Government plans to decarbonize the economy by 2050 are set for failure. That’s according to eminent engineer Professor Gautam Kalghatgi, who warns that politicians seem blind to the sheer scale of the project to which they have committed the country.
Professor Kalghatgi’s views are set out in a new briefing paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation‘s Net Zero Watch.
In it, he outlines the scope of the changes that will be required for full decarbonization, looking at the energy required to run the economy, and the resources required to do so without fossil fuels.
He finds that the Net Zero project is beset by wishful thinking, bad advice, and misrepresentation of the scope of the task.
He calls instead for an honest assessment of renewables technologies, and a new focus on adaptation to climate change.
Professor Kalghatgi said:
“Nobody in Westminster seems aware of just how much we depend on fossil fuels. Do they seriously think we can switch the entire economy to wind power, simply because they say so? Without any means of storing electricity in bulk? This utopian plan is almost certain to fail.”
Gautam Kalghatgi: Scoping Net Zero (pdf)
About the author
Gautam Kalghatgi is a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, and the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has been a visiting professor at Oxford University, Imperial College, Sheffield University, KTH Stockholm, and TU Eindhoven. He has 39 years of experience in combustion, fuels, engine, and energy research; 31 years with Shell, and eight years with Saudi Aramco.
I don’t think the Greens believe it can be done, at least on the terms it is being sold on. They do not want a high energy society even if it could be done with wind and solar. They are committed to a return to nature; they want a low energy society. They are happy for politicians to be led, and lead everyone else, down a Utopian garden path. But it’s a bait and switch; Net Zero will mean energy (and thus general) poverty.
That’s why they destroy (e.g. power stations) before finding adequate replacements. Because there aren’t any such replacements. But by the time the majority wake up to the reality, it will (hopefully, in Green minds) too late to reverse course.
We still need Fossil Fuels we can not depend upon alternatives Wind and Solar can not be depended upon we need better sources of energy not the Pipe Dreams of a bunch of Nit-Wits who meditate in the forests and have Pine Cone bonk them on their head
Gautam Kalghatgi may be an eminent professor, but those credentials are not needed to see that net zero can not be achieved. Wind and solar simply do not have the energy density to run a modern industrial society. There also is no feasible technology for storing enough energy for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
Professor Kalghatgi said there needs to be a new focus on adaptation to climate change. If harmful anthropological climate change were real, this would be the only feasible option other than nuclear. Adaptation is what we should plan on. However, since harmful climate change isn’t happening, there will be nothing to adapt to.
David, while I agree with most of what you say, we need to adapt to the cool period that is approaching. The weather is cooling and we are definitely not ready for what that brings and how seriously it affects human life if we can’t keep warm.
This professor knows what he’s talking about and much of what he says is common sense anyway…
“Nobody in Westminster seems aware of just how much we depend on fossil fuels. Do they seriously think we can switch the entire economy to wind power, simply because they say so? Without any means of storing electricity in bulk? This utopian plan is almost certain to fail.”
No, you need to remove the word “almost” in the last sentence. It is GUARANTEED to fail.
On the other hand if Gates et al get their evil plan to depopulate the world, then windpower may be adequate for those that survive. You have to see all the parts of the jigsaw puzzle.