Climate chiefs admitted net zero plan based on insufficient data, leading physicist says

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

It is hard to underestimate the significance of this new revelation:

Britain’s climate watchdog has privately admitted that a number of its key net zero recommendations may have relied on insufficient data, it has been claimed.

Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent Royal Society study on future energy supply, said that the Climate Change Committee only “looked at a single year” of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero.

“They have conceded privately that that was a mistake,” Sir Chris said in a presentation seen by this newspaper. In contrast, the Royal Society review examined 37 years worth of weather data.

Last week Sir Chris, an emeritus professor and former director of energy research at Oxford University, said that the remarks to which he was referring were made by Chris Stark, the Climate Change Committee’s chief executive. He said: “Might be best to say that Chris Stark conceded that my comment that the CCC relied on modelling that only uses a single year of weather data … is ‘an entirely valid criticism’.”

The CCC said that Sir Chris’s comments, in a presentation given in a personal capacity in October, following the publication of his review, related solely to a particular report it published last year on how to deliver “a reliable decarbonised power system”.

Enshrined in law

But, in response to further questions from this newspaper, the body admitted that its original recommendations in 2019 about the feasibility of meeting the 2050 net zero target, were also based on just one year’s worth of weather data. The recommendations were heavily relied on by ministers when Theresa May enshrined the 2050 target into law. A CCC spokesman said: “We stand by the analysis.”

In October 2021 The Sunday Telegraph revealed that assumptions underpinning the committee’s 2019 advice to ministers included a projection that in 2050 there would be just seven days on which wind turbines would produce less than 10 per cent of their potential electricity output. That compared to 30 such days in 2020, 33 in 2019 and 56 in 2018, according to analysis by Net Zero Watch, a campaign group.

Sir Chris’s report for the Royal Society, published in September, concluded that a vast network of hydrogen-filled caves was needed to guard against the risk of blackouts under the shift to wind and solar generation, which the Royal Society described as “volatile” because it depends on wind and sun to produce energy.

The report was one of the starkest warnings to date of the risks faced when relying on intermittent weather-dependent energy sources without sufficient backup.

Overestimate

It stated: “The UK’s need for long-term energy storage has been seriously underestimated… Studies that do not consider long sequences of years underestimate the need for long-term storage. Studies of single years cannot cast light directly on the need for storage lasting over 12 months and overestimate the need for other supplies.”

In a presentation delivered on Oct 31 2023, Sir Chris said: “By looking  at one year you underestimate storage and you grossly overestimate the need for everything else. That’s exactly what the Committee on Climate Change have done.”

He added: “The Committee on Climate Change, as I already said, looked at a single year and they have conceded privately that that was a mistake. But they are still saying they don’t differ that much from us. Well that’s not quite true.”

The Royal Society report found that up to 100 Terawatt-hours (TWh) of storage will be needed by 2050, to mitigate variations in wind and sunshine. This was based on 37 years of weather data rather than the single year relied on by the CCC.

Real weather data

The report noted that the CCC model required “a much greater level of supply … from other sources, and/or wind and solar than would have been required if storage had been allowed to transfer energy between years.”

A CCC spokesman said: “Our recent report modelled the 12-month operation of Britain’s power system in 2035 using hourly energy demand and real weather data from a low-wind year, stress-tested to simulate a 30-day wind drought.

“We welcome Sir Chris’ work, which considers other aspects of the energy challenge in 2050, under different assumptions about the future energy mix.” Asked if the CCC disputed Sir Chris’s account, the spokesman said:  “We’ve got nothing further to add.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/20/climate-change-wind-farms-royal-society-green-energy/

Although the CCC are busy trying to backtrack away from this incompetence (some would say fraud), it is plain that none of their planning or costings have built in the 100 TWh of storage that the RS feels is necessary –  a third of current electricity generation.This is also the sort of figure which many independent energy experts have suggested.

This is evident from their projections of grid capacities, faithfully repeated by the National Grid’s Future Energy Scenarios.

It is now clear that Parliament authorised Net Zero without any proper assessment, whether financial or energy, and the whole Net Zero legislation must now be suspended until a full independent assessment is carried out.

In addition, the whole of the CC should now be disbanded. Unfortunately it is still required by law, but it should now be staffed by truly independent members, with a remit to prioritise energy security and cost/benefit goals. The ideological pursuit of Net Zero must not override the wellbeing of the British public, put its energy security at risk or make the public worse off.

But the current and past members of the CCC who have overseen this attempt to bamboozle and defraud the public must be held to account, and excluded from any further influence over the country’s energy policy, or indeed on any issue of public policy.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.9 43 votes
Article Rating
120 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob
January 21, 2024 12:56 pm

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

One solution for the CCC would be to not fill the positions, that way you don’t have to disband it.

The better solution would be to repurpose the CCC. Wind and solar have proven that they aren’t the answer. I would appoint representatives from all energy producers and those who maintain the grid. Representatives would come from nuclear, coal, gas, hydro and yes even wind, solar and biomass.

The key is that no producer has priority over another. No favored subsidies, tax preferences or regulatory forgiveness. The goals in order of importance are constant, dependable and dispatchable energy at as low a cost as possible and generated as clean as technology allows but most important can not disrupt the grid and Net Zero is not a consideration.

The only other requirement is if you say your system can produce a certain level of energy consistently and on time and you don’t perform, you will be punished. No lying, cheating or exaggerating. It won’t be tolerated and it won’t be worth it to you because we have a woodshed and we will use it.

Reply to  Bob
January 22, 2024 5:50 am

“The better solution would be to repurpose the CCC. Wind and solar have proven that they aren’t the answer. I would appoint representatives from all energy producers and those who maintain the grid. Representatives would come from nuclear, coal, gas, hydro and yes even wind, solar and biomass.”

You don’t understant the CO2-phobe mindset. To them, anything that produces CO2, even in small amounts, must be eradicated so they won’t even consider natual gas or coal.

The ironic part is if the UK went to Net Zero tomorrow, and produced not one bit of CO2, it would make absolutely no difference to the Earth’s atmosphere or temperatures. UK Net Zero efforts are purely a Virtue Signal by UK politicians.

Bob
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 22, 2024 9:24 am

Tom, I do understand the CO2-phobe mindset. The thing is I don’t give a damn what they say or think, they have proven themselves to be liars and cheats. I don’t like liars and cheats and it is past time to rid ourselves of these monsters.

Reply to  Bob
January 23, 2024 4:36 am

I agree.

January 21, 2024 6:49 pm

The Leftists used to say, “It doesn’t matter whether the claim is TRUE, it is the seriousness of the potential consequences that matters.”

January 21, 2024 7:13 pm

But the current and past members of the CCC who have overseen this attempt to bamboozle and defraud the public must be held to account, and excluded from any further influence over the country’s energy policy, or indeed on any issue of public policy.”

Plus, any assets they own related to climate or energy should be frozen until they’ve been out of politics, consultant, or lobbying for five years.

January 21, 2024 8:55 pm

It is now clear that Parliament authorised Net Zero without any proper assessment”

This is par for the course in Australian politics (e.g. pink batts, Snowy 2)

Iain Reid
January 22, 2024 1:34 am

Why does the government ask physisists to research this, engineers with experience of the power industry are the ones to ask, in my view?