Introduction

There is a quote, often attributed to Einstein, that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well, now we have irrefutable evidence that the Climate Change Committee (CCC) has gone insane. Plus, the CCC has finally responded to my FOI requests, but has refused to release any information.

The CCC’s Repeated Mistake Insanity

In the main article about the latest carbon budget I hinted that the CCC had made an error in its calculations about how much storage we would need to keep the lights on with a grid powered mostly by intermittent renewables. Space would not allow a more detailed description of what they had done, so this article goes into more detail.

We start the story back in 2023 when the Royal Society produced its report, led by Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, on long term storage that we covered here. Whilst there were many flaws in that report, they did analyse 37 years of weather data to work out how much storage would be needed to run a wind and solar grid.

B. Variation in Supply Consumes Most of the Energy Store 2009-2011

Their analysis showed that sometimes we can get back-to-back low wind years that push up the amount of storage we need quite dramatically. They calculated that to run a renewables only grid delivering 570TWh of demand we would need 123TWh of hydrogen storage or 68TWh electrical equivalent. In the chart above, the low wind years correspond to 2009-2011.

In early 2024, it emerged that Chris Stark, then head of the CCC, had admitted to Llewellyn Smith that the CCC had made a mistake by only looking at a single year of weather data when calculating how much storage we would need to keep the lights on.

.
The CCC was so embarrassed by this story that Stark ordered his staff to kill the story using technical language.

F. Kill the Story with technical language

.
Fast forward to this year and the CCC has made the same mistake in its 7^th Carbon Budget by considering only a single low wind year.

But it gets worse because they did not even look at the worst year on record. They used 1987 as a 1-in-20 year stress test, when they admit that 2010 was a 1-in-50 year event.

As we saw above, 2010 was the worst year in back-to-back wind years from 2009-2011. It is inconceivable that the CCC was unaware of this mistake when they were compiling the latest carbon budget. They have repeated the same error and must have deliberately under-sized the storage we need so they could claim Net Zero is going to save us money. Either that, or they have gone insane.

CCC Clams Up About FOI Requests

After analysing the Seventh Carbon Budget, I tried to get more detail about their workings by making some Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests.

First, the capital and operating costs of the 7th Carbon Budget are expressed as the difference between the costs of the Balanced Pathway and a notional baseline level of spending. It is therefore not possible to work out the gross costs of either the pathway or the baseline. I requested they release the detailed spreadsheets showing the full cost build up of the capital and operating costs for both the Balanced Pathway and the baseline.

The CCC say they hold some information on the gross capital and operating costs for the Balanced Pathway and the baseline, however they do not hold a spreadsheet showing the full (gross) cost build-up of the capex and opex for the Balanced Pathway and baseline. This is quite astonishing. How can they calculate the difference between two numbers without knowing what the numbers are? Their justification for withholding the information is:

“We are applying the Section 22 exemption under the FOIA to the information that we do hold on this, as this information is planned to be published in due course. We have assessed that applying this exemption is in the public interest, as this is complex information that is easy to misinterpret and it is therefore important that this information is correctly presented, so that people who wish to use it can do so accurately”.

What is so complex about this? Are they gluing the balls on their abacus in place before release, because it is too hard for them to use a spreadsheet? It’s not as if we are dealing with algebra, calculus or imaginary numbers (except the renewables cost estimates, see below); this is a simple matter of subtraction of one number from another.

Second, I noted the 7th Carbon Budget calls for 125GW of offshore wind to be deployed by 2050 and that such a large capacity will require both fixed-bottom and floating offshore wind generators. The CCC estimated the cost of offshore wind to be £38/MWh (2023 prices) in 2030. However, new fixed bottom offshore wind cost more than twice that £82/MWh (2024 prices) in AR6 and floating offshore cost £195/MWh. Floating offshore wind is being offered £246/MWh in AR7, some 6.5 times their estimate. I asked if they had conducted a sensitivity analysis of the impact on their overall estimates of capex, opex and low-carbon technology take up rates if the cost of renewables remains at the AR6/AR7 level rather than their assumed costs.

Remarkably, the CCC say they do not hold any information on capex, opex, and low-carbon technology take up rates if the cost of renewables remains at AR6/AR7 level. Apparently, further information on sensitivities they have run will be included in the Seventh Carbon Budget Methodology report, to be published 21 May 2025. It does seem rather odd that it takes three months to release the methodology used to produce the original report. It’s almost as if they made it up as they went along.

Finally, I noted that Section 10 of the Climate Change Act 2008 calls for the Secretary of State and the CCC to take into account inter alia the economic, fiscal and social circumstances when giving advice to the Government. Data published by the Government last September shows we already have the highest industrial and domestic electricity prices in the IEA which is undoubtedly having a significant social impact and on economic competitiveness. Taxes are at a record high, debt to GDP is close to 100% and we are running a large fiscal deficit. I requested they release the evidence used to take account of the economic, fiscal and social circumstances of the country when they compiled their advice to ensure these poor circumstances will not be made worse by implementing the advice.

They refused this request under Section 21 of the FOIA, as they say this information is already in the public domain. Apparently, the Seventh Carbon Budget (and the associated supplementary research: Impacts of the Seventh Carbon Budget on groups with protected characteristics) outlines how the CCC has considered the economic, fiscal, and social circumstances when giving advice to the Government.

It is true that there is a supplementary section that looks at how the proportion of income spent on energy varies by household characteristics and ethnicity. This falls well short of the question asked in the FOI. They do some analysis of the impact on GDP but they conclude the impacts of Net Zero by 2050 are unlikely to be significant in either direction. However, as we saw before, their estimates are all based on shonky cost assumptions for renewables and remember, the gross costs of their pathway are not available and they do not seem to have run any sensitivity analysis.

I would contend that their scant analysis, particularly not taking account of the high actual cost of renewables, falls short of the statutory requirements, but a proper KC would need to confirm. It would be interesting to see if anyone thinks there is a basis for Judicial Review of the Seventh Carbon Budget.

Conclusions

By refusing to answer perfectly reasonable FOI requests, the CCC appears to be clamming up and trying to retreat into its shell. The lack of response reveals the weaknesses in its original report. How on earth can they report on the costs of Net Zero as the difference between their Balanced Pathway and their notional baseline without having the either the pathway or baseline figures readily available. How can any report of this significance be considered robust if they have not considered a sensitivity analysis on their key assumptions about the cost of renewables? The fact they have repeated the same mistake when calculating the amount of storage required reveals further weakness and a lack of seriousness in their analysis.

Yet, the Government is supposed to take this advice and enshrine it in law. In evidence to the House of Lords, when chair of the CCC, Lord Deben was particularly revealing:

“The structure is remarkably good. It has been remarkably resilient through all the years since its inception because its independence is guaranteed. It gives its advice to Parliament. When Parliament passes the budgets, which we have to produce, they become law and cannot be changed without reference to the Climate Change Committee, which would have to give permission were it to be changed.”

The CCC writes the budgets, Parliament cannot change the advice without seeking permission from the CCC. We will join the CCC in the asylum if we make the mistake of letting yet another incompetent and damaging Carbon Budget report become law.

This Substack now has well over 3,800 subscribers and is growing fast. This growth has meant the Substack is gaining recognition in other media. I was recently invited on to the Tom Nelson podcast, so head over to the Multi-Media section if you want to see it. If you enjoyed this article, please share it with your family, friends and colleagues and sign up to receive more content.

This article (The CCC Clams Up and Goes Insane) was created and published by David Turver and is republished here under “Fair Use”

••••

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.