The inevitable crash of Net Zero

Virtually every net-zero-by-2050 initiative is doomed.

Wind and solar power are very expensive when storage and other costs are included.  They cannot function without large-scale, long-term energy storage because the wind doesn’t blow all the time, and sometimes, there is little or no wind for a week or more. Solar power goes off every night, and is seriously reduced on cloudy days. There is no existing technology that can provide long-term storage at a low cost. Until one is discovered, backing up large-scale wind and solar power will be unaffordable.

To give some idea of the scale of the problem, the cost of batteries would need to reduce by a factor of 20 or more for solar or wind power to be competitive with conventional generation. Other problems are that we need 2000 MW of wind power or 4000 MW of solar power plus back up to produce about the same amount of energy as a 1000 MW nuclear power station, which generates continuously and reliably. The fact that wind and solar developers continually clamour for more subsidies confirms that these technologies are seriously uneconomic. Many major offshore wind farms have been cancelled over the last few months. One developer has written off $4 billion rather than continue development.

If current policies persist, the result will be even higher consumer prices and frequent major blackouts.

Policies promoting widespread adoption of electric vehicles also face serious problems. Most ordinary people see no advantage in paying extra money for a car that, compared with a conventional car, is more expensive, loses its value faster and, in effect, has a small fuel tank that takes at least half an hour to fill. Most electric cars are bought by well-off corporations or people eager to show off their green credentials. It is likely to stay that way. Unlike the Model T Ford and the iPhone, they do not change the world. The cost of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide via electric cars is in excess of £300 per tonne – the harm done by a tonne of carbon dioxide is generally thought to be less than £100. Nuclear power or simply switching from coal to gas, as the US has done, are cheaper and more effective ways of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.

There is also a serious problem: obtaining the rare minerals needed to make batteries, wind generators and many other components.. There’s no guarantee that the supply will be able to match the predicted demand, so costs cannot be expected to reduce. Disposal of batteries, solar panels, wind turbine blades and other components is a major environmental problem. Recycling renewables seems to be virtually impossible.

Supplying the electricity needed to charge car batteries is a gigantic task. Major upgrades in generation, transmission and distribution would be needed, and this will be very expensive. It is not at all certain that enough new system capacity can be built in time.

Converting from gas to electric heating is pointless for as long as a significant proportion of electricity is supplied by gas and coal. In many cases, the conversion will result in an increase in fossil fuel consumption from power generation. Compared with burning gas, domestic heat pumps are generally somewhat more expensive, except when it is really cold, when they are considerably more so.

Carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, and biofuels are far from being commercially competitive even with high CO2 prices, and it will be years before they can play a significant part – if ever.

One thing is certain: nothing that the UK or Europe does to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide will make the slightest difference to the climate, because their efforts will be swamped by the huge increases from the dozens of new coal fired power stations in India and China.

A rational assessment leads to the conclusion that virtually every aspect of the drive for Net Zero is a hugely expensive and totally futile exercise in virtue signalling. 

If present policies continue, high prices and major blackouts seem to be unavoidable. Poor people will suffer and heavy industry will be decimated. The economy will nosedive. We need to think about what will happen next.

One possibility is that when investors realise that wind, solar and electric car companies cannot achieve their objectives, they will panic and dump their shares. Many wind, solar and electric car companies will go bankrupt and this could lead to major economic disruptions. What will governments do then? Will they increase subsidies and further impoverish the population? Or will they accept that they got it wrong and, instead, abandon subsidies and promote fossil fuels and nuclear power? For this to happen a lot of people will need to eat a lot of dead rats!

Another possibility is that governments will continue to pay lip service to carbon zero while doing less and less towards achieving it. Eventually, net zero will be quietly forgotten. If that happens, it is likely that many of the companies that rely on net zero subsidies and inducements will slowly go bankrupt, leaving the taxpayers to fund the removal of abandoned solar farms and offshore and onshore windfarms. It will be years before the economy recovers.

There are also other possibilities. The first is that virtually all of the predictions of climatic doom that are the drivers of Net Zero are based on the IPCC emissions scenario RCP 8.5. The technical reports of the IPCC make it clear that this scenario is pessimistic and should not be used for policy-making. If a realistic scenario is adopted, the future the climate models postulate is manageable without the need to subsidise electric cars, wind and solar power.

What is needed is an objective review of all the evidence for and against the hypothesis that manmade greenhouse gases cause dangerous global warming. If the evidence cannot be found, policies should be formulated for dealing with the decline and possible crash of green energy shares and its effect on the economy and poor people. The Government will need to decide whether or not the subsidies should be abandoned. If the review does conclude that the risk is real and dangerous, then new policies that will deliver reductions in man-made carbon dioxide at the lowest possible cost are needed. This would put nuclear power at the forefront.

If Government continues with present policies, even more money will be squandered on ineffective solutions to a probably non-existent problem. If it finally becomes blindingly obvious that the effort is futile, the people will vilify the climate scientists who promoted climatic doom and revolt against the politicians who promoted Net Zero. The economic damage will be enormous.

The longer we delay looking at the Net Zero problem objectively and logically, the worse the outcome will be.