Our energy policy going forward?

In my opinion the French have got it right.

We should first return to oil , gas & coal whilst we can transition to a stand alone Nuclear energy supply.

Our fossil fuel extraction should first subsidise the UK economy and after that be sold on the open market at an open market rate.

We should then set our Nett Zero ambitions to a realistic level in line with a global ambition over an achievable time scale..

Finally to push Nett zero ambitions on to countries with huge impoverished populations is imo unrealistic and hugely delusional, as these people will want there right to a global interactive, modern digital life style.

Who are we to deny these people ?

Carbon capture

By all accounts it is a whale, beached im sorry to say

So what going on at GB energy ?

So much!

You can't moan about the £1.5bn if you don't know what the same costs are for nuclear, gas & any other modulated source! You are asking for demand to be linear and supply to exactly match any peak, both of which are impossible. In any case the Crown estates gets back almost that amount every year on offshore leases. Something that doesn't generally come from other power sources.

UK is pretty much bankrupt, yes but we need to be looking at productivity - way behind the US and most of Europe. Unfortunately, politicians are reluctant to tell the populace the truth. Taxation won't work. Investment might but it has to be a convincing approach and not LIz Truss.

We can sell the oil & gas but that aint doing anything for global net zero so pointless.

On the transition I think we've got it about right. Going too fast means you invest in inefficient tech that just needs replaced. Forcing folk to electric cars is worse for the global net zero than a natural end of life replacement cycle. And, as you highlight, our approach to charge point infrastructure is laughable and lame.

I'd always though hydrogen for transportation would win as being the most similar and familiar to our current solution and without as huge infrastructure costs. Unfortunately, the tech hasn't progressed as fast. Also offers a great use for excess wind energy but the economics need subsidised because private enterprise are not budgeting on weather and certainly won't entertain unknown efficiency numbers.

Right on cue

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvrwyp0jx3o

Auld fud thinks he's still PM and Starmer ought to tell him to ST FU or it won't end well.

speak to you tomorrow

Tony Blair

Imo, the issue today for the Nett Zero agenda is the current technology and the cost to transition .

The ambition is understandable, but this not the 1800's where the emergence of the Industrial revolution was easily accepted, practical to introduce & integrate over a century.

As the Blair report does mention , imposing such a once in a century radical change to society , whilst that society is entrenched deep within a cost of living crisis for agreed a worthwhile ambition is unreasonable.

I think that first those in power who wish to insist on a Nett zero drive at pace should first publish a fully costed analysis of what is actually involved including the steps & consequence required.

Just by way of comparison, HS2 London to Birmingham, a single 100mile stretch of railway, is currently estimated to cost 50/60bln & due to planning obstruction & poor engineering strategy is still unlikely to be up and running in a decade. That will be coming up to 25 years since the project began.

The shame about this HS2 will not be delivered to the northern stretch where it was most deserved, due to cost.

Imo, this is a clear example that the UK currently is not able to successfully deliver a major infrastructure project like HS2 as the country cannot afford it and the bureaucracy involved will not permit a swift delivery.

Also take airport expansion?

The current thinking is that adding a new runaway to Heathrow will take in excess of 25 years & that carries a massive if with it. Im not suggesting Heathrow is the best expansion, but I think if it is going take 25 years to expand our Airport capacity in the south, trying to kid the public that a carbon neutral transition will cost 350bln- + and be within our ability to achieve is imo totally ridiculous.

Then finally what do we get ?

No impact , our efforts & the destruction of our economy will not move global temperature a single degree.

Im not at all suggesting climate change is not a worthwhile ambition, but unless it is done at a globally agreed pace with an agreed global integration, it is going to be a uphill struggle .

Are renewables the biggest threat to grid stability ?