fickle wind was holding back global economic growth and ditched as soon as there was an alternative.

The wind is no more reliable or efficient than it ever was in the past, so why are so many people so ignorant of history to think we can run our economies on it.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
June 13, 2019 2:43 pm

That would require you to double up on your generation sources so that you have double the solar for when the wind doesn’t blow and double the wind for when the sun is insufficient or at night.
When the wind isn’t blowing, Solar would need to cover your whole nut…AND…when the sun isn’t available (night, weeks long storms) you would neen enough wind to cover your nut…AND… when the sun is unavailable and the wind is too strong or non existant, you would need enough batteries to supply weeks worth of power.
For Impractical Unreliables to be youe sole source you need to double up on everything because at some point, only 1 source will be availably to meet the entire demand.
To eliminate CO2 in electric production AND to have a Constant Reliable source, Gen2/3/4 Nuclear IS the ONLY cost effective option

Reply to  griff
June 13, 2019 5:12 pm

If you are going to make up stuff, why not go whole hog and declare that there is never a low wind day and the sun shines 24 hours a day?

Rod Evans
Reply to  MarkW
June 13, 2019 11:09 pm

Hey Mark, have you ever tried to have a rational conversation with a climate alarmist worshipper?
They will happily tell you the wind always blows somewhere in the world and yes the sun does shine 24 hours/day.
They imagine it is just a cabling issue when the sun sets in the UK it is shining in the USA so we just need to plug in.
Theresa May and those ignorant of physics always imagine the impossible is possible.
The difference today as opposed to 50 years ago is, propaganda has been adopted by the institutions and has replaced education as the prime function of the system.
If Einstein had been around today pushing his ideas, the BBC would have banned him from the airwaves for daring to challenge Newtonian physics which is settled science, ( in their view). As if such a thing as settled science could ever exist!

Joel Snider
Reply to  Rod Evans
June 14, 2019 3:20 pm

Goebbels has gone global.

iain reid
Reply to  griff
June 14, 2019 12:53 am


you must be looking at a different U.K. grid than I am. I never tire of saying that you cannot use averages to justify intermittent renewable generation. Weather and the grid does not do average!
Connectivity is not an answer either. Originally it was an efficiency measure, as French and U.K. peak loads occurred at different times. Now it seems to be used, along with others, to supplement our supply. France is going the wrong way shutting nuclear and increasing part time power, this makes our grid even more fragile, as so often low wind occurs not just in the U.K. but Europe wide.

No matter how much capacity we install of wind and solar, there are times of virtually nil output from that source so we must have fossil fuel generation to cover that time.

I could go on about balancing, and other more technical problems but I fear I would be wasting my time.

Reply to  griff
June 14, 2019 4:15 am

Wow Griff, a long really post from you! Things must be slow on the other forums you troll, eh? Gotta keep that word count up when you’re being paid piece work!

TG McCoy
Reply to  Cube
June 14, 2019 8:03 am

The only viable alternative is 3-4th generation nukes. Think about a small, walkaway reactor powering an independent community..

OOPs this isn’t about independence..
I will bet Boris or Nigel have other plans..

Jaakko Kateenkorva
June 13, 2019 6:37 am

Theresa May is a proof positive politicians can exhale pollution to an extent it affects public health and NHS costs.

June 13, 2019 6:38 am

Don’t be silly. Just go without power. Voluntarily cripple the nation with silly-energy. Stay cozy with all the warm feeeeeeeelings you will enjoy for having SAVED the planet. Recapture some of that 16th Century glory of Medieval England.

However, something tells me that ol’ Prince Charlie didn’t quite convince President Trump to surrender to the Crown’s crowning achievement of scientific regression.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Kenji
June 13, 2019 7:21 am

It’s OK. He’s got a new electric Jag.

Reply to  Kenji
June 13, 2019 9:44 am

Soon a Green flag will replace the Union Jack.

June 13, 2019 6:40 am

How sad that those supposedly in charge have been taken in by the “Carbon” myth. Cutting pollution and stopping habitat destruction is one thing, bankrupting the country based on the “Carbon” story is another.
However, it is all pointless as we will apparently all be dead in 12 years!

Mark Broderick
June 13, 2019 6:41 am

Is she trying to pull an “Obama Move” ?

June 13, 2019 6:48 am

Well… if they take France’s lead, and go all-in on nuclear, then no matter what level of pet-polity project the public funds drive wind and solar on foggy Britain, they’ll at least still have fundamentally reliable power 24 by 7.

Just saying,
GoatGuy ✓

Reply to  GoatGuy
June 13, 2019 9:16 am

Aren’t most of the French nuclear power plants about to go out of commission, with no replacements?

June 13, 2019 6:52 am

“The government hasn’t yet spelled out if the cost will fall on bill-payers, or tax-payers,…”
Not much of a difference between these two. Sounds like somebody is going to get rich(er) if they go through with this.

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
Reply to  SMC
June 13, 2019 10:19 am

The difference is that taxes are scrutinised in the budget – whereas bills are not.

So, if the government force us to pay £1000/year as extra taxes – that makes headline news, but if the same government gets the same people to pay £1000/year extra on their bills as an “obligation” the press are silent.

That was one of the main innovations – the hiding of finance – that got this scam going.

Michael in Dublin
June 13, 2019 6:53 am

It appears to me that May has left a trail of failures and that this will simply be the cherry on the cake.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
June 13, 2019 7:23 am

She has done exactly what was desired.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 13, 2019 8:26 am

Precisely, she has furthered the UN global governance agenda by probably stopping Brexit and promoting the climate con.

June 13, 2019 6:53 am

An interesting article in today’s Daily Telegraph on what the implications are for the net zero CO2 on a whole raft of businesses.

Reply to  StephenP
June 13, 2019 8:47 am

The Telegraph article (cookiewalled) says “It’s going to cost money, and plenty of it. A figure of £1 trillion over the next three decades has been mooted. The payback, however, could be enormous. Not only will the green economy add to economic growth by creating jobs, but cleaner air brings considerable health benefits …“. Please note that Bastiat’s Broken Window fallacy applies: every job created in the “green economy” will destroy two or more others. Bastiat refers to “what is seen and what is not seen”. In this case, what is seen is the £1 trillion cost. What is not seen is the maybe £multi-trillion indirect cost – in other words the total destruction of the UK economy.

Cleaner air is really worth having, but this is a stupid way to achieve it. Cleaner air has been and can continue to be achieved incrementally at relatively puny cost.

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
Reply to  Mike Jonas
June 13, 2019 10:22 am

Why do you think there was a Chinese Citizen guiding the BBC in the 28gate scandal?
Why do you think Russia was funding the greenspin groups to push the scam?

It’s clearly in the interests of the Chinese and Russians to assist the west to commit economic suicide – and never have our politicians been so willing to help them.

June 13, 2019 6:58 am

… it is now up to Britain’s engineers to step up and do their part, to prove the doubters wrong, and figure out how to make solar power work during prolonged nation wide low wind conditions in the middle of a 50° North winter.

A recurring theme in the Dilbert cartoons is that the marketing department makes promises that the engineers can’t deliver. link

Don Lancaster has been an inventors’ guru for many years. One of his pieces of advice was something like, “If people have been working on something for a long time, and it hasn’t happened yet, don’t expect that you will do any better than everyone else at making it work.” My corollary would be, “it ain’t gonna happen any time soon.”

The technological progress in computers has led many people to believe that technology as a whole develops according to Moore’s law. That’s not true at all. I would say that Eroom’s Law is much closer to the general case.

On a happier note, what Theresa May was smoking is now legal in Canada (if that’s what turns your crank).

Reply to  commieBob
June 13, 2019 7:30 am

I’ve heard that multi-grade oil was first “developed” by marketing and then engineering was given the specs.
Also that sales of shampoo were doubled by a one word change in the usage label.
They added the word “repeat” after “Lather, rinse.”

Dave Fair
Reply to  Yirgach
June 13, 2019 9:30 am

I follow their label advice, but the bottle last for only one shower.

Joel O'Bryan
June 13, 2019 7:01 am

“…and figure out how to make solar power work during prolonged nation wide low wind conditions in the middle of a 50° North winter.

Easy peasy.
First build out nuclear power to run the entire UK grid.
Then inside abandoned warehouses, install rows and rows of bright LED projection lamps onto the ceilings.
Have the LED banks shine onto PV solar arrays in a dense configuration on the floors.
As each “solar power factory comes on-line” slowly transition the UK grid to power from it.
COntinue to build nuclear. Since PV is at best 25% efficient at light to electricity conversion, build about 4 times as much nuclear power plants as needed if they directly powered the grid. But then these “solar power factories” can run 24/7/365 since they are nuclear powered.

The extra cost of 3 times as many nuclear power plants and massive “solar power factories” is the price of virtue signaling. B

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 13, 2019 8:58 am

Maybe it would be easier to just put a whole lot of mirrors in space to concentrate all that free solar sunlight and concentrate it all on the terrestrial PV panels. In fact, with enough mirrors, we could even have the ‘sunshine’ at night and then all our electricity problems are solved forever. Mirrors are cheaper to make than solar panels, and there is no end of silicate sand to make all the mirrors (and solar PV panels). Simple…

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Earthling2
June 13, 2019 9:37 am

you are failing to take clouds and weather into account with space mirrors to send concentrated solar energy to Earth’s surface.
Focusing the energy to a spot on the Sahara Desert might work. But you Might fry a few camels, people, and birds in the process. Then UK would depend on North Africa for its electricity

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
June 13, 2019 10:49 am

I was trying to out sarc you with your shining a light on the solar panels to make them productive in winter. Actually, it is hopeless installing any PV panels with a cloudy fall/winter environment where solar insolation at 50+ degrees latitude is negligible for 3-4 months anyway. It is bad enough having high cost, low density power from solar PV even when sited in a high solar location such as California. Maybe some day space based solar PV/mirrors will be viable, but probably only for future space based smelters/factories in LEO/lunar orbit.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Earthling2
June 13, 2019 12:12 pm

There’s no sarcasm any more that doesn’t sound like a real Progressive greenie.

June 13, 2019 7:02 am

She is just trying to make sure her “Worst Prime Minister Ever” title lasts a very long time, a task in which she will doubtless be successful. The problem is there is no political opposition to the Greens and their lunatic ideas. Once introduced none of our spineless “leaders” will dare repeal this until it is far too late.

June 13, 2019 7:04 am

So first May tries to push Fake Brexit, and now she’s having a Fake Resignation.

This is why she should have been thrown out of Downing Street the instant she ‘resigned’. She’ll go down in British history as the worst Prime Minister ever.

June 13, 2019 7:08 am

The only people these horrendous ideals are going to affect are the common folk. May, Allen, and the rich elitists will never have to worry about the negative economic affects they gleefully thrust upon the middle class (The true end game).

June 13, 2019 7:11 am

The government hasn’t yet spelled out if the cost will fall on bill-payers, or tax-payers, or the fossil fuel firms that have caused climate change.

If I were one of those companies, I would wave a fond farewell to the UK.

As Judge Alsup observed in the cities vs. oil companies case, the demonstrated benefits of fossil fuels far outweigh the speculative harms. link Anyway, it’s the people burning the fossil fuels who more directly cause anthropogenic CO2.

Dave Fair
Reply to  commieBob
June 13, 2019 9:37 am

Oil is a commodity and, as such, has a world price based on market conditions. If Britain chose to tax it at the coast, they will harm only their citizens and domestic businesses; oil firms won’t care. And national competitiveness …?

June 13, 2019 7:25 am

Australia is doing it’s bit it has just approved the Adani Coal Mine which will be one of our largest and there are 9 other approvals for mines which could join it in coming years. The eco-loons are livid and will probably try the court system but with both labor and liberal backing it they will just change the laws if there is a problem.

So we are going completely the other way to the UK and will provide the world coal until at least 2050.

June 13, 2019 7:31 am

Notice these stupid jerks don’t specify “no carbon” rather than “renewable” energy.

alastair gray
June 13, 2019 7:33 am

Theresa did this to cement her legacy so it is said.
She certainly did that! Worst Prime mimister ever!
By the way the shutting down and bankruptcy of British Steel is really triumphant success of government policy
and they should brag to the heavens about it .
It is what they wanted to do and this is the joyous face of decarbonisation.
Tough on the 20,00 steel workers and directly dependent who lose their jobs but don’t worry they will all be given well paying green jobs Just ask your MP Now they will be after all our jobs but don;t worry these nice Chinese will always look after us – just like Tienamen Square and now Hong Kong

Good on you Theresa and enjoy your retirement

June 13, 2019 7:34 am

Lets get this straight. 95% of co2 is natural. Of the remaining 5% Britain emits 100th of that. It would be very foolish to believe that more than a tiny fraction of that is unnecessary-heating, farming, transportation of food etc being vital.

So our ‘bad’ co2 emissions are probably 10% of that 100th of that 5%?

June 13, 2019 7:34 am

make solar power work during prolonged nation wide low wind conditions

Maybe I’m just not up on the new technologies, but I didn’t know that solar panels required wind in order to produce power.

Reply to  MarkW
June 13, 2019 8:23 am

Sarcastic comprehension failure!

If you read it in context, it’s making the point that it doesn’t matter how much wind capacity you have installed, the whole country can be becalmed and you get nothing – typical of blocked cold anticyclonic weather in a UK winter, during which there is a few feeble hours of low angle sun so you get negligible solar power too. This situation could potentially prevail for a month or three by which time all the old people will be dead.

The capacity factor of solar in the UK is about 8 (yes eight) %.

Reply to  MarkW
June 13, 2019 8:26 am

Thinking on that a little bit more, this could have been sarcasm. That would fit with Eric’s style.

David Wells
June 13, 2019 7:35 am

Mark Governor BOE said we must leave the oil in the ground to save the planet. I wrote him a letter asking him how he intended to get back to Canada after his term in office at BOE. Carney did not reply. I phoned his PA and asked her how Carney intended to get home to Canada, she spluttered and gasped, I could tell her head was exploding and she just slammed the phone down. I get the same reaction from every alarmist protagonist I phone up to discuss Co2 and the response is always the same. At first they appease me but as soon as I mention satellite data absolute outrage spluttering gasping and then the phone gets slammed down.

I have submitted FOI requests to BOE, CCC, BEIS, Met Office and the BBC. Bearing in mind they all profess to know about climate why can they not answer very simple questions like if you have evidence that Co2 causes warming then what happens if mitigating Co2 causes cooling? Do you believe that weather will stop or that hurricanes will stop? My feeling is that they all know they are telling porky pies because when I repeat the requests because they don’t answer they accuse me of being vexatious and repetitive. I respond by saying I would need to be vexatious if you just answered the questions.

If CCC had conducted due diligence about Zero Co2 by 2050 they would know whether the Co2 emitted in the transition process was more or less than the Co2 they hope to mitigate but again no answer. I have asked how much CAGW will be averted by the UK spending between £4.4 and £5.3 trillion by achieving Zero Co2 again no answer.

This is my FOI:
FOI to CCC Dated 13th May 2019.

• Identify how much climate change will be averted by reducing beef and lamb production by 89% or whatever figure the CCC determine is needed to stop the climate from burning?
• Identify how much climate change will be averted by banning gas home heating boilers in the UK?
• Identify how much climate change will be averted by trashing 32 million fossil fuelled cars and replacing them with EV’s?
• Identify how much climate change will be averted by trashing 500,000 HGV’s and replacing them with battery equivalents?
• Identify how much Co2 will be emitted by replacing 29 million gas boilers with 2 electric boilers for each home because one is inadequate for the task?
• Identify how much Co2 will be emitted by the necessary thickening of the cables to peoples homes to cope with the extra load of charging EV’s, powering heat pump systems and electric boilers?
• Identify life cycle Co2 emissions for EV’s?
• Identify the cost and life cycle Co2 emissions of tripling electricity “demand lead” generation to power homes with EV’s, heat pumps and electric boilers?
• Identify the justification for spending the following amounts when the UK only emits 1.2% of global Co2 emissions when only 4% of the 1.2% is related to fossil fuels:
 EV’s £1.3 trillion, conservative estimate?
 £754 billion to retrofit 29 million homes with heat pump systems
 £58 billion for thicker cables to cope with the increased load
 £58 billion for 2 x electric boilers to increase temperature to 70C plus to cope with winter and avoid Granny dying from accidental hypothermia?
 £200 billion for reliable coal or gas fired generation to meet the demand from EV’s, heat pump systems and electric boilers
 £2 trillion for infrastructure, charging systems and upgraded transmission connection
 Alternative fix one hydrogen boiler at £13,500 times 29 million homes at a total cost of £392 billion.
• Identify how much global atmospheric Co2 emissions will be mitigated by spending £4.4 trillion?
• Identify how much catastrophic anthropogenic global warming will be averted by spending £4.4 trillion?
• Identify the benefit to the UK of mitigation microscopic intangible amounts of Co2?
• Explain why any country would follow our example when the total cost of relating the UK cost to the planet would be £506 trillion?
• Identify the amount of taxation needed to finance £4.4 trillion plus the cost of fraud, sharp practice and corruption?
• Identify the total volume of resource depletion for each individual component involved?
• Justify looting the developing world of its natural finite resources for our supposed domestic comfort. Whilst at the same time the UNFCC remains intent on stopping the developing world having complete access to low cost coal fired generation to remove poverty from 1.3 billion people who need to cook their food over dried animal dung and biomass?
• Explain how in detail all of this electrical equipment can be supplied by unreliable, inefficient short life wind turbines?
• Explain how in detail how much – 1MW / 50 acres – land will be consumed in trying to make the UK taxpayer believe wind turbines can meet a tripling of demand?
• Explain the level of resource depletion necessary to produce hydrogen for home heating and cooking?
• Explain and identify the cost of switching home heating and cooking from methane to hydrogen?
• Explain the health and safety risk of pumping high explosivity rise hydrogen into homes, offices and high rise accommodation?
• Grenfell Towers plus hydrogen? Explain?
• Burning 1 ton of methane emits 2.5 tons of Co2. Steam reformation of methane to generate hydrogen demands 3 tons of methane to be consumed to generate 1 ton of high purity hydrogen a process which generates 12.5 tons of Co2. As methane is a finite resource why would anyone in their right mind burn three times as much methane, emit more Co2 just to indulge in the cosmetic exercise of misrepresenting this irresponsible exercise as being environmentally friendly, which it is not?
• As fracking is being abandoned in the UK why would any government ship billions of tons of methane across the oceans to burn three times as much in the UK to persuade other countries that his epic waste of natural resources is saving the planet?
• CCS & Parasitic Load. If you had 5 coal fired stations in close proximity linked to a CCS system you would need the power to 2+ stations to generate the energy needed to capture, sequestrate, compress, pump and store the Co2 generated by five coal fired stations. The same dynamics apply to hydrogen production and methane. CCS/BEIS recommend using hydrogen to emit less Co2 saying nothing about the massive increase in methane needing to be consumed to give the misleading impression that this process is viable and beneficial when it is not. Justify this idiocy?

Demand now 34.62GW’s, wind 2.01GW’s, turbines needed now to meet demand 180,000?

In 2007 Greg Clark said we had generated 14% of our electricity from Co2 free sources including biomass and nuclear. This might have mitigated 0.0000037586% of global Co2 emissions.

You have 20 days to answer all of the above questions. The person who answered the phone this morning made it absolutely clear that every company has a legal obligation to answer all FOI requests honestly. The product of computer modelled studies is not acceptable as answers, studies of any kind are not acceptable. Just specific mathematically calculated numbers including all of the physical parameters related to the specific issues.

David Wells 13.05/2019.


John Edmondson
Reply to  David Wells
June 13, 2019 10:42 am

Very good David. The answer is very simple really. They have no idea whatsoever. I take it you have not had a reply?

Hot under the collar
Reply to  David Wells
June 13, 2019 11:26 am

Very good David, UK citizens can submit online FOI requests to government and public authorities via the site The request and reply is all published online. Below is the link to previous online requests, made to the climate change committee, along with replies.

Reply to  David Wells
June 13, 2019 1:18 pm

I’ll buy you a pint for that post. Superb!

June 13, 2019 7:49 am

Even zero emissions will delay a tiny temp. rise by a mahoosive 70 days…..

June 13, 2019 7:59 am

Trump promised a super trade deal after Brexit. Maybe the small print on CO2 should be carefully studied?
Ms May did not deliver Brexit, did not actually succeed in the coup against Trump despite rather drastic Novichok tantrums and dodgy dossiers.

Ms May’s only legacy is the complete breakdown of the UK. Anyway since Mr. Sedwill of the Cabinet Office is the King of England , the order likely came from the permanent Civil Service.

June 13, 2019 8:03 am

A design for national poverty and suffering justified by a fraud. You have to ask what is in it for the politicians.

Jerry Palmer
June 13, 2019 8:19 am

“The government hasn’t yet spelled out if the cost will fall on bill-payers, or tax-payers, or the fossil fuel firms that have caused climate change.”

Considering the taxes levied on fuel is something like two thirds of the pump price, perhaps the government should bear all the costs. From their own pockets. Not only have they profited the most from oil, they also invented the “problem” so they should pay for the “solution”.

June 13, 2019 8:26 am

Theresa May is following a well-established pattern for failed leaders of democratic nations: Introduce diabolical legislation in the dying days of the leadership which will make the nation as difficult as possible to manage for the incoming regime.

Protection for the country from this act of petulant treachery has come from an unexpected (to my mind) quarter – Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has forced in a clause that says that after 5 years there will be a review to ensure that other (major) countries are meeting their targets. So it’s game over for Theresa May: the chance that other countries will meet their targets is zero. Germany et al have already given up. I suspect that the next UK Prime Minister (Boris or any other) will be able to happily ignore Theresa May’s desperate attempt to destroy the UK, and to do so from day 1 – ie. not waiting for the 5-year review.

David Stone CEng MIET
June 13, 2019 8:28 am

From a Brit
This is actually a response because of a political problem. The Green party and the Liberal Democrats are mad keen on this kind of nonsense (you may see my affiliation etc. but both are fairly hard left) and the public is being passed so much mis-information that saying anything else is political suicide. Put simply they are suggesting something which is technically not possible, at least not without taking Britain back to the stone age. I will quickly outline the exact policy and why it cannot work.

In each case the party says they want the following:
Only Electric transport including lorries and buses.
No gas space heating, this must become electric.
Maximum insulation of all property to extreme standards to help the above.
In some cases no nuclear power.
Lots of wind and solar.
No gas turbine power.
No Coal.
Renewable wood from USA is partially acceptable as long as it is sustainable.

You will see that electricity needs to replace both space heating and transport, which together need something like 100GW continuously in winter. Transport alone is something like 50GW.
The UK grid capacity from all sources is presently about 50GW, of which ideal renewables is about 35GW.
Real renewables capacity is more like 3.5 to 5GW, and only 2-4GW at night. At night with no wind it is zero.
CCGT is the main producer of electricity in the UK, but uses gas and so produces CO2. Renewables expansion is already faltering as subsidies are reduced and maintenance costs become higher with plant age. Even assuming transport and space heating could be got to 50GW, the cost is likely to be £1trillion as every electricity infrastructure is doubled in size, every road dug up, and every overhead Grid line doubled up. Electric cars are not possible without many changes as each domestic property has only 1kW available from the distribution network, yet most properties have at least one car. Average charging would mean only 1 car every 10 houses (including present loads) and I can see the fights that would cause!

Britain cannot afford £1trillion of public sector spend in a time interval which would get us somewhere near the target, because a considerable part of the money would be needed in the next few years to get the large scale infrastructure in place. Our Grid is already close to failure due to wind and sun changes, and this much renewable generation would cause serious stability problems.

Reply to  David Stone CEng MIET
June 13, 2019 9:14 am

Domestic properties only receive 1 kW? That is not very much electricity.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 13, 2019 12:51 pm

The 1kW figure is not supportable. UK domestic properties have between 40 and 100 Ampere supply. At circa 250 volts, that’s 10kW to 25kW.

Electric showers alone will be in the 6-10kW range.

One of the major issues I see with going “all electric” is single point of failure risk. In this utopian vision, if we lose the electricity supply and we lose all energy. Engineers once designed energy systems to diversify supply and improve overall reliability.

The future is unreliable energy supply for a number of reasons, including lack of diversity.

David Stone CEng MIET
Reply to  Jordan
June 14, 2019 1:26 am

No Jim you don’t understand and have got it totally wrong.
This is why:

Domestic properties in UK: approx 40million.
Grid maximum capacity 50 GW.
Other loads which cannot be dumped 10GW

40GW/40m = 1kW.

Perhaps you now see, but if not I will explain further. The distribution network depends on something called diversity. This means that full load (normally 60A / house or 13kW) is not drawn at the same time in all houses. Usually about 300 homes are fed from a 600A 3ph supply, each can take approx 6A (single phase) at the same time with no danger to the fuse. The supply transformer is usually 500kVA capacity in towns.

Reply to  David Stone CEng MIET
June 14, 2019 2:30 pm

David Stone CEng MIET

You have overlooked two things.

Firstly, National Grid peak demand is not the same as the true peak demand. There has been an increase in “embedded” (distribution connected) generating capacity which leaves National Grid with a fraction of true peak demand. I don’t have figures, but National Grid’s peak demand was happily marching up past 60GW a few years ago and there has been economic growth since then. I would very much doubt that true peak demand has not increased to well above 60GW.

You also overlook correlation. GB demand typically peaks around early evening on a Tuesday in January or February. This is because industry and commerce is still drawing power in the early evening (your 10GW is not relevant), when streetlights switch on early on darker evenings, and many people arrive home to start cooking, washing machines, electric showers etc (many homes drawing power way above 1kW).

Clearly not every house will behave exactly the same, but there is correlation at work. Your assumption of average is invalid.

In the Real World
Reply to  David Stone CEng MIET
June 14, 2019 3:50 am

David Stone , the right idea but very low on total figures .
A CCS report in 2016 for parliament showed that , [ if UK houses were insulated up to the Standard of Austrian houses ] , then it would take another 200 GW of generation capacity for electric heating .
Private cars would need something like an extra 130 GW if they all plugged in together , & commercial vehicles , [ which would need charging every day ] would take another 100 plus GW of capacity .

So a total of something like 400 GW extra generation capacity would need over 100 extra Hinckley C power stations to be built , [ at £20 Billion each ] , plus about the same cost again to upgrade the grid .

June 13, 2019 8:35 am

+1 to Professor Michael J Kelly. Or maybe +100. But everyone, please note the “Emeritus”. Only an “Emeritus” can make such a statement without losing their livelihood. We live in a sick world, and university professors live in one of the sickest parts of our sick world.

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
June 13, 2019 8:46 am

She also promised to take us out the EU …

Barry Sheridan
June 13, 2019 8:55 am

The British Prime Minister, Theresa May, has never made the right decision in her political life, this continues that streak. What she proposes is simply impossible unless of course it is the intention of the State to reduce the population as well as reducing the standard of living.

Reply to  Barry Sheridan
June 13, 2019 9:35 am

The British Prime Minister, Theresa May is just a puppet and doesn’t make decisions. She is told what to do by her master. She has NEVER worked for the people.

Andy Pattullo
June 13, 2019 9:26 am

So reassuring that at least one country is going to do something about bad weather. Mind you, whatever they do will take four times as long now since they will adopt a 10 hour work week. Perhaps we can assign other global problems such as volcanism, earthquakes, plagues and reality TV to some of the other EU nations so as to share the load a bit.

D. Anderson
June 13, 2019 9:39 am

It’s just an engineering problem –

After the Wrights made the first powered flight at Kitty Hawk the 757 was just an engineering problem.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 13, 2019 9:50 am

Among the many idiotic features of this international virtue signalling is the fact that the green fools who believe in this nonsense really think that they can switch from the U.K. ‘s gas heating of homes to hugely expensive eco-heat recovery and other various pumped systems . Fine for the wealthy but the vast majority simply cannot afford such unreliable and breakdown prone technology. The stunning cost has yet to dawn on the true believers but with all the other expensive things to be done there won’t be any room to subsidise ordinary homes. So presumably they will either be left to die in the cold in winter or the NHS, education, social care, police budgets etc etc will have to be dramatically cut. Let’s see how that plays out politically.

Meanwhile perhaps the US should prepare for a vast increase in political asylum applications from Brits desperate to escape planet of the Green Snotheads.

Phil Salmon
June 13, 2019 10:08 am

Theresa May did this out of pure spite.
She cares no more about climate than she ever did about Brexit.
She’ll cackle as the country carbonises.

June 13, 2019 10:12 am

“Labour Considers 2030 Net-Zero Emissions Target”

That would be the British Labour party lead by Jeremy Corbyn, brother or Piers Corbyn.

Recently the steelworks in the northern town of Scunthorpe went bust, and it would appear that the British car industry is moving out of the UK. Most recently announced was the closure of Fords petrol engine production in the Welsh town of Bridgend. It’ll be their diesel plant in Dagenham next.

What idiot wants to invest in combustion-engined cars in a country that wants to ban their sale?

Steve O
June 13, 2019 10:52 am

There is one path to that goal. 100% nuclear power.
I doubt very much that’s what they have in mind.

John Edmondson
June 13, 2019 10:53 am

I must protest at Theresa May being described as the worst Prime Minister ever. This is not possible, the worst Prime Minister ever is of course Gordon Brown.

Gordon’s list of crimes against the taxpayers is both long and expensive. The most eye catching (though not the most expensive) was the sale of 375 tons ( yes tons) of the UK’s gold reserves. Astonishing he told the market he was doing this so he only got $250/ounce.

Gordon was truly a man of limitless incompetence.

Theresa May was a bit unlucky, but still pretty useless. So second worst for me.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  John Edmondson
June 13, 2019 11:59 am

Neville Chamberlain.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 14, 2019 4:10 am

Neville was a patriot who ordered rearmament in secret and bought us time to rearm. Winston was a lifelong friend.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  chaswarnertoo
June 14, 2019 7:26 am

Old Winston was also a strong supporter of the feeble minded peoples act of 1913, fortunately wasn’t passed in to law otherwise WW1 would have seen more deaths than the ‘Flu epidemic afterwards.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  John Edmondson
June 13, 2019 2:55 pm

May surely gets the title for utter malicious incompetence

Flight Level
June 13, 2019 11:35 am

Exactly what China waited so patiently for to buy British Airways.

June 13, 2019 12:56 pm

There’s nobody to vote for in the UK.

They are all committed to climatism, and the Brexit party has only one policy.

Pete Clegg
June 13, 2019 1:06 pm

This home-grown bulging-eyed lunatic is a secret weapon of mass destruction the slavering evil Third Reich could never even have imagined in their wildest lsd-fuelled dreams.

Phil Salmon
June 13, 2019 1:38 pm

Winter 🥶 is coming.
With it an army of white walkers.
Led by their High Zombie Lords,
Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore.

Robert of Ottawa
June 13, 2019 2:53 pm

After a victorious fight against “pollution” our single-use PM is now engaged in a fight against plastic. I think this is a sign of decadence when the govrnment can find nothing better to do than tilt at windmills.

June 13, 2019 3:15 pm

Thank you for sending your factories to South Carolina. We do appreciate it.

slow to follow
June 13, 2019 3:20 pm

At least the project will get the highly qualified oversight such a transformative undertaking requires:

For the first time, young people will have the chance to shape our future climate policy through the Youth Steering Group. The Group, set up by DCMS and led by the British Youth Council, will advise Government on priorities for environmental action and give a view on progress to date against existing commitments on climate, waste and recycling, and biodiversity loss. They will start their review in July.

June 13, 2019 3:37 pm

Back to the 1850’s? Wood burning stoves, horse and carts, no flying, wind-powered international shipping, little refrigeration, and no cost/benefit analysis. It’s said that we get the politicians we deserve.

Craig from Oz
June 13, 2019 4:59 pm

‘“imperative” other countries followed suit, so there would be a review within five years to ensure other nations were taking similarly ambitious action and British industries were not facing unfair competition.’

Seriously? They said this non ironically?

“Hi! I have decided through my own free will to not study for the exam. Now can we just check that everyone else has also not studied for the exam so my grades don’t look utter shite compared to theirs?”

Seriously, if you are the best in the world at anything, and you discover that one of your rivals has decided to stop competing at the same level, do you match with their self imposed restrictions in so that everything is still fair, or do you shamelessly remind them that Second is just First of the Losers and now even those people laugh at you.

The only plus out of this ‘plan’ is that in about 10 years I am going to be able to holiday in the UK for about 28 cents a day.

Patrick MJD
June 14, 2019 12:43 am
Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 14, 2019 7:23 am

I should not post and type on a train with bass playing fingers on a tiny mobile phone. Gift!

David Stone CEng MIET
June 14, 2019 1:34 am

I have been criticised above for inaccurate figures for the UK electricity domestic electricity supply. These figures may help people to understand why there is a problem.

Domestic properties in UK: approx 40million.
Grid maximum capacity 50 GW.
Other loads which cannot be dumped 10GW

40GW/40m = 1kW.

Perhaps you now see, but if not I will explain further. The distribution network depends on something called diversity. This means that full load (normally 60A / house or 13kW) is not drawn at the same time in all houses. Usually about 300 homes are fed from a 600A 3ph supply, each can take approx 6A (single phase) AVERAGE at the same time with no danger to the fuse. The supply transformer is usually 500kVA capacity in towns.

The consumption of showers and other high consumption appliances works only because all houses do not shower at once, If they do happen to do so the “big fuse” in the substation blows and there is a power outage. As this is rare one can see that the diversity works, without the infrastructure cost of a real supply of 13kW to each house, which would need a large transformer for every 40 or so houses, and would very unusually used at anything like full capacity. As the losses in each transformer are several kW even at no load, electricity prices would be considerably higher, just to support the losses.

Gerald the Mole
June 14, 2019 2:20 am

I often wonder just what we (Brits) did to deserve to have such a person in charge of the UK.

June 14, 2019 3:03 am

A permanent bureaucracy, known as the Civil Service (Deep State for Americans) decides what a Prime Minister can do. has researched this – The Cabinet Office is the real power broker, its chief is the actual King of England.
One gets the feeling the vote does not matter. Brexiteers refuse to address the EU Defense Union, for example.
So the UK version of GND, which is thoroughly annoying CA labor right now, likely comes from that Office. How many powerfull positions are concentrated in one figure? Separation of Powers anyone? This permanent bureaucracy even extends to Australia!
It sure looks like a Commonwealth Common Purpose Effect.

Al Miller
June 14, 2019 7:41 am

Sadly, a once great nation has fallen into the ultimate corruption of the “climate Lie”. I truly hope that someday people pushing these lies are incarcerated.

Keith Moore
June 14, 2019 9:25 am

The above comments are fine but will do nothing to convince the general public. Is there a scientist(s) prepared to stick his head above the ‘virtue signalling Group Think parapet and unequivocally provide the proof that CO2 does not cause anthroprogenic global warming ? If there is one could he/she please tell the world that we are not doomed, Professor Bryan May perhaps ? But then he gets money from the BBC so that wont work!

June 14, 2019 1:00 pm

A lame duck PM in every sense.

June 17, 2019 9:15 am

I am not a detail guy, and maths was never my strongpoint. But I felt the need to do some sums – this is what I came up with – I thought I would attempt to figure out how many wind turbines we need to “power” our vehicle fleet…….the inter web gave me various figures i use these below…

we know that hydrocarbon fuels have a high energy density. One litre of petrol contains 34.5Mj

A few assumptions.

Cars only – (not trucks and other heavier vehicles) which total 30.9 million in the UK
Lets assume each have 45 litre tanks, and each day either use or have stored half a tank of petrol – so the amount of energy to meet this theoretical demand each day is

30,900,000 x 22.5 x 34.5 = 2.4E10 (23,986,125,000) Mega Joules

do you see where this might be going?

Lets look at wind turbine energy. Making the massive leap that we somehow get to an electrical nirvana so that all the electrical energy gets into our vehicles (we already know from above how much energy the driving public needs)

An offshore wind turbine is rated at 600MW, with approximately 50% conversion factor, so lets assume 300MW – thats 300MJ per minute. Energy produced during the day is

300 x 60 x 24 = 432,000 MJ

dividing one by t’other we get a notional energy requirement of 55,523 offshore wind turbines.

The UK currently has the largest offshore wind turbine population in the world ~ 2,000 turbines………

“Houston – we have a problem…….”

but maybe nuclear is the answer?

It’s relatively common for nuclear reactors to have a nameplate capacity in the vicinity of one GW or 1,000 MW.

In 24 hours, that could produce 24,000 MWH.

A MWH is 3,600 megajoules.

24,000 MWH is 86,400,000 megajoules.

Averaged over time, the global nuclear fleet has around a 90% capacity factor. For a combination of technical and economic reasons, it can’t afford to do less than that, has trouble turning down and can’t easily get over that with one to two year maintenance breaks.

So call it 77,760,000 megajoules for a nuclear power plant

so for the UK car fleet, we need around 23,986,125,000 / 77,760,000 = 300 Nuclear plants….

so that’s OK then…..

As I said, I am probably wrong in the maths and assumptions , but I think the general thrust and order of magnitude is about right…

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights