By Paul Homewood
Readers will recall I wrote to my Labour MP a few weeks ago, asking about her party’s manifesto pledge to ensure that 60% of UK energy comes from low carbon/renewable sources by 2030.
I have still had no reply despite chasing. However one reader has had a response to a similar letter which he wrote.
This was his letter:
Dear Mr. Rashid,,
My concern for the past few years has been concerned with the UK‘s attitude to Energy
Point 1.
The Labour Manifesto last year promised to “ensure that 60% of UK energy comes from low carbon/renewable sources by 2030”
Note 60%
I assume that this is still party policy.
Could you provide detail on how this will be achieved?
FACTS
As at 2016, only 18% of energy consumption comes from low carbon/renewable.
The Committee on Climate Change, have prepared various scenarios, which basically project that around 75% of electricity will come from low carbon/renewable by 2030.
But electricity only accounts for about a third of total energy.
About another third comes from direct natural gas consumption, about a half for domestic heating and cooking, and the rest for industrial processes. There appears to be little prospect of switching either of these to low carbon/renewable in the near future in any large scale.
Oil accounts for the other third, mainly for transport, aviation and shipping.
So we have as a nation
33% of our energy is in electricity
33% of our energy is in natural gas
33% of our energy is in oil
With regards to oil and transport the switchover to EVs is still tiny, due to the fact that drivers do not want them, despite massive Government subsidies. There is certainly no prospect of lorries switching to electric in the next decade or so either, or for that matter aviation and shipping.
COSTS
There is also the crippling cost of decarbonisation.
The OBR already project a cost of £14.4bn in 2022/23, and this will continue to climb rapidly as more renewable capacity comes on stream, and, the start-up of Hinkley Point.
A target of 60% (from my first paragraph),will mean much, much, higher costs still. Has Labour costed this?
BIOMASS
I would be particularly interested in Labour’s policy towards biomass. Many experts now conclude that burning wood pellets at Drax etc. will actually have the effect of increasing CO2 emissions in comparison with coal and gas.
It is also true that burning wood emits more toxic substances (as opposed to CO2) than coal.
On top of all this, the demand for wood pellets across Europe is causing great devastation across some of the US’ wild forests.
Does Labour favour building more such plants?
JOBS
The closure of coal and gas power stations will involve many job losses.
The move to EVs could also threaten the closure of some of the UK’s oil refineries, and associated chemical plants.
What has the Labour Party got to say to those who lose their jobs?
In particular, the threat to refineries and chemical plants seems to go against your stated aim of rebuilding UK industry.
MANIFESTO
Your manifesto is remarkably short on any detail on how you will meet your target, but does mention:
Insulating 4 million homes
Experience has shown that most people use insulation to make their homes warmer, rather than cutting energy use. So it seems unlikely this will make much of a dent.
Carbon Capture
Currently this still does not exist in any viable, scalable form. Even if it could be made to work, it would make power generation much more expensive than ordinary CCGT, simply because of the process involved. These costs would have to be passed on to energy users.
Nuclear Power
Given the long lead times in planning and building nuclear, it is highly unlikely any new nuclear could be built by 2030, other than Hinkley of course.
There also seems little interest from suppliers, especially with the problems facing Toshiba.
And again there is the issue of cost.
Hinkley’s strike price is more than double the market rate. Would Labour sign up to other deals above the market rate?
Given all of the above factors, I would be interested to see how Labour would go about meeting its target
Point 2
Review of the Cost of Energy by Dieter Helm
Former Trade and Industry Minister, Peter Lilley warns that vested interests in the renewables industry, politicians of all parties, the bureaucracy and academia have together largely suppressed debate about their reckless waste of public money exposed by the government’s own Review of the Cost of Energy by Dieter Helm.
In a paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Peter Lilley highlights Professor Dieter Helm’s devastating critique, outlined in the Cost of Energy Review which was commissioned by the government. “Helm shows that the Climate Change Act objective of cutting emissions of carbon dioxide could have been met for a fraction of the £100 billion so far committed, which has already raised the cost of energy by 20%.”
Lilley argues that, even more significant than the reckless waste of public money exposed by Professor Helm is the success of the vested interests – industrial, political, bureaucratic and academic – in dampening any debate about it. “Normally waste on this scale would cause an outcry in Parliament and elsewhere. But the vested interests simply damned Helm’s review with faint praise and consigned it to oblivion.”
What would be your thoughts and stance on this report by Dieter Helm
I look forward to your reply regarding the above points and issues; which are not only extremely important to me but for the UK as a whole.
And here is the reply:
I find it scary that any MP could show such utter naivety about such an important topic, one which has far reaching implications.
Just to address some of the MP’s answers:
1) He seems to believe that we can achieve the 60% target, because we have already got to 25% “within a few years”
If he is really saying that, he has totally confused “energy” with “electricity”.
To recap, renewable sources now account for just over a quarter of the UK’s electricity (and if you add on nuclear, the low carbon proportion rises to 50%.
However, as electricity only makes up a third of total energy, low carbon sources are only currently supplying 18% of total primary energy consumption. The proportion in 2013 was 14%, so it is rising at only 1% pa. A simple straight line projection would only see us at 30% by 2030.
He talks about new technologies, but this is pure waffle. The bottom line is that he, and presumably the party’s experts who drafted the policy, have no plan at all of how to achieve the 60% target.
2) He talks about blocking onshore wind.
He uses the term “preventing them from accessing a route to market”, but this is merely fancy talk for ending subsidies. There is nothing to stop new onshore wind farms selling power on the open market, other than the fact that they would not be economically viable if they did.
He also complains about “planning barriers” in England, referring to projects being subject to local planning approval. Does this mean he is prepared to overrule local decision making?
In any event, he does not seem to be aware of just how pitiful the amount of power coming from onshore wind in England actually is. Last year, it generated just 7.6 TWh, a mere 2% of total UK electricity, and less than 1% of primary energy.
But, perhaps more fundamentally, he appears to be under the delusion that the power grid can run with large amounts of intermittent generation from wind.
Which, of course, brings us back to the original question – how will Labour achieve its 60% pledge? There is no mention of alternatives, such as nuclear or biomass, on which the party apparently has no policy at all. Nor any concrete plans of how to decarbonise transport or heating, other than improving domestic efficiency (for which no costings are provided).
Their only real idea is to reintroduce subsidies for onshore wind, which even under the optimistic plans of the CCC will only be able to supply 13% of UK electricity by 2030, compared to 9% currently.
It is one thing having an aspiration, but another to lay down a pledge without any plan of how you will achieve it.
3) Cost
Rashid does not respond directly to the question of how much Labour’s decarbonisation programmes will cost.
Instead he refers to a CCC report, claiming that energy bills are lower. This report controversially claimed that lower energy usage, because of more energy efficient products, had offset higher energy prices, caused by climate policies.
There are a number of reasons why it is inappropriate to confuse the two things. But Rashid does not even appear to be aware of this confusion, instead implying that renewable energy had actually lowered energy prices.
Either way, adding more renewables to the mix can only keep on increasing energy bills. Rashid is either blissfully unaware of this, or is unwilling to admit the fact.
4) Helm Report
I was particularly fascinated by his response to the question about the Helm Report, which had damned successive governments’ decarbonisation policies.
He is happy to criticise the government for ignoring it, but he was not asked that. Instead, he was asked what his views were. According to Rashid, he has none!
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/2M2Qg5p
June 6, 2018 at 09:57AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 