Net Zero by 2050 is dead in the water. So what’s plan B?


JULY 27, 2021

By Paul Homewood

The media is finally starting to wake up. Pity they did not years ago:


Boris Johnson has always tried to take a ‘cakeist’ position on Net Zero. We can drastically cut carbon emissions while boosting living standards, he claims. But the truth is, the sacrifices being demanded of us in the name of Net Zero are incompatible with democracy, and the PM knows it.

Just look at the anguish the gas boiler ban is causing to the government. Johnson has now conceded that the ban will have to be pushed back from 2030 to 2035. It will have to be some other prime minister’s problem.

The boiler ban was a key plank of the government’s Net Zero strategy. Gas boilers were to be replaced with heat pumps. These heat pumps are not what anyone could call a reasonable alternative to boilers. While a boiler can heat your house fairly quickly at the flick of a switch, a heat pump can take around 24 hours to heat your home to between 17 to 19 degrees celsius – i.e., not-quite room temperature.

For the pleasure of living in your not-quite warm house, you will have to fork out around £10,000 for the unit and installation. Then, according to the Climate Change Committee (CCC), you can expect to spend an additional £100 per year on your energy bills.

If you want to own a heat pump and have a house that’s more than lukewarm, you’ll need lots of extra insulation. This means yet more tens of thousands of pounds in renovation costs. The Energy Technologies Institute estimates that a ‘deep retrofit’ could cost as much as building a home from scratch. This is not money that any ordinary person has down the back of the sofa – or that the taxpayer can reasonably cover for millions of households.

Getting used to this reduced lifestyle ‘will take an attitudinal shift’, says Chris Stark, CEO of the CCC. This is quite the understatement. It means abandoning what was once a completely normal expectation in a developed country: having a warm home in winter.

In our Net Zero future, we can also forget having a stable and affordable supply of electricity. Boris says he wants to make the UK the ‘Saudi Arabia of wind power’. But we should be wary of green energy experiments. Places like California that have rushed to swap nuclear and fossil fuels with renewable energy are regularly faced with rolling blackouts. Since Germany embarked on its Energiewende (energy transition), its electricity prices are now among the highest in the world, though, ironically, this hasn’t done much to lower CO2 emissions.

Net Zero is easily the largest national project the UK has embarked on since the Second World War. But even as politicians boast about it on the world stage, parading their harsh ‘targets’ at every opportunity, they have tried to downplay its significance to the public. It’s just a tax rise here, a subsidy there, maybe a bit less meat-eating or not rinsing the plate before loading it into the dishwasher. Technology will take care of the rest, anyway, they say.

But when the public really finds out what Net Zero means, will they tolerate it? The gilets jaunes protests in France were the most significant public revolt since 1968. They were sparked by an eco-tax. This tax didn’t affect the metropolitan liberals who dreamt it up. They were baffled that anyone would stand in the way of carbon neutrality. But they had to reverse course. This tax was but a drop in the ocean compared to Net Zero.

Full post (£)

5 27 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 27, 2021 10:17 pm

The entire global warming scam was about control of people not the climate of the planet!

Reply to  MAL
July 27, 2021 10:35 pm

What is this nonsense:
While a boiler can heat your house fairly quickly at the flick of a switch, a heat pump can take around 24 hours to heat your home to between 17 to 19 degrees celsius – i.e., not-quite room temperature.

We have used heat pump for the last 20 years, and there is no problem with getting 25 Celsius or more.

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 27, 2021 10:47 pm

Where do you live?
How much did the heat pump cost?
How much insulation do you have?
Are you going to pay for all your neighbours on your street/neighborhood the money for the heat pump and installation?

Details make all the difference.

Reply to  PCman999
July 28, 2021 1:34 am

I live in Norway. Winter is long and cold, but our houses are quite well insulated.

I have experience with two different types of heat pumps. The first one is air to air pump. The pump extract heat from outdoor air and is effective down to approximately minus 20 Celsius. Temperatures below that is very seldom, but if it occur, we use additional electricity. The cost is in range 1000 to 2500 Euro depending on the power you need.

The energy usage for heating can be reduced to approximately one third by this technology

The other type is liquid to liquid, and is based on a borehole in the ground. The borehole is about 200 meter deep.Water with anti freeze is pumped in the hole and the returning water has a stable temperature of about 5 degrees year round. A heat pump convert the 5 C liquid to 50 C liquid. The liquid is used for heating the floors and pre-warm water for the water heater.
The energy usage for heating, including water heating, can be reduced to approximately one quarter by this technology.

The cost of the latter installation is about 25 000 to 35 000 Euro for a medium size house.

Air to air pump is in most cases a good economic investment here. Whether liquid to liquid make sense depends on many unknown factors. One important is that about half of the cost is in the borehole which can be expected to last for a very long time.


Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 28, 2021 2:55 am

Our last house had geothermal under-floor heating (liquid-to-liquid in the above terminology) which worked brilliantly in our well-insulated house. At well over 2,000ft above sea level, we did get cold winters, though not as cold as Norway’s. We have friends in the UK, though, with air-to-air (in the above terminology), and they said their system was next to useless.

I suspect that a geothermal system – either type – has to be designed/sized correctly for the house and conditions.

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 28, 2021 3:10 am

The proposal here is for air heatpumps to replace gas central boilers, so they would be using the pump to heat water in a central heating system. Ground heatpumps are a non-starter here.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 28, 2021 3:34 am

How far do you live from your neighbours?

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 28, 2021 4:46 am

The garden plots around here is about 900 m2. that is 30 by 30 meter. In addition we have the roads.

I guess you ask because we could freeze the ground if many use geothermal in the same area. I am aware of the problem, but I don’t think that can become a problem here.

Only a fraction of the heat is up streaming from the Earth, the other part comes from the surface during the summer. Some also invert the stream to cool the houses in the summer.

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 28, 2021 7:50 am

That’s about 3 times the size of the average lot in the US suburbs.
City lots are much, much smaller.
Not to mention apartment buildings.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
A j Cross
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 28, 2021 3:35 am

Wind towers froze in Kansas and Texas on Feb 15, 2020. That makes heat pumps useless.

Kansas has 40% base power from wind grid which actually became a net power consumer for heating turbine oil, deicing blades, and starting spin. That caused 2 hour rolling blackouts for no electricity for heat pumps or gas furnaces.

Texas wind mills did not have deicing when those froze solid. It’s electric management board did not notice on February 14 night. Gas turbine plants were started. But … Rolling blackouts shutdown natural gas pumping stations from West Texas causing those plants to trip and Shutdown. I thought other base power like coal and nuclear also tripped which have longer restarts. Helicopters were used to spray deicer as that warmer climate wind grid did not have blade deicers.

Slightly different was that Nebraska ethanol plant lost millions of gallons of that corn fuel used in E15% gas blends. The freeze burst a water line which burst an ethanol line.

Reply to  A j Cross
July 28, 2021 11:10 am

I think you have the date wrong; it actually happened THIS YEAR, 2021!

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 27, 2021 10:58 pm

If your insulation is good enough and your heat pump is large enough go read the article

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 27, 2021 11:07 pm

Is that purely a heat pump? All the advice I’ve read on installers and independent advisory websites says at temperatures below 5’C a hybrid system is best*. In net zero the other heat source has to be electricity.

*The other alternative suggested is to have a cold house like your grandparents did. My memory is that a house heated by a fire in one room was cold and miserable for 4 months of the year, and for another 6 months life was chilly most of the time.

Alastair gray
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
July 28, 2021 1:23 am

Like my parents house in Aberdeen Cold draughty huddled around a one bar electric fire . Survivable for me and better than previous generations. Maybe a touch of austerity would actually benefit us all spiritually. but crashing a perfectly good ecoonomy , wasting trillions on subsidy to the undeserving And ultimately fuelling global famine Is a terminally stupid way to do

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
July 28, 2021 3:45 am

People will use wood burners, go out at night to collect wood. Authority intent on preventing that will be profoundly resisted (i.e. beaten up). And woodlands near you will disappear.

alastair gray
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 28, 2021 2:59 pm

and the first part to go will be dead trees . Taking them out decreases wildfire fuel load, and makes the woods more accessible

Iain Reid
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 27, 2021 11:14 pm


The U.K. is quite different and the plan to retrofit much of our housing with heat pumps is going to both be very expensive to install and run given our high electricity prices and ineffective as the heat losses are high.

Alastair gray
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 28, 2021 1:15 am

I had a 3kW air conditioner/ heat pump in Norway. It provided warm air which took the edge off the cold in winter. We backed it up with cheap mains hydro electricity And a wood stove. It made sense there and i am not averse to installing the same Heatpump in uk air source input, hot
air output. But under net zero plans no way will there be enough electricity to driVe it with crappy renewables.

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 28, 2021 1:28 am

Maybe they talking about 10 Downing Street. In this old article, 5 Mar 2013:
They got award for putting in a new boiler, award was most improved going from E to D
“The assessment covered March 2011 to March 2012, which saw electricity usage 13.5% lower than the same period the year before.
The renovations are not the first time the historic building has undergone a retrofit. In 1958, an investigation commissioned by Harold Macmillan found dry rot throughout the building’s floorboards and doors, prompting a decades-long rebuilding project that is estimated to have cost around £3m.”
There is also this regarding 2017:
Which seems like a lot electrical power. Maybe they get rid of new boiler and get
a heat pump.
Seems like it wouldn’t work, well.

Reply to  gbaikie
July 28, 2021 5:32 am

Ii wonder how they will heat the Houses of Parliament with a heat pump, as at present Parliament and Whitehall use a gas fired CHP system?
The only way I could conjecture would be to use a water based system from the Thames which runs alongside.
However there would be problems with the tides and if too many people along the river used the same system the Thames would become mighty cold.
No doubt the MPs would have stop the plebs using the Thames so that they would have first bite of the cherry.

Reply to  StephenP
July 28, 2021 3:05 pm

I also wonder about heating the Houses of Parliament. I believe that the first conversions should be the various world wide government buildings followed by the personal residences of the legislators. This would give some bases to inform us peons.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 28, 2021 1:28 am

In summer, maybe. How well does it perform in the winter?

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 28, 2021 2:01 am

I am a Brit living in Poland.
We have a very well insulated timber framed house with a ground sourced freon type heatpump for the last 16 years. The house is very warm and does 22c easily.
For hot water we have an air sourced heatpump inside the house – keeps the pantry cool – as if you want hot water off a heatpump you generally need two loops to get the temp high enough.
We also have 2 x aircon which also heat and are really external air sourced heat pumps and the colder it gets the more time they spend melting the ice off themselves and are really not much use below -8c.
So… insulate the house and use ground sourced…

Reply to  Andy
July 28, 2021 6:02 pm

You are able to have a warm home and hot water using only four heat pumps?

Reply to  tommyboy
July 29, 2021 12:00 am

Well two of them are really for cooling as it does get rather warm here!
But the heating one warms up several tons of cement for the underfloor heating and is rated 3.2KW in for 14.1KW out – a gain of 4.4 – with a collection area of 350m2.
When it was installed in 2005 the whole thing installed including al the underfloor heating pipes was about £10,000 but labour was quite cheap!

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 28, 2021 3:33 am

How is the electricity you use generated?

Last edited 1 month ago by Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 28, 2021 4:57 am

We are very fortunate in Norway with abundant hydropower. For 2020 we had 90% of the power from hydro and 9% from wind. About 1% combined from gas and coal.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 28, 2021 9:20 am

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have abundant hydropower. So, in essence, you are saying that your local life style is not a generic solution for the world!

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 28, 2021 10:03 am

Norway is also so hypocritical in trashing oil sands/heavy oil and divesting from them with their trillion dollar heritage fund from their own fossil fuel extraction. From the North Sea no less and all that risk of operating in a cold stormy ocean!

While I am of Norwegian and mixed European ancestry, it really gets my goat when Norway complains about other countries fossil fuel developments. With their 5 million population and super abundant resources per capita, including world class high head hydro, it would be nice to hear Norway be less sanctimonious about fossil fuel development globally while they are awash in cash from their own fossil fuel development.

Reply to  Earthling2
July 28, 2021 10:38 am

Hi Earthling2, do you have any examples on Norway’s complaints on fossil fuel developments in other countries?


Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 28, 2021 11:20 am

Oh sure…I could supply you with about 1 million hits, as Google sure doesn’t cancel that information. For the record, Norway rocks. No pun intended…

Reply to  Earthling2
July 28, 2021 2:10 pm

You are right Earthling2. The huge Norwegian wealth fund which get its income from traditional oil and gas development, is disinvesting from oil-sand.

However, I will not call that hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when you criticize
others while doing the same yourself. The wealth fund does not do that because
there is a difference between traditional oil development and oil-sand

The Norwegian wealth fund has drawn a line between acceptable and too controversial
industries. This is normal policy for almost all huge investment funds. The
difference is only in where they draw the line.

The Norwegian wealth fund has decided to draw the line such that ordinary oil and gas development is acceptable, but oil-sand is too controversial.

I have no problems with that since environmentalist really consider oil-sand as “worse” than ordinary oil development.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 29, 2021 9:39 pm

You started the thread by bragging about how little fossil fuels Norway uses. You then rationalize your position by saying the wealth fund is acceptable because it is “traditional,” “ordinary,” and not “too controversial.”

How is that different from a rapist asking the judge for leniency because while he could have raped two, he only raped one. Earthling2 is right about you being a hypocrite.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 30, 2021 1:14 am

Clyde, I answered a direct question about how the energy was produced by providing the bare statistics, how can that be bragging?

The meaning of being a hypocrite is to criticize others for something you do yourself. No one is doing that here.

The wealth fund has just chosen not to be involved in oil sand, but continue to invest in traditional oil development. They draw a line between acceptable industries and non-acceptable industries.

That has nothing to do with hypocisy.

alastair gray
Reply to  Earthling2
July 28, 2021 3:03 pm

I used to work for Statoil and was proud of it. With Statoil spinoff Equinor milking the gullible for wind power subsidies I am not so sure now.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 28, 2021 1:37 pm

Every country is different so there cannot be one solution for all.
Since the world’s oil and gas reserves are not unlimited, we must stop using them one day. No one knows for sure how long the reserves will last with the current production volume, but the qualified guesstimates vary from 20 to 100 years.
No one think it could last 200 years with the current production volume.
I think the worlds most developed nations should go first and de-carbonize the power production and electrify land-based transport. That would cut the CO2 emissions by more than 50% and virtually eliminate air pollutants such as mercury and particulates.
This can be achieved with a combination of modern nuclear plus renewables, good grid connections and storage technologies.


Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 29, 2021 9:44 pm

Every country is different so there cannot be one solution for all.

I agree. However, your opening comment made it sound like you believe Norway has found the solution to the world’s problem and was taking the righteous path. It came across as bragging and lecturing the rest of the world.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 28, 2021 6:21 am

Good old coal here in Poland – you see the trains taking it to the power station!

But the idiots here have been conned into doing wind soon.

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
July 29, 2021 6:20 am

I’ve had a heat pump since 1994.

That is, I’ve had four heat pumps since 1994 since they need replacement every 7-10 years, and the wise designers of my house decided that I need two heat pumps.

One pump for the upstairs. One pump for the downstairs.
The original owner wanted to be able to shut off the upstairs pump. Or that should be that he wanted to turn off the upstairs heat pump as soon as his relatives moved out.

Each replacement has cost us over $5,000. I expect the next replacement will cost in the neighborhood of $7,500.

Our weather here goes as low as 10° F in the winter and as high as 103° F in the summer.
Heat pumps don’t work below 32° F. The resistance heat kicks in while the heat pump keeps trying.

Heat pumps aren’t very good at cooling during long spells of hot summer weather. So one can only reach a livable temperature inside during evening and night.

It seems to be a design feature that heat pumps respond generally to the inside thermostat. They do not try and bring the temperature immediately up or down.

Instead heat pumps typically only supply temperatures a degree higher than the household temperature to raise the inside temperature and the same in reverse for cooling the house.
If you are wet while waiting for the heat and stand over a vent you’ll be chilled.
My Father, in his mid 70s at the time accused me of turning on the A/C while he was showering. Yes, it is that bad.

If the heat pump has not been on and one turns on or reduces the inside thermostat while the outside weather is climbing into the 90s° F, you can forget the heat pump’s ability to reach your set temperature until nightfall.

Luckily, I’ve not had to make that same inside temperature demand in winter.

When the power fails, and it fails for us several times a month, there is no heat or cooling.

Three times when faced with replacing a heat pump I sought a company who installs geothermal heat pumps.
Each time I’ve been disappointed. The cheapest estimate was a $30,000 base estimate and expectation that I cover unexpected costs.

The last time, the contractor came and evaluated our property and then frankly stated that a geothermal installation was stupid. He went on to tell me that our soils here are very acidic and quickly destroy inground pipe layouts. That the only viable method was an artificial pond.
He also stated that the expected life of a geothermal heat pump was exactly the same as regular heat pumps.

There are no inground LPG pipes where I live nor any plans to install them. Installation of inground LPG is normally accomplished when the builder develops the land.

That leaves bottled propane, a very expensive fuel for heating houses.

Diesel is a possible option, if I can convince my wife, but it does not cool the air in summer.

And allegedly, our house is a modern house without the ventilation options older houses have, so cooling the house by opening windows at night is only partially successful.

75°, on demand in winter? Doesn’t happen in my house. We are happy when the house manages 69° – 72°.

Reply to  MAL
July 28, 2021 12:33 am

Oh no it isn’t!

Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 1:20 am

Oh yes it is !

Look behind the curtain

July 27, 2021 10:17 pm

Most people don’t pay much attention to political rhetoric. But they pay almost complete attention to costs because that actually affects their lives. It will get ugly quickly if politicians actually try and implement their nonsense.

Devils Tower
Reply to  Marc
July 28, 2021 1:56 am

When it comes to air source heat pumps of all generations..


Do not believe the SPIN

As for an all electric world…


This argument is getting tiresome

July 27, 2021 10:35 pm

Plan B is for Business as usual, as other than next gen nuclear, there are NO options to replace fossil fuels presently. With abundant cheap nuclear energy of some type, we are guaranteed eternal energy and renewable fuels will be also be the future in a hundred years when it makes more sense to manufacture carbon based fuels, even if it is for the thousands of products that are made from carbon based sources presently.

So let’s not even think of ever getting rid of pipelines and the fossil fuel infrastructure for manufacturing and energy density, as carbon based fuels will be around for a very long time and we will require carbon based products forever no matter what new energy source we ever discover.

Reply to  Earthling2
July 27, 2021 10:59 pm

I guess Boris is not getting any tonight Carrie will not be happy

Reply to  H B
July 29, 2021 3:02 pm

It’s tough to please ever demanding leftist alarmists.
I doubt Boris has been getting much, except for a few days with news alarmists like.

Reply to  Earthling2
July 28, 2021 3:34 pm

Let’s hope that Plan B isn’t a large-scale war where the Puritanical net-zero countries start leaning on the Unchaste CO2-emitting countries to “mend their ways” or be sanctioned into prehistoric living conditions.

Religious zealots of all stripes have adopted this template before, remember.

Reply to  Mr.
July 29, 2021 3:03 pm

They’ll lose as soon as they roll out their battery planes and wind energy tanks.

July 27, 2021 10:55 pm

I find it utterly stupid for the eco-nazi politicians to be increasing the amount of electricity demand, by forcing heat pumps and EVs on us, when the wind and solar grid is still basically in alpha testing. I know the rich fat cat politicians don’t care about how much it will cost, but don’t they realize that pushing out natural gas power will only make unreliable renewables look worse by removing the backup when the winds calm and clouds block the Sun. It is the one crutch that can fool people into thinking that renewables are ready.

Reply to  PCman999
July 28, 2021 12:35 am

The real goal is for the money power behind the scenes to milk as much profit out of the county before everything falls apart. The front men only have to run the scam long enough to make it worth while.

Reply to  PCman999
July 28, 2021 7:41 am

One of the reasons why Texas got into so much trouble this past winter was because they failed to calculate in the extra demand from the resistive heat heaters as temperatures dropped and heat pumps stopped working.

Rod Evans
July 27, 2021 11:07 pm

Anyone living in the UK currently will know we have had ten days of virtually zero wind and thus zero wind energy. The lack of wind has resulted in coal fired power from just one remaining power plant being brought on line to support the grid. It, on its own is producing many multiples of power more, than the entire wind turbine fleet that surrounds our coasts and litters our hillsides.
We have industrialised some of our most beautiful landscapes in Britain to achieve nothing.
When will rational sensible policies finally be adopted, that allow clean wealth creation and personal freedoms to be seen once again, here in the UK?

Last edited 1 month ago by Rod Evans
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 28, 2021 12:36 am

It isn’t in the plans

Reply to  Rod Evans
July 28, 2021 12:39 am

This is the time of year when gas and nuclear go offline for planned maintenance… if you look hard enough you’ll find that’s behind the use of coal recently.

Rod Evans
Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 1:28 am

The wind energy fleet here in the UK is about 25GW installed capacity. The power produced over the past ten days has been averaging less than 1GW. The coal plant was producing just under 1 GW constantly.
In the world of wind power (our future utopia power provider remember),. you would have thought at the time of annual maintenance of the reliable generators, the wind team could have managed to come up with more than 2% of its installed capacity to help keep the lights on.
Oh well an indicator of the future then.
NB The last UK mainland coal plant is planned to be decommissioned in 2022.
It will be interesting to see what standby power is called on then, to support maintenance outage. I’m guessing it won’t be wind……

Reply to  Rod Evans
July 28, 2021 3:11 am

There’s no point arguing with an obtuse liar.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Archer
July 28, 2021 9:27 am

I think it is more a matter of griff suffering from severe hallucinations induced by cognitive dissonance. He desperately needs to rationalize his irrational views of reality. He probably doesn’t even realize he is not in touch with reality. Thus, he subconsciously selects ‘facts’ that support his tenuous grasp of reality.

Leo Smith
Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 2:09 am

Actually no griff. they are just burning up coal stocks prior to closure. But the fact is that so called ‘renewables’ were producuing less power than nuclear yesterday.

alastair gray
Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 3:13 pm

Remember Griff if you want to get 300 GW out of the grid in 2050 ( That’s what we will need to power our electrical grid for all uses including transportation and heating according to gubmint white paper), we will need to install 1.2 TW of power with a backup system say Hydrogen working at 50% efficiency. Thats 10 x 10 MW turbines installed every day from now until 2050. If we go nuclear we only need 100 Hinckley C’s So you see we really are off to a flying start!

Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 3:10 pm

Thus proving the uselessness of wind and solar renewables.

Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 4:09 pm

So easy to prove you are wrong.

Why do you even bother to post?

Reply to  Rod Evans
July 28, 2021 9:44 am

rubbish, wind is perfect and has no downsides. griff keeps telling us so.

July 27, 2021 11:17 pm

Global surface temperature will continue to rise unless net greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to zero. It’s that simple and it has to happen sometime this century.

Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2021 11:27 pm

Utter, utter BS. SIMPLE Simon strikes again.

Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2021 11:40 pm

What is the highest level of science education you attained Simon?

Rod Evans
Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2021 11:44 pm

You do realise that if CO2 drops to 150PPM that will be the end of life for all things on earth don’t you?
You do know that the uplift in CO2 over recent decades has been so positive to all life forms on earth it is almost a miracle change round in living conditions for all multi cell creatures on Earth.
You do accept that the desert regions are reducing their spread thanks to the available CO2 enabling plants to survive where previously they were dying.
You do know that Simon don’t you?

Last edited 1 month ago by Rod Evans
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 28, 2021 12:37 am

Well that’s hardly likely, is it?

And how did we manage back in Roman times to grow anything with the dire shortage of CO2?

It is a wonder agriculture ever got started…

Rod Evans
Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 1:06 am

Wow griff, that’s poor even by your standards. Do you think the Romans invented agriculture?
Re the Roman period. Back then the world population was around 250 million compared to almost 8 billion today.
Back in Roman times CO2 was between 250 PPM and 280 PPM so in no way was it at dangerously threateningly low levels.
It was also warmer back then than now.
I guess all those added together made the Roman warm period a pretty pleasant time to have lived. Not too crowded either.

Last edited 1 month ago by Rod Evans
Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 7:06 pm

griff, are you really as stupid as your comments make you seem?
Please look up a record of what CO2 levels were for the last few thousand years, then hang your head in shame.

Reply to  griff
July 30, 2021 3:53 am

Griff shows his ignorance again.

The majority of skeletons excavated from Pompeii show clear signs of stunting due to malnutrition. Roman agriculture was pathetically inefficient compared with modern agriculture.

Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 12:10 am

Here’s a vocabulary builder for you, Simon:

Definition of conclusory
consisting of or relating to a conclusion or assertion for which no supporting evidence is offered
conclusory allegations

Last edited 1 month ago by Ralph Dave Westfall
Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 12:14 am

BFD. Global surface temps where? Not everywhere. And if by some bizarre accident your phony model proves correct, so effing what? Warmer is better, you clot. It’d be a boon, not a problem. Definitely not something to bankrupt the Free World over. Go back to your CCP handlers and tell them you failed in your prop attempt.

Alastair gray
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 28, 2021 1:29 am

In England Balmy is good Barmy is what eco warriors and politicions are, and is not.

Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 12:34 am

So what? How many degrees does it take to turn Siberia, Alaska, Greenland and last not least Antarctica into arable and livable land to accommodate and feed a rising world population? Whatever number you come up with, that is the rise in surface temperature that is desirable even now and will be necessary in future. Although I doubt anything mankind can do in terms of increasing CO2 will manage to do that completely in the end, but the very fact that such large swathes of land are currently buried under ice tells us we must not hold back if we want a better future. And I am talking of mankind’s future, not that of useless predator species like polar bears – the world would probably do better without them!

Climate believer
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 12:36 am

“It’s that simple and it has to happen sometime this century.”

The age of the eco-fascist is upon us.

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer
You will own nothing, and you will be happy about it….

Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 12:37 am

If that were true, it would most likely be all for the good.

Alastair gray
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 1:27 am

Do please give some evidence. I would love to know how you come to that conclusion.
Educate us master for we are blind.

Reply to  Alastair gray
July 28, 2021 7:44 am

The sacred models have spoken, heretics must be disposed of.

alastair gray
Reply to  MarkW
July 28, 2021 3:18 pm

Burn heretics in gas ovens! for heating. CO2 neutral perhaps . oh but some guy with a funny moustache tried that and it did not end well for him or his victims

Leo Smith
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 2:10 am

If only they would, but stating something as a fact does not make it one. And since ytou breatrhe out greenhosue gases, reducing them to zero needs you to die

Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 3:40 am

Russia colluuuusion Simon 😉

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 4:51 am

Is this what Don Lemon told you to write, CNN-Simon?

Got any evidence of this claim?

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 5:22 am

Oh my God. What will I do if winter nighttime temperatures go up another 0,1 degrees F and the infill (made up) temperatures go up another 2 degrees C?

Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 7:42 am

Why should anyone panic over temperatures increasing by a few hundredths of a degree?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
July 28, 2021 9:42 am

It is akin to lowering the threshold of toxicity for heavy metals and other toxins as technology allows the detection of ever smaller concentrations. Whatever the lowest limit of detection becomes for chemicals that are known to be toxic at high levels, becomes the acceptable limit at low levels.

Reply to  MarkW
July 28, 2021 7:32 pm

Where do I buy a thermometer that is accurate to .01 ?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 9:29 am

What I just said about griff applies to Simon, also.

When the pandemic caused an 18%+ decline in anthropogenic CO2 emissions in April 2020, and an average of 7-10% for the entire year, no impact on temperatures could be measured. Indeed, 2020 was tied for the warmest year in recent history. Claiming that Net Zero is our only hope for salvation, without measurable evidence to support it, is like claiming the Second Coming is just around the corner, based entirely on hope and belief.

Last edited 1 month ago by Clyde Spencer
alastair gray
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 28, 2021 3:20 pm

we already had a second coming but noone was listenin. Now we await the third – a bit like covid waves

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 28, 2021 7:09 pm

Even if the drop for a single year actually was 7 to 10%, that’s still small potatoes compared to the annual variation in CO2 levels.

Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 9:45 am

Simon: what is the right temperature?

Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2021 1:41 pm

Yes, you’re simple

Reply to  Simon
July 30, 2021 3:50 am

Why is that a bad thing, even if it were true (it isn’t)? We haven’t even reached the temperatures of the MWP or RWP, let alone the Holocene.

Vincent Causey
July 27, 2021 11:49 pm

Mark Carney is the spokesperson for “stakeholder capitalism”. He says that business that do not follow “sustainable development, will go bankrupt, no question.” Behind the rhetoric lies the financial muscle – presumably one of the stakeholders he is referring to. Giant investment houses like Blackrock, and global banking organisations like the Bank of International settlement and the World Bank will do their best to starve non compliant companies from capital. Not even the largest corporations can survive without lines of credit.

So even if the people successfully oppose heat pumps, businesses will be forced to follow this “sustainable” program, just to survive. What effect this will have on peoples lives is anybodies guess, but I would suggest the outcome will not be good.

Alastair gray
Reply to  Vincent Causey
July 28, 2021 1:35 am

The plan really is transfer of wealth from rich to poor countries. Unfortunately the outcome will be transfer from rich middle and working class of the west to richer kleptocrats in poor countries. We will not feed the world in future. Billions will starve. Warlords will rule. Barbarian hordes will pillage. Slavery will power the wheels of oppression.. Vote Green. Its your planet. Give it to the looters. They want it more than you

July 28, 2021 12:02 am

I’m quite sure they will work through possible solutions until they arrive at an answer that fits the axiom that they can never be wrong.

July 28, 2021 12:31 am

While I have no measurements to go by, it seems reasonable that there is only a limited amount of heat energy per cubic anything of atmosphere, especially in the winter. In a dense urban neighborhood, would there be enough heat to go around when everyone is trying to suck as much as they can out of the air?

Decades ago we purchased a house on the outskirts of a medium size town, outside the city limits. There was, and still is, no gas service. Within a very short time several neighbors told us that winter heating cost about $450/month in electricity, so everyone sought alternatives. Electricity was substantially less costly then. Winter temperatures rarely went below freezing.

A few had installed heat pumps. They were all in agreement that the heat pumps had proven essentially useless, never getting the house warm enough to be comfortable, and were soon discarded for some kind of burning, mostly wood stoves.

Good home insulation was not such a big thing in those days, although we had attic insulation blown in to the house we sold before moving to this rural area. Perhaps today’s insulation standards would have let the heat pumps work better. Probably heat pump technology has improved since then, but reportedly wasn’t working very well in Texas last February.

Reply to  AndyHce
July 28, 2021 12:36 am

There are both air and ground heat pumps, plus the idea of thermal reservoirs where you pump heat below ground for use in the winter… Then there is accessing heat from old mine shafts, London underground tunnels, etc (provision for area heating)

And there is also biogas and injection of hydrogen into the gas grid…

And before all of that, proper insulation

and of course the ‘passivhaus’ concept…

a variety of solutions…

Yes, discussion is already underway on how heat pumps would work on large housing estates.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 1:43 am
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 28, 2021 9:51 am

Repurposed gas networks carrying hydrogen will be a crucial component of the journey to Net Zero

The current gas networks will not be suitable for distributing hydrogen! They will be too leaky, and will become brittle over time if the pipes are steel, meaning that leakage will increase over time. The prospect of ‘Hindenburg Homes’ should be of concern to anyone who wants to have a long life.

Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 7:46 am

Taking already to expensive solutions and making them even more expensive.
What a kind soul you are griff.

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  MarkW
July 28, 2021 8:13 am

He is just another brainwashed idiot. I put the blame for all this unscientific crap on the now apparently Marxist school system. Keeping the peons uneducated and easier to control.

Reply to  Matthew Bergin
July 28, 2021 12:24 pm

In other words, griff, Simon, loydo and the others are fabulous examples of a total success story. They were socially-engineered to grow up (allegedly) to be scientific retards and, can anyone argue, they surely did.

Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 8:04 am

As you are sure European grids are soooo stable:
A break in electrical connectivity with France causes a blackout in half of Spain
ROSSIGNOL / REUTERSA break in the “very high voltage of 40,000 volts” line that connects Spain and France this afternoon caused a power outage in several areas of Spain, which has left hundreds of thousands of citizens without electricity for about an hour , as confirmed by sources from Red Eléctrica de España. Shortly before five in the afternoon, at 4:45 pm this Saturday, several areas of Catalonia, Madrid, Andalusia, Extremadura, Aragon, the Basque Country, Navarra or Murcia have been without power. The power outage also affected several areas of Portugal where thousands of Portuguese were also without power during the afternoon of this Saturday. The incident has been resolved before six in the afternoon (17:38 hours), they explain in Red Eléctrica.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 28, 2021 9:41 am

Really, 40KV? Here in the US, that would just qualify as secondary distribution, but certainly not an interconnect. Are we sure someone didn’t drop a decimal point?

Ahhh, in fact waaaay down in the article they mention “the L-400 kV Hernani-Argia”. So, they did drop a decimal point.

Last edited 1 month ago by D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 28, 2021 7:12 pm

But you don’t understand, that was a failure of the grid, according to griff and the warmunists, that has nothing to do with unreliable energy production.
They don’t understand, or even care that unreliables put more strain on the grid and make it less stable and hence more susceptible to any kind of interruption.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 9:44 am

Can I presume that you are volunteering for these experiments?

Reply to  AndyHce
July 28, 2021 7:53 am

There’s a reason why you aren’t allowed to have an air conditioner unit anywhere close to an official temperature station.
Anyone who’s been in an apartment complex with lots of air conditioner units running at the same time knows how much they heat the air.

July 28, 2021 12:33 am

Well so far the reduction of UK CO2 by 51% on 1990 levels hasn’t required any sacrifices at all. Reaching 42% renewable electricity: no sacrifices. Cutting coal power to 2% of electricity: no sacrifices.

Change there will be: this dystopian gloom seems to me just… alarmist.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 1:36 am

Griff, according to your favourite newspaper The Guardian, Britain’s carbon footprint has not fallen at all. We have just exported all of our heavy industry to countries which don’t care about global warming. We have replaced domestic co2 production with imported co2 production.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 28, 2021 1:54 am

And of course the associated loss of jobs is not a sacrifice by grief’s logic.

Climate believer
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 28, 2021 9:43 am


“Britain had increased its net imports of CO2 emissions per capita from 1.7 tonnes in 1992 to 5.1 tonnes in 2007” – The Guardian

“It found that consumption-based emissions – which account for the global carbon footprint of products bought by UK households – were about 37% higher than the UK’s domestic carbon emissions in 2007, compared with just 0.2% in the early 1970s.” – The Guardian

LOL! such a useful idiot, no sacrifice.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 2:00 am

Griff, according to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, wind and solar power accounted for 3.47 percent of the total primary energy use in Britain in 2019. The cost of achieving even this tiny amount was gigantic. The net zero carbon target by 2050 is utterly impossible without a breakthrough in energy supply like Mr. Fusion in Back To The Future. Is that what you are depending on?

Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 2:19 am

Griff, you are an ill-informed tit.
“Well so far the reduction of UK CO2 by 51% on 1990 levels hasn’t required any sacrifices at all”

That figure was achieved by off-shoring major manufacturing to the far east.
UK production of CO2, due to consumption, shows a steady increase … BUT as it is emitted elsewhere its not counted as ours.

The average intensity of CO2 per tonne of cement = 0.83 t CO2 /t.
If we make it & use it in UK 0.83 t is added to UKs CO2 emissions.
If we buy it from China & use it in UK, it becomes a zero emission (even though transport CO2 has increased the intensity)

It’s called creative accountancy.
“42% renewable electricity: no sacrifices”

Last 12 mths UK renewable electricity = 23.7% :

sacrifices = the Billions in subsidies paid through increased prices

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  saveenergy
July 28, 2021 10:01 am

I think that you mean “twit.” A “tit” has redeeming features that don’t apply to griff.

Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 7:25 am

Well let’s take that at face-value griff. You must be so proud of the UK CO2 emissions reduction. Fabulous indeed, but I just read this on here yesterday:

“Well the arctic has definitely warmed… Alaska, Siberia, Svalbard, Lapland…
The arctic sea ice is still in bad shape/declining…
Greenland is still losing mass”

The UK has reduced emissions by over 50% and Arctic sea ice is still in bad shape. Who to believe griff – that idiot or you ??

Hold on a sec … it was you who posted that !!!!

Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 7:47 am

1) The reduction is nowhere close to 51%.
2) No sacrifices? Tell that to all of the elderly who have died because they couldn’t afford both heat and food.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 9:58 am

Have you heard of the concept of “Diminishing Returns?”

There is an old aphorism about how 90% of the effort in finishing computer code goes into the last 10% of finding bugs and polishing the interface.

You are being unjustifiably pollyannaistic.

alastair gray
Reply to  griff
July 28, 2021 3:25 pm

Does giving all our manufacturing jobs to China not count as a sacrifice? and the fact that the Chinese churned out the same stuff with even more emissions means it did diddly-squat for the planet, and current grid electricity is about one tenth of our total electricity requirement for 2050

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 8:36 am


Just under 23% of every electricity bill in the UK is for ‘Environmental and social obligation costs’ and not for the direct electricity used.

According to NEA (National Energy Action) there are 4million households in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the grip of fuel poverty and each year around 10,000 people die as a result of living in a cold home.

The separate Energy Action Scotland says the number of households in Scotland in fuel poverty is 12.4%.

Your comments about “no sacrifices” are totally callous

July 28, 2021 12:36 am

I’ve said many times that those who promote “net zero” have a responsibility to prove that a CO2-less economy actually would be sustainable. Make them live in a zero-nett-carbon enclave, without subsidies or any other kind of assistance. We’ll see them in 2050 (or not).

alastair gray
Reply to  Neil Lock
July 28, 2021 3:30 pm

You know Neill that is not a bad idea. a bit like the biosphere a few years ago. would we be able to get a grant to do it?
There are people who do live off grid. I would be interested if any would come forward with a description of their energy budgeting so we can see what can be achieved (or not).

July 28, 2021 1:36 am

though, ironically, this hasn’t done much to lower CO2 emissions.

Where is the irony – this is the only outcome that could be expected by adding generators to a power system that use fossil fuel in their manufacture and can never produce more energy than they take to make. No irony; just as expected.

Bill Toland
July 28, 2021 1:47 am

Heat pumps cost a fortune to install which most British families can’t afford. In addition, heat pumps cost much more to run than gas boilers. Who in their right mind would install a heat pump?

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 28, 2021 8:44 am

An air to air heat pump basically, is just an air conditioner that is operating in reverse . With all the lack of efficiency that entails.🤦‍♂️

David Roger Wells
July 28, 2021 1:49 am

We live in a medium small 4 bed detached house with a postage stamp for a garden like most modern estate houses. There is no room in the house for the gubbins associated with heat pumps so presumably we need a room built on the house but I don’t know where. BBC Panorama 3 bed semi retro fit full heat pump system £30,000 including two electric boilers to replace one gas boiler (£850 cost of current gas boiler) both floors would need to be ripped out to fit underfloor heating including ripped out wooden floors and carpets, hammering up tiled floors in kitchen utility room and bathrooms, removing all furniture into storage. Then according to the BBC we would need bespoke insulation craned over the top at £80,000 and have two or three 70 metre deep holes drilled in the garden for all of the pipes. The cables from the mains would need to be double in size to cope with an EV or two at £45k each.

We would have to move out for whatever time it takes to gut the house, remove all of the doors door surrounds and cope with a raised floor. These costs are not including in the fabricated £10k cost. Lord Callanan when questioned about Net Zero for the UK did not refute a cost of £90,000 per home which is approximately £3 trillion which compares favourably with the Australia cost of A$1.13 trillion for net zero.

Lord Deben predicts an all electric UK would have a peak winter demand of 150GW’s. Shell energy predict that with just 2 million EV’s on UK roads peak winter load could be 8 times current dement. 2 nuclear plants have been shut down and all coal fired is shuttered by 2025.

Hinkley C will not be onstream by 2030. But an all electric UK demands every path and road is dug up to double the cable size to cope with the load of being all electric at a cost of maybe £500 billion but of course like HS2 that will double or triple. We cannot build the generating capacity by 2030 or 2050, we cannot double the cable size by that time so it will all collapse in a heap.

As for running costs of heat pump one elderly lady in the UK had a heat pump retrofitted and nearly froze to death and her running costs for a small 3 bed semi came to £1600 in the first year. In the UK electricity for running a heat pump 24/7 per KWH is four times the cost of gas heating per KW.

Boris said an extra 40GW’s of off shore wind would power every home in the UK, EV’s could be charged at night using wind power when National Grid knows because it has the data that wind goes down at night not up. Heres some numbers that I carefully record but are ignored by Nat Grid and Boris because they still don’t understand that wind is problematic unreliable and intermittent. I asked National Grid when they were going to design a wind turbine that worked when the wind didn’t blow? They got very annoyed and slammed the phone down.

G. B. National Grid status ( Demand 23.11GW wind 1.09, turbines needed 184,800 or 462GW’sof capacity, 30.27GW’s wind 0.20GW’s turbines needed 1,328,800 or 3322GW’s, 32.59GW’s wind 0.10GW’s turbines needed 2,868,800 or 7172GW’s, 33.02GW’s wind 1.02GW’s, turbines needed 290,400 or 726GW’s, 36.58GW’s wind 0.90GW’s turbines needed 360,800 or 902GW;s, 25.60GW’s, wind 0.34GW’s, turbines needed 660,000 or 1650GW’s, 28.06GW’s wind 0.50GW’s, turbines needed 492,800 or 1232 GW’s, 31.64GW’s wind 1.27GW’s turbines needed 220,000 or 550GW’s, 33.38GW’s wind 1.25GW’s turbines needed 237,600 or 594GW’s, 32.25GW’s wind 0.75GW’s, turbines needed 378,400 or 946GW’s, 35.72GW’s wind 0.76GW’s, turbines needed 413,600 or 1034 GW’s, 36.34GW’s wind 1.38GW’s, turbines needed 228,800 or 572GW’s, 34.10GW’s wind 0.86GW’s turbines needed 352,000 or 880Gw’s, 34.54GW’s wind 2.13GW’s turbines needed 140,800 or 352GW’s, 33.38GW’s, wind 2.38GW’s turbines needed 105,600 or 264GW’s. G. B. National Grid status ( Consecutive days. Wind turbines for which each home is paying £350 a year in subsidy do not work 24/7 365 days of the year, they only work when the wind blows or the with solar when the sun shines. Pettigrew says Boris is falling behind on 40 extra GW’s yesterday we needed 10000GW’s to meet demand. Home gas boilers represent 0.09% of global Co2 emissions, China India and Africa are building 2650 new coal fired stations, how does the UK being Net Zero – whatever that disparate generality means – modify change moderate manipulate manage the way in which climate will change?  G. B. National Grid status ( 35.09GW, Wind 0.77GW, Turbines needed to meet demand 401,000 or 1002GW’s. Cost of providing 1,000 GW’s of wind turbine capacity £1.2 trillion repeated every 15/20 years. Lord Deben has predicted a peak winter load for an all-electric UK at 150GW’s which would be impossible to resource by 2050 or 2100, if ever. And if premised on wind solar and batteries then you would need to calculate the resource on the basis of no wind for at least seven months as happened in 2017. Demand 32.32Gw Wind 1.04GW, Turbines needed 272,800 or 682GW of turbine capacity. Demand 25.39GW Wind 2.09Gw, Turbines needed 109,178 or 273GW of capacity. Demand 36.22GW Wind 1.95GW turbines needed 163,800 or 407GW of capacity. Demand 36.72GW Wind 0.82GW Turbines needed 394,064 or 985GW of capacity. Demand 36.71GW Wind 0.70GW, turbines needed 461,472 or 1154GW of capacity. Demand 35.53GW Wind 1.61Gw turbines needed 194,128 or 485GW of capacity. Demand 35.71GW Wind 0.45Gw turbines needed 698,280 or 1745GW of capacity. G. B. National Grid status ( Demand 44.07GW, wind 3.04GW. Number of 2.5MW turbines needed to meet demand 127,000 or 319GW’s. Demand 44.68GW’s Wind 3.27GW’s Number of 2.5MW turbines needed to meet demand 120,208 or 300GW’s of turbine capacity. Demand 44.23GW Wind 2.93GW turbines needed 132,000 or 330GW’s. Demand 46.82GW Wind 3.54Gw number of turbines needed 116,336 or 291GW’s. Demand 36.90GW’s Wind 4.62GW’s number of turbines needed 70,400 or 176GW’s of capacity. Coal 2.86GW’s. Demand 39.88GW’s Wind 5.61GW’s turbines needed 61,600 or 154GW’s of capacity, Coal 2.84GW’s. So much for an extra 40GW’s how about the 3300GW’s we need right now? G. B. National Grid status ( Demand 40.50GW’s Wind 0.27GW’s. Therefore today – Sunday – the UK would need 1.32 million 2.5MW wind turbines to meet demand or 3300GW’s of supply just to generate 40.50GW’s of electricity. You can get 1GW of reliable supply for £1 billion with coal or methane like 50GW’s for £50 billion. Each turbine costs £3 million therefore that is £3.9 trillion just for the turbines. Every MW generated by a wind turbine consumes 200 times more raw finite materials than a MW generated by coal or methane. You need 50 acres of land mass for 1MW of wind electricity so you would need 165 million acres of land but the UK has only 66 million acres. G. B. National Grid status ( Demand 43.64GW, CCGT 22.07GW’s Nuclear 6.30GW’s, Biomass 2.93GW’s, Wind 5.61GW’s, Coal 1.53GW’s, Solar 30GW’s. Therefore today to meet the demand of 43.64GW’s the UK would need 68,464 2.5MW wind turbines or 171GW’s covering 8.6 million acres. In 2017 the UK experienced 7 consecutive months of windless days. There is no battery that can store electricity for seven months but if it did exist the cost would be beyond £32 trillion. And it isn’t even winter yet? 27th November 2020 G. B. National Grid status ( Demand 40.20GW’s CCGT 23.16GW’s (57.62%) Nuclear 5.73GW’s Biomass (Wood Pellets from USA) 3.01GW’s Wind o.44GW’s Coal 2.52GW’s Solar 1.2GW’s. UK would need 803,968 2.5MW wind turbines to meet demand or 2009.92GW’s of capacity. If solar 40GW’s of solar. At 1MW /50 acres Vattenfall would need 100 million acres of land – UK has 66 million acres – on or off shore to meet demand at a cost of £2.4 trillion. Whereas the UK could buy 50GW’s of coal or methane generation at £1 billion/GW. Lord Deben has not denied an all electric UK would have a peak winter load of 150GW’s 3.33 times our current peak load. Zero Co2 for the UK between £6 and £7 trillion.

Leo Smith
Reply to  David Roger Wells
July 28, 2021 2:31 am

David: Thanks for at least mentioning my Gridwatch site.

The fact is that no one knows or cares in government about climate change. They just push the rhetoric, pay the subsidies and enforce laws that cripple the country, because its the politically acceptable thing to do.

Only if enough people make enough noise and start voting for – well who? There is no party that is not fully signed up to renewables in the UK. Even the Reform party doesn’t seem to have it as a significant manifesto item.

So I am afraid it will get worse before it gets better. Heat pumps done properly in a super insulated new build are reasonably effective – just reasonably.

The cost of retro fitting to existing stock is simply horrendous. In fact a reasoned analysis (whever heard of such a thing) suggests that overall it would be cheaper to simply raze old housing stock to the ground and rebuild it to modern standards. And put in charging points for all those EVs, And a small modular reactor to power it all.

Of course if small modular reactors were built in every town, district heating schemes could be used to cool them.

But it simply wont work with windmills and solar panels on existing housing stock.

In the end that is the only solution that will replace fossil fuels, mostly, in about 100 years. And we will have to adopt it, because there aren’t that many fossil fuels at economic levels in the world left.

Or essentially watch civilisation collapse.

The crime is that useful idiots like Griff have been persuaded that it must be mandated, instead of letting market forces dictate it, and that the wrong model is being mandated – a model that will simply never work.

David Roger Wells
Reply to  Leo Smith
July 28, 2021 3:14 am

A idiot at ofgem said yesterday they were investigating an alternative source of energy to run heat pumps like electricity? I am mostly convinced now that no one who works for ofgem national grid mp’s understand how stuff works. As said I asked a guy at National Grid when they were going to design a wind turbine that generated electricity when the wind wasnt blowing because it appeared Nat Grid like renewables UK were labouring under the belief that the promoters of wind had said they didn’t need to worry about intermittence because the wind was always blowing somewhere like Hawaii. What annoys me is the amount of cash these guys get but unable understand the difference between rhetoric and reality. It really is daunting.

willem post
Reply to  Leo Smith
July 28, 2021 8:24 am

Your grid watch site is informative.

Do you have access to real-time, 15-minute grid data to plot separate graphs showing the variation of each energy source (nuclear, gas, wind, solar, etc.) feeding electricity to the grid?

Weekly graphs could be active time series, i.e., adding a day and dropping a day.

They would show variations for a week at a time.

That would give a clear picture of solar at night, and of wind during no wind.

alastair gray
Reply to  Leo Smith
July 28, 2021 3:42 pm

You are aware that we are all at WUWT in a big echo chamber- apart from a few credulous souls or agents provocateurs like Griff. We must think about taking the message further. When I bring it up in the circle of friends and family they view me as a delusional loon who is too stupid to take the word of my betters that it is all in hand and tikkety-boo. I almost despair of the future but let us think about getting a more coherent voice in the outside world

Reply to  David Roger Wells
July 28, 2021 7:55 am

During the winter, energy demand goes up at night, not down.

alastair gray
Reply to  David Roger Wells
July 28, 2021 3:36 pm

Lord Drittsekk underestimates as usual.UK needs 300 GW and I would estimate that lot will cost about 10-15 Trillion

Reply to  David Roger Wells
July 29, 2021 4:16 pm

All of that work collecting and collating numbers and you type it in unreadable block text.
No organization.

Hopefully you did breathe while typing, but it sure doesn’t look it.

July 28, 2021 3:08 am

I use renewable biomass to heat my farmhouse in a firewood heater that warms the whole house and the sheep’s wool insulation retains the heat for hours after the fire stops burning.

But I also have a reverse cycle air conditioner with heat pump and it warms rooms as long as the doors and windows are shut and the outside temperature does not drop too low.

Net zero emissions future would shock the gullible people who cannot question what that involves.

Start with economic vandalism and hand to mouth existence.

July 28, 2021 3:11 am

The would be communistic globalist elites make me laugh, their latest decision at the EU is a carbon tax on commercial aircraft and other sources of emissions, but private executive jets will not be carbon taxed.


July 28, 2021 3:37 am

Since Net 0 is all about a massive green financial Great Reset, Plan B is this:

It sure looks like Bitcoin (and FaceBook’s Libra, now Diem) was merely a cats paw for Britcoin.

With Mark Carney and BlackRock fully onboard for exclusively global green credit, via digital currencies, already applying that even before a rollout, just watch what is going on in energy investment. (e.g.

Reply to  bonbon
July 28, 2021 7:27 am

Apparently it takes 1544kwh of electricity to ‘ mine ‘ one bitcoin.
At the present electricity cost of18p per kwh, this works out at £278 per bitcoin.
With the current UK price of a bitcoin at £28,000, why isn’t everyone mining like fury?
It seems a problem with bitcoin is that it is OK to use 2 bitcoin to buy a Tesla, but how do you get change if you use it to buy a loaf of bread and a pint of milk?
As for going all digital with bRitcoin, welcome to the world of Big Brother.

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 28, 2021 3:41 am

There is no climate crisis. There is no need for net zero. Those who push it are charlatans. Those who believe it are gullible dupes.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 28, 2021 10:08 am

How dare you correctly characterize griff and Simon!

July 28, 2021 4:06 am

The real question.Why do it? Does nothing for CO2 reduction in the world. A bad solution to a non problem. POWER AND CONTROL

July 28, 2021 4:20 am

Seems like the UK want to outdo the French again in their absurdity .
The Paris agreement must become the new Glasgow even crazier agreement .
Hopefully Glasgow will be a total flop and the political stupidity will die a quick death .

Bill Toland
Reply to  george1st:)
July 28, 2021 5:29 am

All the indications are that COP26 will be a disaster. China and India will refuse point blank to reduce their emissions. In fact, they will insist on increasing them hugely over the next 30 years. On top of that, they will demand “reparations” from developed countries of hundreds of billions annually. The finances of developed countries are now so bad that they don’t have any money to give them. Expect outraged greens to spout their usual drivel when it is obvious that COP26 has been an utter failure.

alastair gray
Reply to  george1st:)
July 28, 2021 3:46 pm

Lets all go to Glasgow and show them our bottoms =like BraveHeart. That will sort them out!

July 28, 2021 4:21 am

I’m really puzzled by the fact that no expert pointed out so far that the heat pump is what its name suggests: a device that can only transfer heat from one place to another. When the heat reservoir is large enough, e.g. atmospheric air, than we face a problem of finding an efficient way of converting often highly variable amounts of heat into usable energy in seasonally changing conditions. However, when we want a source that has more stable thermal parameters, the problem appears to be that usually very dense medium like soil or water becomes after a while unusable because of too small temperature gradients and we need to allow for “recovery” time, when the pump would not be operated.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Zeddy
July 28, 2021 4:35 am

Indeed. That’s why it is important with ground heat pumps how far you are from your neighbours, because they too have a pump for which the cachement area needs to recover. In Iceland or NZ that’s less of a consideration than in the centre of Amsterdam, for instance.

July 28, 2021 4:36 am

Bloomberg NEF has a “NEO 2021 Report” on the requirements for Net Zero by 2050.
Three scenarios Green, Gray and Red are outlined which I will not bother readers with.
At the Conclusion under “Investment”-
“Despite the uncertainty around the overall cost of each NEO scenario,we estimate investment in energy supply and infrastructure to between $92 trillion and $173 trillion over the next 30 years.
Annual investment will need to more than double to achieve this,rising from around $1.7 trillion per year to somewhere between $3.1 trillion and $5.8 trillion per year on average over the next thirty years.”
The authors seemed quite content with this outcome!
What can one say?
Roll up investors?

John the Econ
July 28, 2021 5:24 am

In modern Progressivism, it’s always assumed that someone else will be made to make the sacrifices and/or get the bill. When people learn the truth, most don’t want anything to do with it.

July 28, 2021 7:34 am

Looks like Biden plans on bringing back Obama’s auto mileage plan. Not just bringing it back, but exceeding it.

willem post
July 28, 2021 8:15 am

Here are some ballpark, turnkey capital cost estimates of the US and the World reducing CO2.

The CO2, related to fossil fuel burning, is about 40 billion metric ton per year
The CO2, not related to fossil fuel burning, is about 10 to 15 billion metric ton per year.



World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the US Energy Information Administration, EIA. 
See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint

Most of this growth is expected to come from countries not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.
Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.
China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America, need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive. They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements

Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades. 
However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution. 
Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.

If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats. 
The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs. 
The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.
The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.


The analysis includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.
The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.

50% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y

100% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
July 28, 2021 8:29 am

If a similar set of peer-reviewed published scientists, self-appointed activists, bureaucrats and elected officials set out to design a new aircraft, would anybody in their right mind board it for a flight?

And yet they are somehow qualified to direct and manage a worldwide industrial transformation? Incredible!

Most of these people aren’t qualified to be baristas. Or in the quaint UK idiom, they couldn’t run a whelk stall.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
July 28, 2021 9:05 am

….. or the less quaint one – “couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery”.

Or the real-life version – Can save the planet, but can’t even fix potholes in the roads.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
July 28, 2021 10:16 am

It is like the old joke about a camel being an animal designed by a committee.

Is a Kamela a small bactrian camel?

Gary Pearse
July 28, 2021 11:47 am

Here is where a moderate sized (farmhouse) windmill might be feasible, not a generator but an air pump/compressor for direct heating in winter and cooling in summer. Actually you could alternatively drive an evap/compressor refrigeration cycle with a windmill compressor -heating and cooling. Its intermittency problem is not as serious as in gen of electricity.

With a well insulated building and triple glazed windows, an air vent to outside with a heat exchanger exhaust, preserves heat.

It seems to me, that more holistic engineering of the house would be wise for the long haul. An air to air heat pump that is affordable for working class wages would just keep you on the miserable side of comfortable and frequently will let you down. Don’t trust gubmint estimations of what you need. They have used affordability calculations to estimate the unit you ‘need’ so you think the cost is reasonable.

James F. Evans
July 28, 2021 12:56 pm

Net zero equals rationing.

Kevin kilty
July 28, 2021 3:23 pm

I have owned many air sourced heat pumps. They worked well enough down to outside air at 0C at which point they spent a lot of energy defrosting themselves. Since the COP gets much worse below 0C they have a resistance heater that they call upon to add additional heat — at additional expense. Finally, the heat pump generally makes use of the furnace plenum and fans, which results in there being too much transfer for the typical heat pump to keep up with, which makes air coming out the registers in the house not so warm as that coming from a furnace-fired plenum; so even though the air is warm enough to heat the house (say 80-90F) you may not find sitting near the register to be comfortable.

Air to air heat pumps work fine as an alternate source of heat in the spring and autumn, but they take some thought to use effectively, and in a cold climate you really need a furnace to supply base heat in winter.

Last edited 1 month ago by Kevin kilty
willem post
Reply to  Kevin kilty
July 29, 2021 6:18 am


I agree, ASHPs, used in average houses in the US northeast, are money losers.
My own house is well sealed and insulated, but I am still losing money, if amortizing costs were included.

Here is the data regarding my HPs:

Excerpt from

Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House (as they are in almost all people’s houses)
I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h HPs, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms. The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.
The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000
Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House: The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3500 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, except the basement, which has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.
I do not operate my HPs at 10F or below, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures. The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my highly efficient propane furnace.  

High Electricity Prices: Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would: 1) increase electric rates and 2) worsen the already poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!

Energy Cost Saving: My energy cost savings due to the HPs were $253/y, on an investment of $24,000!!

Amortizing Heat Pumps: Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.
This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.

Other Annual Costs: There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.
This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.

Cost of CO2 Reduction would be (2,059, amortize – 253, energy cost saving + 200, parts and maintenance)/0.998 Mt/y, CO2 reduction, table 6 = $2028/Mt, which is similar to money-losing, very expensive, electric school buses. See URL
Highly Sealed, Highly Insulated Housing

If I had a highly sealed, highly insulated house, with the same efficient propane heating system, my house, for starters, would use very little energy for space heating, i.e., not much additional energy cost saving and CO2 reduction would be possible using HPs

If I would install HPs, and would operate the propane system down to 5F (which would involve greater defrost losses), I likely would displace a greater percentage of propane, and might have greater annual energy cost savings; much would depend on: 1) the total energy consumption (which is very little, because of my higher-efficiency house), and 2) the prices of electricity and propane. See Note.

I likely would need 3 units at 18,000 Btu/h, at a lesser turnkey capital cost. Their output, very-inefficiently produced (low COP), would be about 34,000 Btu/h at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature. 

However, any annual energy cost savings would be overwhelmed by the annual amortizingcost, and parts and service costs. i.e., I would still be losing money, if amortizing were considered.

1) About 1.0 to 1.5 percent of Vermont houses are highly sealed and highly insulated
2) Vermont’s weatherizing program, at about $10,000/unit, does next to nothing for making energy-hog houses suitable for HPs; it is a social program for poor people.
Heat Pump Evaluation in Vermont

VT-Department of Public Service found, after a survey of 77 HPs installed in Vermont houses:

– The annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200, but the maintenance and annual amortizing costs would turn that gain into a loss of at least $200.

– On average, the HPs provided 27.6% of the annual space heat, and traditional fuels provided 72.4%. These numbers are directly from the survey data. 

– Owners started to turn off their HPs at about 24F, and very few owners were using their HPs at 10F and below, as shown by the decreasing kWh consumption totals on figure 14 of URL

– On average, an HP consumed 2,085 kWh during the heating season, of which:

1) To outdoor unit (compressor, outdoor fan, controls) + indoor air handling unit (fan and supplemental electric heater, if used) to provide heat 1,880 kWh;
2) Standby mode 76 kWh, or 100 x 76/2085 = 3.6%;
3) Defrost mode 129 kWh, or 100 x 129/2085 = 6.2%. Defrost starts at about 37F and ends at about 10F.

– Turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500; almost all houses had just one HP. See URLs.

On average, these houses were unsuitable for HPs, and the owners were losing money.

NOTE: Coefficient of Performance, COP = heat delivered to house/electrical energy to HP
See page 10 of URL

Heat Pump Evaluation in Minnesota

The image on page 10 of URL shows: 

1) Increasing coefficients of performance, COP, of an HP, versus increasing outdoor temperatures (blue) 
2) The defrost range from 37F down to 10F (yellow)
3) Operation of the propane back-up system from 20F to -20F (green). 

Such operation would be least costly and would displace propane, that otherwise would be used. 
The image shows, HPs are economical down to about 13F, then propane, etc., becomes more economical; much depends on the prices of electricity and propane.

BTW, all of the above has been widely known for many years, and yet, RE folks, in and out of government, keep on hyping air source HPs in cold climates.

Ground Source HPs

They are widely used in many different buildings in northern Europe, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. 

Their main advantage is the coefficient of performance, COP, does not decrease with temperature, because the ground temperature is constant 
GSHPs can economically displace 100% of fuel. 
ASHPs can economically displace at most 50% of fuel; the percentage depends on how well a building is sealed and insulated.

The main disadvantage of GSHPs is greater turnkey capital cost, i.e., high amortization cost. See URL

Steve Z
July 29, 2021 9:12 am

Trying to force people to replace gas boilers by heat pumps for home heating is a colossal waste of money. Natural gas is by far the most efficient way to heat a home, and emits about half as much CO2 per million Btu as burning home heating oil.

If Boris Johnson wants to use the government to incentivize people to emit less CO2, he should incentivize conversion of oil-burning furnaces to natural-gas boilers, and incentivize people to install better insulation in their homes. You won’t get to net zero, but you will reduce CO2 emissions.

In the USA, there have been incentives for energy saving in the tax code for decades. If a homeowner installs better insulation, or windows that transmit less heat, or switches out an oil-fired furnace for a natural-gas furnace, the cost can be deducted from the person’s taxable income, which amounts to the government subsidizing part of the cost (depending on the person’s tax rate). The problem with the current approach is that this is only available for people who pay income taxes, which are only about 50% of the population, and credit is not given if the adjustment results in a negative tax (the people are not paid, but only get away with zero tax that year).

So if BoJo is worried about climate change, he should try using a “carrot” (tax cut or credit) to incentivize people to save energy, not a “stick” to punish them for emitting CO2.

Even for those who believe that increasing CO2 concentrations in the air would cause warming of the climate, “net zero” CO2 emissions should not be the goal. What was human life like in prehistoric times before mankind discovered how to use and control fire, including wood fire? Probably extremely miserable.

Most school children know that animal and human life uses oxygen from the air to produce energy and emit CO2, and that plants use sunlight and water to remove CO2 from the air and produce food and oxygen. It has also been shown experimentally that additional CO2 in the air increases plant growth rates.

So, for those who fear “global warming” from additional CO2 in the air, the goal should be to reduce human CO2 emissions so that the removal rate by photosynthesis catches up to the emission rate, and the CO2 concentration in the air stabilizes at an equilibrium level. Oh, by the way, that will also increase food production. What’s wrong with that?

July 29, 2021 12:41 pm

How can Net Zero by 2050 be dead.
According to griff it’s a locked in fact that Europe will be completely off of fossil fuels by 2030.

%d bloggers like this: