Q: Does Labour - the party of, errr, labour - have an industrial policy? Or an employment policy?
A: Yes! It's the "Just Transition" from bad old dirty, analogue fossil-fuel jobs to "good" clean new digital green jobs. 650,000 of them!
Well, there go the dirty jobs alright: who needed steel, electricity or petrol anyhow? So the retraining schemes will be getting into gear. Remind us, how many people does one of those big new data centres employ?
Still, I suppose someone will be needed for building all those new houses we are told about.
ND
15 comments:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/09/30/green-jobs-bonanza-2/
"The whole renewable sector, including wind and solar farms, hydro, carbon capture, bioenergy and renewable heat, still only employs 17,400 people, just 7400 up on 2014."
It would seem that Miliband Minor is clinically deranged...
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/10/01/floating-wind-farm-lost-30m-last-year/
"Kincardine produced 144 GWh last year, so the total cost equates to £562/MWh.
They have a PPA in place which generated £13.3m at £92/MWh. On top of that ROC subsidies worked out at £217/MWh"
£31 million in subsidies...
Dig deep, comrades!!!!
> renewable sector still only employs 17,400 people
To be fair to Labour, they claim 650k jobs in "clean energy", which they (contentiously) define to include nuclear as well as renewables. The civil nuclear sector claimed it employed 77,400 in 2023, which takes the total rather more.
This perhaps partly illuminates why new nuclear is currently so expensive (eg Hinkley Point C at £128/MWh were it working per EDF original claim in 2022) compared to recent wind and PV.
So in 2023 renewables produced 46.4% of our leccy with supposed 17.4k employees compared to nuclear producing 13.9% of our UK leccy with 77.4k employees! Though these are PR employee numbers, so probably not so accurate.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/sep/11/port-talbot-job-losses-whats-next-for-british-steel-production
In 1970, the UK produced 28.3m tonnes of steel, the fifth largest producer in the world, and employed more than 320,000 people. Decline has been precipitous. Last year, the UK produced 5.6m tonnes, 26th in the world, and employed about 33,500 people. Nigel Driffield, professor of international business at Warwick business school, said this was partly down to conscious industrial strategy. “If you want to have a car industry, shipbuilding, or any form of heavy manufacturing, you need a steel industry. “If other places are subsidising their steel, you have to do the same or have it in public ownership. The point at which we decided not to do that, privatising it and selling it to foreign entities, was the start of where we are today.” One country that has subsidised steelmakers is China, now by far the world’s largest producer. Its ramp up in exports has flooded global markets with cheaper steel, rendering UK producers less competitive. Amid depressed demand from a fragile global economy, the effect of that oversupply is exacerbated. In recent years, the UK’s high electricity prices, particularly compared with Asia but also to European rivals, have made it tougher for the UK industry. Primary steelmaking is extremely carbon-intensive and heavily polluting blast furnaces have attracted carbon taxes as the UK aims for net zero.
Some commenter on the Guardian today was celebrating "the death of coal". Only here, I reminded him, coal use is at record levels worldwide.
No house building. The gloom speeches have meant that the estate being built at the top of my town has stalled (buyers pulling out.)
Labour's plan will be use of rent-a-room forced on us by tax poverty to take in immigrants. Many an enforced landlord will be pushed out of their own homes by cuckooing once the kindly Francophone African lady lodger's boyfriend, Mr Babboo, turns up.
The reality is that it is not profitable to run a blast furnace in the UK. Wages too high, taxes too high, costs of everything too high.
The difficulty is 'what else to do?'. Apart from pay the dole from money made in Lunnun. Perhaps convert the whole place to a gigantic coffee shop/hair dressing salon/tattoo parlour. Or a centre of excellence for marketing strategists and the like.
Plainly Labour has no 'industrial strategy' but neither did the Tories and neither do I and I doubt any of you esteemed readers have a credible plan either.
If we look back to Abraham Derby or Thomas Telford and the rest, none had an 'industrial strategy' they were just individuals who had a money making idea and JFDI. But just 'keep government out the way' is simple minded, there are just very very few things it is worth doing in a high cost low skill country.
A young neighbour designs beer can logos. You would think this was simple, but no. The marketeers aim for small increases in sales on $billion quantities. And colour shade, typography etc make a difference and AI can tease out what works. So, ship him to Wales and rinse and repeat - err I see a snag.....
The new industrial scene, a few thousand professionals, laptops and corner seats in Costa and gigantic server farms and of course taxation to spread the money around.
To digress, the Germans have a handy word - Backpfeifengesicht. Each of the Tory candidates has one, let it be applied liberally until the candidates show a bit of usefulness.
Plan unfolds? Unravels, more like.
"rwendland said...
> renewable sector still only employs 17,400 people
To be fair to Labour, they claim 650k jobs in "clean energy", which they (contentiously) define to include nuclear as well as renewables. The civil nuclear sector claimed it employed 77,400 in 2023, which takes the total rather more."
Ah yes. Which includes such as those involved in recycling... and anything remotely concerned with cleaning whatever up. It has been clear from other countries for years that for every "green job", more "ungreen" jobs are lost.
Did you see the Mail today, heterosexual HIV cases have risen 50%.
Turns out this is down to Boris and Sunak's huge increase in non-EU migration - four x increase for Indians and 7 x increase for Africans.
A relative is just heading for NZ and needs £400 worth of x-rays and med exams. But we don't check for TB, HIV or anything else!
It;d be agin their human rights to test them for nasty diseases before we let them in.
Starmer has all the charisma of an uncooked oven chip. Perhaps he should be called Capt McCain.
Charmless, hopeless and bleak. An utter disaster for that reason alone.
My lad's visa has taken ages to come through to work in a hospital in Melborne. Australia really doesn't let just anyone in. Full medical tests etc, even for licensed doctors.
Off topic, but any comment on TTK giving sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius? Is Gibraltar or The Falklands next?
According to Guido, not only are we giving the Islands away, but Sir Keir is generously using taxpayers money to pay them to take it off our hands!
> floating-wind-farm ... total cost equates to £562/MWh
That of course is a small experimental R&D project. Britain has subsidised novel generating technology way back. In the 1950s the large-scale Magnox programme was launched with forecast costs 25% higher than existing coal plant, with a view it was a good future technology that we should get into early, and of course also supporting nuclear skills development nuclear weapon industry sustainment would also require.
Got me wondering about the costs of CfD Round 6 generation announced a month ago. CfD pricing is done in terms of 2012 pounds, so I've adjusted the price by the BoE inflater 2012 to Aug 2024 (1.398) and tabulated them below, adding HPC for comparison similarly RPI inflated from the original £92.50 price.. Unfortunately I don't know what CCGT gas generation pricing is right now, for comparison, but looking at National Grid Balancing System Buy / Sell Prices suggests CCGT is about £100/MWh on the spot market, so maybe £90-£95/MWh on a contracted basis. So for comparison (ignoring costs af backup generation) Round 6 major technology per MWh in today pricing is:
£70.00 Solar PV (3.3GW)
£71.16 Onshore wind (1GW)
£82.30 Offshore wind (3.4GW)
£75.81 Offshore wind - adjust existing scheme (1.6GW)
£129.32 Hinkley Point C (3.2GW)
So seems a little cheaper that gas these days, and nuclear has some way to go to be competitive (perhaps by consumer paying upfront and taking the risks a la RAB financing). I'd be interested in ND's views on this.
https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/energy/2024-posts/AR6-CfD-Results
Post a Comment