"Some are inclined to conclude that this is a consequence of ideology combined with a reckless disregard for the impact of that ideology on the population. Sadly, I doubt that anything is that organised."
It absolutely is that "organised". You are aware that the Clean Power 2030 tsar, appointed by bacon butty Ed himself, is one Chris Stark - the idealogue's idealogue, second only perhaps to the lunatic Emma Pinchbeck? The DESNZ response was probably penned by Stark himself.
I wouldn't dispute your point about the Clean Power strategy. I had a much broader range of issues in mind. These include, for example, REMA (the review of electricity market arrangements), management of reliability issues, policies for interconnectors, etc. All of these predate the current government by months or years. DESNZ policymaking is just a horrible mess.
Thank you for relaying this Gordon. I have been pondering your final paragraph in particular. Real knowledge and competence in any complex field are of course hard-won and the result of sustained effort over considerable time. It is not reasonable to expect politicians to be competent in energy and electricity generation, distribution and pricing, but I believe we have the right to expect them to have the humility to recognise this and the wisdom to choose advisers who have real experience and a range of (sometimes dissenting) views. That would exclude youngsters whose only contribution is to sing sweetly from a hymn sheet. One can understand the welcome received by the appointment of Chris Wright as energy secretary in the US.
The important thing is that they have taken notice and engaged. Since their reply is nonsense (as is the recent analysis by EMBER in support if CP2030) it will be much easier to secure wider public debate and understanding.
I am not sure how much they have engaged. The comment was pretty much the press office on autopilot. To be fair it is difficult for low level bureaucrats asked for a comment at short notice to do anything more.
What I have learned from Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson of Trust the Evidence is that one way of getting through to otherwise impervious bureaucracies is to nag and make fun of them continuously.
I will take a look at the Ember report. They have gone from an organisation that used to publish small amounts of useful data to a consultancy that hides its data and produces nonsense reports. Such are the incentives in the renewables lobby.
This just continues the theme of bringing stuff under central control, then farming it out to govt bodies (e.g. statutory instruments) rather than keeping independence of thought and subjecting policy to the ravages of debate in the HoC where it belongs. At least we can vote whole govts out every 5 years.
I'm not sure that there are many in the HoC with the necessary understanding to be able to query the policy implications. That's why they subcontracted to quangos and Brussels to come up with her rules that they simply rubber stamp. Brussels is back in vogue now, despite Brexit.
NESO has just launched a consultation that aims to secure support for its plans to reduce the minimum level of grid inertia (which allows more wind on the system at the risk of blackouts caused by grid disturbances). Their plan essentially depends on rapid response batteries always working whenever there is a grid upset. Much of the time they do, but occasionally things happen that they don't understand, and the response proves inadequate. The issues are highly technical.
At the same time they are seeking to reduce oversight over their work in this area by removing it from outside scrutiny. Marking their own homework is a recipe for disaster.
There are plenty of experts like Gordon who could be consulted so the awkward questions are asked in the HoC and select committees that start to prise open the flaws in the policy. MPs need to stop trying to point score and just chip away but targeted questioning.
IDAU, do you have details, please, regarding the consultation on reduction of grid inertia? Such a reduction sounds very dangerous to me ... like parents encouraging their very young children to play with matches again and again. Regards, John C.
We’re in much bigger trouble than I thought. In the old days one might have expected to be invited into the department to be handed a marked-up copy of the paper showing where you went wrong. These days it seems ideology trumps data and reasoning.
"Some are inclined to conclude that this is a consequence of ideology combined with a reckless disregard for the impact of that ideology on the population. Sadly, I doubt that anything is that organised."
It absolutely is that "organised". You are aware that the Clean Power 2030 tsar, appointed by bacon butty Ed himself, is one Chris Stark - the idealogue's idealogue, second only perhaps to the lunatic Emma Pinchbeck? The DESNZ response was probably penned by Stark himself.
I wouldn't dispute your point about the Clean Power strategy. I had a much broader range of issues in mind. These include, for example, REMA (the review of electricity market arrangements), management of reliability issues, policies for interconnectors, etc. All of these predate the current government by months or years. DESNZ policymaking is just a horrible mess.
Thank you for relaying this Gordon. I have been pondering your final paragraph in particular. Real knowledge and competence in any complex field are of course hard-won and the result of sustained effort over considerable time. It is not reasonable to expect politicians to be competent in energy and electricity generation, distribution and pricing, but I believe we have the right to expect them to have the humility to recognise this and the wisdom to choose advisers who have real experience and a range of (sometimes dissenting) views. That would exclude youngsters whose only contribution is to sing sweetly from a hymn sheet. One can understand the welcome received by the appointment of Chris Wright as energy secretary in the US.
The important thing is that they have taken notice and engaged. Since their reply is nonsense (as is the recent analysis by EMBER in support if CP2030) it will be much easier to secure wider public debate and understanding.
EMBER 's fantasy
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/clean-power-2030-builds-stability-by-cutting-import-reliance/
Sock puppetry financed by DESNZ/NESO.
I am not sure how much they have engaged. The comment was pretty much the press office on autopilot. To be fair it is difficult for low level bureaucrats asked for a comment at short notice to do anything more.
What I have learned from Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson of Trust the Evidence is that one way of getting through to otherwise impervious bureaucracies is to nag and make fun of them continuously.
I will take a look at the Ember report. They have gone from an organisation that used to publish small amounts of useful data to a consultancy that hides its data and produces nonsense reports. Such are the incentives in the renewables lobby.
I used to have a maxim at work to challenge my staff’s work - “bollocks. Prove it. Show your workings”. It stood the test of time.
This just continues the theme of bringing stuff under central control, then farming it out to govt bodies (e.g. statutory instruments) rather than keeping independence of thought and subjecting policy to the ravages of debate in the HoC where it belongs. At least we can vote whole govts out every 5 years.
I'm not sure that there are many in the HoC with the necessary understanding to be able to query the policy implications. That's why they subcontracted to quangos and Brussels to come up with her rules that they simply rubber stamp. Brussels is back in vogue now, despite Brexit.
NESO has just launched a consultation that aims to secure support for its plans to reduce the minimum level of grid inertia (which allows more wind on the system at the risk of blackouts caused by grid disturbances). Their plan essentially depends on rapid response batteries always working whenever there is a grid upset. Much of the time they do, but occasionally things happen that they don't understand, and the response proves inadequate. The issues are highly technical.
At the same time they are seeking to reduce oversight over their work in this area by removing it from outside scrutiny. Marking their own homework is a recipe for disaster.
There are plenty of experts like Gordon who could be consulted so the awkward questions are asked in the HoC and select committees that start to prise open the flaws in the policy. MPs need to stop trying to point score and just chip away but targeted questioning.
IDAU, do you have details, please, regarding the consultation on reduction of grid inertia? Such a reduction sounds very dangerous to me ... like parents encouraging their very young children to play with matches again and again. Regards, John C.
You can find the details and their supporting presentations here:
https://www.neso.energy/industry-information/codes/security-and-quality-supply-standard-sqss/frequency-risk-and-control-report-frcr
Also worth looking at the analysis here ( including some linked in the comments)
https://watt-logic.com/2024/12/23/gb-grid-frequency/
Thank you, IDAU. Regards, John C.
We’re in much bigger trouble than I thought. In the old days one might have expected to be invited into the department to be handed a marked-up copy of the paper showing where you went wrong. These days it seems ideology trumps data and reasoning.