Net Zero – The UK’s (Miniscule) contribution to stopping global warming

By Paul Homewood

GWPF have already responded to the CCC’s latest recommendations, but I have a few detailed observations to add:

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-the-uks-contribution-to-stopping-global-warming/

Historical emission trends

As with Claire Perry, the CCC make a big play about how falling emissions and a growing economy have gone hand in hand, as if connected.

It would however probably be more accurate to say that GDP growth of 75% since 1990 has been rather anaemic, equating to just 2% pa in compound terms.

When we look at emissions by sector, we get a truer picture.

Most of the emission cuts have come from the industry and power sectors:

A large chunk of the power sector savings occurred as a result of the dash for gas in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Climate Change Act, emissions have only fallen by 79 MtCO2e, about 10% of total emissions in 1990. This is the only tranche of savings which can legitimately be allocated to climate policy.

Emission cuts of 113 MtCO2e have also occurred in the industrial sector, largely due to the decline of UK manufacturing (for a whole host of reasons).

When looked at in this light, emission reductions since 1990 look distinctly less impressive.

Costs

According to the CCC, the costs of the net-zero target is expected to be between 1 and 2% of GDP in 2050:

However, this percentage is based on GDP of £3.9 trillion, more than double today’s figure, with annual growth of 2.2% assumed.

When we look at the actual numbers though, the costs are truly appalling, amounting to £50.8 billion a year by 2050:

That would equate to over £1800 per household.

The cost of increasing the ambition from an 80% cut in emissions to 100% would cost an extra £37.3bn. And all for a paltry reduction of 163 MtCO2, about 0.3% of global emissions.

For this reason, if no other, the net-zero target must be rejected.

The costs are, in any event, optimistic, assuming for instance big drops in the cost of electric cars. If they do accrue, drivers will switch over without compulsion. To offset such savings against all of the other costs is dishonest.

Power Sector

The CCC offer very little detail as to how our electricity will be generated in 2050, other than to say that demand will double.

However they do accept that the grid cannot rely on intermittent renewables alone, stating that they expect 148 TWh of electricity from gas CCS plants. This would equate to about a quarter of total generation:

Note as well the CCS needed for the production of hydrogen from gas reforming – more on this later.

As the CCC admit, CCS is crucial to their plan. Yet there is no evidence yet that it is a commercially viable, grid scale solution.

This continued need for gas rather puts the anti fracking protests into context.

Heating

The switch to low carbon heating for homes is likely to cost £15bn a year.

I suggest we can take with a large dose of salt the claim that this would be offset by savings elsewhere, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

A cost of £15bn equates to about £500 per household, which as the CCC admit would be difficult to pass on in full to consumers.

They suggest that some of these costs, and those in other sectors, could be funded by the Exchequer. However, unless you’ve got a magic money tree, governments don’t have money, it comes from taxpayers.

Given that various public services cannot be properly funded now, it is nonsensical to suggest that government could find tens of billions every year to pay for its climate policies. One way or another, it is the public who will end up paying.

In any event, their estimate of £15bn, which they do not substantiate, looks to be far too low.

We already know that heat pumps currently add at least £1000 pa to household costs, when installation costs are included.

Direct electrical heating adds even more cost, given that electricity costs four times as much as natural gas per unit of energy.

The third option is using hydrogen to heat homes. The CCC assume that the cost of producing hydrogen, via steam reforming, will be £44/MWh in 2025. The current price of 46p/therm equates to £15/MWh. Given an average annual consumption of 15000 KWh, bills could therefore rise by £400 a year. But this increase would not cover the cost of upgrading distribution networks or household appliances to handle hydrogen.

Industry

Costs to industry would also be substantial, £5 to 10 bn. Again, it is suggested that the public purse could pay.

Transport

The targets are daunting in themselves. But the suggestion that all new car sales must be pure battery by 2030 will put huge pressure on the power grid even before then. (CCC make clear that they will push for 2030, rather than 2035).

New car and van sales average around 3 million a year. With conventional models banned from the market in 2030, manufacturers will stop production long before then, so EV sales will need to fill the gap.

There could therefore easily be at least 10 million EVs on the road by 2030. As the Telegraph’s Motoring Correspondent points out:

If you have just one million electric cars plugged into 50kW chargers that’s a demand for 50,000 mega watts (MW) of electricity.

Newer ultra-rapid chargers can be up to 150 KW, and even they can take an hour to recharge. Drivers who cannot charge up at home will not want to use public chargers when it is convenient for the grid. Will either the National Grid or local distribution networks be able to handle this sort of peak load in just a few years time?

Given the rapid phase out of petrol and diesel, will UK or EU car makers be able to switch to EVs in time? Or will manufacturers in the Far East take away business, based on their lower production costs?

It needs to be emphasised that only pure battery cars will be allowed, not hybrids. If the CCC’s proposals are accepted, development of the latter will stop immediately.

Last year pure battery registrations totalled only 15000, compared to 135000 hybrids. Total car sales were 2.3 million.

Farming

The report goes on to say :

a fifth of our agricultural land must shift to alternative uses that support emissions reduction: afforestation, biomass production and peatland restoration

Although they hope that the loss of land can be made up by greater efficiencies, it is highly likely that it will simply drive greater imports of food, which will inevitably add to global emissions.

Removing CO2

As there are certain emissions which cannot be entirely eliminated, the CCC suggests we resort to removing emissions from the atmosphere, at a huge cost of up to £20bn a year.

Innovation

The CCC assume that innovation can bring down the cost of low carbon technologies before 2050.

But surely this is why we should not be burning our bridges now, by committing to such ludicrous targets so far in advance.

Decisions about what our energy policy looks like in 2050 should not be made by Gummer and his cronies now. They should be left to society decide nearer the time, when all of the facts are known, alternative technologies in place and impacts properly understood.

A classic example of this has been the rush to construct offshore wind farms with huge subsidies, rather than wait for the price to come down to more competitive levels.

In short

The cost of meeting a net-zero target will have risen to £50bn a year by 2050.

Large amounts of natural gas will still be needed, as back up for power and converting to hydrogen for heating.

The plan relies heavily on using CCS, which so far is unproven commercially

Domestic energy bills will rocket as natural gas is replaced by heat pumps or hydrogen (unless government picks up the tab)

A fifth of agricultural land will be lost

All new cars must be pure electric by 2030, requiring massive expansion of grid capacity and risking the collapse of the UK car industry. The CCC offer no explanation of how this can be achieved, nor any costing, nor demonstrate how drivers with no off road parking are supposed to recharge their cars without queuing for hours.

The idiotic proposal should be binned forthwith.