The Incestuous Green Blob
The Incestuous Green Blob
House of Lords Committee that recommends hydrogen spending is chaired by a non-executive director of a hydrogen company who also employs Chris Stark as a staffer.
Introduction
Back in March, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee produced a report on long-duration energy storage (LDES). This report urged the Government to “get on with it.” Among its key recommendations were to ask the Government to “support no-regrets investments for hydrogen.”
However, some of the members of the committee have significant conflicts of interest and incestuous relationships that call into question the objectivity of the report and the integrity of Government.
What did the Lords LDES Report Say?
The Executive Summary of the report talks about “cheap” renewables and insists the prize for investing in storage is that the electricity system will be cheaper. We do not need to rehearse all the arguments against this statement again. It is sufficient to note that all existing renewables, whether funded by Contracts for Difference (CfDs), Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) or Feed-In-Tariffs (FiTs) are currently more expensive than gas-fired electricity, as most recently discussed here.
A grid that is solely or mostly powered by renewables will therefore be more expensive than a gas-fired grid. However, as wind and solar power are intermittent in nature, they require some sort of backup or storage to ensure that the grid can always meet demand. Adding storage adds extra capital costs to the system but does not increase the amount of electricity generated. This extra expenditure must therefore increase the full system costs of electricity. So, the opening premise of their report is wrong, calling into question the rest of their analysis.
They then go on to quote extensively from the Royal Society report on long term storage (dismantled here) which farcically suggested the system cost of a renewables plus hydrogen storage grid would be ~£60/MWh. However, this cost is less than half what we pay for renewables alone today and much lower than the prices being offered in AR6. The required electrolysers, storage caverns and generators will not come cheap and will further increase the system cost of electricity. It is likely that the true costs of a renewables plus hydrogen grid will be three or four times that suggested.
How Did the Lords Get it so Wrong?
It is worrying that such an eminent committee should get things so wrong. To understand how and why they made such a glaring error, we need to look at the composition of the committee.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge chairs the Lords Science and Technology Committee. Her register of interests shows she is also the chair of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). By pure coincidence, Baroness Brown is also a non-executive director of Ceres Power Holdings which describes itself as a leading developer of “electrolysis for the creation of green hydrogen and fuel cells for power generation”. Baroness Brown’s other interests include chairing the Carbon Trust and she is also a non-executive director of wind farm operator and developer Ørsted.
Seen in this context, it becomes easier to see why the LDES report is so enthusiastic about renewables and securing spending on hydrogen storage.
However, the web of relationships runs even wider. Professor Keith Bell acted as Specialist Advisor to the committee in the production of the LDES report. Professor Bell is also a member of the CCC having taken up the position of power sector specialist in 2019 and recently had his contract extended to April 2025.
Incestuous Links to Government
Baroness Brown also has strong links to the new Head of Mission Control at DESNZ, Chris Stark. After leaving his position as Chief Executive of the CCC, Stark was appointed as Chief Executive of the Carbon Trust, which is chaired by Baroness Brown. Mr. Stark is also listed as Baroness Brown’s staffer on the House of Lords website.
One wonders if it is appropriate for one of the most senior people responsible for decarbonising the grid by 2030 should be a staffer for a Baroness and have such a close relationship with someone with such obvious vested interests in wind power and hydrogen.
We can see that the tentacles of the green blob have extended deep into the heart of the establishment and Government. One might term this situation a two-tier system of ethics. The extensive web of commercial interests and personal relationships makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the recommendations of the Lords Science and Technology Committee report on long term energy storage are tainted. It is also difficult to take seriously any recommendations made by the Climate Change Committee and the new Head of Mission Control. It’s so incestuous, seriously someone should check their hands and feet for extra digits.
If you enjoyed this article, please share with your family, friends and colleagues and sign up to receive more content.
This communist Labour Party, headed by Keir Stalin, has within 5 miserable weeks lost at least 5% of the 17% who voted for them - I am hoping at around the 100 week mark, they are forced into another GE - their obviously un-costed plans for regression of the masses, are dystopian and spiteful, in equal measure - even now, I can safely say this will be the worst Govt for Britain and Britons, I’ve ever known and I’ve endured many
Why do we need all these bodies filled to the gunnels with people on handsome fees anyhow. Whether we agree with Millibrain and the eco warriors the direction of travel currently is in their favour so that means its upto NSEO to construct a solution to deliver the outcome they desire. They already have OFGEM to stress test its deliverability and affordability and a select committee to probe whatever it wants. Thus get rid of the lot of them. This is entirely in alignment with Reeves statement we she said she wants to reduce the cost of consultants to govt department by £500m/year.