NET ZERO: We in Great Britain Don't Have the Money, Workforce or Materials to Achieve Net Zero.

Emeritus Professor Michael Kelly "Its an engineering fantasy." I wonder if that is the case in Australia.

Summary

Michael Kelly, an Emeritus Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge and former government scientist, argues that the UK's Net Zero plans by 2050 are an "engineering fantasy" due to practical, financial, and resource constraints. Below is a summary of the key points he makes during the conversation:

1. Immense Financial Costs:

   • Achieving Net Zero by electrifying ground transport and all industrial, commercial, and domestic heating would require expanding the electrical grid at an estimated cost of £1.4 trillion.

   • Retrofitting all 26 million UK houses to reduce carbon emissions by 100% could cost around £2–4 trillion, based on pilot programs showing £85,000 per house for only 60% emission reductions.

   • These costs equate to 7–8% of GDP, far exceeding earlier estimates (e.g., Lord Stern’s 1% of GDP), potentially requiring tax increases and equalling the education budget for 30 years.

2. Workforce Shortages:

   • The plan would need 40,000 civil and electrical engineers and three times as many skilled tradespeople working full-time for 30 years, a workforce comparable to the education or health sectors.

   • The UK lacks these personnel, with training a professional engineer taking 10 years, and current shortages already evident (e.g., plumbers, electricians).

   • Diverting engineers from critical roles (e.g., hospital life support systems) would be necessary but impractical.

3. Material Constraints:

   • Electrifying all cars would require copper equivalent to one year’s global supply, and wind turbines need 600–700 times more high-quality steel and concrete than gas turbines for equivalent energy output.

   • Copper mining must increase tenfold, but supply is limited, and renewable infrastructure (e.g., wind farms) is material-intensive, contradicting efficient resource use principles.

4. Grid Expansion Challenges:

   • The current grid must triple in size (2.7 times) to handle electrified transport (0.7) and heating (1.0), as winter heating demands three times more energy than electricity.

   • Most homes need rewiring (e.g., from 60 to 120 amps) to support heat pumps, fast chargers, and electric appliances, costing £700 billion for distribution upgrades.

   • Infrastructure limits (e.g., transformers, wires) in some regions are already at capacity, and grid connection delays for wind farms can reach 15 years.

5. Energy Storage Limitations:

   • Battery storage is prohibitively expensive and impractical. For example, a £45 million battery in Adelaide could power the city for 17 minutes, and one for Addenbrooke’s Hospital would cost 180–1,300 times more than diesel generators for equivalent reliability.

   • Battery energy density is 40 times less than petrol, with only a six-fold improvement over 50 years and a projected two-fold increase in the next 50, making large-scale storage unfeasible this century.

6. Unrealistic Timelines and Lack of Planning:

   • Retrofitting progress is slow (1% in 10 years vs. a needed 25% in 40 years), and there’s no roadmap for Net Zero, unlike the semiconductor industry’s clear 10-year plans.

   • The scale of disruption (e.g., rewiring homes, replacing appliances) is comparable to the 1960s gas conversion but far more complex, requiring decades of coordinated effort.

7. Ethical and Professional Concerns:

   • Kelly argues it’s unethical and unprofessional for engineers and institutions (e.g., Royal Academy of Engineering, Royal Society) to not highlight Net Zero’s infeasibility, comparing it to building on an earthquake fault without warning.

   • Engineers have a Code of Ethics requiring transparency, but many remain silent, assuming Net Zero is possible or avoiding debate to “go along for the ride.”

8. Lack of Open Debate:

   • There’s no public or scientific debate on Net Zero’s feasibility, with Kelly’s estimates dismissed without explanation (e.g., by the Energy Secretary).

   • Cancel culture and fear of backlash deter scientists from questioning climate models or Net Zero policies, as admitting models “run too hot” could slash research funding.

9. Climate Model Inaccuracies:

   • Climate models are unreliable for long-term predictions, akin to weather forecasts beyond 10 days, due to complex, unproven assumptions about interacting variables.

   • The belief that zero carbon emissions will stop climate change is flawed, as climate has always changed, and past geological periods had higher CO2 and temperatures without catastrophic outcomes.

10. Global Context and Futility:

    • UK and US emission reductions are dwarfed by China’s (33 times UK savings) and India’s (7 times) increases from 2000–2022, rendering local efforts futile.

    • EU restrictions on fossil fuel development in Africa, forcing reliance on costly renewables, are seen as immoral and akin to modern slavery.

11. Electric Vehicle (EV) Challenges:

    • EVs are less practical due to high battery costs, limited range (half a petrol tank’s), and inefficiencies in cold climates.

    • Consumer reluctance is evident (e.g., unsold EVs at Bristol port), and mandates forcing EV sales could harm the car industry, leading to degrowth.

12. Environmental Irony:

    • Renewable energy (e.g., wind, solar) requires extensive land use and mining, causing more ecological damage than fossil fuels, which use smaller pipelines.

    • Green lobbyists are criticized for single-issue focus, ignoring trade-offs like material use and environmental impact.

13. Nuclear as a Partial Solution:

    • Small nuclear reactors, proven in US Navy warships, are viable but face overregulation due to excessive safety standards (e.g., surviving nuclear bombs or plane crashes).

    • France’s low electricity costs from nuclear power demonstrate feasibility, but current reactors wouldn’t meet modern safety rules, and nuclear can’t ramp up/down quickly like gas turbines.

14. Adaptation Over Mitigation:

    • Kelly advocates adaptation (e.g., sea walls, like New Zealand’s earthquake fund) over mitigation, as it’s more practical and only requires action when needed (e.g., Thames Barrier’s success).

    • Net Zero’s scale risks a financial crash by the decade’s end, exacerbated by unrealistic policies and economic burdens.

15. Societal and Economic Impacts:

    • Modern civilization relies on seven times more energy per person than in 1800, and reducing energy use would revert living standards to pre-industrial levels.

    • New technologies (e.g., EVs) destroy old jobs (e.g., like shipping to aviation), and Net Zero could lead to degrowth, reducing production and mobility.

Kelly concludes that Net Zero is unachievable by 2050 due to insurmountable barriers in cost, workforce, materials, and infrastructure, urging a shift to adaptation and more realistic energy policies like nuclear, while criticising the lack of debate and professional accountability.