What Will A Net Zero Britain Look Like? The Answer: Bleak
The arbitrary date of 2050 set by the US, Canada, Britain, Europe and Australia to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions is only 28 years away, yet almost no attention has been given to the reality of everyday life when power is provided by wind, solar and very little else.
So let us look at how it is proposed to provide electricity when there’s no wind, as in the weeks-long wind drought in Europe in 2021, and no sunshine, not just from sunset to sunrise but on cloudy days.
Batteries:
It would require vast acres of battery installations to power a whole country even for a few hours. The huge quantities of lithium, cobalt and other rare earths required would be produced by major increases in mining using diesel-powered machinery. This is not happening at present and almost all rare earth mining and processing is controlled by China.
And when the batteries have gone flat how will they be recharged?
Pumped hydro:
This uses surplus electricity to pump water uphill to a reservoir, releasing it through a turbine when needed. There is only one new project for this in Australia, Snowy Hydro 2, and none in Britain or Europe with the possible exception of Scandinavian countries.
Hydrogen:
The much-touted magic solution to generating electricity with no emissions. Unfortunately so-called green hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water using very large quantities of electricity, considerably more than the electricity it produces when it is used as fuel. So it’s back to wind and solar to make hydrogen – when they can be spared. Hydrogen has many other problems.
To replace gas for domestic use would require all the thousands of miles of gas piping in the UK to be replaced by thicker, larger-diameter pipes, and hydrogen would increase domestic heating bills about five-fold. For use as transport fuel the situation is even worse; storage of any significant quantity in filling stations or vehicle fuel tanks requires large, heavy, high-pressure vessels to store liquefied hydrogen plus a cooling system to keep it liquid.
No vehicle could operate with this requirement. For aircraft it would be even worse. (For a comprehensive treatise on hydrogen power, see here.)
Carbon capture and storage (CCS):
This means extracting the carbon dioxide gas from the flues of fossil fuel power stations, compressing it and pumping it through pipelines for many miles and then underground into rock formations and making sure it stays there for ever – a monumentally expensive task which would require huge amounts of power. Moreover CO2 is highly corrosive for normal steel piping, more so if it is compressed.
Nuclear fission:
An emissions-free way to generate electricity used successfully in many countries, notably France which generates 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear.
However, the Greens’ baseless fear of spent fuel storage risks and nuclear accidents has enabled them to maintain a ban on nuclear in Australia. Angela Merkel was scared into closing down all Germany’s nuclear power stations by the non-nuclear Fukushima accident.
Nuclear fusion:
This is the holy grail of power generation, and always will be.
None of the proposed solutions above can be applied to transport by sea and air which account for virtually all worldwide trade, so this will effectively cease in a net zero world.
In addition, more than 6,000 products are derived from oil and gas: fertiliser is a major one and so are numerous medicines.
Now picture Net Zero Britain when a not uncommon weather system results in several days without wind and a few cloudy days before, during or after it.
Grid storage batteries will be flat, probably within the first few hours, pumped hydro will be empty and all road vehicles will have flat batteries.
Hospitals currently have standby diesel generators, but post 2050 will they have any fuel in stock?
There will be no ships or aircraft bringing in food supplies or other goods because they can’t run on renewables.
So the population will be huddled in their homes with no lights, not even candles because they are made from paraffin wax derived from fossil fuel, no heating or cooking, no TV and no running water except what’s left in their roof tanks.
Computers will all be dead, and server farms will be inoperable and will start to fail as their cooling systems will have ceased working.
Mobile phones will all be flat.
Manufacturing industry, the wealth creators, will long since have closed down, destroyed by unaffordable or unavailable electricity.
Hunger will stalk the land because no fertiliser will be available to increase crop yields.
Not even the super-rich will be spared: private jets and luxury yachts will long since have been immobilised.
They will be dining on reserves of tinned food like everyone else.
When a breeze picks up and the sun comes out, who gets the electricity: the families on middle or lower incomes or the very rich? Households with rooftop solar panels and enough land for their own wind turbine will begin to return to near normal; those without either who live in flats won’t be so lucky.
Many other things which we take for granted will not be available when fossil fuels are no more.
Thousands of plastic products will no longer exist; roads will all be deteriorating to gravel and potholes without bitumen, which is derived from oil.
Anything made of steel will be rusting away; all other commonly used metals such as copper and aluminium will no longer be produced so anything made of them will not be repairable or replaceable.
The Naval fleet will be rusting in port without fuel, the RAF will be grounded and the Army will have no tanks or vehicles to deploy soldiers anywhere.
The Police and other emergency services will have no way to use their vehicles.
China, Russia and other unfriendly nations will have been watching these developments with interest.
The supreme irony of all this is that it’s totally unnecessary.
In spite of hot weather spots cherry-picked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the BBC and the Guardian, Planet Earth has not warmed at all for the last seven years ten months (and counting), in a phenomenon known by the IPCC as a pause.
Previously there was a ‘pause’ which lasted 18 years. Basically the Earth warms and cools over the years as it has done for eons. Furthermore, it has never been proved by repeatable scientific experiment that CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat.
Indeed scientists have proved that CO2 does not trap heat. In any case, mankind’s contribution to the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is minuscule.
Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04 percent of our atmosphere, and human CO2 emissions account for three percent of that 0.04 percent, an infinitesimally small amount. The other 97 percent comes from natural processes.
So even if we ‘decarbonised’ the whole world, we would reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by three percent.
Is any world leader bold enough to promote reality and common sense on this vital issue and take on the outraged rent seekers?
I fear not, so I fear for the future of my children and grandchildren.
See more here: conservativewoman
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
It will look like Russia nuked it to death.
Reply
Mervyn
| #
If only politicians had some commonsense. Have they ever considered the following?
“Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the elixir of life. It is the primary raw material out of which plants construct their tissues, which in turn are the materials out of which animals construct theirs. This knowledge is so well established, in fact, that we humans – and all the rest of the biosphere – are described in the most basic of terms as carbon-based life forms.
Nowadays, however, it seems that all we ever hear about atmospheric CO2 are the presumed negative consequences of its increasing concentration. Time and again, world governments, non-governmental organizations, international agencies, societal think tanks, and even respectable scientific organizations attempting to assess the potential consequences of this phenomenon, have spent multiple millions of dollars writing and promoting large reports about it. Yet, nearly all of these endeavors have failed miserably, by not evaluating, or even acknowledging, the manifold real and measurable benefits of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content. As a result, the many important and positive impacts of atmospheric CO2 enrichment remain under-appreciated and largely ignored in the debate over what to do, or not do, about anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
(Source: ‘The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment’ (2011) by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change)
Reply
Richard Ceen
| #
Hi
There are 4 pump storage installtions in UK Ffestiniog and Dinorwic which have storage capacity of around 11GWh plus 2 in Scotland Foyers and Cruachan which might be somewhat lessbut fof which informatiom
Is not published. But these values indicate the support this storage offers UK demand is less than an hour combined. Plus system efficiency is about 72% i.e. The ratio of electricity generated by dropping tbe upper volume to that consumed in replenishment.
Reply