Reform UK (Vol.2)
Discussion
Can someone explain why "net zero" is apparently so expensive, and why "cancelling net zero" will save enough money to fund big tax cuts?
(This is the part of Farage's press conference that made no sense to me).
I understand "net zero" to mean the country becoming carbon neutral. Achieved by using renewable energy wherever possible, and carbon capture or whatever to offset emissions where fossil fuels are necessary (air travel, backup electricity generation, maybe plastics?).
Why does any of that cost the economy multiple billions of pounds per year?
OK, some up-front investment to build wind/solar/storage, but I thought that was covered by linking electricity wholesale prices to the cost of gas? Big profits (or substantially lower energy bills) once it's built and paid for, plus no need to import fossil fuel eventually.
Research into carbon capture. Can't be that expensive, unless we are being ripped off for vapourware.
Loss of jobs in heavy industry. Pretty much all gone already, surely?
I think someone posted earlier "a million people working in net zero". Really, two thirds as many people as the entire NHS, or half as many as the totality of local government?
(This is the part of Farage's press conference that made no sense to me).
I understand "net zero" to mean the country becoming carbon neutral. Achieved by using renewable energy wherever possible, and carbon capture or whatever to offset emissions where fossil fuels are necessary (air travel, backup electricity generation, maybe plastics?).
Why does any of that cost the economy multiple billions of pounds per year?
OK, some up-front investment to build wind/solar/storage, but I thought that was covered by linking electricity wholesale prices to the cost of gas? Big profits (or substantially lower energy bills) once it's built and paid for, plus no need to import fossil fuel eventually.
Research into carbon capture. Can't be that expensive, unless we are being ripped off for vapourware.
Loss of jobs in heavy industry. Pretty much all gone already, surely?
I think someone posted earlier "a million people working in net zero". Really, two thirds as many people as the entire NHS, or half as many as the totality of local government?
clockworks said:
Can someone explain why "net zero" is apparently so expensive, and why "cancelling net zero" will save enough money to fund big tax cuts?
Lots of experts basically saying Farage is making promises that aren't fully costed.I'll give you the Telegraph link to avoid being any accusations of selective sourcing.
Nigel Farage promises a lot – but the cost is staggering
clockworks said:
Can someone explain why "net zero" is apparently so expensive, and why "cancelling net zero" will save enough money to fund big tax cuts?
The cost of sufficient storage alone, to keep the lights on under net zero with currently available technology, is £1.5 trillion assuming we still use some non-renrewables in the energy mix alongside solar and turbines. The calculation was carried out by two Oxford profs plus one, but it's basic arithmetic and they show their working so most PHers will 'get it'. Corrections to Oxford uni via NZW.https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/on-the-stora...
Beyond storage there's windfarms and solar farms, other infrastructure from pylons to cabling for connecting offshore windfarms to the grid also EV charge points, grid stabilisation, net zero related buildings, not forgetting subsidies...and more besides.
The campaign group Net Zero Watch put the cost for 2050 uk net zero at £30bn per year,obviously exaggerated, but then the government spawned Climate Change Committee reckon £50bn per year, and the Treasury has £70bn per year. Naturally all of the above including National Grid ESO are idiots.
After scrapping uk net zero, which is inaffordable and in any case averts 0 deg C global mean temperature rise (it's too small to measure so indistinguishable from zero) savings accrued will comfortably pay for tax cuts <but> precise numbers will depend on how nutty Labour become after their utterly nutterly flying start and the resulting size of the Labour black hole on handover.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/on-the-stora...
Have you looked into their credibility of netzero watch?
I’ve never understood why people are so against netzero and trying to protect our environment.
Have you looked into their credibility of netzero watch?
I’ve never understood why people are so against netzero and trying to protect our environment.
Tlandcruiser said:
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/on-the-stora...
Have you looked into their credibility of netzero watch?
I ve never understood why people are so against netzero and trying to protect our environment.
Tufton Street again. Have you looked into their credibility of netzero watch?
I ve never understood why people are so against netzero and trying to protect our environment.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:clockworks said:
Can someone explain why "net zero" is apparently so expensive, and why "cancelling net zero" will save enough money to fund big tax cuts?
Lots of experts basically saying Farage is making promises that aren't fully costed.I'll give you the Telegraph link to avoid being any accusations of selective sourcing.
Nigel Farage promises a lot but the cost is staggering
I think it's a great target to have.
And I have yet to see anything that says government spending on Net Zero is anywhere near that amount.
Randy Winkman said:
Tlandcruiser said:
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/on-the-stora...
Have you looked into their credibility of netzero watch?
I ve never understood why people are so against netzero and trying to protect our environment.
Tufton Street again. Have you looked into their credibility of netzero watch?
I ve never understood why people are so against netzero and trying to protect our environment.
Sorry, but Farage, Kimi, whomever can promise whatever they want just now, and I hope people are keeping a log of these promises. They are simply soundbites from people not in power. They can promise 1000mph speed limits, free private jets and an ice cream fountain in every new build house, built by British workers using British materials if they want, it means fk all...
k all...TownIdiot said:
The cost of rising the tax threshold to 20k is 40 billion a year.
I think it's a great target to have.
And I have yet to see anything that says government spending on Net Zero is anywhere near that amount.
Spending on asylum seekers is £5 billion a yearI think it's a great target to have.
And I have yet to see anything that says government spending on Net Zero is anywhere near that amount.
Only another £35 billion to find
turbobloke said:
The cost of sufficient storage alone, to keep the lights on under net zero with currently available technology, is £1.5 trillion assuming we still use some non-renrewables in the energy mix alongside solar and turbines. The calculation was carried out by two Oxford profs plus one, but it's basic arithmetic and they show their working so most PHers will 'get it'. Corrections to Oxford uni via NZW.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/on-the-stora...
Beyond storage there's windfarms and solar farms, other infrastructure from pylons to cabling for connecting offshore windfarms to the grid also EV charge points, grid stabilisation, net zero related buildings, not forgetting subsidies...and more besides.
The campaign group Net Zero Watch put the cost for 2050 uk net zero at £30bn per year,obviously exaggerated, but then the government spawned Climate Change Committee reckon £50bn per year, and the Treasury has £70bn per year. Naturally all of the above including National Grid ESO are idiots.
After scrapping uk net zero, which is inaffordable and in any case averts 0 deg C global mean temperature rise (it's too small to measure so indistinguishable from zero) savings accrued will comfortably pay for tax cuts <but> precise numbers will depend on how nutty Labour become after their utterly nutterly flying start and the resulting size of the Labour black hole on handover.
All that link tells me is that storing renewable electricity in batteries is very expensive. I'd already figured that out, and not bought a house battery for myself.https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/on-the-stora...
Beyond storage there's windfarms and solar farms, other infrastructure from pylons to cabling for connecting offshore windfarms to the grid also EV charge points, grid stabilisation, net zero related buildings, not forgetting subsidies...and more besides.
The campaign group Net Zero Watch put the cost for 2050 uk net zero at £30bn per year,obviously exaggerated, but then the government spawned Climate Change Committee reckon £50bn per year, and the Treasury has £70bn per year. Naturally all of the above including National Grid ESO are idiots.
After scrapping uk net zero, which is inaffordable and in any case averts 0 deg C global mean temperature rise (it's too small to measure so indistinguishable from zero) savings accrued will comfortably pay for tax cuts <but> precise numbers will depend on how nutty Labour become after their utterly nutterly flying start and the resulting size of the Labour black hole on handover.
Plenty of other options which should be cheaper - pumped hydro, phase change, even the obvious nuclear.
Or maybe we just accept that true "net zero" in power generation isn't possible, keep gas generation as the backup, and use carbon capture/tree planting to offset as much as possible?
Could even have massive over capacity for the "good" solar/wind days, and use the "free" excess to create hydrogen that gets burnt on the "bad" days.
Ditching the whole idea because the worst-case option is expensive is just stupid.
Tlandcruiser said:
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/on-the-stora...
Have you looked into their credibility of netzero watch?
I ve never understood why people are so against netzero and trying to protect our environment.
I am not against net zero but only the headlong rush to get there before we even have the technology to achieve it without bankrupting the country and everybody in it. Have you looked into their credibility of netzero watch?
I ve never understood why people are so against netzero and trying to protect our environment.
All that means is spaffing billions on things that in the long run will be unusable when the actual things to achieve it for a sensible price are invented and or developed.
The utter stupidity of not using existing means of providing heat, light and energy should be obvious to everybody.
Far from protecting the environment on our present course we will destroy it.
Tlandcruiser said:
I've never understood why people are so against netzero and trying to protect our environment.
The pursuit of net zero is making the UK uncompetitive compared to the worse polluters on this planet. (the sums as per others above) Its making us poorer relative to our neighbours. The wind turbines are horribly expensive to make and dont pay for themselves in their lifetimes. If they werent better then great, but no one seems able to invent better ones.I have no issue with trying to protect the environment. But lets address the real problems, the real pollutants, and not just assume EVERY problem is due to Co2 into the atmosphere.
Plastics into the sea, (or our foods) in fact most stuff that gets dumped in the sea or into the oceans is awful. But it isn't CO2 thats the problem. Various governments promoted diesel as it was lower co2 than petrol. But that ignore the Nox and particulates and other crap that was far more harmful! Its all so stupid!
I would also rather see emphasis on once and for all getting rid of the vast majority of plastics we use. Yet there seems to be zero interest in getting rid of plastic beyond soundbites.
Similarly every idea for power production is not nuclear which is the best option we have. It suggests to me that there's a powerful lobby against nuclear power even though its the better long term option. Some will remember Clegg saying in early 2010s "what's the point in investing in nuclear when it wont be online for 10 years!"
And for reasons I don't fully understand Nuclear power stations these days are many multiples more expensive to build than they were decades ago (not the Chernobyl graphite ones, the ones that WORKED safely)
I saw a quote the other day. Imagine explaining to an Alien race that we invented Nuclear power stations 100 years ago, yet we continue to burn wood and coal for our power
Edited by BunkMoreland on Wednesday 28th May 20:21
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff