Getting Industry To Go Green Will Not Come Cheaply–Telegraph Wakes Up At Last!


MARCH 18, 2021

By Paul Homewood

One again we find the media finally waking up to the harsh realities of Net Zero. It’s a pity they did work it out for themselves years ago before we committed ourselves to this nonsense:


Britain’s factories produce 72m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – 16pc of the UK’s total and a big barrier to hitting the “net zero” target by 2050.

The decarbonisation strategy announced by the Government on Wednesday aims to cut that by two-thirds by 2035.

However, cleaning up the factories and steelworks responsible for huge amounts of CO2 is going to be expensive. The strategy fails to take a stab at just how big the bill will be. That has left industry deeply concerned – particularly as it tries to recover from the economic hit caused by the pandemic.

Despite the £1bn headline figure quoted by the Government to “drive down emissions from industry and public buildings”, it is unclear whether the strategy contains new money.

Instead it details where previously announced funding will be put to work in areas such as eco-friendly heatpumps and insulation in buildings, research into making steel from clean hydrogen and directing business to swap to renewable power and adopt carbon capture technology.

That has got industry worried. “It’s a statement of intent rather than a policy package,” says Chemical Industries Association boss Steve Elliott. “It’s a lot of ambition. The next step would be workable, policy action.”

Apart from the expense of moving to new technologies, there will be other costs. The strategy talks about creating demand for products made in low-carbon ways, and potentially labelling those that are, and this could rack up expenses.

Initially such a system detailing the “carbon intensity” of items would be voluntary, but force companies to delve deep into their supply chains to understand products’ carbon footprint, potentially strangling them in red tape.

New customs controls resulting from Brexit showed business how difficult and expensive such work can be.

MakeUK, the trade body that represents manufacturers, is concerned about the implications. “Manufacturers have lengthy and complex supply chains so capturing carbon footprint data will not be without challenges,” says Verity Davidge, its policy director. “We’re behind net zero but companies are already juggling it with Covid’s impact and managing the new relationship with the EU.”

Steel is the sector most in the firing line. The strategy even singles out the Port Talbot and Scunthorpe steelworks, noting “these two sites alone produced 11m tonnes of CO2  in 2017 – 15pc of total industrial emissions”.

Two years ago the Government announced £250m to help the sector clean up, such as developing hydrogen-powered steel-making instead of traditional blast furnaces, alongside a £140m to boost hydrogen production.

However, this won’t be enough for the sector go green. Chris McDonald, chief executive of the Metals Processing Institute, estimates it would cost between £6bn and £7bn to decarbonise the UK’s steel plants, assuming they were replaced by new facilities. Eurofer says the entire EU and UK steel industry going green by 2050 would push up production costs by between 35pc and 100pc per tonne.

“It will be a huge challenge to fundamentally transform how steel is produced,” says Gareth Stace, director of UK Steel, warning his energy-hungry industry already faces higher costs than rivals in Europe.

Encouraging investment in clean steel in the UK would require solid policy support to ensure there is a market, such as reforming public procurement so domestically made steel was at the front of the queue for major projects in Britain.

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng proudly trumpeted the plans, noting Britain was the “first major economy to put into law” plans to decarbonise, “and the first to take steps to have its own low-carbon industrial sector”.

But going first has risks. Although other countries are likely to follow, until new technology is developed and becomes cost effective, industries may avoid the UK for locations with looser regimes, and consumers may choose cheaper products made using more polluting methods.

The strategy acknowledges what is known as “carbon leakage”. It mentions “funding policies to reduce the cost of decarbonising”, systems to pass costs to consumers, and even border controls if other countries are slower to go green.

Officials are “sensitive” to carbon leakage, says  David Reiner, lecturer in technology policy at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School, but says the Government needs to stump up the cash as what is available now is only enough to fund studies. “The funding announced is just a down payment,” he says. “In the not-too-distant future there needs to be confirmation of what is actually on the table.”

But it might not be as bad as it seems, Reiner thinks: “Moving aggressively on heavy industry might have been risky a couple of years ago but as more economies commit to carbon neutrality  that makes it more likely others will try to learn from this process.”

What the Government hopes is that decarbonising drives its green industrial revolution, creating 80,000 jobs as industry realises that it has to invest, as soon no country will be allowed to escape tough environmental controls.

“The opportunities from green transition are massive,” says Greg Archer of lobby group Transport & Environment. “Every country is going down the same path, just at different speeds. We can get a competitive advantage by being first and selling our expertise internationally.”

It’s this hope that has turned prime minister Boris Johnson’s and Kwarteng into climate activists. A green industrial revolution may not be just a soundbite, but a business plan.

“It’s pragmatism,” says Roz Bulleid of the Green Alliance. “There’s strong public demand for decarbonisation so there’s a political incentive. Globally, we’re seeing decarbonisation so there’s a business motive too.”

Douglas McWilliams of economic think-tank the CEBR remains unconvinced. “It all makes a massive assumption that a country with just 1pc of the global population will come up with ways to solve these problems,” he says. “It might be more cost effective to let others do that and then nick the technology.”

Unsurprisingly the Green Alliance still prefers La La Land, but it is evident that those who actually understand economics and business are finally beginning to wake up to the dangers. Whatever way you look at it, the bill will be massive and somebody will have to pay.

Take the steel industry for instance. At Port Talbot which is owned by TATA, it has been estimated that reducing emissions, either by converting to hydrogen, bringing in carbon storage or changing to electric arc furnaces would cost at least £2bn in the site itself, plus huge sums on infrastructure elsewhere. Why on earth would TATA want to spend that sort of money on a business that is struggling to make a profit now. The same applies to Scunthorpe, owned by the Chinese.

And it is not just the colossal capital costs, which would be involved in any transition. Decarbonisation will inevitable add to operational costs of industry, putting it at a permanent disadvantage to overseas competitors.

As the article also points out, the problem of carbon leakage will also be highly problematic, and involve crippling bureaucracy in monitoring supply chains.

The report also highlights the extremely naivety of the media up to now, who seem to have assumed that all of this decarbonisation could have been achieved for a billion or two. As this blog has often pointed out, the billion quoted is no more than a bit of seed funding for pilot projects, R&D and the like. In particular, the media still have not woken up to the fact that hydrogen will cost several times as much as conventional energy sources.

There also appears to be wishful thinking that if we jump first, the rest of the world will come and buy our goods because they are “green” – “The opportunities from green transition are massive,” says Greg Archer of lobby group Transport & Environment. “Every country is going down the same path, just at different speeds. We can get a competitive advantage by being first and selling our expertise internationally.”

It is far more likely that our industries will simply migrate elsewhere, where costs are cheaper. Even a carbon import tax will have little effect on that.

More and more, the only justification offered by politicians of all parties revolves around all of these marvellous green jobs about to be created. But who will pay the bill for them?

Let’s finish by looking again at the statement from the guy at CEBR:

 It all makes a massive assumption that a country with just 1pc of the global population will come up with ways to solve these problems. It might be more cost effective to let others do that and then nick the technology.”

4.9 14 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
john K. Sutherland.
March 19, 2021 6:13 am

First paragrpah correction… ‘It is a pity they did NOT….’

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  john K. Sutherland.
March 19, 2021 9:27 am

The report also highlights the extremely naivety


March 19, 2021 6:18 am

They’ll never see the cliff edge until it’s above their heads. They all know Green Energy is SO workable and none of them understands how to keep a power grid functioning.

Reply to  Spetzer86
March 19, 2021 8:00 pm

Maybe this is why we’ve been unable to find any evidence of intelligent life out in space – perhaps there’s some sort of suicidal urge in budding cultures that drives them throw away technology and embrace primitive living.

March 19, 2021 6:19 am

There will always be first world countries and third world countries–it is just that in a few short decades those countries will be reversed.

Reply to  starzmom
March 19, 2021 6:36 am

I disagree, starzmom. In just a few short years, if the One World Order elites manage to get their way, all countries will be third world countries.

Reply to  H.R.
March 19, 2021 6:47 am

That certainly is the other alternative. But I do see China, India, and others improving their lots, as ours declines into the 18th century..

Reply to  starzmom
March 19, 2021 9:40 am

You may be right, but I’d recommend you start practicing for the Hunger Games to come. Be prepared and all that.

Reply to  H.R.
March 19, 2021 2:30 pm

We all need to be prepared–and I am not a prepper.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  H.R.
March 19, 2021 8:38 am

But the elites will still be elites- they’ll make sure of that.

Phil Rae
March 19, 2021 6:21 am

A disaster, of epic proportions, in the making. The ignorance of the political class and their stooges is breathtaking. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people in finance who are rubbing their hands in delight at the opportunities they will have to make a fortune off the backs of taxpayers and consumers.

Gregory Woods
March 19, 2021 6:38 am

“It’s pragmatism,” says Roz Bulleid of the Green Alliance. “There’s strong public demand for decarbonisation so there’s a political incentive. Globally, we’re seeing decarbonisation so there’s a business motive too.”


Reply to  Gregory Woods
March 19, 2021 8:16 am

“There is strong public demand” until you tell the public it will cost THEM more.
It is easy to agree with virtue signaling.

There are countless polls that support that point.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
March 19, 2021 8:25 am

Every time people are polled about their concerns, they always put climate change either last, or close to last.
When people are asked how much they are willing to spend to stop climate change, the amount usually ranges in single digits to very low double digits per year.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
March 19, 2021 9:29 am

Every time people are polled about their concerns, they always put climate change either last, or close to last.”

And that’s only because CC is on the list of options. I’ll bet if they let the person being polled come up with their own concerns, CC wouldn’t make the cut.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 19, 2021 11:24 am

YES! I’ve said this a thousand times. Wouldn’t even make the list for the vast majority if asked to create their own list of “concerns.”

Pamela Matlack-Klein
March 19, 2021 6:42 am

This mad rush to de-carbonize is not going to end well for anyone. We are fortunate to live in one of the best of all possible worlds for humans right now. Life span has increased significantly, we can travel the world in comfort, our technology has enabled us to freely interact with people all around the globe, food is relatively cheap and abundant. And yet everyday we are dunned with complaints about how we are destroying the planet. What is it about being comfortable and safe that makes so many people uncomfortable? Why would anyone want to go back to the 17th C. with its famine, pestilence, and war? These malcontents need to be able to live for a month without all the marvels they decry as destructive of the planet. Not many of them would last out a week!

Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
March 19, 2021 6:52 am

I had a conversation with a few friends the other day. One is so sure we can “just” lower our emissions and go to all green technologies, because it is so easy. After discussing the problems in Texas two weeks ago, in detail, she decided maybe it wasn’t so easy. We need a serious education effort with younger people who apparently have no clue just how complicated and broad the implications of going green really are.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  starzmom
March 19, 2021 8:03 am

So few youngsters today understand how physical things work. It’s a problem that stems from so few of them growing up on the farm anymore and from never taking a physical course in high school such as wood shop or auto shop.They all think meat comes from the grocery store, electricity is generated in the wall outlet, and the car works through magic (some kind of captured demon pedaling furiously under the hood).

Bill Toland
Reply to  Tim Gorman
March 19, 2021 9:33 am

I have noticed the same phenomenon in greens who are under the age of 30. None of them have a clue how anything works. They all believe in magical thinking. The greens who are over the age of 30 aren’t much better.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
March 19, 2021 10:01 am

I may have mentioned this before: I have actually encountered someone who said “Why do you have to kill cows for meat when you can just buy it at the grocery store?”

He was NOT joking.

Reply to  starzmom
March 19, 2021 8:27 am

There’s a reason why progressives have spent the last 30 years dumbing down education.

Reply to  MarkW
March 19, 2021 9:13 am

Students are only as good as their teachers, and sadly enough, even 40 years ago, elementary education majors were some of the most clueless people I went to school with.

Reply to  starzmom
March 19, 2021 9:39 am

The Education dept was for those students who couldn’t hack it as journalists.

Reply to  starzmom
March 19, 2021 12:50 pm

You nailed it. I was a senior physics major in 1971. As in many schools, we were used to mentor and oversee non-science majors taking intro courses to fulfill their graduation requirements. A SENIOR elementary education student asked, “Do people in Australia feel that they are upside down?”

We calmly explained that they didn’t and why. Don’t know if she understood the ‘why’, but at least she now had the right answer should students ask her. Unfortunately, that just hinted at the shallowness of her understanding of the Earth. Realize that about six months later she was teaching third graders.

Reply to  jtom
March 19, 2021 2:32 pm


Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
March 19, 2021 7:37 am

We are fortunate to live in one of the best of all possible worlds for humans right now.’

Until the climate impacts hit.

Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 8:23 am

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 8:41 am

Well, here in frigid/damp New England- I hear few people complaining about a trivial increase in temperature- except those who can profit from this new religion. Most of us would like to see a couple more degrees increase.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 9:29 am

Griff, since global warming is beneficial, your statement makes no sense at all.

Reply to  Bill Toland
March 19, 2021 1:36 pm

When has Griff ever made sense?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 9:32 am

Any day now Griff, right? Any day, just you wait!

Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 9:53 am

since NO past forecast of “climate impacts” have ever come true I’ll take my chances that you and your fear porn will be wrong … yet again …

pHil R
Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 12:04 pm

Griff waiting for “climate impacts” to hit is like Linus waiting in the pumpkin patch all night for the Great Pumpkin to arrive.

Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 2:38 pm

“Until the climate impacts hit.”

poor griff, off in his hallucinogenic fueled la-la-land, as always.

Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 10:25 pm

You tell these slowpokes griff. Just close the steelworks sell the carbon credits and use the money to buy zero carbon steel from overseas. Carbon credit the only way to go.

Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
March 19, 2021 8:04 am

There is a long human history of apocalypse narrative, best understood from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. To quote Steven Pinker: “As with many apocalyptic movements, greenism is laced with misanthropy, including an indifference to starvation, an indulgence in ghoulish fantasies of a depopulated planet, and Nazi-like comparisons of human beings to vermin, pathogens, and cancer.” 

This is why the environmentalist movement is and has always been elitist and racist.  

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MPassey
March 19, 2021 9:34 am

It goes back long before that. Mainly used as a fear tactic if you don’t stop sinning. The only difference now is the prolific nature of the tactics.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MPassey
March 19, 2021 11:41 am

The Climate Nazis are the “Agent Smiths” of The Matrix fame.

“I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had…during my time here. It came to me when I was trying to classify your species. I’ve discovered that…human beings are…not mammals. [raises eyebrow] You see, most mammals instinctively develop a kind of equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move into an area and MULTIPLY, and MULTIPLY, until all of the natural resources have been consumed. Then you have no choice, but to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what that is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, you are a cancer, you are a plague on this planet, and we are the cure.”

They see themselves as saviors, and their objective is the same – turning humans into slaves. Most of those who support this mass lunacy are too blinded or too stupid to see that they’ll be among those wearing the chains if their agenda succeeds.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 19, 2021 12:47 pm

All animals expand until they run out of resources.
It only looks like a balance because predators are usually able to keep up with increases in prey.
Remove the predators, and the animals expand until they are all starving.

Hollywood really does have a distorted view of the real world. They think Bambi was a documentary.

Russ Wood
Reply to  MarkW
March 27, 2021 5:42 am

So what humanity REALLY needs is a predator, to keep the numbers in check. This used to be disease, but now we have medicines. Perhaps there should be a genetic engineering program to CREATE such a predator? One suggestion was VAMPIRES! Any other ideas?

john K. Sutherland.
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
March 19, 2021 8:30 am

‘What is it about being comfortable…?
Old Chinese proverb. ‘No food on table…. ONE problem.
Plenty food on table…. many problems.’

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
March 19, 2021 9:31 am

our technology has enabled us to freely interact with people all around the globe”

I think that was probably the worst thing to happen. e.g. TWITter, Narcissist Book, etc.

March 19, 2021 6:46 am

They found the manual for their pocket calculator 😀
And it’s switch 😀

March 19, 2021 7:08 am

I see, how incredabaly suprising this must seem: Imagine, a right wing newspaper, publishing right wing, anti renewables propaganda. I’m shocked, truly shocked! Seriously though, I’d like to address the factual claims, but there are none.

Reply to  Tony
March 19, 2021 8:30 am

How typical, declare facts to be not facts because you don’t agree with them.

Are you going to argue that changing over to a non-fossil fuel based economy is cheap? If so, please present your arguments and facts.

So far all you have managed to do is to throw insults at anyone who doesn’t worship as you do.

Reply to  MarkW
March 19, 2021 9:35 am

Ask for German or Denmarks energy bills 😀

Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 19, 2021 9:38 am

Was a Tony answer, sorry

Last edited 1 year ago by Krishna Gans
Reply to  Tony
March 19, 2021 9:39 am

It appears that you missed them. £6bn to £7bn in decarbonisation costs and 30% to 100% increase in product cost. Refute them.

Reply to  Tony
March 19, 2021 1:00 pm

Imagine a scientifically and economically illiterate far-leftist not accepting the facts when they are put in front of his face.

And not being able to put forward one bit of counter information to those facts.

Not shocked at all…. standard far-leftist BS.

Reply to  Tony
March 19, 2021 2:52 pm

Telegraph, right wing ??

If anything, its slightly left of center.

Little Tony probably thinks Karl Marx was right-wing

Reply to  Tony
March 19, 2021 6:53 pm

Why do you bother? Left-wing idiot with nothing concrete to add makes a troll comment on this site that is frequented by scientists and engineers – you think any one is going to be affected by what you wrote? Everybody here can think for themselves and do their own research – and they know there’s no climate emergency, CO2 is plant food and the Earth is about 20% greener in just the past 50 years, and we haven’t even reached the temps of just 1000 years ago when people could actually farm in Iceland and Greenland, farther north than they can farm now in China, or at higher elevations than they can now in Europe. You may now go back under your rock – or better yet be quiet and pay attention and learn something if you really care about the planet not about left wing politics.

Abolition Man
March 19, 2021 7:09 am

The guy from CEBR hit on the Chinese strategy right away; let others do the work then steal it for our own benefit. Of course, he left out the part where the item gets twisted to nefarious intent; like the social scoring the ChiComs use to control and coerce their people!
Right now the lemmings are gathered at the cliff, jostling each other to see who goes first. The winners will only be those that hold back; making the jump will destroy any economy foolish enough to believe the lying models and the lying liars modeling them!

March 19, 2021 7:10 am

Now think about what the cost of a product like steel made with renewable energy in Britain verses fossil fuel energy in China or India.

Now think about an individual living in a Third World country, who survives on a few hundred or few thousand dollars a year. Will they buy their nails from Britain or China?

Now think about the prices of all of the items that require energy to produce: medicine, food, construction materials, etc. (And don’t forget the salaries need by the workers to sustain themselves in a green energy economy, which also go into the final price. )

While high energy prices are painful for us in the West, they will be downright disastrous for those living near the real poverty line.

Progressive alarmists never think beyond the immediate or about the long term ramifications of the policies they promulgate.

Reply to  Anon
March 19, 2021 7:30 am

It seems pertinent to me to consider also that two big British steel mills are owned by a Chinese company and an Indian company. Why would those companies invest in UK plants to raise the prices of their products?

Last edited 1 year ago by starzmom
Reply to  starzmom
March 19, 2021 7:39 am

but they already are!

Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 9:46 am

They have invested to access the EU market.

Reply to  starzmom
March 19, 2021 8:36 am

When a government invests, profit is rarely the first motive.

Reply to  starzmom
March 19, 2021 9:56 am

to close them down when the green nonsense is pushed and force everyone to buy from their “dirty” mills … market share is their long term plan …

Reply to  starzmom
March 19, 2021 11:21 am

There are many reasons to do that in addition to seeing the new acquisition as a profit making enterprise. A few are: to gain experienced personnel, to acquire technology and patents, to acquire ancillary things, like raw material access and real estate, to avoid tariffs, to avoid EISs for new constructions, to resell the components, to corner the market… etc.

And the most cynical might be:

Do Companies Buy Competitors in Order to Shut Them Down?
And so the questions need to be more than superficial. For example, why would Russia finically support anti-fracking NGO’s? Because they are on board with the Paris Climate accords and are concerned about the environment? That would be one answer (the one you might take at face value if you were the recipient of the money). But are there others?

Reply to  Anon
March 19, 2021 8:35 am

It’s like their belief in communism. The theory sounds so good, they find it impossible to believe that it won’t work in practice.

Reply to  MarkW
March 19, 2021 10:03 am

In theory, theory matches practice.
In practice…

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Anon
March 19, 2021 11:49 am

While high energy prices are painful for us in the West, they will be downright disastrous for those living near the real poverty line.


High energy prices will be downright disastrous for the west, especially for those living near the real poverty line.

It’s not a “discomfort thing;” it’s a “destruction of the economy thing.”

“Going green” in reality simply means “exporting your prosperity to countries not stupid enough to “go green.”

John the Econ
March 19, 2021 7:24 am

That’s okay. China will be happy to take over that expensive and messy industry from you. That will free up more of your skilled workforce to become more Eloi.

March 19, 2021 7:36 am

And yet all of industry is pushing ahead with green initiatives…

In steel
ArcelorMittal Launches XCarb Initiative for Producing Green Steel (

Green hydrogen…

Many UK car plants already have extensive solar panels…

Watts readers need to stop thinking of these as ‘maybe’ ideas and look at them as actual fact.

John Garrett
Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 8:36 am


Thanks for demonstrating the perils of innumeracy.

Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 9:36 am

Green Hydrogen – doubling or tripling the energy bills 😀

Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 19, 2021 9:42 am

I doubt griff has ever paid an energy bill.

Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 9:39 am

Ha! griff your religion might work in your fantasy universe but not in our real world. Put your money where your mouth is and invest heavily in hydrogen – and report back to us in 5 years.

Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 9:42 am

griff actually believes that when companies follow the mandates and diktats of government, this proves that companies also believe in the green scam.

Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 10:16 am

Griff, many factories and plants in China also have lots of solar panels.
Unconnected to anything.
And what do you make of that gynormous abandoned solar ranch in the US that Michael Moore’s recent documentary highlighted?
Governments and “woke” corporations throwing other people’s money at virtue vanity exhibits.

Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 1:11 pm


Poor griffter, falls for the CON yet again

XCarb is just a BRAND NAMING EXERCISE for reuse and efficiencies that have been in the pipeline for ages.

Then there are the SPECIAL certificates, and SPECIAL innovation funding….

… a form of virtue seeking

And the dumb idiot griffter falls for it.

So Sad to be so GULLIBLE.

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Roland F. Hirsch
Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 6:37 pm

You have made a mistake in your comment: “Green hydrogen” is not possible. Hydrogen is colorless.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 7:41 pm

green steel
Makes me think of Atlas Shrugged

Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 11:15 pm

Many UK car plants already have extensive solar panels…

And where do they get the aluminium for the frames and roof mounts griff? Oh that’s right it’s Zeronomics-
Portland Aluminium smelter thrown $150m government lifeline to secure its future (
Subsidy mining is their brilliant zero sum game until they run into the fallacy of composition problem with too many takers and not enough makers-
Electric cars become less affordable in UK (

You keep sucking up to the Wuling classes griff and you might get your name on the the list for the next Five Year Plan and Great leap Forward allocation of electric Trabants-
This super cheap electric car is outselling Tesla – but you can’t buy it | TechRadar
Just keep your head down with the new green job allocated to you and don’t question if the hammers and sickles are zero carbon steel mate.

Vincent Causey
Reply to  griff
March 20, 2021 1:27 am

It’s the “long march through the institutions”. Capture education, civil service, media and now the boardroom. Look at the language being used: shareholders are being replaced by “stakeholders”. Whoever they are, it won’t be you or me. This is a communist type of takeover without the need for a communist party. None of these executives quoted in the article are even against “zero carbon” – they just want the tax payer to refund their costs.

Reply to  Vincent Causey
March 20, 2021 11:44 am

Stakeholders are defined as anyone who’s lives are influenced by the actions of a company. They include employees, customers, suppliers, people who live near the company or any of the above.
It’s the classic communist strategy of transfering ownership from those who have actually put their money at risk, to the entire community and eventually to government.

March 19, 2021 7:38 am

But they aren’t first. There are other plants -e.g. Linz, Austria

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 8:44 am

so will everyone rush out to buy their steel from that Linz plant to prove how green they are?

Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 9:54 am

which will be out of business within years …

Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 9:58 am

I see your problem, griff. You think that the Linz plant, a pilot plant that makes a TINY amount of hydrogen with a TINY 6 MW of so-called green energy running on €18m of subsidies is an actual competitor. You obviously have no sense of scale or knowledge of economics.

Michael 63
Reply to  Meab
March 19, 2021 11:51 am

Uh, if they get subsidies isn’t their price competive?
If not, it’s a really expensive process – or someone pockets the difference….

Reply to  Michael 63
March 19, 2021 12:42 pm

You obviously don’t know the meaning of competitive.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  griff
March 19, 2021 1:50 pm

The hydrogen plant at the Voestalpine steelworks “…will be used to test whether the technology deployed to produce green hydrogen is suitable for use on an industrial scale”, according to a statement by the partners in the operation. It will be interesting to see what the outcome of the test is…

Reply to  griff
March 20, 2021 6:13 am

No there aren’t. 1.6 billion tonnes of steel is produced each year. 1.5 billion tonnes is BF-BOF route. 0.1 billion tonnes is DRI-EAF route.

Hydrogen accounts for less than 200 tonnes. There is no large scale production plant using hydrogen anywhere in the world.

John Garrett
March 19, 2021 7:54 am

When they start blabbing about using hydrogen to make steel, it’s like listening to the clueless George W. Bush yapping about electric cars.

Where the hell do they think they’re going to get the hydrogen?

Reply to  John Garrett
March 19, 2021 8:27 am

In the story above there’s a link to a story about Sweden’s attempt to use hydrogen to produce steel. They use hydro power and they built their pilot plant close to the dams. No surprise there, you often find aluminum smelters in the middle of nowhere so they can take advantage of a dam.

The Swedish plant mentioned in the link has yet to produce steel using hydrogen.

What I would like to know is how they get around hydrogen embrittlement. It’s a very well known problem. I assume they have a plan. I assume it works in the lab. That said, I have seen many technologies that didn’t make it past the pilot plant stage.

Reply to  commieBob
March 19, 2021 9:17 am

It is no accident that Alcoa and Boeing are located within the Bonneville Power Authority’s service area.

Reply to  John Garrett
March 19, 2021 8:37 am

I’m going to start a company that invests in hydrogen mines. I wonder how many investors I will be able to get?

Reply to  MarkW
March 19, 2021 10:05 am

That could actually be a good idea – get the investors, get the government subsidies, live rich (after all, you’re CEO and deserve appropriate compensation) and invest well for a few years, then file BK and retire.

Reply to  TonyG
March 19, 2021 8:32 pm

If you are very clever and very careful you might get away with it. Take the case of Theranos as a warning though.

People hate losing large amounts of money. It is very possible that an activist investor will go after you. That is what resulted in Conrad Black ending up in jail.

If you want to fairly safely perpetrate a fraud and earn riches and fame, I suggest that you concoct a method to analyze some data in such a way that it ‘proves’ that we are all doomed due to runaway global warming. It doesn’t matter if someone completely debunks your work. A dozen other ‘scientists’ will jump to your defense, guaranteed.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  John Garrett
March 19, 2021 12:08 pm

Where the hell do they think they’re going to get the hydrogen?

Ah yes, there’s the rub. Apparently nobody took chemistry in high school.

As I like to put it, hydrogen is NOT an energy source. Hydrogen is the “Elizabeth Taylor” of elements – it’s always “married” to something else. The “divorce,” plus the costs of compression and storage (and inevitable leakage, since hydrogen is notoriously difficult to contain) will use more energy than burning the hydrogen will liberate.

Reply to  John Garrett
March 19, 2021 1:14 pm

And how do they make Hi-Carbon steel, using hydrogen 😉

March 19, 2021 7:56 am

… but there will be rewards for being first …

Clayton Christensen is the guru on disruptive technology. One of the things he points out is that the very companies that produce disruptive technology are usually the ones who get smacked the hardest by it.

Sometimes first mover advantage works but that’s not a given. The reward for being first is very often that you cease to exist.

March 19, 2021 7:58 am

In a few years time, children just won’t know what steel is.

March 19, 2021 8:13 am

It’s a pity they did work it out for themselves years ago before we committed ourselves to this nonsense:

It would not surprise me in the slightest to find out they knew from the beginning how expensive this was going to be. It’s just that they knew the plebes would resist if we knew the true cost, so they lied about it.

After all, they have a planet to save.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  MarkW
March 19, 2021 9:45 am


Some no doubt do know and hide how costly it is going to be but I don’t think our PM Boris has a clue (probably about most other things as well). He is well known as not being into detail and preferring photo opportunities to hard work. He also seems to have an insatiable desire to be liked and with the COP coming along in Glasgow later this year he is likely more interested in getting pats on the back from other world leaders than the realities of policies.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
March 19, 2021 12:11 pm

After all, they have a planet to save an agenda to push.

Fixed that for you.

CD in Wisconsin
March 19, 2021 8:18 am

“Two years ago the Government announced £250m to help the sector clean up, such as developing hydrogen-powered steel-making instead of traditional blast furnaces, alongside a £140m to boost hydrogen production…”


Wikipedia article on the embrittlement of steel using hydrogen…..

“Hydrogen embrittlement (HE) also known as hydrogen assisted cracking or hydrogen-induced cracking, describes the embrittlement of a metal by diffusible hydrogen. The essential facts about the nature of the hydrogen embrittlement of steels have now been known for 140 years.[1][2][3] It is diffusible atomic hydrogen that is harmful to the toughness of iron and steel.[4] It is a low temperature effect: most metals are relatively immune to hydrogen embrittlement above approximately 150°C.(302°F)[5]

In steels, diffusible hydrogen ions come from water that is typically introduced by a wet electrochemical process such as electroplating. It must be distinguished from the entirely different process high temperature hydrogen attack (HTHA) which is where steels operating at high temperatures above 400°C are attacked by hydrogen gas.”

I am actually pleasantly surprised that Wiki actually has an article on the problems(s) with using hydrogen for steel-making. If they toe the Green party line on everything, I would have thought that they would avoid posting a piece like this.

Don’t know if they will find a process to get the kinks out of hydrogen based steel making. But it would not surprise me if the research in this area eventually finds itself at a dead end for whatever reason(s), especially financial ones.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
March 19, 2021 8:36 am

There are some things you can’t hide even if you want to.

Every trade school welding student should know about hydrogen embrittlement.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
March 19, 2021 2:56 pm

As I understand it, the hydrogen isn’t used in the direct processing of ore to steel. It is used as a source to run the generators to run electric arc furnaces that smelt the steel. Hydrogen is proposed because even greentards understand you can’t shut down a furnace just because a high pressure area moves in and the wind dies.

March 19, 2021 8:22 am

It is far more likely that our industries will simply migrate elsewhere, where costs are cheaper. Even a carbon import tax will have little effect on that.

Those who advocate protectionism, never get this simple fact.

Because of regulations, work rules, labor rates, etc. Companies in country A, are no longer able to sell products to the rest of the world. They have become to expensive.
Country A tells companies that move out, that they will be hit with massive import tariffs if they dare to leave.

Companies are presented with a dilemma. They can stay in country A, and sell their products only in country A. Or move out of country A, and sell to the entire world, minus country A.

It’s really not a difficult decision to make.

Reply to  MarkW
March 19, 2021 8:44 am

That’s conventional wisdom and there’s plenty of evidence to back it up.

Is it possible to have an economy that is so large that it doesn’t need foreign markets? As far as I can tell, that’s China’s ambition. In particular, China doesn’t want any other country to be able to apply leverage against it the way it applies leverage against other countries. link

Last edited 1 year ago by commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
March 19, 2021 9:47 am

If your economy constitutes over half of the world’s GDP, then tariffs could work.
Though there’s the issue of competition. If you are one of a handful of companies inside Country A, then life on the outside will look more attractive. Especially if you have the technical expertise to dominate any players that already exist on the outside.
Whether you are a dominant player, or a minor participant in an inside market will also make a difference.

Peta of Newark
March 19, 2021 8:23 am

and we see this
Quote: “”Government must step in to save steel jobs, says Ed Miliband“”

on the heels of this
Quote: “”UK minister sees “very compelling reasons” not to open Cumbria coal mine“”

As many of us know with 95%+ certainty, the ‘UK Minister’ mentioned there will be a ‘Good Friend’ of Mistress Boris
The mine is thus utterly doomed and so are the jobs, not only at the mine but the 5,000 jobs at what’s left of British Steel

What are they going to build their High Speed railway with, their electric cars or even the cases of the batteries powering those cars?
What are they going to use to construct all the new power lines needed to run the insanely hungry Heat Pumps in people’s homes ##

Complete madness.
(Don’t eat chow down on Popcorn while watching/waiting tho – it’s full of Roundup and will bestow either a heart attack or Vitamin D deficiency upon you.
Not as widely and hysterically reported, cancer.)

I did love this one, being a (now ex) user of wooden fence posts:
Quote:””Fencing contractors urged to avoid wooden posts“”
I did see somewhere on that story, can’t find now, the suggestion that farmers use metal (steel) or plastic posts instead of wood
Eco-warriors will love that

tbh: that line has been, or soon will be, crossed anyway.
It is far easier & much more profitable to harvest the wood and stuff it into Drax than to make anything useful out of it.
(Fence posts that I paid £0.95 for a decade ago are now north of £5.00)

And no matter what they’re treated with now, the only thing that ever worked on fence-posts was Creosote – after you’d dried them first.

The (water soluble) CCA treatment was totally hopeless where the post went into the ground – especially in the permanently damp soils of Cumbria.
But even that had its balls chopped off when some namby pamby little fairy realised that the ‘A’ in ‘CCA’ represented Arsenic

Just don’t tell them that the ‘CC’ bit represents Copper & Chromium.

you lose the will sometimes
If only Joe had lost the election

## I just worked it out, they’re gonna use wooden electricity pylons – a wet dream come true for your average warmist eh not. Lets see them all fall down inside 15 years
(From actual experience, barely more than 5 years on the western side of the UK)

Very effectively that’s what they used in Paradise Calif. didn’t they.
Trees to hang elektrickery wires from.

Now that worked a treat. not

Last edited 1 year ago by Peta of Newark
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 19, 2021 8:52 am

“It is far easier & much more profitable to harvest the wood and stuff it into Drax than to make anything useful out of it.”

wood that goes to Drax is the wood that has no other purpose- the better wood goes to lumber and pulp

Russ Wood
March 19, 2021 8:23 am

Heatpumps? This IS the UK we’re talking about! Back in the 1970’s, my London bed-sitter had no refrigerator (nor room for one), so I used to put milk, etc outside the window…

Frank from NoVA
March 19, 2021 8:25 am

I find articles like the referenced article from the Telegraph to be extremely demoralizing – which is probably the intended goal of the authors. What all these authors have in common, of course, is that they have accepted, either implicitly or explicitly, the need to reduce “carbon” in the first place, so the only unknowns from their perspective are what costs need to be born by society to achieve this endpoint.

From my perspective, there are only three likely outcomes at this point. Two of them follow the current path down towards ever centralized control of western society and economic failure, followed either by an ultimate regression into socialism or some sort of re-awakening where the west pulls back to some degree from the brink of disaster. The third path would be that more and more individuals in society begin to realize that they need to take greater control over their own lives and begin the process of decentralizing authority through the regional nullification of central laws that local majorities find oppressive.

Chris Bock
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 19, 2021 11:52 am

An Irish Democracy.

Vincent Causey
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 20, 2021 1:37 am

It will all collapse at some point, because what is impossible is impossible. The NWO is not new – it is the endpoint of the old order (basically the post ww 2 order of globalism). The whole process follows sequentially, there is nothing “new” about it. It is just the merging of globalism with technocratic rule, a modern form of fascism or communism – whatever your preferred term. As it is not new but old, it must be near the end of its shelf life and will soon fall. 10 years? 20?

March 19, 2021 8:38 am

The humor I find with going to a carbon free solution where Nuclear provides most if not all the electricity, is it stills heats and boils water to spin a turbine.
Thus, contributing to the overall water vapor in the atmosphere. More importantly, water vapor is the most abundant and by atmospheric make up, the most potent green house gas.
The irony is not lost on me.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Rhs
March 20, 2021 7:00 am

I have a hard time understanding why they want the Sun’s energy to reflect back to space so it doesn’t heat up the Earth, but they want to put solar panels everywhere to absorb all that energy.

March 19, 2021 8:58 am

This stuff is so depressing I have a hard time reading it. Don’t people on the left have any imagination? Can’t they see what will happen “If these plans go ahead?” Not just major cost increases for everything that is made by steel but shortages of these products as well. Our lives will be impacted greatly if we follow these plans but the greens don’t see it. Why?

Bill Toland
Reply to  Michael
March 19, 2021 9:46 am

In my experience, greens have difficulty understanding the principle of cause and effect.

Reply to  Michael
March 19, 2021 10:09 am

It’s ALL imagination, no grasp of reality.

Andy Pattullo
March 19, 2021 9:08 am

Given the relatively new but widespread ability to develop far reaching policies completely devoid of scientific foundations, why doesn’t the government just skip a few steps a move directly into alchemy. Just as during WWII they can scrounge up all those old tired cooking pots and convert them directly into gold and other precious metals for sale on global markets. There can be an aggressive farming policy to raise geese that lay nothing but golden eggs, and the unemployed can be taught the lost skill of spinning straw into gold. A large part of the agricultural sector can convert to the growing of magic beans while we train our kids in the skills of climbing and stealing so that there will be abundant supplies for everyone harvested from the larder of the giants. Why should we be limited to these shortsighted, small minded fantasies when we can go full tilt crazy and have everything for nothing as seems to be the ultimate goal of present leadership anyway.

Mike Lowe
March 19, 2021 10:25 am

Should not “they” firstly decide whether to de-“carbonise” makes any sense? It seems to me that all these community and industry “leaders” have just accepted that we need to reduce our output of carbon dioxide (not carbon) without trying to understand whether that is true. In fact, with such a minor proportion of CO2 being mankind-generated, and our current level being so close to a disastrous minimum, we need to INCREASE the proportion of mankind-made CO2 rather than reduce it. Where are all those scientific and engineering minds when we need this message to be loudly broadcast?

AGW is Not Science
March 19, 2021 11:22 am

When are these idiots going to figure out that, no matter how much more “realistic” you make the “price,” it’s never going to happen. Long before Britain or any other “western” nation has “decarbonized” its industry, said industry will have long since relocated to China, India, or some other so-called “developing” country where a generous quantity of reliable, inexpensive COAL power is available – with cheap labor as a bonus!

Bill Treuren
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 19, 2021 11:45 am

The fraud of the Zero Carbon industry is an escape plan.
Chopping the world’s forests down to substitute poorly for coal is the way out, by way of example.
If the rational portion of the world wants a unifying driver, don’t focus on the CO2 being just a week AGW driver, focus on full-cycle accounting for all industries including the CO2 embedded in the construction at the source of all products imported, etc.
That would be hard to argue against even for a religion such as it is, and the emperor’s true level of attire would soon be evident.

March 19, 2021 11:59 am

“It will be a huge challenge to fundamentally transform how steel is produced,” 

No it won’t. By requiring domestic steel producers to be CO2 emission free, that “transforms” the production of steel to China or India. Problem solved, as it would be racist to suggest that those countries’ industrial emissions cause any problem whatsoever.

March 19, 2021 12:12 pm

Any industry of any consequence will leave the UK or quit
The UK will soon be a third world country

March 19, 2021 12:13 pm

This ongoing green insanity is the economic equivalent of the Rotheram chi ld rape scandal- where nobody in authority was prepared to acknowledge what was going on for fear of being labelled as a racist. Those in authority seem to be more fearful of being labelled as”deniers” than being remembered as the people who dismembered the developed economies of the West and threw away all the social benefit that come with life in a developed economy.

March 19, 2021 1:22 pm
Chris Hanley
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 19, 2021 1:54 pm

“The world’s solar power generation capacity will have to reach 14.4TW in the next 30 years to ensure that the global temperature does not rise above 1.5 degrees celsius this century …”.
That is the opening sentence of the linked article (quoting the International Renewable Energy Agency whatever that is).
It implies a series of causal links that are unfounded, merely assumed.

Caligula Jones
March 19, 2021 1:53 pm

Every time I read an article about how women only make cents on the dollar compared to men I ask “so, why don’t those greedy corporations just hire women for cents on the dollar?”

Never get an answer.

Just as I never get one when I ask “if green is so good, why aren’t those greedy corporations spending their own money instead of lining up for taxpayers'”?

March 19, 2021 2:05 pm

In the middle of it all here
latest 170 page energy strategy of the UK govenment is a good mix of energy sources including nuclear.
The largest employer in the uk has just issued its new 73 page energy paper and pushes for 100 renewable and the word nuclear does not appear once !
Dissonance or what

Reply to  jono1066
March 20, 2021 2:10 am

The UK govt plans 17GW of new nuclear: in the last decade only one new nuclear power station has begun construction and developers have pulled out of the next 2 planned as no way can be found to finance them… nuclear can’t be afforded, financed or built within a reasonable time frame in the UK

Reply to  griff
March 20, 2021 3:32 am

They are going to need SOMETHING for those MANY DAYS that wind and solar are NON-FUNCTIONAL.

If not nuclear


You know.. like GAS !!

And when they wake up to reality of the anti-carbon CON JOB


comment image

Reply to  fred250
March 20, 2021 11:52 am

The only reason why nuclear is so expensive, is because of all the lawsuits morons like griff file, in their desire to stop nuclear power.

Reply to  griff
March 20, 2021 11:51 am

Greens do everything in their power to make nuclear expensive. Then the turn around and declare that nuclear should be abandoned because it’s too expensive.

If greens didn’t have double standards, they would have no standards at all.

March 19, 2021 2:44 pm

To quote Homer Simpson….. “doh”.

March 19, 2021 2:47 pm

The dumbing down of the population has always been an aim of the left as it makes the population easier to control with lies. The Left has done a great deal to destroy education standards by infiltrating schools and universities with their kin over the years. As is often said on this Site: ‘You Can’t fix Stupid@.

Derek Colman
March 19, 2021 5:07 pm

This is policy driven by ideological obsession. The result can only be the de-industrialisation of the UK and massive impoverishment of its people. We have to find a way to stop this madness because the futures of our children and grandchildren are at stake.

Reply to  Derek Colman
March 20, 2021 2:09 am

We reduced emissions by 50% on 1990 levels as of 2020 and it didn’t do any harm at all to our economy…

Reply to  griff
March 20, 2021 3:34 am



THANK GOODNESS FOR GAS, NUCLEAR and the interconnects , hey griff-loon.

comment image

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Reply to  griff
March 20, 2021 11:53 am

Two lies in one sentence. griff is going for a record.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  griff
March 21, 2021 3:52 pm

You mean you moved your energy generation out of the country thereby reducing your country’s CO2 creation level, but not helping the globe in any sense of the word.

March 19, 2021 9:25 pm

It should be understood that “net zero emissions” is now being interpreted by alarmists as zero emissions.
See Professor Simon Lewis in The Guardian,”The Climate Crisis can’t be solved by carbon accounting tricks”,3 March,2021.
“The science of net zero is simple:every sector of every country in the world needs to be on average zero emissions”.
“In the absence of net zero technologies, net zero is the same as real zero.
In other words if negative emission technologies are unlikely to operate effectively at scale,then net zero simply requires getting anthropogenic emissions to zero”.
( h/t ATTP, “Zero Emissions”,March 3,2021).
Zero emissions in-
Zero emissions worldwide.No consideration of economic damage.
Politicised science gone mad.

March 20, 2021 3:19 am

Too many “might, maybe, coulds, shoulds”. All of this is like watching a child saw a branch off behind him.

March 20, 2021 5:12 am

The carbonless steel era – also known as the iron age.

March 20, 2021 6:09 am

The net result will be zero steel manufacturing in the UK with the slack being taken up by India and China.

I’ve a degree in metallurgy and I can safely say that switching to hydrogen as the reducing agent for large scale steel making is just about impossible. There isn’t the hydrogen supply to do it for a start.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights