German hydrogen company HH2E went into insolvency late last year as investors pulled further funding from its 1GW electrolyser project. There is no market for this level of hydrogen production is the reality and yet Milibrain wants to create even more capacity. Sampling the HAR1 awarded facilities very few are actually reporting they are anywhere starting construction so perhaps there will be little impact in the long run.
ThysenKrupp in Germany have just suspended their flagship hydrogen steel tender because the prices just don’t make it competitive and will revert to natural gas.
There is no green hydrogen industry and there won't be one. The energy losses at each production step are so great that no business will carry them. The silly idea survives only because irresponsible governments keep the required subsidies flowing. Whenever the investor sees the problem he withdraws. End of story.
https://doi.org/10.53234/SCC202501/06 shows that CO2 half life in the atmosphere is less than 10 years rather than the greater than 100 years specified by IPCC. This therefore shows that all IPCC models are simply wrong.
David, thank you for your analysis. I am new to this, but I am impressed by your knowledge and understanding. I am also impressed by the comments left by what seems a switched-on readership. What does strike me, however, is that you repeatedly call for change but there is no obvious vehicle for such. I have on occasion written to the Daily Telegraph to encourage the editor to campaign ‘say no to net zero’, but to no effect. So my question to you and your followers is: who is lobbying? Where is the petition I might sign or the organisation I might join to help fight our way out of this madness?
Net zero makes sense only if the whole world acts in unison. As this is patently not the case, UK unilateral net zero policy is as futile as it is illogical. It’s as simple as that for me and it is driving me round the twist that the ideologues in power cannot see the folly of their actions. They don’t seem to care that the country is being driven to penury so long as they can grandstand their ‘virtue’. We should be working to unseat them. Another four years of this and there will be nothing left to rebuild with. Please, can you point me in the right direction?
Net Zero makes NO sense, whether at the national level or across the whole planet. Proper understanding of the ideal gas laws, Henry's law, should form the basis of a real debate, not this made up nonsense about "Back Radiation".
Hello Brian. I’m sorry, but I’m not quite getting you here - more info please. My point was that mitigation efforts are futile unless applied globally and concurrently. Are you suggesting carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate change? Or maybe, in citing Henry’s Law, you are suggesting that as planetary temperature rises, so does atmospheric pressure, meaning more carbon dioxide is absorbed by oceans and the climate problem sorts itself out automatically? Wouldn’t that be handy!
I didn’t mention ‘black radiation’. How do you define it and why is it important?
Hello Frank, If we consider Henry's Law and being concise. The volume of trace gases in the atmosphere is entirely dependent on the atmospheric pressure and importantly the temperature. The CO2 (and this applies to other trace gases) volume moves up or down as the temperature changes. Therefore temperature drives the amount in the atmosphere. For example if you were to take a container of water in a closed environment, say 50% water and above the surface 50% air, at standard temperature STP 25.6 degrees at 1 atm, in an equilibrium state. with a suitable valve to facilitate the introduction of more trace gases. The equilibrium state say at 420ppmv CO2, then add more CO2. Taking it up to say 500ppmv after an hour or so the reading will return to 420, that being the equilibrium for that temp/pressure. The CO2 in the water reacting with the ions (hydrolyses). It follows therefore that all the CO2 in the atmosphere is attempting the same equilibrium state. With this information, and it is not controversial, the ideas put forward for CO2 causing temperatures to rise must be incorrect. Especially as the Earth's surface is 70% water. There is more to it than space allows, but in general terms I don't think I've said anything which is untrue. As to "back radiation", seen in the many charts indicating earth's energy balance. There is no surface, the long wave radiation is free to take many paths. It is not like a blanket, as many proponents of anthropogenic warming insist.
I share your frustration, but I am hopeful that change is coming. When I started this Substack, virtually nobody in the conventional media would dare to be critical of Net Zero. Now the Telegraph and Spectator regularly run sceptical articles and even the Times gave a shout out to my work a couple of weeks ago.
Reform ran on an anti-Net Zero ticket and now Kemi has disavowed the 2050 target.
There are quite a few MPs, Lords and journalists who subscribe here.
You might consider NZW and Daily Sceptic too.
It's quite an interesting idea to start a mass movement, but that would require long term backing with a lot of cash. More cash than I have spare.
Thanks for replying. Kemi did back peddle a tad on target dates, I’ll grant you, but she stoped short of calling out UK unilateral action as futile, illogical and preposterous. Which is an important point to make, I feel. She could make a strong impression if she was bold enough to elaborate on the ethical basis of her policy shift, rather than stressing the economic danger of going too fast at the targets. She should emphasise that Theresa May et al acted in good faith back in the day, but now we see that the rest of the world are not playing ball it is idiotic to proceed alone, and targets are pointless. She should commit to repealing the Climate Change Act and break the mould - stop gaslighting the electorate into believing we should all do our bit to save the planet, that tough decisions must be taken, sacrifices made, etc. Cut the crap, in other words, and get stuck into Starmer’s ribs, calling out the net zero cranks at every opportunity. Threat voters like intelligent people and she would gain credibility and kudos - which in the political realm right now is are very scarce, priceless, commodities.
From what I’ve read, Reform seem a tad sketchy on the logical and ethical bases for their climate change policy - they come across as climate change denyers. Not a good look.
Shame you’re not able to fund my revolution. Maybe I could tempt Elon Musk!!!? 😳
The Net Zero agenda is only supported by gullible “useful idiot” Uniparty politician eco-warriors. The “Right Honourable” political leaders who will have been briefed by the deep state must know exactly what they are doing. These traitors are deliberately trying to wreck the economy at the behest of their globalist overlords. Net Zero = self-imposed national suicide.
Hey, Douglas. Thanks for this. Not sure I totally agree with all you say, but a few of your ideas chime. I’ll message you privately once I’ve worked out how to do it.
Me: "So on balance it is not viable without subsidy?"
ChatGPT Response:
Yes, that’s a fair conclusion. Without significant subsidies or technological breakthroughs that drastically reduce production, storage, and distribution costs, a large-scale hydrogen economy remains economically unviable. The production of green hydrogen (from renewable energy) is still expensive, and even blue hydrogen (from natural gas with carbon capture) struggles with cost and efficiency issues.
Governments and industries continue to invest in hydrogen because of its potential role in decarbonizing hard-to-electrify sectors like heavy industry and aviation. However, without subsidies or regulatory mandates, hydrogen struggles to compete with cheaper and more efficient alternatives like direct electrification using batteries.
How many icebergs do we need to hit before Seaman Milliband at the wheel is detained in mental institution where he surely should be.
Beware that the prices quoted are in 2022 money (and Miliband is proposing that AR7 should have a 2024 base not a 2012 one). Each project also has a transportation allowance that differs but is ~£25/MWh.
Perhaps by mid to end April LCCC will update their prices to indexed levels for 2025-26.
Various schemes are being hatched to lower the input costs for green hydrogen and CCS. It is proposed the latter should be exempt from the Climate Change Levy. I think I'm expecting a scheme akin to REGOs where the linkage between when power is produced and when it is consumed is divorced, with consumers picking up the tab for the difference. The idea would be to deem costly electricity was in fact supplied at a different time when renewables production was in surplus. Further shenanigans involves subsidies for storage input more generally. The difficulty is that at shorter durations batteries would be cheaper.
Actual use for hydrogen output is problematic. The West Wales project has an outlet so long as it is subsidised into Valero refinery for as long as it continues to operate. Refineries are the only major hydrogen consumers we have left since ammonia production closed thanks to high methane prices.
HyMarnham seems to be angled at supplying containerised generators designed to replace diesel units common on building sites. Perhaps they hope these will be made compulsory in future, pushing up building costs.
The Whitelees project was put together in the Boris era and supposedly will produce and store hydrogen to supply local transport providers with zero-carbon fuel. Presumably a lot more subsidy for hydrogen powered buses. The last hydrogen powered train was scrapped in January.
Meanwhile you can expect a sharp increase in the cost of a bottle of Scotch. The Cromarty Hydrogen Project is the first project in the Scotland Hydrogen Programme. It originated from a collaboration between the Port of Cromarty Firth, ScottishPower, Glenmorangie, Whyte & Mackay and Diageo and the project originator, Storegga during the feasibility stage. This project is looking to develop a green hydrogen production hub in the Cromarty Firth region and revolves around the local distilleries forming the baseload demand for early phases of the project, which would enable them to decarbonise in line with their own ambitions and sector targets.
I should add that the West Wales site is in fact inland at the North end of the former Amoco-Murphy refinery site next to the South Hook LNG terminal, and therefore will not supply Valero. However, RWE recently secured planning permission for a 100MWe facility which would supply the refinery. It adjoins Pembroke CCGT, so unless it had a dedicated connection to wind/solar it would be gas fired any time the power station is running. As one of the newest CCGT stations, Pembroke tends to run more than most, supplying power across South Wales and into the Midlands.
This is what happens when we allow political ideologues like Energy Secretary Miliband and eco-warriors like CCC boss Emma Pinchbeck to dictate how our national energy infrastructure should be configured. A recent MSM article on Pinchbeck reveals that she has a degree in English literature, she has no hands-on experience of power engineering and she only got into the business because she was so gullible as to fall for David Attenborough’s climate change scaremongering: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/29/uk-net-zero-tsar-i-understand-why-people-are-angry/.
He demolishes the idea of using intermittent surplus wind power to produce hydrogen. Some time ago Andrew Montford revealed that the Blackhillock substation serving the Beatrice offshore wind farm had been engineered with a switch to divert curtailed wind (which they would still get paid for) into an off-grid system: https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/how-windfarms-charge-you-twice-for-the-same-electricity.
This possibly relates to a local news feed item that caught my eye that, perversely for these grifting schemers, the plan for the UK’s biggest hydrogen plant at nearby Kintore has been rejected by the local council: https://news.stv.tv/north/plan-for-uks-biggest-hydrogen-plant-rejected.
I noted that Pinchbeck tried to absolve the CCC for any responsibility for carbon budget plans. Perhaps she hopes to blame NESO and DESNZ when it all goes wrong.
hydrogen may have a place into the future but only if produced with excess Nuclear power so that when it does not need to feed the grid its producing what I would call the greenest hydrogen!
Are Miliband and the like thinking that if they just make enough hydrogen and stick it in one place it will collapse under its own weight and make a mini sun? Because that sounds more reasonable than this nonsense.
All these climate bodies are doing is creating mechanisms to prolong their grift. A wise political party now should propose prosecuting politicians for racketeering because just like with Covid it’s not going to stop unless people are punished and assets stripped.
Thank you David. The way I see it, hydrogen provides an interesting test case. My understanding is that its most vital use is as a chemical feedstock for such things as fertilisers via the Haber process of fixing nitrogen into ammonia. If wind and solar and green hydrogen were practical and affordable, major industrial users of the gas would have built solar and wind farms, plus electrolysers, close to their plant so they could reap the benefits that we all keep being promised. To my limited knowledge that hasn't happened - I wonder why?
Just a few years ago the gigantic brains of the Royal Society published a document extolling hydrogen as the great energy store for wind and solar in our brave new world. This struck me as very odd until I remembered that Isaac Newton was sucked into the South Sea Bubble, so maybe a gigantic brain isn't that much of an advantage - I'll certainly never know!
On a point of detail, hydrogen emits a faint blue light when it explodes: most of the emission is in the ultraviolet. It's a risky way to get a tan.
In their analyses, the Royal Society, like the CCC, uses wind and solar power costs provided by DESNZ that are two to three times lower than the real costs.
It is a never ending loop of misinformation. The government produces cost estimates that are only 30% of the real costs, those estimates are used in studies that then feed back to the government to make policy.
Correcting the cost data would require admitting that the policies are prohibitively expensive and wrong headed.
I also don't think that the risks with H2 have been adequately covered. Given the quality and competence of maintenance of anything in the UK now, the risk of catastrophic explosions has, IMHO, not been taken into account.
And the present Archbishop of Canterbury is only concerned about woke causes which are driving away existing Church goers and not bringing in new members because wokesters are mainly aetheists. Also not very compassionate towards the majority of the congregation or the survival of the Anglican Church?
German hydrogen company HH2E went into insolvency late last year as investors pulled further funding from its 1GW electrolyser project. There is no market for this level of hydrogen production is the reality and yet Milibrain wants to create even more capacity. Sampling the HAR1 awarded facilities very few are actually reporting they are anywhere starting construction so perhaps there will be little impact in the long run.
ThysenKrupp in Germany have just suspended their flagship hydrogen steel tender because the prices just don’t make it competitive and will revert to natural gas.
I see you have pay walled your new article.
There is no green hydrogen industry and there won't be one. The energy losses at each production step are so great that no business will carry them. The silly idea survives only because irresponsible governments keep the required subsidies flowing. Whenever the investor sees the problem he withdraws. End of story.
https://doi.org/10.53234/SCC202501/06 shows that CO2 half life in the atmosphere is less than 10 years rather than the greater than 100 years specified by IPCC. This therefore shows that all IPCC models are simply wrong.
David, thank you for your analysis. I am new to this, but I am impressed by your knowledge and understanding. I am also impressed by the comments left by what seems a switched-on readership. What does strike me, however, is that you repeatedly call for change but there is no obvious vehicle for such. I have on occasion written to the Daily Telegraph to encourage the editor to campaign ‘say no to net zero’, but to no effect. So my question to you and your followers is: who is lobbying? Where is the petition I might sign or the organisation I might join to help fight our way out of this madness?
Net zero makes sense only if the whole world acts in unison. As this is patently not the case, UK unilateral net zero policy is as futile as it is illogical. It’s as simple as that for me and it is driving me round the twist that the ideologues in power cannot see the folly of their actions. They don’t seem to care that the country is being driven to penury so long as they can grandstand their ‘virtue’. We should be working to unseat them. Another four years of this and there will be nothing left to rebuild with. Please, can you point me in the right direction?
Net Zero makes NO sense, whether at the national level or across the whole planet. Proper understanding of the ideal gas laws, Henry's law, should form the basis of a real debate, not this made up nonsense about "Back Radiation".
Hello Brian. I’m sorry, but I’m not quite getting you here - more info please. My point was that mitigation efforts are futile unless applied globally and concurrently. Are you suggesting carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate change? Or maybe, in citing Henry’s Law, you are suggesting that as planetary temperature rises, so does atmospheric pressure, meaning more carbon dioxide is absorbed by oceans and the climate problem sorts itself out automatically? Wouldn’t that be handy!
I didn’t mention ‘black radiation’. How do you define it and why is it important?
Hello Frank, If we consider Henry's Law and being concise. The volume of trace gases in the atmosphere is entirely dependent on the atmospheric pressure and importantly the temperature. The CO2 (and this applies to other trace gases) volume moves up or down as the temperature changes. Therefore temperature drives the amount in the atmosphere. For example if you were to take a container of water in a closed environment, say 50% water and above the surface 50% air, at standard temperature STP 25.6 degrees at 1 atm, in an equilibrium state. with a suitable valve to facilitate the introduction of more trace gases. The equilibrium state say at 420ppmv CO2, then add more CO2. Taking it up to say 500ppmv after an hour or so the reading will return to 420, that being the equilibrium for that temp/pressure. The CO2 in the water reacting with the ions (hydrolyses). It follows therefore that all the CO2 in the atmosphere is attempting the same equilibrium state. With this information, and it is not controversial, the ideas put forward for CO2 causing temperatures to rise must be incorrect. Especially as the Earth's surface is 70% water. There is more to it than space allows, but in general terms I don't think I've said anything which is untrue. As to "back radiation", seen in the many charts indicating earth's energy balance. There is no surface, the long wave radiation is free to take many paths. It is not like a blanket, as many proponents of anthropogenic warming insist.
I share your frustration, but I am hopeful that change is coming. When I started this Substack, virtually nobody in the conventional media would dare to be critical of Net Zero. Now the Telegraph and Spectator regularly run sceptical articles and even the Times gave a shout out to my work a couple of weeks ago.
Reform ran on an anti-Net Zero ticket and now Kemi has disavowed the 2050 target.
There are quite a few MPs, Lords and journalists who subscribe here.
You might consider NZW and Daily Sceptic too.
It's quite an interesting idea to start a mass movement, but that would require long term backing with a lot of cash. More cash than I have spare.
Thanks for replying. Kemi did back peddle a tad on target dates, I’ll grant you, but she stoped short of calling out UK unilateral action as futile, illogical and preposterous. Which is an important point to make, I feel. She could make a strong impression if she was bold enough to elaborate on the ethical basis of her policy shift, rather than stressing the economic danger of going too fast at the targets. She should emphasise that Theresa May et al acted in good faith back in the day, but now we see that the rest of the world are not playing ball it is idiotic to proceed alone, and targets are pointless. She should commit to repealing the Climate Change Act and break the mould - stop gaslighting the electorate into believing we should all do our bit to save the planet, that tough decisions must be taken, sacrifices made, etc. Cut the crap, in other words, and get stuck into Starmer’s ribs, calling out the net zero cranks at every opportunity. Threat voters like intelligent people and she would gain credibility and kudos - which in the political realm right now is are very scarce, priceless, commodities.
From what I’ve read, Reform seem a tad sketchy on the logical and ethical bases for their climate change policy - they come across as climate change denyers. Not a good look.
Shame you’re not able to fund my revolution. Maybe I could tempt Elon Musk!!!? 😳
You are not alone in being driven “round the twist” by Net Zero. Here is my debunking of the climate change hoax: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
The Net Zero agenda is only supported by gullible “useful idiot” Uniparty politician eco-warriors. The “Right Honourable” political leaders who will have been briefed by the deep state must know exactly what they are doing. These traitors are deliberately trying to wreck the economy at the behest of their globalist overlords. Net Zero = self-imposed national suicide.
Hey, Douglas. Thanks for this. Not sure I totally agree with all you say, but a few of your ideas chime. I’ll message you privately once I’ve worked out how to do it.
I made a query to ChatGPT about hydrogen, using an article by Robert Zubrin in 2007. (Article here: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax). It's well worth reading, albeit 18 years ago! Then I put it to ChatGPT
Me: "So on balance it is not viable without subsidy?"
ChatGPT Response:
Yes, that’s a fair conclusion. Without significant subsidies or technological breakthroughs that drastically reduce production, storage, and distribution costs, a large-scale hydrogen economy remains economically unviable. The production of green hydrogen (from renewable energy) is still expensive, and even blue hydrogen (from natural gas with carbon capture) struggles with cost and efficiency issues.
Governments and industries continue to invest in hydrogen because of its potential role in decarbonizing hard-to-electrify sectors like heavy industry and aviation. However, without subsidies or regulatory mandates, hydrogen struggles to compete with cheaper and more efficient alternatives like direct electrification using batteries.
How many icebergs do we need to hit before Seaman Milliband at the wheel is detained in mental institution where he surely should be.
So far there are four projects listed at the LCCC
https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/?project_name=%7B%22operator%22%3A%22contains%22%7D&scheme=%7B%22operator%22%3A%22is%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22LCHA%22%7D
Beware that the prices quoted are in 2022 money (and Miliband is proposing that AR7 should have a 2024 base not a 2012 one). Each project also has a transportation allowance that differs but is ~£25/MWh.
Perhaps by mid to end April LCCC will update their prices to indexed levels for 2025-26.
Various schemes are being hatched to lower the input costs for green hydrogen and CCS. It is proposed the latter should be exempt from the Climate Change Levy. I think I'm expecting a scheme akin to REGOs where the linkage between when power is produced and when it is consumed is divorced, with consumers picking up the tab for the difference. The idea would be to deem costly electricity was in fact supplied at a different time when renewables production was in surplus. Further shenanigans involves subsidies for storage input more generally. The difficulty is that at shorter durations batteries would be cheaper.
Actual use for hydrogen output is problematic. The West Wales project has an outlet so long as it is subsidised into Valero refinery for as long as it continues to operate. Refineries are the only major hydrogen consumers we have left since ammonia production closed thanks to high methane prices.
HyMarnham seems to be angled at supplying containerised generators designed to replace diesel units common on building sites. Perhaps they hope these will be made compulsory in future, pushing up building costs.
The Whitelees project was put together in the Boris era and supposedly will produce and store hydrogen to supply local transport providers with zero-carbon fuel. Presumably a lot more subsidy for hydrogen powered buses. The last hydrogen powered train was scrapped in January.
Meanwhile you can expect a sharp increase in the cost of a bottle of Scotch. The Cromarty Hydrogen Project is the first project in the Scotland Hydrogen Programme. It originated from a collaboration between the Port of Cromarty Firth, ScottishPower, Glenmorangie, Whyte & Mackay and Diageo and the project originator, Storegga during the feasibility stage. This project is looking to develop a green hydrogen production hub in the Cromarty Firth region and revolves around the local distilleries forming the baseload demand for early phases of the project, which would enable them to decarbonise in line with their own ambitions and sector targets.
There were 11 projects reported as successful in the news release
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hydrogen-production-business-model-net-zero-hydrogen-fund-shortlisted-projects/hydrogen-production-business-model-net-zero-hydrogen-fund-har1-successful-projects
but only four of them are on the LCC register? Is there a window to formalise a contract or are they jsut not proceeding.
I should add that the West Wales site is in fact inland at the North end of the former Amoco-Murphy refinery site next to the South Hook LNG terminal, and therefore will not supply Valero. However, RWE recently secured planning permission for a 100MWe facility which would supply the refinery. It adjoins Pembroke CCGT, so unless it had a dedicated connection to wind/solar it would be gas fired any time the power station is running. As one of the newest CCGT stations, Pembroke tends to run more than most, supplying power across South Wales and into the Midlands.
May I republish this one on wattsupwiththat.com?
Charles
Go right ahead.
This is what happens when we allow political ideologues like Energy Secretary Miliband and eco-warriors like CCC boss Emma Pinchbeck to dictate how our national energy infrastructure should be configured. A recent MSM article on Pinchbeck reveals that she has a degree in English literature, she has no hands-on experience of power engineering and she only got into the business because she was so gullible as to fall for David Attenborough’s climate change scaremongering: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/29/uk-net-zero-tsar-i-understand-why-people-are-angry/.
Here’s an interesting post by jaberwock on the very unfavourable real-world prospects for “green” hydrogen projects: https://johnd12343.substack.com/p/why-are-all-these-green-hydrogen.
He demolishes the idea of using intermittent surplus wind power to produce hydrogen. Some time ago Andrew Montford revealed that the Blackhillock substation serving the Beatrice offshore wind farm had been engineered with a switch to divert curtailed wind (which they would still get paid for) into an off-grid system: https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/how-windfarms-charge-you-twice-for-the-same-electricity.
This possibly relates to a local news feed item that caught my eye that, perversely for these grifting schemers, the plan for the UK’s biggest hydrogen plant at nearby Kintore has been rejected by the local council: https://news.stv.tv/north/plan-for-uks-biggest-hydrogen-plant-rejected.
I noted that Pinchbeck tried to absolve the CCC for any responsibility for carbon budget plans. Perhaps she hopes to blame NESO and DESNZ when it all goes wrong.
That's an excellent post from Jaberwock.
Time for new leadership.
hydrogen may have a place into the future but only if produced with excess Nuclear power so that when it does not need to feed the grid its producing what I would call the greenest hydrogen!
Are Miliband and the like thinking that if they just make enough hydrogen and stick it in one place it will collapse under its own weight and make a mini sun? Because that sounds more reasonable than this nonsense.
All these climate bodies are doing is creating mechanisms to prolong their grift. A wise political party now should propose prosecuting politicians for racketeering because just like with Covid it’s not going to stop unless people are punished and assets stripped.
Thank you David. The way I see it, hydrogen provides an interesting test case. My understanding is that its most vital use is as a chemical feedstock for such things as fertilisers via the Haber process of fixing nitrogen into ammonia. If wind and solar and green hydrogen were practical and affordable, major industrial users of the gas would have built solar and wind farms, plus electrolysers, close to their plant so they could reap the benefits that we all keep being promised. To my limited knowledge that hasn't happened - I wonder why?
Just a few years ago the gigantic brains of the Royal Society published a document extolling hydrogen as the great energy store for wind and solar in our brave new world. This struck me as very odd until I remembered that Isaac Newton was sucked into the South Sea Bubble, so maybe a gigantic brain isn't that much of an advantage - I'll certainly never know!
On a point of detail, hydrogen emits a faint blue light when it explodes: most of the emission is in the ultraviolet. It's a risky way to get a tan.
In their analyses, the Royal Society, like the CCC, uses wind and solar power costs provided by DESNZ that are two to three times lower than the real costs.
It is a never ending loop of misinformation. The government produces cost estimates that are only 30% of the real costs, those estimates are used in studies that then feed back to the government to make policy.
Correcting the cost data would require admitting that the policies are prohibitively expensive and wrong headed.
I also don't think that the risks with H2 have been adequately covered. Given the quality and competence of maintenance of anything in the UK now, the risk of catastrophic explosions has, IMHO, not been taken into account.
And the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury wonders why we don't think our leaders are human and in need of compassion!
And the present Archbishop of Canterbury is only concerned about woke causes which are driving away existing Church goers and not bringing in new members because wokesters are mainly aetheists. Also not very compassionate towards the majority of the congregation or the survival of the Anglican Church?
I noted that the Pinchbeck interview for the Telegraph was conducted in a café at her local Anglican church. What better symbol of the new religion?