Labour and its fixation on Net Zero must also take responsibility for the pending death of British Steel. It was Labour, in 2023, that promised to invest in ‘all available clean-steel technologies… innovations to make the UK a world leader in clean steel’. In the same press release, then leader of the opposition Keir Starmer committed to ‘greening the steel that will make the solar panels and wind turbines built to power our homes for years to come’. This was thoroughly delusional. Not only are solar panels and wind turbines not the answer to our energy needs, but there also aren’t even any British factories making solar panels at present.
Similarly, it was Jonathan Reynolds, in February this year, who claimed that decarbonising steel ‘will never mean deindustrialisation’, boasting of Britain’s ‘world-leading research and development capabilities’ in the sector. But this isn’t true. Between 2021 and 2023, Tata, a leading investor in steel research and development, spent just £11million annually on ‘green steel’ research. It will take many more millions (and many more years) for decarbonisation to ever result in anything but deindustrialisation.
My only objection to this article is it should read “The Labour and Tory fixation on Net Zero must also take responsibility…”
Like the tariffs that Trump announced yesterday, Net Zero has been a massive act of self-harm by the UK, and other nations that imposed it with any sort of determination.
Whilst steel is about 2/3rds of a wind turbine, the blades are not and they need to be replaced regularly and are non recyclable, and there’s the massive block of CO2 emitting concrete it all sits on top of.
And, as is the way, completely ignoring the energy storage requirement that unreliable wind turbines need.
Why did no-one see this coming when net zero was first proposed? Why did the engineers – either electrical or mechanical – not object? Why was it left to a few individuals working largely alone?
Renewable energy has three intractable problems: it’s unpredictably intermittent; there isn’t even any theoretical technology which could store electricity at the scale required for when the Sun isn’t shining and the wind doesn’t blow; finally wind and solar are low-density sources of energy, meaning they require lots of infrastructure – with its attendant expense – to generate a given amount of power.
Johnathan Pearce.
In reality New Zero is an inverted “tariff” – it is the opposite of what President Trump has done. It imposes a cost on domestic producers – but NOT on imports. China can produce as much carbon dioxide as it likes – and carry on exporting to the United Kingdom.
Therefore it is clear that “New Zero” has nothing to do with reducing world carbon dioxide emissions – its sole aim is to get rid of what is left of British industry. After all carbon dioxide produced in China goes into the same world atmosphere as carbon dioxide produced in Britain.
As for the idea that Mr Farage would end this policy – well he gave in on the Northern Ireland Protocol, and he gave in a mass deportation of illegal immigrants. He would, I believe, give in on this policy as well.
Someone who is not even going to deport the one million (at least one million) illegal migrants is not going to end Net Zero.
“It is politically impossible” would be the reason given – meaning it is just too difficult to defeat the officials, including the judges, in the United Kingdom.
Ben Habib and Rupert Lowe have exposed the position.
Paul, no, tariffs, by raising costs and deliberately thwarting competition – and also giving ground to various producer interests – are self-harming.
The way that Western nations are doing Net Zero is also self harming, even if the dynamics are different.
Also, American energy costs are cheaper than in Europe because of things such as fracking. That’s a big competitive advantage, rendering tariffs on Europe irrelevant.
“Green” steel?
Reduction of ore using Hydrogen instead of Carbon??
Madness on stilts; hazardous, at best. Has nobody ever heard the term; “Hydrogen embrittlement”?
Has ANYONE actually built a commercially-viable, (unsubsidized) HYDROGEN-FUELED BLAST FURNACE? Has anybody published a valid paper on the design and construction of such a system. Not a “toy” version, but a serious 24 / 7 / 365 industrial-scale one? one that operates with “open books” and NO “creative accounting”.
It was said long and hard.
I can remember articles dating back to the early 2000’s in mining circles stating that there would never be enough copper, by a factor of at least 10 to enable all this electrification.
Johnathan Pearce – I repeat my previous comment.
Net Zero is the opposite of a tariff – it harms domestic producers and pushes imports.
It also does NOT reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions – as Carbon Dioxide produced in China is still Carbon Dioxide.
Whatever Net Zero is about it is NOT about less world (global) Carbon Dioxide emissions – on the contrary the Net Zero policy will INCREASE Carbon Dioxide emissions, when one takes account of the Carbon Dioxide produced by moving the products from China (and so on) to Britain.