A former Government scientist has written to Ed Miliband after branding the UK’s net zero plans an engineering “fantasy” with the challenges and costs massively underestimated.
Michael Kelly, Emeritus Professor of Technology at Cambridge University, has used the letter to the Energy and net zero Secretary to explain why he believes plans to decarbonise Britain’s energy system by 2050 are doomed to fail.
Professor Kelly has conducted detailed analyses of the costs involved in the Labour Government’s net zero plans, which he says will cost at least £4.4trillion – equivalent to £100,000 per household, just to electrify ground transport and all heat, and to retrofit all buildings.
In the shorter term alone, Labour’s ambition to fully transition the grid to renewable energy sources will require an estimated £100billion, Professor Kelly estimates.
This includes building new infrastructure such as wind farms, solar panels, and battery storage systems.
The UK is bound by myriad targets including a legal requirement to virtually eliminate all carbon emissions by 2050. By 2030 the Labour Party has pledged to act fast to achieve “cheap and clean energy,” across the country.
Michael Kelly branded Miliband’s plans a ‘fantasy’
GB News
Professor Kelly described the Government timeline as “moonshine” and warned delivering such targets would require an engineering workforce that Britain doesn’t have.
“It has taken 20 years for renewables to supply 50 per cent of our electricity,” Professor Kelly said.
“Labour’s plan would require us to do the other 50 per cent in just five years. That’s a fourfold increase in pace. Where are the engineers and skilled tradespeople coming from to make that happen?”
In his letter, Professor Kelly described Labour’s net zero plans to the Biblical Tower of Babel, a legendary attempt to build a tower to heaven that was doomed to failure because the architects had no idea how to define when they had reached heaven or how much it would cost.
He warned that the project risks becoming an over-ambitious disaster due to a lack of proper planning and public debate.
He highlighted costs associated with key engineering projects required to reach the goal of net zero, including a £1.4trillion expansion of the National Grid and a £3trillion building retrofit program to improve energy efficiency.
These figures, he claims, have been ignored or downplayed by policymakers.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
Professor Kelly described the Ed Miliband’s net zero timeline as ‘moonshine’
PA
“Your present focus on displacing fossil fuels as a source of electricity is not enough,” Professor Kelly wrote to Miliband.
“To meet net zero, the grid must expand by 170 per cent, and every building in the country needs retrofitting. These are colossal undertakings requiring tens of thousands of engineers and skilled tradespeople, as well as massive amounts of materials like copper and lithium.”
Professor Kelly dismissed the Labour Party’s claims that its net zero plans will reduce energy bills by £1,400 by 2030 and create thousands of jobs. He argued the transition to renewables will increase costs, not lower them, due to the “total cost of ownership”.
“The bills won’t come down,” he insisted. “We’re already paying more for electricity now than we did 15 years ago. The more renewables you add, the higher the overall cost becomes because of the need to maintain backup power from gas turbines.”
Professor Kelly warned that Britain lacks the engineering capacity to scale up the grid and renewable infrastructure at the pace Labour envisions. Training new engineers would take 12 years, from school to fully professional status, he said, while importing skilled workers from abroad isn’t a viable solution because other countries are grappling with the same challenges.
“This is a global issue,” Kelly explained. “If we take engineers from India, that’s fewer engineers solving problems there. You can’t just wish away the workforce shortfall.”
Professor Kelly also raised serious doubts about the environmental impact of the transition to renewables, calling it “negative for biodiversity”.
Michael Kelly sits down with Lucy Johnston
GB News
“Fossil fuels come out of the ground through pipelines,” he said. “But for renewables, you’re talking about massive mining operations for lithium, copper, and other materials. These processes devastate landscapes and rely on child labour in some cases. Moving from a fuel-based energy system to a materials-based one is not the environmental win people think it is.”
He suggested that nuclear power—which produces far more energy per unit of material—is a more sustainable option.
“A nuclear power plant generates 1,000 times more energy per unit of steel than a wind turbine,” he said. “If we’re serious about reducing our environmental impact, we need to prioritise nuclear.”
In his letter to Ed Miliband, he wrote: “The Biblical story of the Tower of Babel gives us a very pertinent lesson: then the people wanted to build a tower to heaven; they did not know the cost as they set out, or how to define success in reaching heaven.
“This engineering project ended in disaster for all concerned. I am sure we are lining ourselves up for a repeat with the net zero project as presently constituted.”
Professor Kelly’s remarks come as Labour’s net zero promises face growing scepticism.
Professor Kelly’s remarks come as Labour’s net zero promises face growing scepticism
GB News
While the party has hailed its proposals as a path to a greener, more affordable energy future, critics like Professor Kelly argue that the public is being misled.
“This idea that we owe it to our children to act now is a hollow argument,” he said.
“The biggest emitters, like China and India, are increasing their emissions. For every ton of CO2 we save, they emit 30 more. Unless there’s global cooperation, our sacrifices will achieve nothing.”
He also warned that the costs of net zero could cripple other essential sectors, such as education, healthcare, and defence.
“There’s only one pie,” he said. “If we’re diverting resources to net zero, it’s coming from somewhere else. This isn’t being explained to the public.”
Professor Kelly called for greater transparency and urged the Government to engage in an open debate about the true costs and challenges of net zero.
“For 10 years, I’ve been trying to get professional bodies like the Royal Society to have an honest discussion about these issues,” he said. “But no one wants to listen. My numbers haven’t been disproven; they’ve just been ignored.”
While he isn’t against net zero in principle he added: “New technologies may eventually make these targets achievable,” he said. “But right now, we’re setting ourselves up for failure. We need a serious, evidence-based plan, not political pipe dreams.”
In defence of Miliband’s plans, Mike Childs, head of policy at Friends of the Earth, said: “The costs of climate breakdown to the UK economy are estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which says GDP will be around 3 per cent lower if the planet warms by 2C and 5 per cent lower if it’s allowed to warm by 3C. These, it says, are likely underestimates. In other words, according to the OBR, climate change could cost the UK up to £100billion a year.
“That’s before even considering the human costs of escalating weather extremes like floods, storms, and searing heatwaves which are already destroying homes, livelihoods and claiming lives here in the UK and overseas. It’s not a question of whether we can afford to reduce emissions – we simply can’t afford not to.
“The good news is that there are economic advantages to be had by moving first on climate change and developing the technologies of the future.”
The Department of Energy Security and net zero was approached for comment.