by Ben Pile
Reports in newspapers this week revealed that Britain’s domestic production of energy has reached a new record low. The news comes from trade group, Offshore Energies U.K. (OEUK), whose analysis, far from unexpected, details the pressures on investment in conventional energy production, such as the windfall tax on oil and gas companies. Since the turn of the century, U.K. production of energy has fallen by two thirds, whereas consumption has fallen by a third. The difference has been met by an increased dependence on imports. Yet neither the report itself, which is at best agnostic about renewables, nor the stories that cover it, seem to have taken seriously the harm that Net Zero and adjacent agendas have done to our industries, businesses and economy – and are set to do worse.
The U.K. ceased being a net energy exporter in 2004, amid a flurry of green policymaking, culminating in the Climate Change Act 2008, and its increased ‘Net Zero’ target adopted in 2019. Over the duration, coal-fired power stations were demolished, but not replaced with equivalent (i.e. reliable) generating capacity, shale gas exploration was abolished before it had even started. Energy investors in the U.K. and across the continent, lured to attractive guaranteed profits by subsidy regimes, and dissuaded from conventional energy by rising costs of capital, lost interest in oil and gas. Despite promises of ‘green jobs’, a ‘green industrial revolution’ and ‘green economic growth’ and lower prices being the constant chorus of energy ministers of all governments and their so-called ‘opposition’ counterparts, domestic energy prices tripled. So if these new data on Britain’s energy production do not prove the expensive and dangerous folly of more than two decades of U.K. climate policy, what could?
It is as if the entire political establishment had at once decided to forget that there exists a relationship between scarcity and price. Yet, the effect of abolishing coal is just that: it creates scarcity. So too, do policies that either restrict the exploration of oil and gas, or increase the cost of capital, create scarcity. Politicians, lobbied by green billionaires’ ersatz ‘civil society’ organisations who pump false claims into the public sphere, then claim that the problem all along was ‘dependence’ on oil and gas. Green energy will lower prices and diminish the power of dictators, who turn energy into a ‘weapon’ that terrorises Europe, they claim. So successful are they in their policymaking that, since 2019, the Government has capped energy prices – a policy they stole from Ed Miliband in 2017, before taking us into Net Zero. If ‘green’ means anything at all, it means acute cognitive dissonance.
At stake, argues the OEUK report, is immense value that could be unleashed from the North Sea. But investment is being held back by policies, “having big impacts on the profitability of U.K. offshore energy”’ worth one trillion pounds of exports and £450 billion domestically “within the next 15 years”. However, though the bulk of that potential lies in oil and gas, the report includes in its analysis, wind power, CCS and hydrogen. Even oil and gas executives, it seems, have swallowed the green Kool-Aid. And that is a missed opportunity to reflect on the failures of the green agenda, as well as a disappointing failure of an industry to properly stick up for itself, and to defend industry in principle.
And it needs defending. The fig leaf that has concealed Britain’s shameful industrial decline, and blinding politicians to reality in recent years has been the notion that green policies have successfully caused GDP growth to ‘decouple’ from fossil fuel use. However, this conceit requires us to believe, in turn, that the 79% increase in GDP that coincided with the halving of emissions over the same period was not driven by funny money, tricksy policies and analytical sleights of hand, and that the deindustrialisation underpinning it has left us better off. Does anybody, other than green energy hustlers, actually feel better off? Who? How?! What better position can we claim to be in, now that we know that we produce less and import more at a higher price? How much of that ‘growth’ is just higher prices?
The embrace of green economics, at the expense of established economic orthodoxy, leads to regressive disdain for industry. It seems not to have bothered many that we are less capable of producing things and sustaining ourselves – an issue which would have once sent a modern government into a tailspin. It is as if using less energy was a ‘good thing’ in itself, not a reflection of rising prices and stagnant (or worse) productivity. As if to make my point for me, following OEUK’s report, the half-truthfully named Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the obedient press put a different spin on the matter. “The U.K. recorded the highest ever share of electricity generation by renewables last year”, declared the Standard.
As greens rejoice our production of less for more, U.K. energy market regulator, Ofgem, announced its “discussion on the future of the price cap”, which is “so customers remain protected as the energy market evolves to a smarter, more flexible system”. Why would customers need ‘protection’ from a ‘smarter, more flexible system’? It is, of course, doublespeak. The ‘dynamic price cap’ is time-of-day pricing, more honestly known as rationing. And ‘flexibility’ means using prices to force customers to organise their lives around the ‘smarter’ system, rather than the energy market meeting people’s needs. And it is made necessary by the scarcity created by green energy policy and green ideology.
It would be all for the better if regulators, industry associations and, of course, politicians simply admitted that they have made a catastrophic mess of the very industries that were pioneered in this country. Putting green political ambitions before any other practical consideration has made us poorer, and is going to create a problem far worse than climate change.
Subscribe to Ben Pile’s The Net Zero Scandal Substack here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“… is going to create a problem far worse than climate change. “
3 years ought to be enough time — things happen — for recognition.
30 years, then, to get out of the hole they have created.
“… U.K. production of energy has fallen by two thirds…”
Seriously? And energy prices tripled? Time for a revolution!
Is that mostly due to increased national debt? How bad is the UK trade deficit?
£33 billion deficit in 2022. It would have been far higher but we’re just keeping our noses above water with the trade from the services industry, mostly the financial services in the City.
Now if we could only add hydrocarbon trade to that we might have a good chance of pulling ourselves out of the hole but the international money cartels will ensure that any move to increase that will be penalised by losses in the financial services. We appear to be being held to ransom by foreign vested interests who do not have the UK citizens best interests at heart, just see the UK as a cash cow.
Nailed it!
Reform, apparently now at 16% in the latest poll, has committed to a referendum on Net Zero.
Meanwhile, things are starting to bite. The consequence of attempting to move to wind has been huge fluctuations in electricity prices. The UK Regulator is now proposing to allow these fluctuations to be passed on to users via smart meters.
Smart meters do three things. One, they mean you don’t have to read the meter. Two, they allow for changes in the tariff every 15 minutes or so. Three, they allow for turn off of supply. EV charge points will be on a separate circuit, so can be turned off. So will heat pumps.
So you can see where the UK is going. We double demand, by moving to heat pumps and EVs. Then we move to wind generation. Then to avoid or at least minimize blackouts, we move to power rationing of various sorts, including pricing.
It will not work. You cannot install enough wind to get to net zero. You cannot generate enough electricity from wind to support the move to EVs and heat pumps. The country is headed over a cliff if they carry on like this.
They are now starting to realize it, and to build out gas. But the bet has to be, not enough, not fast enough.
Much more of a rise for Reform, and we could see Conservatives falling below 100 seats. Well below. The UK will lead the world, not in what the political class usually wants, but in having the first political party to get elected in substantial numbers on a platform of repudiating net zero in its entirety.
A forth thing that smart meters do is stop working, assuming they did work to start with. According to the paper today there are 4 million smart meters in GB that don’t work.
total cost £13Bn and counting.
I once had water meter “not working.” My water bill was zero. Despite my pleadings, the water people came out and replaced it and my water bill returned to normal. Perhaps Oldseadog, if your smart meter is “not working” the best course for you would be to say nothing.
I don’t have and will not have one.
Don’t count on them not back-billing you for something received but not paid for.
Smart meters also let the utility’s trouble dispatch see that the power is being delivered to a customer so that when the customer calls in an outage, when there is none, a troubleman doesn’t need to be dispatched. That’s about $200 in savings to the utility. Happens 30-40x/day in the utility I used to work for.
I’ve always thought that smart meters could be used to stabilize the grid by allowing utilities to curtail supply to renewable-only (W&S) customers whenever these sources were unavailable. The advantages are that utilities would no longer have to chase intermittent supplies and governments would finally be forced to concede that there is absolutely no consumer demand for renewables once the true nature of their intermittency becomes obvious to the public.
Letting all customers choose their source of electricity generation is certainly a great idea.
That is why it won’t happen, because we all know most people would gravitate towards fossil fuels and nuclear. Letting greenalist planet-savers actually pay the real costs of their schemes on their own is not part of the plan.
Mark Twain had is right when he said, (paraphrasing).
“It is easier to con people than to convince them they have been conned”.
What value are experts in the field? When uneducated school drop outs, like Greta T and tumbling walrus scammers like David Attenborough are given honours plus free air time at the BBC to ensure the believers in man made climate change get there weekly sermon, what hope does truth ever have? The message from the pulpit of Alarmist HQ is constant and ever louder.
Those of us blessed, or perhaps that should be cursed with knowing the truth as best we can understand it, about climate, are vilified and cancelled.
Only those with ‘right speak’ are allowed to speak.
That is the way civilisation ends.
Why is it that our supposedly “advanced” civilizations are so readily sucked into fads by “catch-phrases”?
(A very apt name for many of today’s political policies)
How often do we hear & see the catch-phrases “climate change”, “carbon pollution”, “green energy”, “sustainable living”. etc etc?
When asked what the costs / benefits analyses of these catch-phrase policies tell us, most of those spruiking the catch-phrases have no responses other than blank stares, incomprehensible ranting about children and grandchildren, or pointing their fingers at questioners and issuing a wild-eyed, spittle-flecked chant of “denier!”.
What worries me most though is the spectre of obviously-intelligent, knowledgeable and mature people such as Nick being sucked in by the “catch-phrase” cultism of “climate science” in the same way as were poor little Greta and her fellow immature, naive, mislead primary school children followers.
Forget climate doom, these “catch-phrase” captured cults are in my opinion the most worrying threats to the futures of our children and grandchildren.
We are headed down the same path in the U.S. too, of course. First, recognizing that a grid cannot run on wind/solar we are determined to temporarily depend on natural gas to fill shortfall in production. After 2035 or so? Well, who knows maybe we continue with natural gas, but maybe a miracle happens. However, what is certain is that we will become more and more dependent on natural gas simultaneously with Democrats and the Biden Administration fighting the required pipeline build out and against exploration and development of fields.
It’s like a return of the 1970s with over-reliance on natural gas playing the part of petroleum liquids, and Biden playing the role of OPEC.
Addition of EVs and heat pumps might well double electrical energy demand on average, but I have looked carefully at my demand over the past few years, and I know plenty about heat pumps as I’ve used them. In the worst months at my location the EV and heat pumps would more than triple my demand.
The wonder is, how did so many untalented people gain so much power over our lives?
By gullible fools electing democrats…
Way too many people have been convinced that free lunches are possible. All you have to do is tax the evil people enough.
Evil being defined as anyone who makes more then the left wing voter does.
They were elected by people who have told over and over again that government will take care of you. Let the government do it. Seldom in the history of the U.S. has the government done anything but make matters worse.
Money.
‘The wonder is, how did so many untalented people gain so much power over our lives?’
”We” voted for this would be the immediate cause, but the truth is that this was inevitable once the Progressives controlled education at all levels.
That, and not requiring a passing grade in engineering thermodynamics for all college graduates. 😀
The situation in Ontario under the Doug Ford’s Conservative government is described in this recent article:
https://parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog.wordpress.com/2024/04/01/doug-ford-political-promises-made-promises-broken/
Under the Liberal government, which was responsible for these turbines, the Auditor General discovered after the fact, that there was no cost/benefit analysis. They lost their party status, but as the article above describes, so far the Conservative government has failed to do what it promised.
To misquote Mark Twain: It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble; it’s what you know that just ain’t so.
And all for a lie.
I’m not sure about “the UK” (which includes Northern Ireland), but for “the island of Great Britain (GB)” electricity grid you can see just how much “reliable and dispatchable” (sic) electricity was produced last month from those lauded “renewable” generators in the attached graph.
For future (2030 to 2035 ?) installations of solar (50+ GW “nominal / nameplate capacity”) and wind (100+ GW “capacity”) just multiply the vertical scale below by 3 (or 4).
What could possibly go wrong ?
Since the opening of interconnectors to Norway and Denmark, adding to France, Holland and Belgium with a total capacity of 8.8GW the UK often imports more that is generated by either wind or gas. Today wind 5.5GW Imports 7.33GW. Gas 9.09GW. The two Irish connectors normally send some of the electrons onwards to Ireland. A pretty typical situation
I know that electricity is only a small part of the total but when the claim is made about renewables being X% of electrical generation does this mean generation or demand? Is total energy calculated in the same way
I don’t often post the “ICTs” tab of my spreadsheet because it is too “cluttered / crowded”, and I haven’t (yet) figured out how to clarify the picture.
The attached graphic for last month also shows how the ICTs are sometimes used to absorb “unexpected” spikes in electricity generation, by reversing the “normal” direction from exporting to importing.
Note that “French ICT Sum” = IFA + IFA2 + Elec-Link, while
“Cont[inental] EU ICT Sum” = “French ICT Sum” + BritNed + NEMO + Viking
The NSL link to Norway is separate, but with a similar pattern.
In March for most of the time the NSL was importing ~1.6 GW of power to the GB grid, while on the 23rd and 24th, for example, it (mostly) switched to exporting ~600 MW towards Norway instead …
… if only we could identify a generation source that had “unexpected” peaks corresponding to the times that the overall “ICT Sum” went negative … [ ***cough*** “Total Wind” in my first graph ***cough*** ] …
“Why would customers need ‘protection’ from a ‘smarter, more flexible system’? It is, of course, doublespeak.”
************
Somehow, I am inspired by Big Brother’s motto (War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, etc.) in Nineteen-Eighty-Four…..
Pricier is cheaper
Less is more
Economic decline is economic growth
Energy poverty is wealth
Love Big Brother, he would never lie to you.
No organization can screw things up as much as government. The primary reason for that is government does not pay a price for failure. When the government fails it hires more experts and doubles down on its spending, oh and blames others. Government should not be in charge of any critical endeavor. Its only function should be to lightly regulate those involved in the endeavor. No organization should be self regulated. The government is self regulated and does a miserable job of it. It is the poster child proving the wickedness of self regulation.
I just wonder during this “code red” as we stand at the “precipice,” how much longer before the lemmings stampede and in one brief instant of glory, swan dive into the abyss.