The climate scaremongers: Net Zero will cost £350billion, energy operator admits
PAUL HOMEWOOD
A REPORT from the National Energy System Operator (Neso) has blown up Ed Miliband’s mad Net Zero plans.
According to Neso, aiming for an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050 instead of the 100 per cent target, could save the UK £350billion, £14billion a year. Neso is the official, state-owned body responsible for planning and running the UK’s energy systems, so what it says carries a lot of weight.
In the summer, it published a set of Future Energy Scenarios (FES) mapping out how we might achieve Net Zero by 2050. It considered different pathways, such as full electrification and mass rollout of hydrogen technology. Its central case was called the ‘Holistic Transition’, a balanced mix of everything.
It also developed another scenario, called ‘Falling Back’, which achieved an 80 per cent cut in emissions compared with 1990 levels. This was, of course, the original target set in the 2008 Climate Change Act, before it was amended in 2019 to 100 per cent.
The trouble is that all these options cost money: lots of it. Renewable electricity remains much more expensive than gas power, particularly when all the indirect costs are added in, such as standby capacity, grid balancing, storage and constraint costs. The cost of upgrading the grid to meet Net Zero will run into hundreds of millions – Neso estimates that it will cost £133billion just to upgrade the local distribution network to handle the greater demand for electricity, on top of £75billion for high voltage transmission network.
Electric cars remain much dearer to buy than petrol, more than wiping out the few hundred pounds drivers might save on running costs. Heat pumps are not only unaffordable for most households, they are also more expensive to run than a traditional gas boiler. Net Zero will also cost industry billions.
As for carbon capture and hydrogen, they might seem attractive ‘low carbon’ alternatives. In reality, they are highly inefficient, ridiculously expensive ways of doing what we already do with fossil fuels.
At the time, Neso failed to provide any costings, which they are legally obliged to do, hence the new analysis this week. It still has not published the full cost of its scenarios against the cost of doing nothing but instead has compared the cost of the Holistic Transition against the cost of Falling Back. This analysis shockingly reveals that going flat out will cost the UK £350billion more than going a bit slower.
If going slow saves so much money, how much more would be saved by doing nothing?
The Falling Back scenario assumes a slower rollout of renewables, electric cars and heat pumps. But, as Neso points out, it is not a status quo option. Wind and solar power capacity will still triple, all cars on the road will be electric by 2050 and most homes will have heat pumps by then. Emissions of CO2 will still have to halve from today’s levels.
It is obvious, therefore, that doing nothing has got to be a cheaper option. How much cheaper? It is time that Neso told us, regardless of the embarrassment such an analysis would cause for its sole shareholder, one Edward Samuel Miliband.
This article (The climate scaremongers: Net Zero will cost £350billion, energy operator admits) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Paul Homewood
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply