Why we need "Net zero"

[saveasteading]

1 minute ago, dpmiller said:

tread lightly on the earth"

Yes I guess that works as the principle.

Except no targets.

[Beelbeebub]

8 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

We need to focus on what IS the cheapest way to generate the energy we need to grow our economy and remain competitive in the world

Absolutely, for projects commissioning in 2030 the price per. Mwh for solar and onshore wind is basically £60, offshore is about £100

 

 

Gas is at best (93% utilisation) a match for offshore wind. If the utilisation falls it gets more expensive (I guess because of amortisation of the same construction cost over fewer mwh) 

 

One thing to note is that in this report the carbon price looks pretty hefty (pale blue bar) somewhere around £30, visually a little bit (say 80%) of the gas price*

 

If you remove that then well utilised gas is a match for solar and onshore wind. 

 

 

*I'm not sure how that chimes with figures I saw that had carbon price of around 30% of the gas price, so I have used the most favourable to gas assumption. 

 

And the sensitivity of gas to price rises. This shows the response to higher and lower gas prices - note including the carbon price discussed above. It loos like a +/- of about £25 of on the overall cost, which if we put back into our eaelier graphs means ccgt might be cheaper than solar/wind *if* gas prices were to end up being lower than expected *and* we removed carbon costs. 

 

8 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

8 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

If we want to keep the cost down, we could extract the mountains of gas we have in the North Sea and under our feet in shale formations that we are stupidly leaving in the ground, whilst importing from elsewhere. Just to 'look green'.

 

Actually lowering energy costs significantly is not only possible, but would be the best way to raise living standards. Don't destroy economically viable generation. Do drill for oil and gas so we are again self sufficient in fossil fuels - what's the point in importing it?? Do build as much renewable generation as we can, only in the places that can utilise it without turning off baseload generation, that will only need to be kept on standby at great cost.

This is exactly the point of my orginal post.

 

We do not have "... mountains of gas we have in the North Sea and under our feet in shale formations..."

 

For shale, our geology is different from thr US (who do have quite a bit) and the gas has already leaked out millions of years ago. 

 

For the north Sea - it is tapped out. 

 

I did a quick calculation and if we were to magically snap our fingers and be able to extract all the gas the most optimistic oil industry projection estimate is availible  extract at a rate that satisfied our current rate for another 15 years. 

 

But that rate is only 50% of our current demand. 

 

If we extracted (again magically) at a rate that made us self sufficient for gas, we could do that until around 2033 and then be totally out. 

 

This is the core of my argument, any gas plant generating today (and I do think we shoukd squeeze as much use out of already paid for assets as we can) and any you build will be almost wholly dependent on imported gas within the decade. 

 

If a significant portion of put generation relies on this imported gas we are extremely vulnerable to supply shocks beyond our control. 

 

On the other hand of we get more of our energy for heating, transport and elecreicty from renewables *which are.cost competitive with well utilised CCGT* then we are less vulnerable to these shocks. 

[ProDave]

9 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

This is exactly the point of my orginal post.

 

We do not have "... mountains of gas we have in the North Sea and under our feet in shale formations..."

And instead of being up front and saying that, we are going down the renewables route only under the guise of "net zero"

 

We have been sleepwalking into this situation without a plan for what to do when our own oil and gas runs out and no preparation for that event.

[Beelbeebub]

20 minutes ago, ProDave said:

And instead of being up front and saying that, we are going down the renewables route only under the guise of "net zero"

 

We have been sleepwalking into this situation without a plan for what to do when our own oil and gas runs out and no preparation for that event.

I mean, yes.... 😁 

 

I'm not saying that climate change isn't a good reason to:

 

- improve insulation

- electrifying heating and transport

- increace renewable generation etc

 

Just that it isn't the only reason.

 

If climate change didn't exist (as some people argue) then it would still be sensible to do the above purely from the perspective of reducing the vulnerability of our economy to external shocks. 

 

And I agree that we have sleepwalked into this situation. We should have been taking action earlier and we should be doing more now. 

 

But there are multiple groups (ironically both fossil fuel and some misguided and overzelous "greens") who are dragging us back. 

 

This thread is an attempt to answer the "Net zero is threatening our energy security - we must drill more for energy independence!" lobby by pointing out that is a fantasy and the only beneficiaries of slowong net zero are the fossil fuel companies and foreign powers who would like to see the UK even more exposed to outside shocks. 

[Crofter]

Would this be a good point to trot out this perennially relevant cartoon?

 

 

[Onoff]

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/181Lr65LTX/

[Beelbeebub]

28 minutes ago, Onoff said:

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/181Lr65LTX/

Good bit of AI generated slop there.😁

 

Ironically it's the sort of crap that we should be looking to stop as it probably took a good couple of kwh to generate. 

[Onoff]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

Good bit of AI generated slop there.😁

 

Ironically it's the sort of crap that we should be looking to stop as it probably took a good couple of kwh to generate. 

 

I like the canal boat ones.

[Roger440]

On 23/01/2026 at 21:45, Beelbeebub said:

I quite agree a ma@ive 122kv pylon in a garden is unacceptable. 

 

But are they doing that? Is someone proposing planting an actual 100ft multi phase 120kv transmission pylon (as opposed to a wooden pole) in your garden? 

 

And the lines could be underground but 

 

A) underground is roughly 4-5x the cost of overhead. 

B) underground is much more disruptive to install as you have to (effectively) dig a continuous trench the entire length of the route - which adds to the cost. 

 

Yes, there will be local impacts in places that historically haven't had any. But then, once upon a time, large parts of the Midlands had to accept not only the visual disruption of coal plants in their rolling hills but the impact on air quality - all for power that was sent to rural Wales etc. 

 

The power lines running out from the magnox stations stretch our across the rural visas of the Severn Valley to disappear across the cotswolds. 

 

There were 3 proposed pylon routes near us. One of them DID put a pylon, yes a pylon, not a wooden pole (i have those already) directly behind my house, circa 150 ft from my back window, in my field.

 

Fortunately they have moved on to an alternative (read cheaper) plan. For now, Until that runs into the sand. So may get resurrected yet.

 

If it does i get £1500. Great, as though thats recompense for effectively making my house worthless. Apparantly i should suck it up, its all for net zero. For as long as nothing is built, the house is effectively unsellable, as theres always the risk it comes back. 

 

Undergrounding isnt 4-5 times more expensive, unless you read the reports from the companies who are gaining planning for the pylons. Is it more expensive, yes, but nothing like the figures quoted. None of that matters, its only about how much money can be extracted. The environment doesnt figure on the list of concerns. We are not the south east, so, thus expendable.

 

Its all very easy to say its a necessary blight, when it doesnt affect you.

 

 

[sgt_woulds]

On 24/01/2026 at 12:27, saveasteading said:

Yes I guess that works as the principle.

Except no targets.

 

'Use it, dont burn it' ?

 

 

10 hours ago, Roger440 said:

Undergrounding isnt 4-5 times more expensive, unless you read the reports from the companies who are gaining planning for the pylons. Is it more expensive, yes, but nothing like the figures quoted. None of that matters, its only about how much money can be extracted. The environment doesnt figure on the list of concerns.

 

 

Absolutely agree.  Costs have been inflated in order to favour the option that maximises shareholder returns in line with modern mantra.

 

I have no problems with on-shore wind turbines - to my mind they have an elegance that compliments scenery, the same as a victorian viaduct.  Pylons are an abomination and it is worth every additional penny to bury cables.  

 

In most cases for open fields you wouldn't even need to dig up the land.  We already have machines capable of snaking conduits underground for hundreds of meters without breaking the surface - they use them in cities all the time.  It would surely be much cheaper to doe this in open areas and once you have conduits buried you are future proofed against future upgrades.  And protected from climate change apmplified storms.

 

If we need to upscale the machines then that is a manufacturing opportunity for UK firms.  We built dedicated machines to build the Channel Tunnel, and they were only used once before being stripped and abandoned!  

 

Whilst we have  the perfect off-shore conditions and an entire industry capable of building them out of site, we do need to build more on land for energy security purposes.  It much easier for a bad actor to take out an off shore connection than a distributed grid on land. 

 

Underground cables on land for the same reason

 

 

 

 

 

[saveasteading]

13 minutes ago, sgt_woulds said:

once you have conduits buried you are future proofed 

And trees don't fall on them. And more resistant to sabotage.

Somebody else might know about any operational  effects from being in the air or ground.

 

Not so easy over mountains obviously.

 

BUT. I had fibre fitted in an hour by pole to house catenary. Through the ground would have been a 30m trench. That was obv much cheaper... so my hunch is that pylons can be cheapest.

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, sgt_woulds said:

conduits buried you are future proofed against future upgrades.  And protected from climate change apmplified storms.

 

When loads are high, which is generally during periods of winter stormy weather, those same higher windspeed not only help produce more power from wind farms, they also help cool the cables, allowing more power to be shifted.

It is not just the digging that costs more, it is oversizing cables.

Most power cuts are caused by trees falling onto the small, local cables.

Have you ever seen a tree taller than a large pylon?

 

There was a bit on the news this morning about subsea cables for offshore windfarms. Will allow the UK to export more energy to the EU.

It is a complicated market.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/26/uk-among-10-countries-to-build-100gw-wind-power-grid-in-north-sea

Edited 4 hours ago by SteamyTea

[SimonD]

11 hours ago, Roger440 said:

Undergrounding isnt 4-5 times more expensive, unless you read the reports from the companies who are gaining planning for the pylons. Is it more expensive, yes, but nothing like the figures quoted. None of that matters, its only about how much money can be extracted. The environment doesnt figure on the list of concerns. We are not the south east, so, thus expendable.

 

Makes you wonder why they can't build and deploy a robot to run cable from north to south inside the existing gas network. Or even the oil pipelines that already exist. The overly of gas/electricity looks really rather similar:

 

[JohnMo]

9 minutes ago, SimonD said:

Makes you wonder why they can't build and deploy a robot to run cable from north to south inside the existing gas network

You have a slight issue, with the compressor stations that boost pressure along the route. You have to have ab electric cable diverter around the compressor stations and exit and entry points for the cable. Not sure it's easy to manage that plus the safety risk of liars of pressurised gas, high voltage electric and entry and exit points for oxygen to enter the system - sounds like a massive UK wide bomb waiting to happen.

[Roger440]

Its all somewhat moot.

 

The only thing that matters is shareholder value. That there might be significant environmemntal and social good attached to undergrounding is of no consequence at all. 

 

Added to which is lots of "speculative" projects being proposed all over the place, each one of which creates a permanent financial blight on the houses and villages close to it.

 

The reality is most wont ever get built, (that would result in massive over supply) but there is simply no overall plan. Its just a free for all of speculative planning proposals, at the expense of the people in those areas.

 

That before we get to the illegal land entry, breaking and entering sites, criminal damage, proposals with large amounts of redacted info about the effects and costs, MS's on the payroll of the companies while publically stating their objection. Failure to register their interest. It goes on and on. All to make money.

 

 

[saveasteading]

The map is interesting.

So the other pylons we see are for relatively low current?

 

Unfortunately there are proposals to take huge pylons (Blue line presumably) from north of Inverness , and right across the Grampians to feed the South. 

There appears to be a survey to let the locals decide which route they prefer, without 'none of the above' being an option. Those that know the area will also know that pylons would be a huge disfigurement.

 

Hence my proposal for a very big electric meter at Inverness, and the  monies* going to Highland DC and the other affected regions,   and another at the border. Ditto any region being exploited.

It is a natural resource, as are the fields, oceans, whisky, oil, gas  and beauty.

 

* High enough to be proper recompense and significant in evaluating the feasibility.

 

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Hence my proposal for a very big electric meter at Inverness, and the  monies* going to Highland DC and the other affected regions

They could put in a large CO_2e meter at the same time in the fossil fuel network.

That could raise some cash for England and help subsidise our high cost of running urban gas stations.

[SimonD]

28 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Not sure it's easy to manage that plus the safety risk of liars of pressurised gas

 

Never an easy solution and always some complexity given the designs of different systems, but generally speaking, we're not very good at using and upgrading existing infrastructure. Just think of all the resources used up to research piping hydrogen through the same network. Given that there has been a huge investment into the gas network laying new pipework, it makes you wonder why there were little thought about how this work could be leveraged for other things.

 

But on infrastructure upgrades generally, back in 2018 I was in Sweden driving some long distances up into the mountains and so many of the roads had trenches dug along the sides of them for their national fibre upgrade project. Sweden of course has its problems, but in comparison we don't seem to have grasped how to do national infrastructure projects, and never spent the time really learning how to do it - even in the days of railway and canal development, it was done privately and piecemeal, and we can't seem to think beyond that it seems.

[JohnMo]

27 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Unfortunately there are proposals to take huge pylons (Blue line presumably) from north of Inverness , and right across the Grampians to feed the South. 

Basically to Peterhead (NE Scotland), then via a subsea high voltage DC cable to pop out the sea, somewhere beneath Drax power station. Assume there will be an AC to DC converter station at Peterhead and a DC to AC near Drax.

[SteamyTea]

21 minutes ago, SimonD said:

Just think of all the resources used up to research piping hydrogen through the same network

The people that make the real decisions i.e. the engineers, probably only pay lip service to it as they know that the science and economics do not stack up, and therefore, no it will not happen.

 

[SteamyTea]

25 minutes ago, SimonD said:

infrastructure upgrades generally

Here is one, though I suspect the i has not reported it properly.

https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/britain-building-new-reservoirs-4192207

[JohnMo]

32 minutes ago, SimonD said:

but in comparison we don't seem to have grasped how to do national infrastructure projects

Think we are well capable, but politics gets in the way - one party does the speak and sells the idea, puts funds in place for after the next election, they get booted out, the next lot comes along and says that's a shite idea, have some austerity instead, we're (the nation) is skint. Repeat...

[SteamyTea]

Using rough numbers, and quick 'fag packet' arithmetic, The UK has about 30 million home.  If each one had 1.5 kW_p of solar fitted, and 1 kWh of dispatchable battery storage, each day in there would be 30 GW of power available at almost anytime.

Now I do not know what that would cost, probably somewhere around £2000 per home, so £60bn.  As it would take about a decade to fit, that is £6bn a year.  As it would also last about two decades, but with the easy to replace battery system needing replacement at say £500/house, an extra £0.75bn would need to be added.

So let us round up to £7bn a year.

If the average house uses 15,000 kWh a year on space and water heating, an extra 1.5p/kWh on the energy bill will sort that.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by SteamyTea

[Crofter]

46 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Using rough numbers, and quick 'fag packet' arithmetic, The UK has about 30 million home.  If each one had 1.5 kW_p of solar fitted, and 1 kWh of dispatchable battery storage, each day in there would be 30 GW of power available at almost anytime.

Now I do not know what that would cost, probably somewhere around £2000 per home, so £60bn.  As it would take about a decade to fit, that is £6bn a year.  As it would also last about two decades, but with the easy to replace battery system needing replacement at say £500/house, an extra £0.75bn would need to be added.

So let us round up to £7bn a year.

If the average house uses 15,000 kWh a year on space and water heating, an extra 1.5p/kWh on the energy bill will sort that.

 

1kwh is tiny, I'd imagine it would be much better value to fit larger batteries than that.