Current Net Zero plans and roadmaps branded ‘utopian and unsustainable’
London 18 May — With mounting concern in the media about the true cost of the Government’s Net Zero project the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) is today publishing a realistic alternative that reduces CO2 emissions without inflicting astronomical costs on consumers.
The Government’s current Net Zero plans and the utopian Net Zero roadmap published today by the International Energy Agency (IEA) are dangerously expensive and will result in painful reductions in living standards for all but the richest, as well as national weakness, societal instability and the eventual failure of the decarbonisation effort.
The GWPF proposal requires that electricity generation policy must refocus on dispatchable low-emissions plants to deliver a secure and competitive electricity system as an enabler for the UK’s manufacturing industries.
The proposal envisages a Gas to Gas-Nuclear system, unwinding the extreme costs of the failing renewables fleets, delivering immediate consumer relief and a rapid program of low-carbon Combined Cycle Gas Turbine construction on existing sites, leading to a new generation of nuclear employing Small Modular Reactors.
The alternative energy strategy has been developed by Dr Capell Aris, a nuclear physicist and power sector engineer, and Dr John Constable, the GWPF’s Energy Editor. The proposal is based on technical papers by Dr Aris, some in collaboration with Colin Gibson, the former Power Networks Director at National Grid, also published by GWPF.
The authors said:
Current UK climate policies are ill-informed and utopian and will almost certainly fail to deliver Net Zero emissions by 2050, or ever. It also runs a high risk of deep and irreversible societal damage.”
Because of the time wasted and the harms already inflicted by the current policies, the practical and engineerable programme we outline today cannot deliver Net Zero by 2050, but it will reduce CO2 emissions rapidly and sustainably without destabilising British society. It is what the UK should have done in the early 2000s. It is not too late to change course, but there is not a moment to lose.”