I haven't read the original, but David's description of Slye's response on X makes sense.
There are two obvious ways to achieve a net zero UK grid, or some mixture of the two can be adopted with some timing built in.
In either way you put in enough wind, solar and grid storage to get the long duration backup natural gas generation requirement down somewhere below 10% of demand. Then the options are:-
A) Use Drax BECCS (planned 2029 on 2 wood chip generation units and 2030 on 2 more) to generate negative CO2 emissions to offset the remaining natural gas backup CO2 emissions - one reason it is usually called a "net zero" and not a "zero" emissions grid.
or
B) Start producing green hydrogen from surplus wind and solar power (of which there should be some by 2030), store it in depleted oil and gas wells, or artificial salt caverns, set up a skeleton hydrogen grid to the CCGT plants (to replace the current natural gas feeds), and change the burners on the CCGT plants to take hydrogen (or a more flexible hydrogen / natural gas mix).
A (BECCS) is quicker and cheaper than B (green hydrogen storage), but less convincing, as BECCS is more contentious. If I were the government I would start with A around 2030, but gradually ramp up B over the next few years, so no one can dispute the UK grid is net zero (because it will be zero operational emissions), and the government can also claim a negative emissions grid (which might be disputed).
So yes, David is right that there is not a single clear answer. The devil is in the details and the analysis and costing has to be done properly, not just by me or someone else on the back of an envelope. Then a proper, informed decision can be taken by the government after consultation with the industry.
What a very poor response from Fintan Slye; pure obfuscation. There are no excuses for this at his level. I have no time whatsoever for Miliband, but the questions he asked (albeit 20 years late!) deserved a response. Honesty is required, salaries at the level Slye receives require the truth, not fear of stepping up and challenging the popular narrative. We see this kind of nonsense from the IET as well.
Ive have been carping on about what does NZ 2030 grid actually look like so its good to see that it is actually undefined as I thought. This is good thing as it means NESO can now define what is actually practical and give Millibrain a way forward that is legitimised. What I don't know is how much of an eco evangelist Sly is so this really depends now on how much engineering and control expertise will actually be migrated across to NESO who can act as a counterweight to those that will get carried away about what they think Millibrain wants to here.
Turning to NZ2030 what should be possible in high summer, given the the mad solar build out that's being subsidised, is to run without gas for 3-4hrs but in mid winter its not going to be possible as we know. Even with the wind they have agreed to there wont be enough generation and more importantly transmission to deliver a mid winter max demand.
What should govern all their proposals is full compliance with the SQSS ( Security and Quality of Supply Standard) so any attempt to water that down must be resisted. Ultimately keeping the lights on should override everything if your a politician and this is what i hope will keep Millibrain in check in the end.
If you don't know where you're going you can't know how to get there.
As is usual in this soundbite world the politician (a pretty atrocious one in this case) doesn't care too much about the minutiae.
Not sure what you expect Slye to do other than throw it out there to other academics and opportunists desirous of yet another trough to shove their snouts in.
We as a nation have to get rid of The Clever People and find leaders of ability.
According to Lewis Carroll, "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there", so it looks like our Fintan has lots of options. The term "societal delivery partners" suggests a bullshit generator at full revs. Let's see if he can exceed stakeholder commitment thresholds with imaginative targeting and creative route-finding to minimise practical roadblocks and optimise journey participation.
From which: "In response to the 1973 oil shock, France embarked on a highly ambitious nuclear power development plan, which led to the construction of 58 reactors in just 15 years."
Clear objective, clear result, by practical and skilled people. Aiming for energy security achieved a low-carbon electricity system as a by-product, before the first climate change protest placards appeared.
There is no simple answer because a decarbonised grid by 2030 is technically and logistically impossible, probably financially and politically as well. There is an “opportunity” to lumber the populace with lots more ugly wind and solar farms installed all over our precious landscapes and seascapes. These inappropriate technologies are expensive to build and integrate, heavily resource-depleting, inefficient, unreliable, short lifespan and toxically non-recyclable. They require a vast network of cables and pylons to carry the distributed electricity, even as far-flung as Shetland and the far north of Scotland, to the centres of population, providing National Grid with an enhanced level of transmission fees.
Taking a step back for a broader perspective, there is no need whatsoever to attempt reduce our national CO2 emissions with these so-called renewables because the global warming effect of atmospheric CO2 is already “saturated”, which means even doubling its concentration from the present level will cause negligible global warming. Even if this science is disputed, and simple observation is sufficient to show that the CO2 global warming theory is a hoax, there is still no point in attempting to decarbonise unilaterally as the majority non-western world is never going to follow suit.
It's great that the chickens are going to come home to roost under the aegis of Ed Miliband who started all this nonsense back in 2008 with his legally-binding Climate Change Act.
Definitely, and the Net Zero Act. The legislation has us stitched up by legal lawfare, as shown in the recent judgement on drilling in Dorset (I think) which was deemed illegal because the permit had not taken account of the emissions which would be emitted when the oil was eventually used. There are also cases being brought by big eco outfits to stop drilling in the North Sea which are almost certain to succeed.
Problem is climate change has got the upper hand currently in Western societies and its going to take a while to row back on it and even then i suspect the instigator for a change will only come after we gone too far and are back to rolling blackouts.
Things could start to change quite quickly if Donald Trump manages to dodge the assassins and vote-riggers to get re-elected to the presidency. In this country, Labour got in on the vote of just 20% of eligible voters. If only fewer people had voted for the Uniparty (Lab/Con/Lib) and voted instead for the only party committed to scrapping Net Zero, i.e. Reform UK, things would now be very different. Maybe at the next general election …?
'Electrical energy supplied by a power syndicate comprising government and renewables industry vested interests (hereinafter referred to as 'the stakeholders') which will take taxpayers and bill payers (hereinafter referred to as 'the suckers') to the cleaners, relieving them of their accumulated wealth via the laundering of capital in the Great Renewables Industry Solar Powered Wash and Wind Spin Dry Machine (hereinafter referred to as 'the Green Machine').
In the ' looking glass world' we now inhabit, the government defines the destination as whatever it is by 2030 and we are 'encouraged' to accept it as the best outcome in terms of cost and performance.
Which means it could be anywhere within the possible scenarios painted by ESO, or somewhere completely different.
Success is defined by government and our role is to applaud and embrace it. Any other reaction will result in 'cancellation', and goodness knows that will mean by then.
'Encouraged' is the right word. It is said that smart meters aren't mandatory, BUT the Government is phasing out Radio Teleswitch Service (RTS) by June 2025 which allows people with meters such as Economy 7, Economy 10, Total Heat Control, Comfortplus with WeatherCall/White Meter, Heatwise, Warmwise and Budget Warmth to get lower rates. The ONLY replacement is a smart meter which don't work. 'Encouraged' indeed!
National Grid sold ESO to the government so it changes the dynamic between Miliband and Slye. Slye is Miliband’s employee rather than head of an independent company.
The Torys instigated the move of the ESO away from NG which is entirely sensible but agree Sly probably has to be more careful how approaches things now.
That said im actually positive here in that Millibrain and Starkie outsourcing the answer to NESO should mean we end up somewhere that is least realistic and defined and then allows sensible planning to achieve it. Of course it will go further than any us on here see as necessary and it wont lower bills but if it allows a framework thats puts some common sense into that will be better overall.
It is almost certain they will base their advice on some sort of mashup of their FES report. This year's pathways were supposed to be accompanied by some economic analysis that never materialised and they seem to have an unhealthy obsession with hydrogen. All their pathways had very significant CO2 emissions by 2030.
I am not optimistic they will deliver anything sensible, as discussed here:
Hydrogen is pointless for energy generation and even as a transport fuel the conversion efficiency is pathetic but the previous lot had already doubled down by providing subsidies to more worthless projects
I haven't read the original, but David's description of Slye's response on X makes sense.
There are two obvious ways to achieve a net zero UK grid, or some mixture of the two can be adopted with some timing built in.
In either way you put in enough wind, solar and grid storage to get the long duration backup natural gas generation requirement down somewhere below 10% of demand. Then the options are:-
A) Use Drax BECCS (planned 2029 on 2 wood chip generation units and 2030 on 2 more) to generate negative CO2 emissions to offset the remaining natural gas backup CO2 emissions - one reason it is usually called a "net zero" and not a "zero" emissions grid.
or
B) Start producing green hydrogen from surplus wind and solar power (of which there should be some by 2030), store it in depleted oil and gas wells, or artificial salt caverns, set up a skeleton hydrogen grid to the CCGT plants (to replace the current natural gas feeds), and change the burners on the CCGT plants to take hydrogen (or a more flexible hydrogen / natural gas mix).
A (BECCS) is quicker and cheaper than B (green hydrogen storage), but less convincing, as BECCS is more contentious. If I were the government I would start with A around 2030, but gradually ramp up B over the next few years, so no one can dispute the UK grid is net zero (because it will be zero operational emissions), and the government can also claim a negative emissions grid (which might be disputed).
So yes, David is right that there is not a single clear answer. The devil is in the details and the analysis and costing has to be done properly, not just by me or someone else on the back of an envelope. Then a proper, informed decision can be taken by the government after consultation with the industry.
What a very poor response from Fintan Slye; pure obfuscation. There are no excuses for this at his level. I have no time whatsoever for Miliband, but the questions he asked (albeit 20 years late!) deserved a response. Honesty is required, salaries at the level Slye receives require the truth, not fear of stepping up and challenging the popular narrative. We see this kind of nonsense from the IET as well.
Ive have been carping on about what does NZ 2030 grid actually look like so its good to see that it is actually undefined as I thought. This is good thing as it means NESO can now define what is actually practical and give Millibrain a way forward that is legitimised. What I don't know is how much of an eco evangelist Sly is so this really depends now on how much engineering and control expertise will actually be migrated across to NESO who can act as a counterweight to those that will get carried away about what they think Millibrain wants to here.
Turning to NZ2030 what should be possible in high summer, given the the mad solar build out that's being subsidised, is to run without gas for 3-4hrs but in mid winter its not going to be possible as we know. Even with the wind they have agreed to there wont be enough generation and more importantly transmission to deliver a mid winter max demand.
What should govern all their proposals is full compliance with the SQSS ( Security and Quality of Supply Standard) so any attempt to water that down must be resisted. Ultimately keeping the lights on should override everything if your a politician and this is what i hope will keep Millibrain in check in the end.
If you don't know where you're going you can't know how to get there.
As is usual in this soundbite world the politician (a pretty atrocious one in this case) doesn't care too much about the minutiae.
Not sure what you expect Slye to do other than throw it out there to other academics and opportunists desirous of yet another trough to shove their snouts in.
We as a nation have to get rid of The Clever People and find leaders of ability.
Let us hope that the Other Academics DO NOT include any of those who authored this gem!
https://www.icax.co.uk/pdf/Absolute_Zero_Report.pdf
But they're all very Clever People who understand the chaos of the last many billions of years.
..... in all its glorified minutiae of guessing!
Regular Sunday thanks David.
According to Lewis Carroll, "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there", so it looks like our Fintan has lots of options. The term "societal delivery partners" suggests a bullshit generator at full revs. Let's see if he can exceed stakeholder commitment thresholds with imaginative targeting and creative route-finding to minimise practical roadblocks and optimise journey participation.
As I reported on Energy Bad Boys' substack yesterday, earlier in the week I came across this Politico article: Former Poland PM: ‘We’re living under the illusion of environmentalism’ https://www.politico.eu/article/former-poland-prime-minister-mateusz-morawiecki-environmentalism-reindustrialization-economy-industry-green-policy-competitiveness/
From which: "In response to the 1973 oil shock, France embarked on a highly ambitious nuclear power development plan, which led to the construction of 58 reactors in just 15 years."
Clear objective, clear result, by practical and skilled people. Aiming for energy security achieved a low-carbon electricity system as a by-product, before the first climate change protest placards appeared.
"The term "societal delivery partners" suggests a bullshit generator at full revs"
That is fabulous absolutely burst out laughing when i read this over breakfast.
There is no simple answer because a decarbonised grid by 2030 is technically and logistically impossible, probably financially and politically as well. There is an “opportunity” to lumber the populace with lots more ugly wind and solar farms installed all over our precious landscapes and seascapes. These inappropriate technologies are expensive to build and integrate, heavily resource-depleting, inefficient, unreliable, short lifespan and toxically non-recyclable. They require a vast network of cables and pylons to carry the distributed electricity, even as far-flung as Shetland and the far north of Scotland, to the centres of population, providing National Grid with an enhanced level of transmission fees.
Taking a step back for a broader perspective, there is no need whatsoever to attempt reduce our national CO2 emissions with these so-called renewables because the global warming effect of atmospheric CO2 is already “saturated”, which means even doubling its concentration from the present level will cause negligible global warming. Even if this science is disputed, and simple observation is sufficient to show that the CO2 global warming theory is a hoax, there is still no point in attempting to decarbonise unilaterally as the majority non-western world is never going to follow suit.
It's great that the chickens are going to come home to roost under the aegis of Ed Miliband who started all this nonsense back in 2008 with his legally-binding Climate Change Act.
We need to repeal the Climate Change Act then.
Definitely, and the Net Zero Act. The legislation has us stitched up by legal lawfare, as shown in the recent judgement on drilling in Dorset (I think) which was deemed illegal because the permit had not taken account of the emissions which would be emitted when the oil was eventually used. There are also cases being brought by big eco outfits to stop drilling in the North Sea which are almost certain to succeed.
Problem is climate change has got the upper hand currently in Western societies and its going to take a while to row back on it and even then i suspect the instigator for a change will only come after we gone too far and are back to rolling blackouts.
Things could start to change quite quickly if Donald Trump manages to dodge the assassins and vote-riggers to get re-elected to the presidency. In this country, Labour got in on the vote of just 20% of eligible voters. If only fewer people had voted for the Uniparty (Lab/Con/Lib) and voted instead for the only party committed to scrapping Net Zero, i.e. Reform UK, things would now be very different. Maybe at the next general election …?
I have a definition of 'clean power 2030':
'Electrical energy supplied by a power syndicate comprising government and renewables industry vested interests (hereinafter referred to as 'the stakeholders') which will take taxpayers and bill payers (hereinafter referred to as 'the suckers') to the cleaners, relieving them of their accumulated wealth via the laundering of capital in the Great Renewables Industry Solar Powered Wash and Wind Spin Dry Machine (hereinafter referred to as 'the Green Machine').
In the ' looking glass world' we now inhabit, the government defines the destination as whatever it is by 2030 and we are 'encouraged' to accept it as the best outcome in terms of cost and performance.
Which means it could be anywhere within the possible scenarios painted by ESO, or somewhere completely different.
Success is defined by government and our role is to applaud and embrace it. Any other reaction will result in 'cancellation', and goodness knows that will mean by then.
'Encouraged' is the right word. It is said that smart meters aren't mandatory, BUT the Government is phasing out Radio Teleswitch Service (RTS) by June 2025 which allows people with meters such as Economy 7, Economy 10, Total Heat Control, Comfortplus with WeatherCall/White Meter, Heatwise, Warmwise and Budget Warmth to get lower rates. The ONLY replacement is a smart meter which don't work. 'Encouraged' indeed!
There nothing wrong with an opaque ill defined goal that gives those who manage the grid plenty of latitude.
National Grid sold ESO to the government so it changes the dynamic between Miliband and Slye. Slye is Miliband’s employee rather than head of an independent company.
https://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/uk-government-to-buy-eso-from-national-grid-in-ps630m-deal-b1181830.html
It’s all a bit of theatre leading to Labour climbing down from their unachievable targets.
The Torys instigated the move of the ESO away from NG which is entirely sensible but agree Sly probably has to be more careful how approaches things now.
That said im actually positive here in that Millibrain and Starkie outsourcing the answer to NESO should mean we end up somewhere that is least realistic and defined and then allows sensible planning to achieve it. Of course it will go further than any us on here see as necessary and it wont lower bills but if it allows a framework thats puts some common sense into that will be better overall.
It is almost certain they will base their advice on some sort of mashup of their FES report. This year's pathways were supposed to be accompanied by some economic analysis that never materialised and they seem to have an unhealthy obsession with hydrogen. All their pathways had very significant CO2 emissions by 2030.
I am not optimistic they will deliver anything sensible, as discussed here:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/future-energy-scenarios-brainstorm
Hydrogen is pointless for energy generation and even as a transport fuel the conversion efficiency is pathetic but the previous lot had already doubled down by providing subsidies to more worthless projects
"Societal delivery partners", let's hope it's nothing worse than the nudge unit!