Primary Energy in The European Union and USA Compared

A couple of weeks ago I had a post on USA Energy Independence Day. This post takes a look at the EU energy statistics and compares them with the USA.

The EU has a larger population and smaller land area than the USA resulting in a population density 3.6 times that of the USA. European citizens therefore have less land available to service the energy needs of its citizens. This combined with different approaches to energy policy has led to the EU now importing 55% of it energy needs while the USA imports only 10%. The USA is well on its way to energy independence. This could have foreign policy and defence implications where the UK and USA has divergent priorities to Europe.

Figure 1 A good starting point for this story is to compare some of the vital statistics for the EU and the USA. The EU has a substantially larger population and less than half the land area giving rise to a population density 3.6 times the USA. One statistic that jumps out is that the ratio of land area and energy production are the same (0.4). The USA punches above its weight on energy production simply because of its larger land area. The unfavourable population density of Europe results in per capita energy production being one fifth of the USA. This is likely a key statistic that feeds through to energy consumption that on a per capita basis is half that in the USA. Per capita GDP in the EU is 0.7 times that of the USA and one needs to wonder to what extent this reflects lower land area and lower production of natural resources.

Figure 2 The EU production chart is scaled the same as the consumption chart (Figure 3) and the scale differs slightly to the USA production chart. EU primary energy production has been in gradual decline since around 1987 starting with the phasing out of the coal industry for political, economic and environmental reasons. North Sea oil and gas then began to decline at the turn of the century (note Norway is not included). Trouble in the Groningen Field in Holland has exacerbated the decline of gas. Nuclear and hydro have held constant since the mid-1990s, but even nuclear is now under threat from environmental lobby groups. Renewables production has grown rabidly and sufficiently to have halted production decline. That is without taking into account that this is third class, non-dispatchable energy.

There is a stark contrast with the USA. While the USA has drilled and fracked for a decade driving oil and gas production up, most European governments are remonstrating about fracking under the weight of pressure from environmental lobby groups and the citizenry. Indigenous energy production and energy security does not seem to matter to EU energy policy makers.

Figure 3 There is a stark contrast in the energy production mix between the EU and the USA. New renewables, mainly wind and solar, now account for 19% of EU energy production, in third place behind nuclear and coal. Low carbon electricity production now accounts for 55% of primary energy. Readers should recall that BP grosses up renewable electricity by a factor of 2.63 in converting to TOE to account for thermal losses not incurred during generation.

The USA remains effectively a fossil fuel based energy production system with only 16% coming from low carbon sources. And despite all the hype, new renewables still  only account for 4% of energy supply.

Figure 4 Turning to look at consumption, we see that the EU and US energy mix have a lot more in common. The bridge between the different production mix and consumption mix being met by imports to the EU. Despite having a much larger population, the EU consumes less energy, the per capita consumption in the EU being half that of the USA.

One notable difference in the consumption trends is that the energy consumption has been in decline in the EU since 2005. The trend in the USA is more flat. The reasons for the decline are complex and I have gone over them many times. The primary reason is the increase in energy prices that began in 2002. The secondary reason is economic malaise. See the big drop in EU consumption in 2009. And the third reason is energy policy where virtuous measures to conserve energy may be supplemented by the subversive influence of an expensive and unreliable electricity system on economic performance.

Figure 5 The % pie charts underline the broad similarities in the consumption energy mix. The main difference lies in low carbon electricity consumption (nuclear, hydro and renewables) that totals 25% in the EU compared with 14% in the USA. This difference is compensated by higher natural gas usage in the USA.

Figure 6 Summarising the foregoing as energy balance (production minus consumption = balance) we see that US energy imports both peaked in 2005, this probably in response to sharply rising oil prices. Since then the two continents have had largely divergent energy policies. The EU focus has been on CO2 reduction and the expenditure of trillions on wind turbines and solar PV, neither of which really work, are expensive and dependent upon subsidies. The USA has pretended to follow Europe while in reality has gone out and drilled like never before producing a glut of shale gas and oil that has lowered prices. These trends are best viewed as imports as a percentage of energy consumed (figure 7).

Figure 7 Converting the energy balance (imports) to a percent of energy consumed shows how startlingly divergent the EU and USA trends have become. The EU has always had to import more energy than the USA – a function of that higher population density. Since 2005 EU dependency on imports has risen then trended sideways while US  dependency on imports has plunged. The sideways trend in the EU is largely down to falling consumption.


On the surface and in the media it may seem that the EU and USA have similar energy policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions, pandering to several climate treaties. But in reality the approaches have been very different. The USA has pursued the mantra of drill baby drill and the shale oil and gas miracle has almost delivered energy independence. This is in large part down to the structure of mineral rights in the USA where on non-federal lands, landowners also own the mineral rights and are therefore motivated to exploit them. Most European governments have dithered, contemplating the closure of nuclear whilst being at best lukewarm on fracking. Meanwhile, the North Sea will resume its decline in a couple of years and coal appears to be well and truly out of favour. European governments, directed by Brussels, seem content to believe that wind and solar will do the trick and are prepared to simply become increasingly reliant on imported energy.

With the USA close to energy independence, it will be interesting to see how this impacts foreign and defence policy. A Google search throws up a number of articles on this topic but none I have found are up to date or are very informative. In particular most, written a few years ago, talk of US energy independence in 2030. On current trend this will happen much sooner, by the early 2020s. I will speculate that energy independence in the USA will make that country much less likely to get involved in conflict in areas like the Middle East and North Africa. We have already had a taste of this with blowing Libya into oblivion left to the UK and France. It seems likely that the USA will expect Europe to play and pay for an increasingly large part of defending its energy supplies.

This entry was posted in Energy and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Primary Energy in The European Union and USA Compared

  1. SE says:

    The future of Europes energy supply is the root cause of several ongoing wars around the world.

    We have USA, Russia and the Gulf States all fighting with one another over Europes energy market.

    If we move to electric cars, then gas will overtake oil and LNG is going to become very big. The USA is really pushing the electric car. The USA wants Europe to build shipping terminals and not pipelines.

    Russia is the incumbent so the USA is driving a sanctions wedge between EU and Russia.

    Gulf States also have lots of oil or gas for Europe but all of their pipeline routes have been coincidentally engulfed in a series of military coups, revolutions, civil wars, insurgencies, etc, etc.

    I imagine we will soon all be driving Californian electric cars and burning US shale gas in our power stations, whilst millions of refugees continue to pour into the continent.

    But the alternative is far scarier, the only alternative is that the temperature outside is 2C warmer. Oh the humanity!

    • Euan Mearns says:

      Originally I had a bit more about conflict in the post and concluded that about 50% of the EU naval defence capability will be vested in the UK and the Royal Navy. I never understood why we chose to build two “super carriers”. But now it doesn’t seem so dumb.

      • steve says:

        The QE and POW will be equipped with the F35B, whichat $133m each was described as too expensive by an American defence expert- re wiki.
        The RN is having 138. The USN is ordering the F35C with catapults- only twice as many. Now the $ has gone up 20%. Oh dear, time to cut down on those expensive squaddies and little boats. They should have called them HMS Gordon and Jock.

      • Dave Rutledge says:

        “But now it doesn’t seem so dumb.”

        I agree. Two fleet carriers is entirely appropriate for the Royal Navy. It gives skin in the game. I hope it will be adding helicopter carriers next.

      • The only trouble with these carriers is that they are designed around the F-35’s

        Both the Chinese and Russians have effective and cheap anti-ship missiles that oblige carriers to remain ever further away from their targets.

        Missiles (i.e. robots) have been improving for over 40 years while the F-35 is inferior to the F-22 according to many experts (including the designer of the fabulous F-16 and A-10)

        The ongoing frenzy in the media about the Russians bombing “civilians” in Aleppo is proof that these aircraft are all out of date – except for use against disobedient 3rd world nations.

        If they tried again to attack Russian/Syrian troops in Syria, they would lose so many aircraft and crew that the market would dry up completely for US weaponry. Game over!

    • A C Osborn says:

      Well 2 degrees warmer would be very nice thankyou.
      As for Electric Cars, Europe certainly won’t be driving Californian ones as we have quite enough of our own thanks.

    • brianrlcatt says:

      Nuclear can charge all the cars you need, and power all the other things, for ever, at whatever level we need, at a stable price. Plenty of Uranium in the ground at $20/lb and more in the sea at $200/lb. neither a major part of nuclear cost per unit. 14 Billion tonnes in the sea, renewed by erosion. Just need to get fracking, to bridge that gap with clean low low carbon, 30 year life CCGT @ £1B per GW, the cost of an interconnect cable, while replacing all fossil with nuclear – plus the P&T industry to support it. Simples! No wonder Russia is on nuclear big time, as it pays for nuclear roll out including fast fission with fossil fuel exports.

  2. Bernard Durand says:

    Euan, some remarks:
    – as far as I know, BP does not include biomass in its statistics. This does not change very much the landscape, but a little bit anyway.
    – does “renewables” in your figures 3 and 5 are only wind and solar, or does it include something else , statistically significant,
    – maybe Norway should be included in this overview: although it is not formally a member of EU 28 ( EU 27 now), it belongs to the same geological and geopolitical entity.

    • Willem Post says:


      Russia exports much more energy to the EU-27 than Norway.

      The EU would like to bypass Europe with pipelines, partially freeze Russia out of its markets, but those lines would go through troubled lands.

      Also freezing out Russia would prevent Russia from buying EU goods and services.

      Is the EU stupid, or what?

      Switching its dependance on low-cost NG from Russia to high-cost LNG from the US?

      Also, Russia and Turkey just agreed to build the first part of “Turkey Stream” under the Black Sea, about 16 bcm/y. Future lines likely will be extended to Greece, as a minimum.

      And North Stream may be doubled to 4 lines in future years, about 60 bcm/y, for a total of 120 bcm/y.

      Ukraine, the EU’s latest “acquisition” (more like another permanent EU headache, on top of malaise and a flood of refugees), will loose about $2 billion in transit fees.

    • Euan Mearns says:

      Bernard, I agree in part. But BP has a nice line of data called EU and so its easier to simply copy paste that

  3. jim brough says:

    Europe, particularly Germany moved to remove its very low CO2 emission nuclear reactors for the green ideology of wind, solar and wave.
    It is closing its nuclear generators and building a new generation of brown coal stations which produce far more CO2 emissions than the nasty nuclear power plants.

    Is the answer blowin’ in the wind ? Bob Dylan. Not likely.

    Energy and electricity need engineering knowledge, not ideology.

  4. Willem Post says:


    rabidly? You mean rapidly

    • Kees van der Pool says:

      I think rabidly is more appropriate

    • Euan Mearns says:

      If you could point me to the paragraph. Tks.

      • Stuart Brown says:

        I vote for rabidly too 🙂

        ‘Renewables production has grown rabidly and sufficiently…’

        para under Figure 2, penultimate sentence.

        • Greg Kaan says:

          That was my thought, too when I saw Kees’s original comment – the legislation supporting renewables deployment is aggressive enough to be tagged as “rabid”

          • Kees van der Pool says:

            Hi Greg,

            Yes – If it was a mistype by Euan at all, I think it was Freudian :).

            BTW, I’m not really pessimistic about windmills per se, they are magnificent devices, especially the direct-drive Enercons. I think its more the wind that is a problem. It boggles the mind that anybody can argue the ‘Energiewende’ is a wild success, as is written consistently by the likes of ‘Klimaretter’ and others. Just one look at the Agora website graphs and the vast area between the RE and demand line after planting 25,000 windmills should impart at least a minimum of realism.

            Gail’s article was an excellent synopsis and yes, nuclear is the way, despite the hollering and screaming of the poorly informed. It will happen when the lights start to dim and jobs/industry leave.


  5. “European governments, directed by Brussels, seem content to believe that wind and solar will do the trick and are prepared to simply become increasingly reliant on imported energy.”

    I hardly think it is directed by Brussels. Many of the renewable energy policies are from individual governments who then feed into Brussels to let it propose its mandates. However those policies from the original governments would still exist regardless.

    • Willem Post says:


      Germany is the RE culprit.

      Whenever it feeds its RE nonsense to Brussels, folks there stand at attention and order other countries to implement Germany’s Siegfried follies, whether they can afford them or not.

      Germany needs to handicap the energy systems of other countries for a level playing field, to stay competitive.

      There is method to their RE madness.

      • Germany certainly is the nave in the pack but many other countries have aggressive targets as well (EU or non EU).

        The problem is that Europe has a resource dependency probably in nearly every industrial area. The combined EU governments have independently come to the conclusion (and afterwards by collusion/peer pressure) that this can be solved for electricity by renewables or at least by not doing a whole lot. Even with the UK now perusing nuclear, you could hardly say that have progress many energy sources other than renewables.

  6. brianrlcatt says:

    Did someone say Biomass? Bad science (BS). More CO2 per unit energy than coal and not sustainable at any substantial level, why we had to switch to coal as forests disappeared in the early 19th Century. Far less polluting and 60% less CO2 per unit enrgy than wood is natural gas under our feet. So we need to plant 60% less trees to absorb the CO2 from gas burning than wood. The land use to grow bio fuel is a terrible waste of productive agricultural land in a densely populated Island. The ONLY reason it is followed in the UK is for the 100% subsidies, to burn American wood they are not so daft as to burn.

    Of course we can get all the zero carbon energy we need, affordably and 100% sustainably from nuclear fission alone, also the safest energy source by far. But those are just the science and statistical facts. The problem is environmentalists who know what’s good for everyone else but can’t do the science behind the grid, and really don’t like inconvenient truths that don’t support their pseudo science beliefs. And the politicians who pander to their beliefs with laws that profit only lobbyists, and government officials and politicians after office, even during in some cases. Nice little earner for them, at the expense of our energy bills and economic futures, to NO net productive end. Renewables and Bio fuelling make every measure of enrgy policy worse in fact, particularly CO2 reduction. But that’s only the science facts.

    No one is interested in reality in the mix of the unholy corruption of greenshirt zealotry, cynically exploited with the greed fuelled snake oil remedies of renewable energy, in turn justified in the name of CO2 emission caused climate change they in fact can only make worse in the obvious facts of the alternatives. So much for a technology dependent society. (CPhys, CEng)

    • steve says:

      Your evidence in 2012 seems to have been ignored Brian. Prof MacKay didn’t make much progress either. But Ed Davey got his knighthood for, what Prof MaKay revealed, he suddenly realised was a load of ‘SH1IT’.

      • brianrlcatt says:

        Quel surprise re 2012! Even bigger surprise you read it! That was my most influential, as Philip Lee called and asked me to brief him before a meeting with Gordon Osborne on energy. Sadly we ended up with the dodgy deal that is Hinkley Point EPR. We had several good PWR and BWR technologies available at 2/3 the price, so we bought the EPR that doesn’t work any where at 50% greater price. The Chinese, Fins, French and Americans are all stuck with the lemon/DS19 EPR. The Finns are getting their next PWR from Rosatom, BTW. Wonder what was behind our choice? Officials have surely enabled dodgy money – ours – to change hands again. Thre CCGT plants would have been better value, and on stream in 2 years at £1B / GWh… etc.

        I have got the key points on energy policy made simpler and more lay now, and give talks on how cliamte change and sustainability are actually met by the available solutions, to a range of audiences from IET to U3A.

        i just had some more evidence accepted by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, similar to that rejected by the ECC Select Committee a wekk or so before regarding what to do when we leave the EU – end subsidies and favour what actually delivers policy objectives in science fact. See They said this was “off topic”.

        However the ECC committee is now ending, with its subsidy promoting chair Angus McNeil, “inheritor of Yeo?” claiming we need more storage for the always inadequate, expensive, over subsidised, weak and intermittent energy sources that we simply don’t need if we generate enough low or zero carbon energy on demand with gas then nuclear replacing coal.

        You can’t make it up, if you do the hard science fact makes the fraud on the people clear. But the people don’t understand in their unknowing religious beliefs in renewables. Wonder what McNeil’s next “interest” will be? Similar to Yeo, Hendry,Gummer, Huhne, Davey, etc? I’d love to track down the after office “interests” of the senior civil servants who did this to us – the DECC and the “What’s the Point” deal.

        I’m sure the overhead of ECC “energy fundamentalists for regressive profit” will not be missed by the country, or the climate..

        If you like I can put this latest offering on my Dropbox – in fact I will.

        The rejected “What should we do when we leave the EU” version for the ECC select committee simply said “end the subsidies for what make policy goals worse, particularly carbon emissions”, and that the only thing that will suffer if we moved to policies that best deliver all the goals of climate change with gas and nuclear is the regressive profit of lobbyists, and their supporters in government and politics..

        What no one says ot loud very often is that climate change subsidy choices are a straight fraud on the public in technical fact, whatever the reality of climate change.

        The laws enacted in the name of climate change are all about channelling easy £Billions to lobbyists, in turn used to reward the trougher officials who offer their “independnent advice” and politicians who support the actually regressive solutions in Parliament, that in science fact make each of our policy objectives avoidably worse.

        THE MONEY is why they don’t want it to stop, or support solutions for climate change that can actually work for the people supposedly served.

        PS I met Owen Patterson at the GWPF lecture by Matt Ridley last night, and in brief exchange ventured this summary view that it’s not about climate change, it’s all about the money. He simply agreed. A good and principled man, I think, from the evidence of his time at DEFRA.

        PPS There is a whole other DEFRA official organised eco fraud around the fining of modern land fill by 400% per tonne to drive waste to incinerators that are operated by a cartel charging land fill plus fines less a bit, engineered by DEFRA paying PFI supplement grants to local autorities that are conditional on them using lobbyist cartels expensive and VERY proftable incinerators, or pay the 400% fines out of rates if theyr still landfill.. So the taxpayer picks up the difference in the PFI bung of taxpayers’ money to waste lobbyists’ bottom line, that is laundered through Local Authority accounts as PFI payments. You really can’t make this government malfeasance stuff up. That’s their job. Rotten right through. Legalised fraud.

        Note modern managed landfill of waste with recyclables removed, in lined pits, is producing as much renewable energy as onshore or offshore wind, reliably 24/7 from landfill gas, but is only paid £20/tonne or so before the fines (plus 1 ROC for the bio/renewable part of the energy.

        BOTTOM LINE? The incinerator racket means you can charge £90 per tonne to shove the same waste you used to landfill for £20/tonne up the chimney as CO2. Even more CO2 than bio mass per unit enrgy, AND a lot more of that £90/tonne is bottom line. And OFGEM pay ROCs for that as well! Never mind the eco, follow the money.

        • steve says:

          I think it is odd that we are being told that sea levels are rising, when they are only rising slowly, that flooding will be frequent and we should abandon low lying areas to become salt marsh- while at the same time there is such a shortage of land that landfill tax has to be high enough to stop it. Cities like York are built on landfill. The expensive PFI incinerators may explain it. I wonder whether the Deccheads realise that the bankers are doing so well out of it.

  7. Wookey says:

    Very interesting, as usual, thank you. But I really don’t think that “pandering to several climate treaties” is the right tone if you want to be taken seriously. Current climate treaties (UK CCA, Paris) represent a minimum reasonable level of decarbonisation, so it’s hardly ‘pandering’ to be doing things which may approach that minimum level.

    Such language just makes you look biased, and devalues your contributions. I guess what you mean is that it’s the wrong sort of decarbonisation (mostly variable renewables with very little nuclear) which is a reasonable thing to point out, but the treaties specify decarbonisation, not renewables percentages, so pandering is still the wrong word to use.

  8. John F. Hultquist says:

    Do the charts include gasoline for trucks and autos? Being less densely populated , the US relies on autos/trucks for transportation. Many folks near us will drive 160 km for doctors and shopping. Much, but not all, of the same can be had closer (heart doctor just 80 km. Nearest town to us (grocery store, …) is 20 km.
    Regarding, in the USA —
    “… landowners also own the mineral rights and …

    In a book titled “Night Comes to the Cumberlands” 1962] author, Harry Caudill explains how the mineral rights in much of the eastern US were acquired by outsiders even while the surface was still owned by locals. Physically, this sort of worked with tunnel mines but with strip mining the system failed. Economically and socially it failed for the region and its people.

  9. louploup2 says:

    You speak of U.S. becoming “energy independent” and indeed with production within 10% of consumption, it is easy to imagine achieving that sacred status with a modicum of conservation. However, the question is how long that status can be maintained. I see (at least) two problems:

    • Americans like most cultures do not yet understand that there are limits to growth, so we keep growing. Capitalism mandates growth. Thus, per capital consumption will have to decrease significantly over time to keep us within striking distance of “energy independence.” Efficiency gains have quantifiable limits.

    • The prospects for long term production of tight oil and fracked gas are not great.

    I am not an expert on this subject and cannot find a clear explanation of the relationship between lower prices and physical limitations being the cause of a potential decline in the key source of energy for the U.S. to be “energy independent.”

    I hope you will do a deep dive on these aspects of the issue.

    • Greg Kaan says:

      Gail Tverberg is the definitive analyst for this – her articles are thorough, insightful and deeply depressing.

      I see widespread adoption of nuclear energy as the only means of escaping the doom that she forecasts

    • Euan Mearns says:

      At the end of my previous post on US energy independence I wrote this:

      The “shale miracle” has well and truly placed the USA on track for energy independence early next decade. It is a miracle because most of the shale gas, and with current low price shale oil too, is being produced at a loss.

      I know Gail pretty well and the limits to growth meme was thrashed to death at The Oil Drum. So I tend to try and stand back from that and let others fill that space.

      But for example, from this post, it should be clear that it is not the USA but Europe that is in immediate danger from over crowding and resource dependency.

      How to keep the shale miracle going? One way out is for the oil and gas price to rise sharply. Its possible that LNG exports from the USA will normalise global gas prices. The other way out is for the government to nationalise tranches of the industry and run it at a loss. It depends how high a price the USA is prepared to pay for energy independence.

      What happens to Saudi Arabia when the USA no longer needs Saudi oil?

      And don’t forget about all that coal the US has just lying around waiting to be dug up.

      • Willem Post says:


        The US imported about 1 million barrels per day from the Saudi’s, about 3.75 from Canada in 2015, per EIA.

        Total imports and total exports were about equal at about 4.7 million b/d in 2015.

  10. brianrlcatt says:

    Just a quick one on wind power reality, the “best” renewable, plus storage to cover it’s inadequacies. The same approach works for all intermittent renewables. Let’s go to the back of David MacKay’s envelope with an extreme scoping example of this reality. I have done this quickly, feel free to identify errors of substance. You can roll your own.

    ASSUMPTIONS: If you generate at UK peak demand 60GW rate 24/7, e.g in a sustained way, with onshore wind power, to deliver all your needs, you would need around 60 GW of hydro or battery backup for one week of no wind, at least , and 180GW of wind power to deliver 60 GW on average from storage, due to the intermittency and resulting 33% duty cycle of renewables, assuming that conditions are all as in Northumberland across the UK, say. That’s very generous.

    For large 1MW turbines, at a 1 Km pitch to avoid masking, that is 180.000 square kilometres. The UK’s land area is 240,000 square Km. Not an option but let’s proceed to evaluate the further claims that backup storage of this energy makes things work OK. While the above is for 60GW output rate, the next example works for in energy terms over different periods – e.g. the next calculation would also work for a fortnight at 30GW, still 10TWh, roughly. (Annual electrical energy use is actually 330TWh)

    HYDRO BACKUP: Where would this hydro backup come from? I recall we have <1GW of hydro (500GWh pa actual energy generation or so per DECC DUKES) and can perhaps manage 1GW more in our small and hard to hydro Island, per the EU. Hardly the 60GW we already need. And it adds the cost of hydro re-generation to the doubled by ROC wholesale price of the original energy, so its now c. 3 times the wholesale base load price, as well as woefully inadequate. (H.Douglas Lightfoot's favourite description of renewables).

    BATTERIES: This level of support would take around 17 Billion 50AH car batteries (600 Watt hours of energy each @12V) to deliver this level of energy (60GWx24x7 =10 TWh) for a week, that's a lot of lead, and perhaps £1T at Halfords prices. Good for Halfords, but totally bogus. And wholly unnecessary to meet our objectives.

    For Tesla Li-Ion, on their current claims, we get 85KWh for £4,500 in the UK for the Powerwall. So we need 120 Million of these higher capacity and lower cost per Joule batteries to deliver 60GW for a week/10TWh. That's half as much as Lead Acid, but still a ridiculous £529 Billion for batteries, to support 60GW for one week, IN ADDITION TO the over subsidised actual cost of the original wind turbine energy at £90/MWh or so onshore, including 1 ROC, a generation cost of £900M for 10 TWh.

    We could choose to generate generate this 10TWh of energy when we need it with new nuclear or gas at £65/MWh for £650M, no storage required.. (Not with the ridiculous AREVA EPR, but with competitive nuclear power – from non EU suppliers). No pointless subsidies or "back up" "storage are required. Over a week or a month

    Nuclear and gas can deliver all we need, on demand and without subsidy or storage, with no CO2 as the end game. Far cheaper than any other modality and wholly sustainably. So government choose to do the other thing, at our expense, for the profit of lobbyists, and their paid now, or rewarded after office, government officials and politicians. Really is time for a change. Reworking these number with other reasonable fact based assumptions of grid demand and overall energy generation doesn't change the massively supportable on the technical facts points I make, and expose the stupidity of the latest, and hopefully last, words of the ECC Select Committee's chair Angus McNeil., entirely without any real world technical foundation. How long will we let these deceitful faudsters in our government run the UK's energy supply preferring their own self interest over that of the UK economy, and even the climate they do it in the name of?

Leave a Reply