Labour’s manifesto promised we would have a zero carbon electricity system by 2030. It is a pledge that Ed Miliband has been making for years, not least in his party conference speech last year, and it was also one of Labour’s ‘Five Missions for a Better Britain’ policy pledge launched last year.
It would therefore be reasonable to presume that Miliband actually had a detailed plan of how he would achieve this and how much it might all cost. It came as a surprise then when, shortly after taking office, he asked the National Energy System Operator, NESO, to provide practical advice on achieving his target.
NESO has now responded with some bad news.
Many energy experts have long argued that a zero carbon grid simply is not possible at these timescales, because you cannot run a grid predominantly on intermittent renewable energy. It turns out that NESO, whose job is to make sure that Britain has the electricity it needs every second of the day, agrees.
Their report sent to Ed Miliband emphasises that we will need to retain a full fleet of gas power plants, to fire up when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine:
This really is a damning indictment not only of Labour’s energy policy, but also of the whole Net Zero agenda and its reliance on intermittent renewable energy.
Even though NESO says that gas power will only supply 5% of our electricity, there will be many days when we will still need it for half or more. And keeping a fleet of gas plants on standby creates problems of its own. They will need to be fully manned, maintained and ready to fire up as and when needed, all of which will cost a lot of money. With these plants standing idle most of the time, operators will demand billions in standby payments, all of which will end up on our energy bills.
The NESO report also confirms that the increase in wind and solar power demanded by Miliband will drastically increase bills, not lower them as we were promised.
Not only is renewable energy more expensive to produce than gas generation, there are indirect costs to consider, such as paying for standby capacity, costs of storage, curtailment payments when we have too much wind and grid upgrades.
Analysis of NESO data suggests that annual costs could be £20 billion higher by 2030 if Miliband’s plans are carried through.
NESO also says that annual investment of £48 billion will be needed between now and 2030 to achieve targets.
But all of this expenditure will merely end up duplicating what we already have.
If this was not all bad enough, over reliance on intermittent renewables will mean that we will end up having energy rationing. According to NESO, households will have to switch off appliances at times of peak demand. Currently, of course, gas generation is turned up and down to match demand.
NESO hopes the public will do it voluntarily! Good luck with that.
Unsurprisingly, Ed Miliband has already been bragging that this new report proves that his clean power plan is both achievable and will lead to cheaper electricity. Both are outright lies.
But it looks like we will learn this the hard way.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A Politician that promises something they can’t deliver? Guy has a bright future. Britain not so much. Good luck.
The guy started putting his oar into British politics 20 years ago under Blair. He’s a PPE ignoramus. Knows how to blag, knows how to suck up to leaders, has no clue about science and technology.
One might say that Britain has a *DARK* future. 😆😅🤣😂
Bit is has electrolytes (with hand wave).
Millibrand lives in fantasy land. The report contains caveats that make his target of decarbonising the grid by 2030 totally unachievable. This is a good review:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/fintan-slye-outfoxes-mad-miliband-clean-power-2030?publication_id=1285567&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-share&triggerShare=true&r=3wbxq3
Ed doesn’t understand what caveat means can you explain it to him in words of 2 or 3 syllables? 🙂
“NESO says that gas power will only supply 5% of our electricity” relies on ludicrous assumptions which will not come true. NESO should have been more direct and told Ed Miliband that what he was proposing was utterly absurd and cannot possibly happen. Being a complete imbecile, Ed Miliband does not understand subtlety and utterly misunderstood the NESO report. Hence his ridiculous statement that the report proves that his net zero plan for the grid is achievable and affordable.
That’s the problem with zealots like Red Ed – he kids himself that the report supports his wacky beliefs, rather like the way that religious zealots use their various holy books.
“”But it looks like we will learn this the hard way.””
Barring some bizarre and massive Labour backbench revolt – a total non-starter – this is the way it’s going to be until the next election. You certainly can’t recall an MP – Mr Speaker is the only one who can do that.
In the first instance Miliband is a product of the unions; who helped him beat his brother to the leadership of the Labour party. A real stitch up job. Miliband firmly believes our ‘sacrifices‘ will be the spur to make the world sit up, take notice and follow our example. But what example?
The most expensive electricity in the world
No steel making
A war on private transport
15 minute gulags
Blackouts to come
etc
Thank god there will soon be a sceptical President in the US. We are going to need his influence on this side of the pond (and in the world). The political interest here [for me] is how the right either lines up, or fragments. Kemi Badenoch or Nigel Farage. My money is on Farage simply because the Conservatives are still riddled with remainers and greens.
Damn that Confucius.
You certainly can’t recall an MP
That’s largely true but constituents can play a role in certain circumstances. But I doubt causing blackouts would be deemed wrongdoing.
Unlike recall procedures in some other countries, the act does not allow constituents to initiate proceedings. Proceedings are initiated only if an MP is found guilty of wrongdoing fulfilling certain criteria. A petition is successful if at least one in ten voters in the constituency sign. Successful petitions result in the MP vacating the seat, triggering a by-election. (Wikipedia)
“”That’s largely true but constituents can play a role in certain circumstances. “”
They cannot. Cameron floated the idea and then it went down the memory hole.
https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4912/recall-of-mps/
MPs who serve more than one year in prison must stand down.
MPs who are an embarrassment to their party can stay as MPs but not in their party. Usually they resign.
It took American voters the reality of 20% inflation in two years to understand that the liberal/progressive/socialist/democrat energy and climate drivel was an economy crippling nightmare and decided to do what was necessary to end it. Your Labour Party should be able to at least match the 20% inflation over the next two years. The spirit of Margaret Thatcher has to still be a part of the UK physic so there remains hope for a return to political reality.
This will continue until a sufficient number of people DIE.
I recall a standard for putting a light at an intersection required first a minimum number of fatalities.
Footnote on page 7, referenced from the opening paragraph which mentions the ‘less than 5% unabated gas’ target:
* This is the description of Clean Power used in this report. Government will set out how it is defining Clean Power 2030 in due course.
So what’s it to be Ed?
NESO would be wise to look at its almost identical acronym ENSO.
ENSO is alerting us to the fast cooling influence that faces us for the next few years.
The period of mild benign winters the UK has enjoyed over the past El Nino period has ended. La Nina presents a very different set of conditions that normally results in cold harder winters in the Northern hemisphere.
Not a good time to shut down coal fired power stations or cease extracting domestic gas needed for reliable electricity generation.
Unfortunately Labour has celebrated doing both of those things? Sadly they have been joined by too many Tories in that bizarre celebration of advancing Green lunacy.
I thought NESO was controlled by Red Ed?
Yes. It is entirely funded and was founded by Ed Miliband.
As Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Ed is in charge of NESO but it was set up by the Energy Security Act which received consent in October 2023 under the previous government.
…
Ed is on a roll….
Ed Miliband’s Net Zero Department Given 22% More Cash to Waste on Green Energy Unicorns – and Other Budget Horrors
https://iowaclimate.org/2024/11/02/ed-milibands-net-zero-department-given-22-more-cash-to-waste-on-green-energy-unicorns-and-other-budget-horrors/
Huge tax rises all round and more to come.
“”Hundreds of angry farmers will hold a major demonstration in central London amid rising fury at the Government’s decision to “double down” on an inheritance tax raid on their land.
The National Farmers’ Union outlined plans for a mass rally outside Parliament in Westminster on November 19 after Rachel Reeves revoked farmland’s exemption from death duties.””
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/farmers-london-westminster-labour-rachel-reeves-inheritance-tax-land-b1191572.html
“”Liverpool Socialist Students organised a demo, alongside other Socialist Students groups nationally on over 20 university campuses, against the new Labour government’s Budget. We knew it would be a continuation of attacks on workers and students, like those seen under the Tories.””
https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/132445/06-11-2024/funding-not-fees-students-protest-budget-and-tuition-fees-rise/
It’s a government for national unity – against it.
Why is there no discussion about the PURPOSE of Net Zero. There’s a secret shift in emphasis from CO2 reduction to Cleanliness because even people as venemously stupid as Milliband have spotted that our one percent and China’s 31% make CO2 reduction pointless. But CLEAN? Are we very dirty? Air has never been better. Scrubbed coal plant efflux? Anyone died yet? Lying, socialist, thickos with not a STEM qualification anywhere. Lefty politics and arts graduates reading the Guardian.
Stop. Why are you pestering people with truths and facts! Enough! Stop!
/sarc
Story tip – Climate Anxiety edition. I’ve chuckled more over the last twenty four hours than I have for a long time….
Guardian Offers Free Counselling to Staff After Trump Win
Guardian editor Katharine Viner has been busy since Trump stormed into the White House. She penned a swift begging article yesterday asking the Guardian’s hundreds of readers to sustain its “well-funded independent journalism”…
In an email to all staff, Viner stresses that “a Trump win could reverberate for a million years.” She says she knows “the result has been very upsetting for many colleagues” and urges UK staff to “contact your American colleagues to offer your support” because “they will be most directly affected by the result.” The Guardian has always been one massive shoulder for panicked progressives to cry on…
Viner goes further and generously offers: “If you want to talk about it, your manager and members of the leadership team are all available, as the People team. There is also free access to free support services, which I’ve outlined at the end of this email.” UK staff can use a 24/7 online GP, mental health support and “virtual wellbeing tools.” Americans have not one but two Employee Assistance Programmes to help. Apparently staff in Australia can get access to “confidential, impartial professional counselling and support to all employees.” For those currently sobbing into their Vegemite sandwhiches…
Something tells Guido all the counselling in the world won’t cure them of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Read Viner’s full email to staff below:
https://order-order.com/2024/11/07/guardian-offers-free-counselling-to-staff-after-trump-win/
But it will be boom times for the climate-friendly psychiatrists and psychologists… all that
kindness, tolerance and respect… malice, bigotry and contempt has to be channelled, somehow.Doesn’t the word “staff” itself perpetuate the patriarchy?
You could argue a phallic angle…
Nah. Closest English word that I can think of for “fasces.” I.e., the fascists. Appropriate.
The behaviour of the left since Trump’s win has been absolutely mind boggling. The only thing that I can compare it to is the reaction of a toddler when his favourite toy goes missing.
Throwing a strop….
Should have bough shares in TENA…
Are they eco friendly?
Yes, nice to be able to smile again while reading U.S. political news.
I read the Guardian for the last time on the morning after the election.
Too disgusting. Too many lies. Too evil.
Has NESO calculated the change in CO2 emissions for their envisioned 5% gas plan with the current system? Gas turbines are notoriously fuel inefficient at part load and consume as much as 40% of their full power fuel requirement at idle, i.e. the 5% plan will not reduce emissions by 95%.
This is why I would like Nick, or any other advocate of net zero and wind, to give some back of envelope numbers for a sample jurisdiction, maybe the UK since the numbers are so readily available.
There is going to be 50+GW peak demand. How is it to be met?
As soon as you specify, you see the problem. If there is a lot of wind, there is less burning of fuel, so your fuel savings rise. But your capital costs are now written off against fewer hours of usage, so actually the cost of the gas generation rises. On the other hand if you lower the amount of wind, you end up running mainly on gas, so you get exactly the same problem with wind.
The problem is you are constructing two full capacity electricity generating systems, one being wind, admittedly intermittent and of dubious utility, the other gas. Whichever you max the use of, to lower overhead costs charged to the generation, you thereby drop the use of the other, and so raise the overhead costs charge.
I don’t think it can be done, I don’t think you can show that the wind makes sense financially, but anyone who does, just put up the numbers for 2030. How much gas, wind, solar, and how many GWh generated by each one. And show the total costs, capital & current. Then we can see are we really better off having installed all that wind.
They are not going to produce any such case. Haven’t so far and have no intention of doing it in the future.
Natural gas can meet all the reliability needs without wind and or solar, but wind and solar cannot exist without natural gas or flexible hydro to provide the required reliability because battery storage for the full output of any W&S array is forever, yes forever, too expensive for more than four hours of storage. Unless that premise can be proven to be false there is no basis for a “study”. If the UK wants to do a study, investigate the potential for proven safe horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking for natural gas.
RE (Ruinous Energy) wind and solar at five (5) percent grid penetration is harmless, 10% nuisance, 15% expensive waste, 20% grid destabilizing and economically destructive, 25% insane.
Wind and solar don’t work, so eliminating both from grid power is the only thing that makes sense.
Germany built wind and solar totalling 150GW of capacity. Their PEAK demand is 80GW.
The actual amount they get from wind and solar is less than 30% of total demand, which means even with nearly double their PEAK demand of wind and solar the vast majority of their demand is met by “other” sources.
Which tells you everything you need to know in terms of how worthless wind and solar are for grid power.
At grid level I agree with you about solar but it could have a part to play at niche level. I’ve just installed window shutters which operate by solar power. Highway authorities have been trialling, with some success, solar-powered warning signs. Solar power for domestic lighting is feasible and could become widespread.
There is no way it can ever be meaningful replacement for gas or nuclear generation at scale. Why we are pretending that it can is a mystery!
Many, many things are achievable if you spend an inappropriately inordinate amount of money on them.
The role of politicians is not to waste the taxpayers’ money on inefficient pipedreams.
It is to spend as little as possible almost exclusively on things which are good value for money.
What world do you live on? I want to move there.
Substitute representatives or legislators for politicians and you make a better case.
The role of politicians is to get reelected. Period.
Just stop oil or global boiling-
Snow falls for the first time ever in desert in Saudi Arabia | Watch
Cool.
But, and you can see it coming, it is just more proof of CAGW.
NET ZERO FOLLY
As most self respecting scientists know, man-made carbon dioxide has virtually no effect on the climate. It is a good gas essential to animals and plant life. Provided dirty emissions are cleaned up, we should be using our substantial store of fossil fuels while we develop a mix of alternatives including nuclear power to generate energy. There is no climate crisis, it has always changed and we have always adapted to it. It was not warm in the Ordovician ice age when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were 4000 ppm and have been 15 times higher than the 420 ppm it is now. There was no industrial revolution then to be the cause. The present quantity of man-made carbon dioxide is insignificant compared with water vapour or clouds which comprise a vast majority of green-house gases. Man has no control over the climate. Statistically we are overdue a period of cooling.The sun and our distance from it have by far the most effect. This always varies a little in cycles as the earth’s axis of rotation varies. Most importantly, the Net-Zero (carbon dioxide) Policy will not do anything to change it. Countries like China, Russia and India are sensibly ignoring this and using their fossil fuels. They will be delighted at how the west is letting the power elites, mainstream media and government implement this Policy and the World Order Agenda 21/2030, to needlessly impoverish us as well as causing great hardship and suffering.
Sean, I hope you’re not a government paid climate scientist. All that truth telling would get you fired.
+100 and 1000 MAGA thumbs up.
Spot the difference.
At least some of Wallace’s inventions worked.
And one is a real Yorkshireman.
Isn’t Yorkshire wall-to-wall in whirlygigs now?
In addition to the physical resemblance to Wallace, the miliband guy seems to also look for solutions that are “designed around the principle of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.
“With these plants standing idle most of the time, operators will demand billions in standby payments, all of which will end up on our energy bills.
The NESO report also confirms that the increase in wind and solar power demanded by Miliband will drastically increase bills, not lower them as we were promised.”
********************
Oh, the cost of scientific and engineering illiteracy! Britain is about to find out just how costly with the illiterates now in positions of govt power.
Dr. Carl Sagan warned us many years ago……
CARL SAGAN – WARNING: Prophetic last interview
Sagan. Always admired him. But wow. He nailed it.
Story tip: Ray Sanders has a beautifully argued and supported critique of Met Office temperature recording over on Tallbloke’s site. The coming darkness is a response to an imaginary problem.
I had hoped the Green Blob would have learned something from Texas in February 2021, but they are like the Bourbons, who never learn and never forget.
Politicians never tell the truth when lies are necessary to keep their sponsors happy.
Miliband was considered far too weak and too gullible by the Labour Party when he was mentioned as a possible candidate for the leadership.in 2015. He continually lies about weather and climate to suit the Party’s popular agenda in the hopes that one day he’ll achieve something useful for the Party.. He must have zero conscience about his Party’s continued lies about UK climate and energy requirements and has that in common with all his mates in Westminster and around the UK who dare not upset the woke.
Does the Labour Party know the difference between a man and a woman well enough to tell us loudly and clearly or are they still out to confuse their unfortunate supporters? .
How can you tell a politician is lying? His/Her lips are moving.
Calling this a plan is to debase the principle of planning
Ed Milliband reminds me of the spider in this episode of Minuscule. No matter how many holes there are in his plans he won’t give up.
https://youtu.be/pn4u1JN84GU?feature=shared
What he’s not telling us is that his zero carbon electricity will also have zero electricity. Easy peasy.
More good news. It would sure be nice if these politicians and bureaucrats would be honest and speak the truth. The truth is Miliband and his followers promised a zero carbon electricity system by 2030. After taking office Miliband asked NESCO for practical advise for achieving his target. If NESCO were honest they would have said it can’t be done by 2030 if at all. Even though the report from NESCO was bad for Miliband it was ambiguous enough for him to think he was on his way. What a bunch crap. NESCO’s advise should have been build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators and remove all wind and solar from the grid.
I meant NESO.
In addition to the physical resemblance of Miliband to Wallace (of Wallace and Gromit), the miliband guy seems to also look for solutions that are “designed around the principle of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.