The problem is that the CCC's underlying financial assumptions are clearly fantasy. They assume, for example, that offshore windfarms today cost around half of what the audited accounts of windfarms show they *actually* cost. They then assume that costs fall further in the next few decades, despite the fact that they have been rising in recent years.
Most of the CO2 emissions reduction of the UK is due to deindustrialization or increased energy poverty. Pathway to net-zero is a misnomer, unless zero is civilization. Better call it pathway to poverty.
Thanks, that is a really helpful summary. It shows that the short term costs are going down, and that in the medium term, decarbonisation increases wealth for individual households. How we can use policy to make sure the shorter term costs are not inflicted on the least well off is really important including for political acceptance. Without this, it feeds the misinformation that some of your other commenters (who don’t appear to have read your article) are sharing here.
I'll reply to you, because I don't think Hannah reads her comments.But my response is equally aimed at Hannah's essay.
Electricity prices have been rising for the last thirty years as the proportion of renewables in supply rises. Why should this change absent policy changes? People have been promising cheap electricity for several years now, and the price is going up.
Prosperity depends on cheap abundant reliable energy supply. Winter energy payments to pensioners should be an absurdity, because energy should be so cheap that they are unnecessary.
LCOE is the wrong measure to use when predicting future electricity supply. What matters is not price but profitability. Prof. Brett Christophers explains why, and some of the many ways the electricity market is broken, in his book "The Price is Wrong". I strongly recommend you read it to correct your understanding of what is misinformation and what is not.
The UK now uses less energy per capita than China, a country with half the per-capita GDP, and the UK's trajectory is down while China's is up. This is energy poverty, and it is going to get worse.
The main reason for the price rises over the last few years is the loss of cheap gas (especially in the UK) and the cost of carbon credits (especially in Germany).
The current effect of renewables is to increase price volatility, but to lower average costs (though prices may not follow - thanks to the broken electricity market.)
You can see the effect of lower prices from renewables in the night time consumer rates, which are below the prices that gas generation can achieve.
If you compare prices today to prices in 2021 or 2022, then gas prices are the biggest factor. If you compare prices today to prices in 2015, then "green crap" is the biggest factor.
You cannot have cheap electricity if you have lots of wind power.
The price of gas only matters because policy makes it difficult, risky, and most of all, unprofitable to invest in any other kind of power generation without major subsidies such as power purchase agreements and/or guaranteed prices paid out of taxes. Investors are desperate to invest in green energy but most projects die in the financing stage because the numbers don't work, and they can't be made to work despite great efforts.
Again, I urge you to read Brett Christophers' book.
"The UK now uses less energy per capita than China". This is true for primary energy, not final energy (using the IRES methodology). China uses slightly more primary energy per capita than the UK, but 30% less final energy. The difference arises because the UK has a high share of renewables in its energy supply, whereas China has a high share of coal. For energy planning purposes, final energy is a far more useful measure of energy demand than primary energy.
Thank you, Hannah Ritchie, for summarizing the UK Climate Change Committee's 7th Carbon Budget so usefully, and for treating the remaining policy controversies so fairly and sympathetically to all sides.
Sorry, but this is something of a rose-tinted view of the 7th Carbon Budget. Their assumptions about the cost of renewables are in the realms of fantasy. They say Offshore wind will cost £38/MWh in 2030, but fixed-bottom offshore wind cost over £80/MWh in 2024 prices in AR6. Floating offshore wind, which will be required to hit the 125GW target is being offered at £245/MWh in AR7.
This massive error has knock on effects throughout the rest of their calculations, rendering them useless. There are other hockey-stick charts in there that do not bear any resemblance to a realistic forecast, like the dislocation in electricity prices relative to gas and the cost of heat pump installations.
For a more realistic assessment, see my article here:
"Can the UK get to net-zero? How could they get there? And how much will it cost?"
Given the essential nature of Co² to the ability to sustain life on earth, and in its role in helping to increase crop yield, it is odd to me why so few people ask the fundamental question: should we be reducing Co².
It appears to me that if we wish to have a green, healthy planet and abundant food supplies, we should increase the level of Co². It is certainly an uncontested fact that the earth is now much more verdant and fecund owing to the higher levels of Co² in suspension over the past few decades.
Even if one is totally wedded to the belief that Co² is the only or main cause of climate change, logically, there must be a realisation that reducing Co² would eventually result in the extinction of all life on earth! Or is this Maluthsian outcome the goal?
David, if this is written in good faith, then I will reply, but I doubt it will change your mind. The slim marginal benefits for crop yield by increasing CO2 pails into complete insignificance when balanced against the global warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Basically all gains in crop yield over the last 2 centuries have come from improvements in fertilisation (the Haber-Bosch process) as well as industrial farming techniques.
In contrast, anthropogenic global warming (caused predominantly by CO2) is leading to the collapse of food systems over the globe. A tiny gain I crop yield by increased CO2 would make NO DIFFERENCE when large crop growing regions face desertification, drought, extreme heat, and extreme weather events.
In good faith and in good science. I find it amazing that so many people don't start at first principles. Either, to question if a bit warmer might actually be beneficial, [it would] and if more Co² might be beneficial: again it would.
The CO² climate crisis hypothesis is best characterised as a religious belief held by secular western liberals and not something grounded in science. Though I suspect we are nearing the point when this will become universally accepted in the west. It already is in the rest of the world as it is only the rich western world that subscribes to this faith-based belief.
So you are correct, I don't agree with you, but respect your refreshing courtesy. So often people don't appear to be able to disagree while remaining civil. However, there is no utility in trying to respond with a rebuttal counter argument as you will not accept it.
Time will tell who is correct!
Just two things that are irrefutable.
Had humans not started to release Co² into the atmosphere when they did, at the prevailing levels Co² was being sequestered from the atmosphere, life on earth would have become extinct in the next million years. We are in a period of historically low levels of Co² in the atmosphere.
Many commercial plant growers flood their greenhouses with Co² up to 600ppm-800ppm to significantly increase crop yield.
Thank you Hannah, that’s a great summary. It’s also good that hydrogen seems to be being used sensibly in industry rather than home heating.
I do worry about all the greenhouse gas emissions from consumption and wonder if this is properly taken into account. Without behaviour change we’ll continue with huge road and airport infrastructure as well as the manufacturing emissions for huge numbers of cars and goods vehicles. I can’t see how all these emissions can be mitigated.
I agree that hydrogen will have almost no role on the demand side. Any one developing a hydrogen application needs to explain why this is not possible to do with direct electrification.
However, hydrogen may have a use on the supply side: Consuming negatively priced, or almost free,, electricity.
Extensive solar use across Europe means a surplus of solar power for much of the year. Hydrogen production may be the only way to use the surplus.
Then how do we get rid of the hydrogen? My suggestion would be to use it to make heat and electricity in fuel cells, in homes and other small buildings, in winter.
Ammonia fertiliser, plastics, lubricants, industrial chemicals, hydrogen reduction of iron ore to metal, and synthetic fuel for planes and ships. There are plenty of uses for hydrogen. Getting rid of it is not the problem. Making enough, cheaply enough, is the problem.
Just look at the graph! Most of the reduction of emission is due to the electric system, nothing to donwith deindustrialization nor energy poverty (I definitly played a role but it wasn’t the only/biggest factor)🙄
The problem is that the CCC's underlying financial assumptions are clearly fantasy. They assume, for example, that offshore windfarms today cost around half of what the audited accounts of windfarms show they *actually* cost. They then assume that costs fall further in the next few decades, despite the fact that they have been rising in recent years.
Most of the CO2 emissions reduction of the UK is due to deindustrialization or increased energy poverty. Pathway to net-zero is a misnomer, unless zero is civilization. Better call it pathway to poverty.
Fortunately, all these projections look like fantasy scenarios, physical reality will win out.
Thanks, that is a really helpful summary. It shows that the short term costs are going down, and that in the medium term, decarbonisation increases wealth for individual households. How we can use policy to make sure the shorter term costs are not inflicted on the least well off is really important including for political acceptance. Without this, it feeds the misinformation that some of your other commenters (who don’t appear to have read your article) are sharing here.
I'll reply to you, because I don't think Hannah reads her comments.But my response is equally aimed at Hannah's essay.
Electricity prices have been rising for the last thirty years as the proportion of renewables in supply rises. Why should this change absent policy changes? People have been promising cheap electricity for several years now, and the price is going up.
Prosperity depends on cheap abundant reliable energy supply. Winter energy payments to pensioners should be an absurdity, because energy should be so cheap that they are unnecessary.
LCOE is the wrong measure to use when predicting future electricity supply. What matters is not price but profitability. Prof. Brett Christophers explains why, and some of the many ways the electricity market is broken, in his book "The Price is Wrong". I strongly recommend you read it to correct your understanding of what is misinformation and what is not.
The UK now uses less energy per capita than China, a country with half the per-capita GDP, and the UK's trajectory is down while China's is up. This is energy poverty, and it is going to get worse.
The main reason for the price rises over the last few years is the loss of cheap gas (especially in the UK) and the cost of carbon credits (especially in Germany).
The current effect of renewables is to increase price volatility, but to lower average costs (though prices may not follow - thanks to the broken electricity market.)
You can see the effect of lower prices from renewables in the night time consumer rates, which are below the prices that gas generation can achieve.
If you compare prices today to prices in 2021 or 2022, then gas prices are the biggest factor. If you compare prices today to prices in 2015, then "green crap" is the biggest factor.
You cannot have cheap electricity if you have lots of wind power.
The price of gas only matters because policy makes it difficult, risky, and most of all, unprofitable to invest in any other kind of power generation without major subsidies such as power purchase agreements and/or guaranteed prices paid out of taxes. Investors are desperate to invest in green energy but most projects die in the financing stage because the numbers don't work, and they can't be made to work despite great efforts.
Again, I urge you to read Brett Christophers' book.
If wind and solar were cheaper than gas, why would they need subsidies?
What matters is how much money the investor makes from the asset.
Let go of your focus on cost, and look at revenue. No revenue, no investment, without the taxpayer making up the difference.
"The UK now uses less energy per capita than China". This is true for primary energy, not final energy (using the IRES methodology). China uses slightly more primary energy per capita than the UK, but 30% less final energy. The difference arises because the UK has a high share of renewables in its energy supply, whereas China has a high share of coal. For energy planning purposes, final energy is a far more useful measure of energy demand than primary energy.
Thank you, Hannah Ritchie, for summarizing the UK Climate Change Committee's 7th Carbon Budget so usefully, and for treating the remaining policy controversies so fairly and sympathetically to all sides.
Sorry, but this is something of a rose-tinted view of the 7th Carbon Budget. Their assumptions about the cost of renewables are in the realms of fantasy. They say Offshore wind will cost £38/MWh in 2030, but fixed-bottom offshore wind cost over £80/MWh in 2024 prices in AR6. Floating offshore wind, which will be required to hit the 125GW target is being offered at £245/MWh in AR7.
This massive error has knock on effects throughout the rest of their calculations, rendering them useless. There are other hockey-stick charts in there that do not bear any resemblance to a realistic forecast, like the dislocation in electricity prices relative to gas and the cost of heat pump installations.
For a more realistic assessment, see my article here:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/carbon-budget-misinformation
This is a great summary, and it's good to see a high-level plan. It will be interesting to see how events actually turn out.
"Can the UK get to net-zero? How could they get there? And how much will it cost?"
Given the essential nature of Co² to the ability to sustain life on earth, and in its role in helping to increase crop yield, it is odd to me why so few people ask the fundamental question: should we be reducing Co².
It appears to me that if we wish to have a green, healthy planet and abundant food supplies, we should increase the level of Co². It is certainly an uncontested fact that the earth is now much more verdant and fecund owing to the higher levels of Co² in suspension over the past few decades.
Even if one is totally wedded to the belief that Co² is the only or main cause of climate change, logically, there must be a realisation that reducing Co² would eventually result in the extinction of all life on earth! Or is this Maluthsian outcome the goal?
David, if this is written in good faith, then I will reply, but I doubt it will change your mind. The slim marginal benefits for crop yield by increasing CO2 pails into complete insignificance when balanced against the global warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Basically all gains in crop yield over the last 2 centuries have come from improvements in fertilisation (the Haber-Bosch process) as well as industrial farming techniques.
In contrast, anthropogenic global warming (caused predominantly by CO2) is leading to the collapse of food systems over the globe. A tiny gain I crop yield by increased CO2 would make NO DIFFERENCE when large crop growing regions face desertification, drought, extreme heat, and extreme weather events.
In good faith and in good science. I find it amazing that so many people don't start at first principles. Either, to question if a bit warmer might actually be beneficial, [it would] and if more Co² might be beneficial: again it would.
The CO² climate crisis hypothesis is best characterised as a religious belief held by secular western liberals and not something grounded in science. Though I suspect we are nearing the point when this will become universally accepted in the west. It already is in the rest of the world as it is only the rich western world that subscribes to this faith-based belief.
So you are correct, I don't agree with you, but respect your refreshing courtesy. So often people don't appear to be able to disagree while remaining civil. However, there is no utility in trying to respond with a rebuttal counter argument as you will not accept it.
Time will tell who is correct!
Just two things that are irrefutable.
Had humans not started to release Co² into the atmosphere when they did, at the prevailing levels Co² was being sequestered from the atmosphere, life on earth would have become extinct in the next million years. We are in a period of historically low levels of Co² in the atmosphere.
Many commercial plant growers flood their greenhouses with Co² up to 600ppm-800ppm to significantly increase crop yield.
Thank you Hannah, that’s a great summary. It’s also good that hydrogen seems to be being used sensibly in industry rather than home heating.
I do worry about all the greenhouse gas emissions from consumption and wonder if this is properly taken into account. Without behaviour change we’ll continue with huge road and airport infrastructure as well as the manufacturing emissions for huge numbers of cars and goods vehicles. I can’t see how all these emissions can be mitigated.
Can’t happen. Won’t happen.
I agree that hydrogen will have almost no role on the demand side. Any one developing a hydrogen application needs to explain why this is not possible to do with direct electrification.
However, hydrogen may have a use on the supply side: Consuming negatively priced, or almost free,, electricity.
Extensive solar use across Europe means a surplus of solar power for much of the year. Hydrogen production may be the only way to use the surplus.
Then how do we get rid of the hydrogen? My suggestion would be to use it to make heat and electricity in fuel cells, in homes and other small buildings, in winter.
Ammonia fertiliser, plastics, lubricants, industrial chemicals, hydrogen reduction of iron ore to metal, and synthetic fuel for planes and ships. There are plenty of uses for hydrogen. Getting rid of it is not the problem. Making enough, cheaply enough, is the problem.
(Again) very insightful !
Just look at the graph! Most of the reduction of emission is due to the electric system, nothing to donwith deindustrialization nor energy poverty (I definitly played a role but it wasn’t the only/biggest factor)🙄
Brilliant summary
Great article Hannah