Cut-out-and-keep: Labour's fantasy energy programme

As much for my own future reference as anything, here is the list of nonsense in Labour's energy plan.  Since they intend to deliver the bulk of it by 2030, DV we shall be able to tick off the items as they do not come to pass.

>  "By 2030, the UK will be the first major country in the world to run on 100 per cent clean and cheap power".   Can't be done.  Not clear anyone really thinks it can be, incidentally, even though Miliband pretends to.  Not even the '100% clean' bit is possible, since (as is admitted elsewhere in the manifesto) gas will continue to be needed - so by inference, they really are depending on the carbon capture & storage they also commit to - another very long shot indeed; assumption upon assumption).  As for "cheap" ... 

>  "Cut energy bills for good ... cheap power for all ... not just in the short term, but for good ... Labour’s plan for a cheaper, zero carbon electricity system by 2030 will lower bills because renewables are far cheaper than gas. Last summer the price of gas was nine times higher than that of renewables and it remains significantly higher. Based on gas futures price projections, our mission has been estimated as saving UK households £93 billion over the rest of this decade ... take £1,400 off the annual household bill."  Outright rubbish from beginning to end.  (The consultancy that crunched the numbers for them - 18 months ago! - has quietly disowned them.)  Most renewables are more expensive than gas, some of them much more.  And all the other system costs arising from use of renewables are then piled on top (see 'infrastructure' below, and a host of other things).  The period of "gas nine times higher" was the height of the Putin spike; it was only the spot price; and it lasted for all of a couple of days.

>  "By 2030 ... quadruple offshore wind with an ambition of 55 GW by 2030 / More than triple solar power to 50 GW / More than double our onshore wind capacity to 35 GW".    The only question is how far short of this 'ambition' they will fall.  Incidentally, with knowledge of the German practice of building renewables (and getting paid) but not connecting them to the grid, we'd better hold them to a definition of 'GW' that means, not just capacity but 'connected and functioning capacity'.

>  "Double the government's target on green hydrogen, with 10 GW of production".  An interesting one, this.  What, pray, will be the load factor on this 10 GW of capacity?  Very, very low, I'd guess.  And why would anyone build that?  Unless, of course, it'll be paid for (via subsidy) irrespective of LF - which I suppose we can't rule out.

>  "Unleash marine and tidal power".  Sounds exciting!  No details, however, so hard to comment further, save to say that the extensive track record of tidal power experimentation is very unencouraging indeed.

>  "Four times as much grid infrastructure to be built in the next seven years as has been built in the last 30 ... We are confident the transmission operators can do it."  Really?  What in the recent history of UK civil engineering leads to this conclusion?  Oh yeah, the A14 upgrade came in on budget and under schedule.  Anything else we can point to?  HS2?  Hinkley Point?

>  "De-link the price of renewables from gas, to ensure their low prices are passed on to households and businesses".  There are some potential subtleties here, but I doubt this was written by someone who actually understands how markets work.  (Incidentally, the same is true about some rather convoluted stuff they've got on local community energy schemes, but space does not permit.) 

>  "Mandating UK-regulated financial institutions – including banks, asset managers, pension funds, and insurers – and FTSE 100 companies to develop and implement credible transition plans that align with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement across their portfolios".  Too late!  We've already passed the 1.5 point of no return.  Even more seriously: what the Hell does this 'mandating' mean?  This could spell Big Trouble.

In fact, all of it could!  Finally ...

>  "Our plan will create 650,000 jobs across the country by 2030".  Some would say: cost 650,000 jobs, more like!  Well, job-creation schemes are job-creation schemes.  If even half of the above plans were to be embarked upon seriously, it probably would require hundreds of thousands of new jobs.  But where ya gonna find the Brits to fill them, eh?

So: a watching brief on all this guff.  Five or six years of popcorn is a lot of popcorn ...

ND

UK Election: what kind of disillusion is brewing?

Maybe none at all.  Maybe the electorate views all politicians as liars, and has merely formed the view that the Tories just have to go, simple as that.  These things happen: ask Callaghan / Thatcher / Major / Brown / Johnson / Truss.

But here's the thing.  Needing to say very little at all, Starmer lies freely in all directions: a liar in a league of his own. Blair and BJ aren't even in the running, bad as they are.  Does Starmer feel he's in lawyer-in-courtroom territory, where the whole court knows the barrister will say anything to get his client off, and that's just fine & dandy?**   

Energy being my thing, I focus on what Miliband has been saying.  It's almost as bad.  We'll have 100% zero carbon electricity by 2030 AND it will cost us all less.  Seriously.  Oh, and 650,000 new Green Jobs will be created in the process (though to be fair, he doesn't say which country they'll be created in).  The Graun even writes that, as regards the oil & gas sector which is to be phased out, Labour have declared that "not a single job will be lost" in the transition, though fairness again prompts me to say that I can't source that anywhere in Labour's output.  

It's hard to guess how, in 2030, they'll explain why this has all come to grief, as indubitably it will: they won't get within spitting distance of any of zero-carbon electricity, cheaper electricity, or the 650k new green jobs.  The usual trick is: "we didn't know how bad things were until we saw the books" - but that doesn't wash with electricity generation because the entire sector is comprised of very big units that can't be hidden: every analyst modelling the UK power sector has a complete list of them all.  (Likewise, the roll-out of the small stuff like heat pumps, solar panels, electric vehicles etc is pretty exactly monitored - not least because policy-makers are so keen to.)  And "bills going up, not down" is pretty easy to track, too.  

"Didn't realise the extent of inflation in raw materials"?  That's pretty well known.  "Didn't know there was a skills shortage"?  Ditto.  "Didn't realise CCUS / hydrogen / new nukes wouild be so badly delayed / wouldn't work as advertised"?  Not that either: we've recently had a judge rule that it's "irrational" to assume anything else.  

Nope: I can't quite see how they are going to hide.  The question is: will it be held against them?

ND

_______________________

** I was once on the jury for a high-profile murder trial, and the case made on behalf of one of the perps - whom we'd watched carrying out the murder on CCTV from several angles - was essentially that a Man from Mars came down, swapped clothes with the perp a couple of minutes beforehand, did the deed, and then swapped back & flew off again.  All this under the coded formulation: "The suggestion is ...".  The judge didn't seem to feel the need to reprimand this line of argumentation.

Election blues, election reds: new compo question

I have just read the election manifestos published so far[1], and mighty depressing reading they make.  Realistically, only the Labour document has the slightest bearing on anything: and given its complete divorce from reality, even that only exists to make fun of Starmer in later years when he fails to deliver on any but the most trivial items from it.  In large part it adopts the old Blairite formula of sentences without verbs, or purely descriptive sentences[2], so that no promise whatever is contained within.

Readers will not be surprised to learn I focus most closely on the Energy sections.  Labour's is remarkable for proclaiming 650,000 new "Green Prosperity" jobs across the country by 2030.  Oh, and these will be "good" jobs - presumably of a technical nature?   Y'know, building all that truly epic amount of new stuff on their shopping list, that will deliver a zero carbon electricity system by 2030?  Right, so where is the skill base that would enable 650,000 new technical staff to spring to attention when required?  Not home-grown, that's for sure.  More work visas all round!  Or, in the alternative (as lawyers say), if 650,000 skilled personnel are required, yet another among the dozens of reasons why it ain't gonna happen.

The other phenomenon, which almost deserves some kind of psychological analysis, is that all the manifestos cheerfully state that more renewable energy will bring down energy bills forever.  Why do politicians feel able to write this utterly nonsensical stuff down in black and white?  Why do notionally intelligent people seem to believe it?  

But enough: there's no point.  Moving to more light-hearted matters:  will anyone bother to vote?  Many traditionally ultra-loyal Tories are heartily pissed off by Sunak's D-Day faux pas.  Many people assume Labour will win so comfortably, they won't need anyone actually to get off their arses and go to the poll.  Da yoof is pretty pissed off all round, and they know voting Green gets you nowhere.  So ...

2024 predictions compo: Midsummer supplementary question - what will be the voter turnout at the GE?

ND

__________________

[1]  Nothing yet from SNP or Reform.  But we know what they think.

[2]  E.g. from the 'Make Britain a Clean Energy Superpower' chapter:

Without action, flooding and coastal erosion will pose greater risks to lives, livelihoods and people’s wellbeing

OK - so then, errr ..?   But we wait in vain, because no concrete actions are promised.

Competition: Predictions for 2024

So here we are, crystal balls at the ready, testing our predictive powers on the year ahead.  What will 2024 bring?  Some of the big unknowns for this year are rather obvious "known unknowns", of course, but please address yourselves nonetheless to the following questions:

• UK GE:  date (month);  and number of Labour MPs after the GE 
• US Presidency: who wins?
• Size of V. Putin's share of the Russian vote (as announced)
• By how much, and in what direction, will the FTSE100 change between midnight UK GE polling day and the end of 2024?
• Length of Sam B-F's gaol term upon sentencing (note: zero is a number).  Extra point for size of the fine in USD
• Where will Man Utd rank in the Prem at the end of the '23-4 season, and who will be manager?

Go for it!

ND

I just wish the Tory policies would make sense

It is so frustrating this election campaign:

- Labour have gone through the looking glass entirely, I thought 2017 was bad but 2019 is that on steroids. Now we have just pure crazy for a manifesto, nationalise everything, ban everything and not do Brexit either.

- The Lib Dems have discovered the modern proverb get woke. go broke. There are few votes for Swinson outside of Remainia, a small place to start with, as she lectures people on um, being men or other such transgressions.

- Which leaves the Tories way out in front with a simple promise (albeit soon to be broken) of doing Brexit and not being mad. However, they are not very Conservative. Over the weekend, Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, weighed in to announce under the new immigration policy there would be a surcharge for the NHS. All well and good, but if people come here and have a job offer (a pre-requisite of the new immigration policy)  then they will already be paying tax, 20% of which pays for the NHS. Why should they pay twice? Conservatives amongst all parties should not be promoting such a terrible idea.

Overall the Tories are still coming out with poorly though out ideas, especially around brexit and immigration. Yes they are miles better than the Opposition but that is a very low bar, it is so disappointing to live in an age of such 'agile politics' where nothing is thought our properly.