Labour is promising growth based on carbon capture and storage, new nuclear power stations and sustainable flying, and none of them are known to work. They're gambling on economic fantasies.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Labour's economic policies are increasingly based upon fantasy. I wish I didn't have to say that, but let me explain.
Labour says it's going to deliver economic growth in the UK, and at the same time, it's going to deliver net zero. I don't believe them. On the basis of their policies, I think they're talking utter rubbish, and their ideas are based upon economic fantasies.
There are three issues that illustrate this point, and I'm going to try and keep them as simple as possible.
Those three issues are carbon capture and storage, which they are planning to use to control the emissions of big business and therefore achieve net zero, and nuclear power, which is based upon the idea that there can be a new series of at least ten nuclear power stations built in the UK, and a third runway for Heathrow.
Let's run through those. Carbon capture and storage was announced first of these three, so perhaps I will pick it for that reason.
Carbon capture and storage is a relatively simple idea. What it says is that we don't have to stop industry from producing carbon, which we all know is polluting the atmosphere and, therefore, creating climate change. Instead, we capture the carbon that is created by business in its industrial processes, and then store it underground, in the case of the UK, almost certainly in the old oil and gas fields under the North Sea. There's just one little problem with this idea: nobody's actually done it. There are some trial exercises, I admit, but nobody has ever proven that this carbon capture and storage process is capable of delivery at the scale that would be necessary if the UK was in any way to manage the emissions of business that are necessary if we are to achieve net zero.
Despite this, Ed Miliband, the cabinet minister who was once seen as a friend of everything green and who now appears to be the opponent of everything that is green, has committed £22 billion to carbon capture and storage.
What else could he have done with that money? He could have talked about putting insulation into UK houses and cutting the demand for energy.
He could have literally talked about putting solar panels on the roofs of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of households.
But no, he didn't want to do that. He instead wants to undertake an economic fantasy; something that has not been proven to be possible, is what he's choosing over actual deliverables that would create jobs in streets throughout the UK, for real people in the UK, in every constituency in the UK, and which would work. This is what I mean by economic fantasy.
And the nuclear program, to which he has also signed up, which is supposedly going to deliver clean energy from ten new nuclear power stations, is just as fantastical as is carbon capture and storage. The reason why is that these are all based upon a technology created by Rolls Royce called the Small Modular Reactor. And absolutely nobody has any idea whether they will work or not. The technology is, once again, totally unproven. But we are apparently going to have ten of them.
Will they work? Who knows.
How will the waste be managed? Who knows.
What will be the cost from managing the waste from ten new nuclear power stations? Who knows? But I do know that the cost of clearing the first ever nuclear establishment in Scotland – Dounreay - a tiny little reactor built in the 1950s, has recently been increased from £2 billion to £8 billion, and it won't be clean for another century as yet, which actually means nobody knows when or if it will ever happen.
So, this isn't clean energy. It is actually about creating long-term, dangerous waste that we don't know how to manage and at what cost. And yet, Labour is pursuing it because this is another economic fantasy on its part. Growth is apparently all that matters. The fact that we might destroy significant parts of the countryside that can never be used again as a consequence of doing so is neither here nor there.
And then we come to Heathrow.
We know that we have to cut the number of flights that we will undertake if we are to manage climate change. There is no question about that. Only fantasists believe that we can carry on flying more and more and at the same time achieve net zero. You cannot, quite literally, burn the planet and at the same time say you're saving the planet. Those two goals are incompatible and there is nothing that can be done with sustainable air fuel, which is, according to Rachel Reeves, the thing that squares that circle, because, to make enough sustainable air fuel for use by aircraft that will fly down the new third runway at Heathrow would require half the agricultural landmass of the UK to grow the cops in question, leaving us with very little food.
So this, again, is total fantasy from Labour. They're pretending that we can somehow or other continue to fly in the UK even though we won't be able to, and they're building a new resource to facilitate those flights even though no planes will eventually go down that runway because we won't be able to literally use those planes if we want to save the planet.
So, what is Labour up to here? They are living with the most extraordinary short-term thinking, which is totally based upon fantasy because Heathrow Airport hasn't actually asked for a third runway yet, Rolls Royce hasn't proved that their reactors work as yet, and absolutely nobody on the planet knows whether carbon capture and storage work as yet. But Labour is putting all its faith into these unproven situations to supposedly create the economic growth which is going to let us have nurses and education and everything else.
They could, of course, do something else. They could, of course, simply fund nurses and education and whatever else it is, because they have the power to do so because they create the money in this country and direct how it is used. Instead, they want to play games of economic fantasy.
And I don't trust them for that reason.
These are dangerous games. They should not be being pursued.
They are playing with our planet.
They're putting lives at risk.
They're putting futures at risk.
They aren't going to deliver growth, and they are threatening the well-being of generations to come. They're dangerous people, and I really don't think they deserve to be in office.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
In terms of fantasy Labour appears no different than Trump! Not very bright and a real danger to people and the planet!
The ineptitude of the Lino government has so far been staggering. We need more renewable energy not nuclear. We need storage for renewable energy such as using old mine shafts and using weights, simple but effective. We need more social housing built which would reduce private rental demand, naturally bringing down prices of rents and houses. As long as our governments perpetuate the status quo where all of the wealth generated in the country is for the few and funnelled upwards things will only get worse. These are not complicated ideas to grasp which leads me to believe politicians have no intention of improving anything for anyone but themselves and paymasters.
This is a Guardian pick on John Harris’s article today:-
“We can all roll our eyes at easy political mantras like “growth”, but if we want to spend more, where else is the money to come from? Many on here will shoot back with the equally trite “tax the rich”, but just how many “rich”, trapped in this country and willing to be bled dry, so we think there are?”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/09/keir-starmer-politics-labour-growth-reform-uk#comment-170612825
I despair! Presented with no facts whatsoever not even a mention tax rates used to be much higher after the Second World War. No mention governments have had to introduce a Minimum Wage (inadequate at that) because capital doesn’t want to fairly reimburse many of its workers!
I do, indeed, despair.
Harris’s recent vox populi articles have been selective in their sampling. I see only the occasional BTL from people with any real knowledge, most are rabbiting dumb tropes from MSM.
reading the article (& looking at the on-going omni-shambles of LINO gov) Starmer comes across as just………….not very good/totally unsuited for gov. Again, the film McLibel showed that back then he was OK – good with people – recognisably human – probably nice to have a beer with. Given the claimed “absence of convictions and ideals” – perhaps reflected in the lying (about what he would & would not do when campaigning to be leader), & his comments about Corbyn one concludes that perhaps he should go back to law and leave politics to those that have the capacity to “do it” something which Starmer patently does not (& all the signs have been there since circa 2020) – not that he will go – after all if he did McSweeney (and his rabble) would lose their meal ticket.
I have to agree with you
A viable means of storing electricity is liquid air. See https://highviewpower.com/ Scotland is investing in this on the site of the former nuclear power station at Hunterston on the Clyde. https://www.thenational.scot/news/24652425.plan-worlds-largest-liquid-air-energy-site-scotland-unveiled/
Very low carbon, more people should know about it.
The website is remarkably vague about what this is.
OK, fair point if you just look at the link I sent. This page has a useful diagram https://highviewpower.com/technology/
Basically, when electricity surplus to demand is generated, it is used to freeze air, which is then stored. When not enough electricity to satisfy demand is needed the frozen air is allowed to thaw out and drives a turbine.
I confess that sounds highly implausible.
No steer Keir, Reeves, McSweeney are fixated on “change/growth” that has nothing to do with improving the lot of the ordinary people of the UK.
Presumably the focus groups are deliberately not offered “improvement choices” rather confirmation bias options that confirm the Labour leaders fixations?
Seems like they cannot resist lobbyists. I wonder if an investigative journalist would find that Labour are receiving benefits from making these proposals, as the public certainly aren’t.
I’m fairly certain in the announcement about smr’s there was no mention at all of Rolls Royce only to investment to be made towards the private sector which I found interesting.
All excellent points, and we have to wonder who has the dirt on Ed to cause such a turnabout by him.
Still., just on the Small Modular Reactor – Rolls Royce has relevant experience, since they equip our nuclear powered subs, and a SMR could be just a larger version. Thinking about the energy requirements of a sub, a SMR modelled on similar lines could become useful as dispatchable power, unlike the large Nuclear Power plants we have that are generally used to run at constant output for very long periods of time as base load.
Of course, as you point out, we just have no solution to disposing of such power plants, and even our old nuclear subs are all just sitting decaying in Devonport waiting for someone to work out how to dispose of them safely!
But no one knows how to decommission those subs
And nuclear submarines have a specialist crew of highly trained nuclear experts to keep the boat operational. Are we planning to have a similar 24/7 staff for each of these SMRs?
I am sure they will be required.
Looks like we will need a nuclear priesthood to guard this waste for tens of thousands of years, with rising sea levels. Although with the collapse of the climate and much of society who knows who will be left to guard it or even know what it is. What an appalling legacy.
Bad as bribery is, fixed ideological thinking IMHO, is worse.
Even when the ideology is found wanting, people often stubbornly hang on trying to show they weren’t wrong. Reeves and Starmer are not the sort to admit they got it wrong and change tack. Change could tear the Labour party apart, possibly giving Conservative/Reform a victory by default. However, Schofield is right. We must have an alternative story to tell.
Once more we can see that a lack of long term planning from government just allows shittier ideas to come in and have their day at everyone’s expense in the long run.
Might it be that the submerged objectives of the recent and current L I N O clique party are to combine the powers of politics and big business to exploit regular people and their children and our natural world’s stability for a their short term benefit?
Might their techniques involve the internal and the external?
1) Filtering out those who make cases for less selfish aims
2) Presenting deceptive policies and practices which are weak in verifiable validity but strong in enabling their delusive aims and in their emotionally attractive appeal of creating a fantasy, cosy but exciting, utopia?
You couldn’t make it up – willful ignorance coupled with venality and a quasi religious committment to fantasy economics.
They have a hermetically sealed closed book stance – maybe because they are a faction – not a political party that has a genuine interest in listening to what people want and to those who might know how best to deliver it.
If they really believed that the private sector has the magical knowledge – you would have thought they would let it get on and invest in CCS and nuclear – but oh no this ‘we have no money’ govt happy to hand over £billions to their ‘donors’ – and presumably future employers.
Despicable,
I think you have a typo here… “would require half the agricultural landmass of the UK to grow the cops in question, leaving us with very little food.”
No matter how tasty cops might be, “Eating people is wrong” according to Flanders and Swan’s “The Reluctant Cannibal”!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjAHw2DEBgw
Sorry
Thanks Richard for a very useful evaluation. I don’t see how anyone could disagree.
Just to add a little to the reasons all of these proposals are fantasy – you don’t mention timescales. None of the proposals could produce anything in terms of growqth or change within the next decade,as a minimum. Even if they COULD work
Agreed
Following on from @liam Kirby the climb out of recession in the 1930’s was in part at least driven by house building.
We could just do it again and try something proven not unproven
That of course and as outlined in a report from RIBA improving the insulation of the houses built in the inter war period.
This week, the main policies of Starmer and Reeves are centred on survival. That is, avoiding a leadership challenge. Miliband, the obvious danger, must be prevented. The left wing of the Labour Party has been largely illuminated. Money can be directed by Mr McSweeney. Having realised that the forces mounted against him are too strong, Miliband has been forced to advocate policies that he knows are dangerous. The result is the sort of ‘economic fantasy’ that you have written about.
Further points: solar panels and wind generators often exceed expectations and go on producing energy longer than initially intended. With carbon capture and storage, there is no end to the costs. Inevitably underground caves or whatever will leak. What is the thinking that imagines that carbon can be stored for ever?
The dangers from nuclear waste diminish somewhat with time – but not all that much – and why take the risk when we have simpler solutions – among which are:
– Minimizing flying
– Reducing road transport in terms of speed, distance and frequency.
– Rigorous draught-proofing and insulation of houses.
Exeter University is cooperating with the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. Their ‘Planetary Solvency’ report summarises the risks and makes five fundamental recommendations. University College London’s ‘Energy Institute’ … There are loads of wise academics that the government is ignoring in favour of people with money but little sense.
Thanks
Small nuclear reactors are used in submarines, and to some extent in space (mainly by Russians). Adaptation is needed for a land-based small nuclear reactor, but it’s not quite as bad as you suggest. I simply don’t know enough to judge whether the whole idea is a bad one.
No one knows how to clean up those reactors
As I understand it, the Carbon Capture ans Storage scheme has a pricetag of £22bn, which will come from energy bills (NOT “government borrowing). That’s about £1000 per household. Its to be taken from bills – so Ofgem and the energy sector are involved. It’ll use offshore holes in the ground – so oil industry involved. Leading CCS schemes are not in the UK – so expect Icelandic (or ???) companies involved. What will the economic multiplier be? I’d guess quite small – like defense procurement …. Or small nuclear power units. So where will this publicly sourced funding go? It will go to well paid professionals, able to deal with technology development, liaising with multi-national corporate oil companies, government regulation. Even with huge optimism and ignoring environmental issues any upside would be long term and risky. Little return to UK plc. Little growth in the economy.
Compare this to investment in education, infrastructure…. (Where money of any expenditures would be spent and recycled in local economy). Instead, money would leave UK or be diverted towards those that are “more equal” — who tend not to recycle any excess cash.
LINO don’t seem to be competent to critique the plans being passed down by their think tank masters!
The real purpose of CCS is to force remaining oil out from the North Sea.
Injecting material into oil reservoirs to increase yield doesn’t require CO2 … But I’m sure a £22bn sweetener is always welcome to the recipients (the donors are UK households).
It doesn’t alter the fact: it’s a bad strategy “for growth” even if you accept their stated intent.
We need competence!
Interesting that while Rawnsley was having a go on one level, and much more scathing op ed is from Will Hutton on ‘green growth’ or in Labour’s case the lack of it. Not as scathing as you or I would be but still, some telling points:
‘It is not regulation, high taxes and eco-fanaticism that has laid the European car industry so low, as Trump and co like to argue; it is that Europeans did not grasp the growth possibilities of beating the climate crisis fast and aggressively enough. Heading off civilisational disaster and promoting growth are not at odds; they are two sides of the same coin.’
And Hutton concludes: There is too little sense of urgency; too much fear of offending the right and Trump…. But this is Labour’s opportunity to face down its critics. The American and British right are plain wrong. Growth, cheap energy and averting the civilisational threat of the climate crisis are all possible. Labour should recover its convictions and find the courage to act.’
I found myself wondering how many Labour MPs read Hutton (and Rawnsley) this morning and found themselves agreeing. There must be some, surely! But sadly they must realise that there’ll be no change of direction while Starmer’s in charge. And they must also realise that they are rapidly running out of time to turn the ship around. Perhaps by July they might recognise the urgency. Many of us have to hope so.
Will is right on this.
Thanks
Will Hutton right about green and growth – but he’s going along with SMR – which have been promised for years as the next big Nuclear thing – but no nearer than they were promised years ago. All renewable prices plummeting – Nuclear rocketting.
Solar panels and insulation is not good because it means oil and gas companies (lobbyists) lose profits.
Not directly relevant but radio 4 at 13.30 had a whole half hour assessing the ‘national debt’.
Despite an all stellar cast – and despite them sort of admitting they couldnt say there was a ‘ceiling’ to national debt – and despite explaining the intricacies of bond auctions, and the Truss crisis and the pandemic crisis – they didnt mention Quantitativee Easing’ or Quantitative tightening.
They did point out that debt to foreigners had increased as a proportion – but no one hinted that some of the debt is owed to ‘ourselves’ – as a result of money created by govt /bank of England. Not a hint.
This is the blurb for the programme:
The nation’s debt is in the news – headlines shout about borrowing, bonds and yields. Dharshini David speaks to debt managers, traders and watchers to explore how we should think about the UK’s debt – its history, how it works, who owns it, and how worried we should be about it.
Dharshini is joined by:
Sir Robert Stheeman, former Chief Executive of the UK Debt Management Office
Ruth Curtice, Chief Executive at the Resolution Foundation
Sonja Laud, Chief Investment Officer at Legal and General Asset Management
Richard Hughes, Chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility
Peter Blair Henry, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University
Ralston Hyman, financial analyst and former member of Jamaica’s Economic Programme Oversight Committee
Presenter: Dharshini David
Producer: Camellia Sinclair
It really is bizarre that the biggest issues are not discussed.
I don’t think this is a conspiracy. It is more collective ignorance.
I may have missed something in the listening but I dont think so.
It cant be ignorance – most of them must know about Stephanie Kelton , or you – or others .
This is one of the few ‘in depth’ inquiry programmes – kept well into the background and seperate from the regular ‘news’ – so you would have thought that the presenter/producer could have done a lttle reserach and reached out to an alternative voice – to balance the phalanx of insiders.
This affects millions of people , their income their health. It was treated as sort of serious , but in the end not serious enough.
I suspect most of them know nothing of Stephanie or MMT
I’m sure that this is the programme I heard on R4 that had one female contributor gloating about how much power the bond market had over government and its worries about government not keeping its side of the bargain. The way she talked about bonds was if they were shares, to be traded quickly. It had me swearing at the radio pretty damn early and I switched it off in frustration. It sounded like a pro-market propaganda, engendering once more an air of hopelessness.
In effect we are trapped in a world where the truth about money is unobtainable but lies about it are obtainable.
I guess I should listen to it….
I will try to find time today but have still not escaped my other tasks….
This has been one of the most depressing chains I’ve seen on your blog Richard.
That tells me nothing.
Might you explain what you mean by that comment and what you would hope to change?
I agree with everything said here and in your piece, and it’s simply depressing, @ 76 yrs of age, I can’t see any improvement surfacing in what’s left of my life. I fear for my sons and even more for my grandchildren.
Roof-top solar energy: I have crossed swords with you about this before. I have personal data from my own PV panels which show that they do not work well for half the year in UK – and Climate Change looks as though it is likely to make this worse. Where is your data? Even Octopus Energy is looking to invest in PV in Morocco and import their energy. Ferociously expensive under-sea cables too – and yet they think it could be economically viable. Better not to encourage the use of scarce materials for inefficient use; much better to concentrate on wind and – please – tidal generation for UK.
I entirely agree – solar is nit the only solution.
And yet you miss a point, entirely. There is no one solution. There have to be many. Solar works, but not all the time. That is true of wind. Even tidal has issues. The reality is the mix is the solution. That is what you are not getting.
@Mr Wilcox
I posted on here about my own journey into renewable energy in the form of rooftop solar, battery storage and EV charger, albeit without an EV at the time. I committed to report back on my progress. A little over12 months has now passed and your post has spurred me into action.
Richard is correct in that solar is one part of the solution, not a sliver bullet. However, I cannot build a wind farm, nor can I build a tidal generation system. A solar generation system is something I can do to help in some small way to address the climate crisis. In short it is empowering. Richard may not have the data, but I do in the form of our annual solar report. and I am willing to share it with him if requested.
We generated 5.3MWh in the first 12 months. 1.2MWh was exported back to the grid. We have saved 80% on our electricity bills and 20% on gas (solar to immersion heater).
Viewing solar as a standalone solution is wrong thinking. Stating that solar doesn’t perform for half the year is more wrong thinking without consideration for how it overperforms for half the year as an offset.
Solar is a journey that is enhanced the more you embrace it and that includes behavioural change. Adding an EV last October, despite the levels of mis/disinformation (all false btw), has unlocked another level through access to off peak cheap rate electricity overnight to charge EV, solar battery, large appliances etc. Going into the day with a full solar battery, not an overnight depleted one, increases our grid export significantly.
How many such installations could £22bln of fantasy CCS have paid for or subsidised? Solar is a climate win, consumer win, vested interests – not so much!
Many thanks
Much appreciated
@Darren Clews.
I have had an electric car for 2 years and have driven twice to the mediterranean coast, once through Spain and once through France, without difficulty. I recommend EVs enthusiastically. (Ours has 280-300 mile range.)
I have only 4 EV panels (“1 kW”) on the roof pointing SW. (Builder provided.) No portion of the roof allows more panels pointing efficiently. I am glad you are pleased with your system and adding an EV will increase your pleasure, I am sure.
My critique of DOMESTIC solar is because of our northern position, and weather conditions. In my opinion it does not help much with a mix of sources (Richard’s point) because it does not perform well, just when the power is really needed – in winter. Panels and batteries do use up rare materials; I think they should be preferred for where their efficiency can be maximised. Pouring unused PV power back into the grid in summer when it is not needed is not a good argument! The grid needs to be supplied with sufficient input in winter – so something MUST provide the base rate by green methods, even if it is not needed in summer. I suspect we should all be better off domestically by investing in our insulation; that is a win-win, winter and summer – helps us, country and the planet.
We are going to have to disagree
The problem is also about storage which is OK if you have your domestic battery. On a national scale there is no storage of electricity, we use it or lose it. The site “iamkate” lets you see a live feed from National Grid on a current basis and also daily, weekly and annual basis. The graph which demonstrates the storage issue very clearly is the annual graph of generation which shows wind and gas as the 2 main contributors to the energy mix and how they are out of step with each other. When wind is high gas is low and vice versa.
https://grid.iamkate.com
Thanks
Two recent posts from my blog, Dear Scotland, on SMRs (small modular reactors) and CCS (carbon capture and storage).
https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-in-scotland-not-economic
https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/the-carbon-capture-storage-scam?utm_source=publication-search
I am constantly disappointed by the lack of serious efforts at insulating our homes here in UK.
If the framing was about how the government was going to subsidise making homes pleasanter places to live in at a lower cost that would, IMHO, get the majority behind the schemes.
Headlines about “Banning gas boilers” and forcing people to change just get the conversation off to a bad start.
It is technically possible to build all the new homes planned to require very little energy to keep them warm. Heat recovery and air-tightness are key. There does need to be education of tenants though.
I was told of one highly insulated design for a social housing project that would not need radiators: the prospective occupants were concerned ” there would be nowhere to dry their washing on radiators” so it was redesigned with gas central heating and radiators!
Folks,
I see a few folk pointing to some sustainable technologies. I implore anyone with an interest to read David McKay’s superb review of sustainable technologies (https://www.withouthotair.com/) — this dates from about 2008, I think – but a lot of it is still extremely relevant. This book was the basis of an MSc course at the University of Cambridge. McKay’s background was in Communications Theory – and he was fed up with statements such as “the UK is surrounded by water – we can solve our energy need by using tidal energy”, or similar. He approached this entire area from a fresh perspective. He was interested in the big picture, and had no vested interest.
What he does is identify what our energy requirements are (assuming we take sensible precautions on improving insulation and minimising waste etc), what the potential is for generating energy from the available technologies, and then tries to identify different options that can reconcile the supply and the demand. His style, diagrams and approach are simply wonderful (for example, he calculates the area required to power cars by biofuel as the width of the cultivated land needed to run parallel to each road). It’s not a 10minute read – but it is extremely interesting. McKay was seconded to Cameron’s Government to provide input on Energy Strategy – and I don’t think anything ever came of it. He died a few years ago, sadly.
His conclusions are not comfortable. He identifies that political will is needed – and all the options have issues for some people, somewhere. All the options require land – lots of land. He mentions ‘Industrialising the countryside’.
Add coming to grips with this issue as another area where this government are failing. If you don’t want to read the full document, there are some summarised versions available. Check out the webpages (again, it is: https://www.withouthotair.com/).
Thanks
@ A Ex-teacher
Thank you for the link to this superb paper on sustainable energy. I was able to click on tidal energy instantly and be magnificently informed – beauty and warts revealed.
Now I shall be able to see who wins on PV panels, me or Richard!
https://www.withouthotair.com/
What a subversive article! Ordinary mortals can actually understand it!
The idea of actually funding nurses and education, instead of creating a monster economy that might one day permit the funds………
It seems as if UK Labour has lost its way…….