Chris Skidmore’s “Mission Zero”, a 340 page review of progress toward zero carbon 2050 published today, Friday 13th, makes many good and important points, notably on nuclear, but it boils down to five words: “government, get on with it”. If you are not in government, that may be all you need to know but here are a few of its high and low lights.

The UK has fallen from leadership of nuclear electricity generation to back-marker due to government indecision. A nuclear plant is not a quick build. The Japanese lead the way today with a four year timeframe. Sizewell C holds the record for delay: 12 years since it was first proposed and it is still not approved. HM Treasury appears to be the prime blocker but all manner of other bodies have been encouraged to object. The Skidmore review also rightly points to the need for the Office of Nuclear Regulation and planning authorities to streamline and speed up their processes, the former in conjunction with other countries.

One of the best features of the review was the recognition of hydrogen as the main mechanism for storing electricity, i.e. supplementing the contribution of renewables when wind and/or sunshine are short.

Moving to the less good, the review is full of motherhood and apple pie but without specific numbers, such as what will produce how much electricity, or CO2, and when. An exception is “There is a clear and rising need for flexibility in the UK’s electricity system. Most studies suggest electricity demand by 2050 could be roughly double today’s level of total electricity demand.” The reference was a single EDF source whereas most studies expect electricity demand to increase five times, perhaps even seven times, by 2050. That is because electricity is 20% of energy now and will be almost 100% of energy in 2050. Not a difficult number to calculate.

Pages 292-306 list 129 recommendations, many being “roadmaps” and “pathways”. Some, e.g. para 120, are just gobbledigook: “Government should create a roadmap, by Autumn 2023, which details decision points for developing and deploying R&D and technologies that are critical for enabling the net zero pathway to 2050.” The review should have focussed on those that matter most.

It recognises the uncompetitive pricing of electricity but offers no solution: “McKinsey finds that about half of industrial fuel consumption can be electrified with technologies and processes available today. Despite electricity prices doubling since 2020 while gas prices increased fivefold, electricity prices remain significantly higher than gas prices.” Not to mention double those in the USA or France.

The review rightly points the finger at the sheer number of bodies involved being a cause of inaction. Its solution? More committees, bodies and “working together”. A much better solution would be to identify those few, largely financial, decisions that only government can make and then have government step away. Ofgem is a case in point. The complications brought in by Ofgem are part of the problem and regulators of this type were only supposed to be temporary, pending transition to full privatisation. The review takes us in the opposite direction. Para 197, for example, extends the involvement of government and Ofgem.

Para 92 states “Government to establish a new forum to coordinate across all regulators on the signals they are sending to businesses and investors across sectors about the net zero transition – including Ofwat, Ofgem, HSE, Environment Agency, Competition and Markets Authority, FCA, and the North Sea Transition Authority.” Ofgem should be abolished.

The main failing was the lack of any calculation for the electricity needs from wind, solar, other renewables, nuclear, fossil fuels (with CCUS) and net imports. If you do not know where the dartboard is, it is hard to hit at all, never mind getting a good score. Nor is there any calculation for the size of the baseload needed to complement the volatility of renewables. A net zero score for this review seems generous.