I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Ok, the estimate is from the oil trade but you can see it yourself, the oil price went down to $30 a barrel and now is about $68 as demand has recovered.

Now I will reiterate the costs of the electric solution. 

We need to replace the entire heating load of the country with electricity, and the government seems to favour heat pumps, but that is another story. The average gas boiler output is around 15 kW, and with a heat pump one might get a COP of 3, so 5 kW of electricity. The existing housing stock is about 30 million units, so the electricity required is 150 GW. I am not going to allow for any other use at the moment, because all properties will not need heat all the time, but this seems a reasonable estimate overall.

Distributing 150 GW will need the entire electrical infrastructure to be replaced with roughly 3 times as much equipment, the most expensive part being the cables to those 30 million homes. Presently about 1.5 kW per house is the maximum capacity available, again because of supply load diversity, we don't need it for everyone at once. The distribution is buried in most places under roads and pavements, with substations at regular intervals, again connected to the big grid ones via buried cables. Every one of these substations will need new transformers and switchgear, and often more land and new buildings. This is a huge civil engineering task, and the most interesting point is that this is likely to use more energy than is saved for many years.

National Grid has estimated that the cost will be around £3 Trillion, but we still have no electricity. Whilst wind and solar provide some electricity the average is only 30% of nameplate capacity, and solar only works for daytime and good sunny weather at anything like nameplate capacity. Most generation will therefore have to be nuclear, and we need 150 GW at something like 4 - 6GW per station of two reactors. This needs about 30 new nuclear plants, at around £35 billion each, so another £1.2 Trillion. If gas is not to be used for backup electricity supply this is the only option available.

You will know that China is building new coal-powered power stations on a huge scale all around the world, about 2 a week for itself and more for India and others. Compared to this Britain's emissions are tiny, but net zero of these coal stations is 50-60 years away as they wear out. Coal is much the cheapest energy available, and available in huge quantities from mines around the world. Much of this is “brown” coal, a kind unlike the British stuff, which produces less energy per kilo and much more pollution.

I will repeat my question, why is it so important that Britain, producing 1% of world CO2 becomes fossil fuel free? You can see that there is no intention from China, Russia, or India to do so from COP 26, and our change will make no perceptible difference, even if warming is as you believe. £4.2 trillion is more or less 4 years GDP, even if we could get the manpower, materials, etc. together without moving world commodity prices, which it would.

Ok, the estimate is from the oil trade but you can see it yourself, the oil price went down to $30 a barrel and now is about $68 as demand has recovered.

Now I will reiterate the costs of the electric solution. 

We need to replace the entire heating load of the country with electricity, and the government seems to favour heat pumps, but that is another story. The average gas boiler output is around 15 kW, and with a heat pump one might get a COP of 3, so 5 kW of electricity. The existing housing stock is about 30 million units, so the electricity required is 150 GW. I am not going to allow for any other use at the moment, because all properties will not need heat all the time, but this seems a reasonable estimate overall.

Distributing 150 GW will need the entire electrical infrastructure to be replaced with roughly 3 times as much equipment, the most expensive part being the cables to those 30 million homes. Presently about 1.5 kW per house is the maximum capacity available, again because of supply load diversity, we don't need it for everyone at once. The distribution is buried in most places under roads and pavements, with substations at regular intervals, again connected to the big grid ones via buried cables. Every one of these substations will need new transformers and switchgear, and often more land and new buildings. This is a huge civil engineering task, and the most interesting point is that this is likely to use more energy than is saved for many years.

National Grid has estimated that the cost will be around £3 Trillion, but we still have no electricity. Whilst wind and solar provide some electricity the average is only 30% of nameplate capacity, and solar only works for daytime and good sunny weather at anything like nameplate capacity. Most generation will therefore have to be nuclear, and we need 150 GW at something like 4 - 6GW per station of two reactors. This needs about 30 new nuclear plants, at around £35 billion each, so another £1.2 Trillion. If gas is not to be used for backup electricity supply this is the only option available.

You will know that China is building new coal-powered power stations on a huge scale all around the world, about 2 a week for itself and more for India and others. Compared to this Britain's emissions are tiny, but net zero of these coal stations is 50-60 years away as they wear out. Coal is much the cheapest energy available, and available in huge quantities from mines around the world. Much of this is “brown” coal, a kind unlike the British stuff, which produces less energy per kilo and much more pollution.

I will repeat my question, why is it so important that Britain, producing 1% of world CO2 becomes fossil fuel free? You can see that there is no intention from China, Russia, or India to do so from COP 26, and our change will make no perceptible difference, even if warming is as you believe. £4.2 trillion is more or less 4 years GDP, even if we could get the manpower, materials, etc. together without moving world commodity prices, which it would.