John Rentoul’s Fake Cost Of Net Zero

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

There has been discussion in the media in the last few days concerning claims that Net Zero will only cost the UK £6 billion a year.

The claim originates from John Rentoul of the far left Independent, in response to Nigel Farage’s estimate of £40 billion. Needless to say, the claim is fake.

The big problem here is that successive governments have steadfastly refused to carry out any proper cost assessment whatsoever, so critics of Net Zero have no option but to make their own estimates.

Probably the nearest we got to an official costing was from Philip Hammond’s Treasury in or around 2019, which was in excess of a trillion pounds, £33 billion a year. Given inflation since, Farage’s figures do not appear unreasonable.

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1927404927443157491

Rentoul’s figures are based on the CCC estimate of 0.2% of GDP. But there are huge issues with this, which make Rentoul’s analysis grossly misleading.

For a start, the CCC’s Seventh Carbon Budget is clear that the costs will be huge in the early years up to 2040, after which quite miraculously savings will set in.

But people are not interested in hypothetical savings in twenty years time – they are concerned about the immediate future.

The CCC analysis was also full of holes. They assumed, for instance, that wind and solar costs would be half of what they actually are now, and would continue to fall. NESO’s Clean Power 2030 plan confirmed that the CCC’s CAPEX figures had been understated by £30 billion a year.

They also said EVs would achieve price parity with petrol by next year. Both assumptions are plainly absurd, and mean that their estimate of costs has been grossly understated. (See here).

Moreover the CCC ignored the massive costs we are already incurring for Net Zero.

We can however estimate some ball park figures for the period up to 2040.

For a start, according to the OBR, subsidies for renewable energy will run at £19 billion a year between now and 2030. Over the 15 year period to 2040, that adds up to £285 billion. Given the rising cost of offshore wind, that figure is likely to be an underestimate.

Throw in the indirect subsidies of grid balancing, constraint payments and carbon pricing, and the annual figure will be closer to £30 billion.

Then there are grid upgrades costing £100 billion, which are needed for Net Zero. Although this will be paid for by private investors, they will demand a return – say 8%, or £8 billion a year.

Then we come to heat pumps. By 2040, everybody with a gas boiler will need to replace with a heat pump. I believe about 20 million homes have gas boilers. Including extra insulation, hot water tanks and radiators, we are probably looking at £15,000 a go, compared to £3000 for a boiler. That’s a total cost of £240 billion.

EVs remain stubbornly more expensive. Even allowing for savings on fuel costs, the extra cost of purchase will amount to at least £400 billion between now and 2040, if EVs remain more expensive.

And we have not even looked at the crippling cost of upgrading our local electricity networks to handle extra demand for power. Estimates suggest upwards of a quarter of a trillion pounds.

There are all sorts of other less tangible costs – not least damage to industry and destruction of the rural economy, the costs imposed on industry and the tens of billions handed to the idiot Miliband to waste on climate nonsense.

But even the items covered above are frightening:

£1210 billion, of course, works out at £80 billion a year, so Nigel might have underesti

5 14 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

39 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
strativarius
June 4, 2025 2:34 am

Heat pumps are very uncertain at the moment. I pointed out on another thread here yesterday that mad Ed is being shunted to the back of the queue for the money tree.

“Miliband poised to scrap 600,000-a-year heat pump target
Labour refuses to recommit to 2028 deadline amid looming budget cuts
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/net-zero/miliband-poised-scrap-600000-year-heat-pump-target/

Miliband is faced with having to make cuts to his utopian dream-mare while defence spending is set to expand – thanks to external forces making it unavoidable. Green jobs?

“Labour defence spending set to create Plymouth jobs bonanza”
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-defence-spending-set-create-050000470.html

On the subject of green jobs, and remember most of those are in China, the rate of ‘green job’ creation is less than half of those that are being ‘deliberately‘ lost…

“Trade unions are also blaming Labour for the job losses, saying the “hostile regulatory environment” created by the ban on new drilling licences is leading to oil and gas operators accelerating decisions “that are destructive to job security and UK energy security”.
Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “The announcement by Harbour Energy that further jobs will be lost in Aberdeen is devastating news for the oil and gas sector. It’s crystal clear that UK Government policy is driving oil and gas companies out of the North Sea. It is directly leading to thousands of jobs being axed and to decommissioning plans being accelerated years ahead of schedule.”
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25151210.uk-government-to-blame-scottish-north-sea-firm-job-cuts/

This blew my mind…

Story tip. Magic Marker

Watch: Morano on Fox & Friends talking how White House staff used autopen to sign climate orders without Biden’s knowledge

https://www.climatedepot.com/2025/06/01/watch-morano-on-fox-friends-talking-how-white-house-staff-used-autopen-to-sign-climate-orders-without-bidens-knowledge/

If they did Autopenned for the climate, what else did they do it for?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  strativarius
June 4, 2025 8:58 am

The 600,000 heat pump installations yearly from 2028 has never been realistic. According to heat pumps.london the UK currently has around 412 heat pumps per 100,000 people. Other sources say there were only around 40,000 installed in 2024.

Add in the fact that around 12m homes in the UK are totally unsuited for heat pump installation and that 22m homes are on the gas network, plus people know there are a lot of ‘cowboy’ traders out there, this all means that the target will never be met.

KevinM
Reply to  Dave Andrews
June 4, 2025 9:46 am

I just Googled “cost of heat pump” and got $1k to $10k for uninstalled units.
Taking an average and still leaving off installation:
$5k * 600,000 per year = 3,000,000,000 per year.
Waitaminit, with 30 seconds of search and math I blow through half of Rentoul’s budget that he tweeted into the whole wide world? Drives me crazy – just because you CAN say what you’re thinking to the whole world doesn’t always mean you SHOULD.

Reply to  Dave Andrews
June 5, 2025 12:50 am

I have a 1840s house in NE Scotland – cosy yo upgrade insulation, piping etc would be in the order of 30k+. To achieve a level of warmth in winter that would be tolerable- just

KevinM
Reply to  strativarius
June 4, 2025 9:49 am

“If they did Autopenned for the climate, what else did they do it for?”
Note the lack of people standing up to say “Yes, darn right he signed it and I watched him do it!”
He did seem to be taking credit for that type of action through the fog of his debate performances – maybe he was onboard. We’ll apparently never know.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  KevinM
June 4, 2025 10:36 am

DOJ is looking into this.

Presidential authority is required for EOs, legislation approval, and PARDONS.
In each case, the autopen is supposed to be used when the President is out of town, on foreign travel. There can be no blanket approval to use the autopen. It must be approved individually. It is incredible that staff who where neither elected nor confirmed by the Senate are or may have taken Presidential actions.

Grab a beer and a tub of popcorn. The show is starting.

KevinM
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
June 4, 2025 11:37 am

I don’t know what the DOJ could come up with. What bit of evidence would suffice in place of a (impossible now) reasonably aware Joe Biden saying the EOs were what he wanted.

Any eye witness other than JB could be dismissed as a politically motivated liar whether he stood for or against. 2025 is the year where USA looks back and says “oh well, that happened” which is an admittedly sh—- attitude, but it will be paid for (by the same children we’re hoping to pay SS and Medicaid? Whoa boy).

June 4, 2025 2:39 am

I’m even wondering if the guy took the replacement of everything that’s now been installed in 20 years from now (20 years of lifetime being “very optimistic” for wind turbines an PV’s including
the disposal of the current installations which is mainly non recyclable material (e.g.hazardous waste).

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Eric Vieira
June 4, 2025 10:36 am

They hand waved it at best. At worst it was never mentioned.

June 4, 2025 3:33 am

£1210 billion, of course, works out at £80 billion a year, so Nigel might have underesti

UK can create that money and spend it internally but buying windmills, power lines, solar.panels, batteries and all the other stuff from China to make NetZero feasible needs real money or something in kind – like land. How many palaces and departments stores are left for the Chinese and Arabs to buy.

UK is living off other countries. That can only go on for so long unless the country is USA, which creates the global currency:
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account

Australia has shifted the focus to rooftop solar panels and household batteries. There is a gradual realisation that building power lines is expensive and takes forever so forget them. Just put solar panels on every roof and battery on the back of every house and no more windmills needed. Of course you need to accept that you buy all manufactured goods from China and hope that they continue to supply the stuff you need.

Petey Bird
Reply to  RickWill
June 4, 2025 7:58 am

Australia may have something right in this fantasy world. Put every residence on solar and battery and have them disconnected from the grid. That would be an elegant solution. They could each have their own diesel generators also.

Mr.
Reply to  Petey Bird
June 4, 2025 9:19 am

and free government-issued earplugs for everybody to wear during those extended spells of cloudy days?

KevinM
Reply to  RickWill
June 4, 2025 10:02 am

Like individual cars being more efficient than rail unless areas are densely populated, rooftop is can be more efficient than central generation plus distribution. Ideally for efficiency the best system would be all power users glued to a sphere around the biggest, most efficient generator. Rooftop solar makes a mini-copy of the ideal if you grant (it’s at least arguable) that the lower economic efficiency of the rooftop is offset by the savings from not distributing long distances through power lines and transformers AND that most power would be used in the home on sunny days.

Reply to  KevinM
June 5, 2025 4:27 am

Ever heard of Dunkelflaute?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  RickWill
June 4, 2025 10:37 am

I wonder what the homeowner insurance rates become due to the fire hazards.

Reply to  RickWill
June 4, 2025 10:04 pm

And the spare parts.

Sean Galbally
June 4, 2025 3:40 am

We just need to accept that Net Zero (Carbon Diopxide) achieves virtually no benefit to the planet. It is a sham and a total waste of money. THEN when it has been condemned to the scrap heap we have no need to talk about its possible costs. They will be irrelevant.

Scissor
Reply to  Sean Galbally
June 4, 2025 4:52 am

Debts galore.

June 4, 2025 4:02 am

For those interested in nuclear there is a new book to be released on July 12th that may be of interest. The author is Tim Gregory, a nuclear scientist, he works at Sellafield. I am unaware of the author’s position on CAGW, perhaps climate agnostic?

Going Nuclear; How the Atom Will Save The World

Reply to  SteveG
June 4, 2025 12:47 pm

Doesn’t sound like he has shaken off the “climate” dum—-ery yet if he’s on about “saving the world.”

Saving it from what?! BENEFICIAL CO2?!

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
June 4, 2025 10:02 pm

Saving it from what?!

Useless windmills

June 4, 2025 4:06 am

“There are all sorts of other less tangible costs – not least damage to industry and destruction of the rural economy…”

Should also count ecological damage when covering vast areas with ruinables.

KevinM
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 4, 2025 10:27 am

“We must destroy the” ecology “to save the” ecology? (famous supposed GWB 2008 idea)

June 4, 2025 4:15 am

Well, of course we need to double/ triple down on achieving Net Zero while at the same creating a war machine to sleigh our enemies AND keep the economy and infrastructure in a healthy state. It is a very plausible scenario..sarc/:).

One wonders which element breaks down first. Me thinks that it will be Net Zero. A: because people in general do not perceive the Climate as a threat and B: because Tony, the Dark Lord is hinting at it which will mean the media will eventually turn.And of course C: the tremendous costs with NO return on investment.
Furthermore, the insane russophobia is the new Covid. It props up failing leaders and war talk is addictive, even for the once peaceful Left. The media LOVES it. A new enemy!(or an old one, really).
The thing is: how much economic downturn will the citizens accept?

MarkW
Reply to  ballynally
June 4, 2025 6:48 am

 to sleigh our enemies “

You’re going to give them a ride in horse drawn sleds being pulled through the snow?

KevinM
Reply to  MarkW
June 4, 2025 10:29 am

“Dictionary
sleigh /slā/
noun
a sled drawn by horses or reindeer, especially one used for passengers.”

“Dictionary
slay /slā/
verb
1.
kill (a person or animal) in a violent way.”

Reply to  KevinM
June 5, 2025 4:34 am
June 4, 2025 5:57 am

And it’s all for nothing,

Promoted climate hysteria is yet another crime against humanity.

June 4, 2025 6:39 am

SAVINGS??! WHAT “savings?” By 2040 they’ll need to rebuild most of the worse-than-useless solar and wind already constructed.

These idiots live in their own fantasy world. Presumably they ASSUME that economic losses from the weather will decline if they get to “net zero,” which (a) wouldn’t change a thing you could measure about “climate change,” and (b) if they could successfully limit the amount of warming, would only be limiting BENEFICIAL change, which would impart NO “savings.”

Or maybe they are adding up the “savings” for electricity nobody will be paying for when the grid isn’t working due to the implementation of their STUPID IDEAS?

Dave Andrews
June 4, 2025 8:38 am

The Climate Change Committee’s recent analysis is a load of crap as is amply illustrated by this small quote from page 306 of the 394 page report

“For the typical household, bills will be lower in 2050 than in 2025 for heating and driving with minimal changes to food costs”

You have to believe in fairy dust to accept that.

KevinM
June 4, 2025 8:48 am

$6B a year? Sure, go for it.
It seems like the ongoing plan was $6T a year.
Edit… oh I thought that was USA, it’s UK.

KevinM
Reply to  KevinM
June 4, 2025 8:58 am

“Although this will be paid for by private investors”
Ooooooooooh now I get it.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  KevinM
June 4, 2025 10:41 am

Private investors? Is that like retirement funds?

June 4, 2025 9:21 am

Don’t worry about the costs. We can borrow it from ourselves.

I mean, that’s the current action plan of all indebted western governments anyway, so a few more billion can’t hurt.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  doonman
June 4, 2025 10:41 am

A billion here and a billion there. Soon you are talking real money.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  doonman
June 4, 2025 10:42 am

Something akin to 50% of all western national debt is owned by…. wait for it…. China.

KevinM
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
June 4, 2025 1:57 pm

Foreign owners only… Most US national debt is owned by the US government.
Largest foreign holders of US treasuries are:

JapanUKChina Source link US Treasury: https://ticdata.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/slt_table5.html

Bob
June 4, 2025 4:48 pm

Very nice. Keep these fool’s feet to the fire. It is not okay to lie and cheat.

June 4, 2025 10:06 pm

Even if Rentoul is correct, it’s still £6 billion too much to spend unnecessarily.