Radical plan to end the energy crisis
Renewables have been ‘a catastrophic error’
Press Release
Summary
- The UK energy system is dysfunctional and on the verge of collapse.
- Further expansion of renewables will make our gas dependency worse; only gas can now support renewables.
- There is no alternative to improving the efficiency of our gas-fired fleet, and diversifying the sources from which we obtain natural gas.
- Radical action is required to stabilise the system and bring down consumer prices.
- Renewables must be put on the same footing as other generators, with no subsidies and no preferential dispatch, and eventually wound down.
- A long-term gas-to-nuclear strategy is wise, but because of the perilous state of Britain’s electricity grid, the use of ultra-supercritical coal may be necessary to keep the lights on should nuclear fall behind on its timetable.
London, 27 March -- Two energy experts from Net Zero Watch have put forward a radical programme to overhaul the UK’s energy system.
According to Dr John Constable and Andrew Montford, the authors of the plan, consumer prices can only be reduced by lowering the cost of gas and increasing the efficiency of gas-fired power stations. Increasing use of renewables will undoubtedly raise prices further.
The plan therefore aims to wind down renewables completely, and put the country back on the gas-to-nuclear trajectory that had delivered both lower prices and lower emissions for many decades before environmentalist pressure shifted the focus to wind and solar.
According to the authors, bill reductions of as much as £400 per household could be delivered relatively quickly, with a similar reduction in the general cost of living.
The plan also addresses energy security concerns, recommending diversification of the natural gas supply to include fracking, and the introduction of high-efficiency “ultra-supercritical” coal-fired power stations.
Dr John Constable said:
“The renewables drive has left the grid in a parlous state, and the more wind and solar we put on the grid the worse it will become”.
Andrew Montford said:
“Gas-fired power stations set market prices, so making them lower cost is the only way to get consumer bills down. That means running them more efficiently.”
Dr John Constable said:
“Reintroducing coal is almost certainly going to be necessary. That such a radical step is even considered necessary shows just how bad our existing energy policies have made things. Renewables have been a catastrophic error.”
Craig Mackinlay MP said:
“Britain’s energy policy is clearly in a perilous state, and we need some bold solutions to get back on track. Affordability and reliability must be paramount. A gas-to-nuclear transition looks to me at present like our best shot to get our emissions down affordably.”
Taking Back Control: Addressing Britain’s Energy Crisis can be downloaded here (pdf)
Contact
John Constable
e: john.constable@netzerowatch.com
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/10/how-cheap-can-renewable-energy-get/#:~:text=Renewable%20energy%20cycle.&text=The%20energy%20transition%20has%20increased,lower%20prices%2C%20prompting%20increased%20demand.
ReplyDeleteThe energy transition has increased both demand and application of sustainable energy sources like solar, offshore and onshore wind. Scaled up, these technologies can create a cycle where greater deployment leads to even lower prices, prompting increased demand.
Just a few years back I was reading articles on how renewable energy has beaten old coal plants. It was better to tear down the old coal plant and put up renewable energy and storage. This trend has been continuing. In the conservative states in the US, there are utilities now going with renewable energy and mothballing the coal plants. Its the economics. Now with natural gas going through the roof on the world market in price, RE has a territory they can move in on. Fossil fuels is a victim of capitalism right now, making energy affordability for the poor grim.
https://thesolutionsproject.org/what-we-do/inspiring-action/why-clean-energy/#/map/countries/location/GBR
ReplyDeleteSince I can't post the picture here, I will describe a study at Stanford University of renewable energy costs for Great Britain. Renewable energy will reduce the costs of energy for Brits by 2050. It will increase the benefits of health when fossil fuels are eliminated.
In American dollars of savings.
3 cents per kw-hr cheaper in energy costs
Health cost savings per year 2.9% of country GDP,
lives saved from less air pollution per year, 13,823
energy cost savings per person per year, $368
Energy health and climate savings per person, $5,819
Renewable energy is the superior way to power our world. Hands down.
Further expansion of renewables will make our gas dependency worse; only gas can now support renewables.
ReplyDeleteThis is false. Energy storage is actually cheaper to operate than natural gas turbines. And in battery storage terms performs in ways natural gas cannot even compete in.
There is no alternative to improving the efficiency of our gas-fired fleet, and diversifying the sources from which we obtain natural gas.
There is no alternative to improving the efficiency of our gas-fired fleet, and diversifying the sources from which we obtain natural gas.
There is storage that will compete with natural gas if not even beat it. Natural gas is really no longer necessary for out electric system.
Radical action is required to stabilise the system and bring down consumer prices.
This is a sky is falling argument to bring about panic. Form energy business is an iron based battery system that will be very competitive with fossil fuel backup.
Renewables must be put on the same footing as other generators, with no subsidies and no preferential dispatch, and eventually wound down.
Renewables deserve a level field compared to all the other forms of energy generation. Plus the slower the transition of renewable energy, the more damage from from fossils fuels to all of life on earth.
A long-term gas-to-nuclear strategy is wise, but because of the perilous state of Britain’s electricity grid, the use of ultra-supercritical coal may be necessary to keep the lights on should nuclear fall behind on its timetable.
What a biased point of view. Renewable energy is the smartest way out.
I think you may be a little bit biased yourself. You are seriously misled if you think that battery storage is going to be enough to make up for when the wind is not blowing and the sun not shining. Batteries are also very expensive. As rare earth metals get rarer this will only get worse. This shortage will also affect the cost of wind turbines themselves. Then there is the cost of decommissioning worn out wind turbines - another very costly business. You also over-look the vast area needed to deploy wind turbines and the cost of joining them up to the grid. Batteries are just not up to the job of replacing gas turbines as back up. The government need to listen to the engineers and scientists who have been saying for years that this is a disaster in the making. Look at the places where this is being tried, like California, where they have already experienced serious power outages and face the most expensive electricity in the USA. South Australia has had the same experience.
ReplyDeleteYou are seriously misled if you think that battery storage is going to be enough to make up for when the wind is not blowing and the sun not shining
ReplyDeleteI use the word storage. That includes all forms of storage. Batteries on the other hand are good economically for short term storage of about 4 hours. Other forms are in development ready for the market of longer term storage.
As rare earth metals get rarer this will only get worse. This shortage will also affect the cost of wind turbines themselves.
Rare earth metals are not necessary for batteries or wind turbines.
Then there is the cost of decommissioning worn out wind turbines - another very costly business. You also over-look the vast area needed to deploy wind turbines and the cost of joining them up to the grid. Batteries are just not up to the job of replacing gas turbines as back up.
There is a process called repowering a wind field. They actually upgrade the turbines to improved technology as they wear out. The wind field investors take this into account when they invest of what their responsibilities are.
The government need to listen to the engineers and scientists who have been saying for years that this is a disaster in the making.
I have watched you listen to doubters paid by big oil companies. There are many many more engineers applying economics to wind and solar and the investors are in with their money.
Look at the places where this is being tried, like California, where they have already experienced serious power outages and face the most expensive electricity in the USA. South Australia has had the same experience.
There have been no power outages because of renewable energy in either Texas or California. They failure in California was inadequate planning for record setting heat wave. Texas was a failure of both planning and natural gas supply shortage. It is the utilities responsibility to make sure they have the supply whether it be renewable energy or fossil fuels.
I see you have not addressed the point about California having the most expensive electricity in the USA. You cannot assume that those who have doubts are being paid by "big oil". This is a myth, used by those who cannot refute their arguments and so attack the person instead. In any case, I believe all the "big oil" companies are also developing renewable energy themselves, so they win which ever system is used.
ReplyDelete"I use the word storage. That includes all forms of storage. Batteries on the other hand are good economically for short term storage of about 4 hours. Other forms are in development ready for the market of longer term storage." - Perhaps you can explain what these "other forms of storage" are and how expensive!
If "Rare earth metals are not necessary for batteries or wind turbines" - please can you find a reference to back up this statement, as, if so, why is there such a big issue being made about their cost, availability, etc?
ReplyDeleteI see you have not addressed the point about California having the most expensive electricity in the USA.
Having high priced electricity like Europe does leaves the market more desireable to replace fossil fuels with renewable electricity. Hawaii has even higher priced energy than California. Hawaii by law will go 100% renewable energy by 2045.
You cannot assume that those who have doubts are being paid by "big oil". This is a myth, used by those who cannot refute their arguments and so attack the person instead.
That may be true for some people, but not me. I can go to lists of people paid to tell you what you want to hear about global warming. And I can show they are lying. Bring up any statement you want by the doubters of science. I will gladly respond.
Other forms are in development ready for the market of longer term storage." - Perhaps you can explain what these "other forms of storage" are and how expensive!
Form Energy is now a commercial entity based on Iron Air technology. Plenty of iron on earth. It is looking at $20/kw-hr for backup for grid. Lithium ion is at least 5 times that.
If "Rare earth metals are not necessary for batteries or wind turbines" - please can you find a reference to back up this statement, as, if so, why is there such a big issue being made about their cost, availability, etc?
Rare earths are desireable to use. The intensity of the magnetic field in motors is a very desireable feature. This is part of making electric motors more efficient. China being the booger lately, the market isn't sure how they are going to be manipulated by China. Designing around China's control of rare earth manufacturing is now desireable.