No reason, other than, you know, making manufacturing much more expensive.

If a car company knows it can sell 1 million cars a year, it needs to be able to manufacture 1 million cars a year. If they operate their plant 24/7, their plants need to have enough throughout to build 2 cars a minute. However, if they plan to only operate during sunny days, their plants will only operate probably a third of the time, so they need to build three times as many factories, buy three times as many machines, build three times the number of manufacturing lines, and hire more employees.

Or produce one third of the cars. I don't think there is a shortage of cars in the world.

This is not possible in market capitalism. Companies will produce as many cars as people will buy. Even if one company decides to restrict its production, another will fill its place. You need central planning to decide how many cars are to be built, and to be sure, if you look at the centrally planned economies of communist countries, they definitely did produce less than third the number of cars their citizens enjoy now.

> You need central planning to decide how many cars are to be built

Isn't it what every non-banana-republic is doing already, indirectly [0]. And if we get serious about achieving net-zero economy and price carbon accordingly the car makers will have to adjust even further. They could plant trillions of trees, or they could make fewer cars. Up to them. I am just saying that in my view making fewer cars will be a more viable economic decision. And consumers will redirect their purchasing power to something else.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_emission_standard

> Isn't it what every non-banana-republic is doing already, indirectly

Emission standards do reduce number of cars produced, to be sure, but much less than you propose. Mostly what they do is make the cars kinda suck, especially compared to how expensive they are. People buy cars anyway, and put up with it.

I’m all for renewables but this is an unacceptable compromise. Seriously, this isn’t how large business can operate.

Really it's the wrong example. The best way to distribute "demand response" is in systems which have a big thermal mass attached to them. You can turn an industrial freezer off for half an hour without anyone noticing.

An 80/20 compromise where most of the power is from renewables and the rest made up by CCGT seems very much within reach for the UK.

And finally, ideally, the last 20% shifts to gas turbines fueled with clean hydrogen.

The UK has about 1000 TWh of hydrogen storage potential in onshore salt deposits that could be solution-mined to make underground hydrogen storage caverns.

"Technical potential of salt caverns for hydrogen storage in Europe"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03603...

Siemens is providing a gas turbine generator that will run on 100% renewable hydrogen as part of the HYFLEXPOWER demonstrator project:

https://press.siemens.com/global/en/pressrelease/hyflexpower...

Siemens and General Electric both have roadmaps for gas turbines running on pure hydrogen:

"Siemens’ Roadmap to 100% Hydrogen Gas Turbines"

https://www.powermag.com/siemens-roadmap-to-100-hydrogen-gas...

GE Power "Hydrogen fueled gas turbines"

https://www.ge.com/power/gas/fuel-capability/hydrogen-fueled...

Most current turbine models are already capable of running on a methane-hydrogen blend.

I like to highlight these projects because people sometimes mistakenly think that seasonal-scale storage with hydrogen also requires breakthroughs in scaling fuel cell technology. Evolutionary developments in gas turbine technology will also make it practical.

The UK has opted for nuclear. They are building and planning in Bradwell, Hinkley Point and Sizewell.

Given the high costs of Hinkley Point C, I suspect that the new reactors planned for Sizewell and Bradwell may not actually be built.

"Hinkley Point C nuclear plant to run £2.9bn over budget"

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49823305

French power company EDF said the new nuclear plant it is building at Hinkley Point C will cost up to £2.9bn more than thought.

It raised its estimate for the project, in Somerset, to between £21.5bn and £22.5bn, blaming "challenging ground conditions".

It also said the risk of the project being 15 months late had risen.

...

These cost overruns will not hit UK consumers. However, a new way of paying for further nuclear stations, such as Sizewell, is being considered.

Under this new model, consumers would see costs of construction added to their bills as the project went along. It means that customers could be exposed to cost overruns.

That is why today's announcement is important and why EDF will find it harder to make the argument for building Sizewell.

> this isn’t how large business can operate

Why not?

The capital costs of something like a automobile factory ($500 mil+) pretty much force you to run 24/7. Also, automobiles are labor intensive to produce, so idling the workforce alone would cost more than building more power.

Something low capital, low labor and high energy like steel recycling has already shifted to operate when electricity is cheap.

In the current economic environment, yes. But suppose we transitioned into a new economic reality. Imagine that net-zero-carbon global economy is a hard requirement. Imposed by god or something. I guess adjustable demand would be a feasible option then.

Even then it might not change the vehicle factory much, as it moves from a high $ capital cost, to a high environmental capital cost that you will want to spread over as many vehicles as possible. The easiest thing to reduce capital costs would be to stop painting vehicles and switch to stainless steel skins as paint is one of the single largest capital expenses in building a car.

Downstream suppliers of the plant might change, mainly ones that have a high energy, low capital(either $ or environmental) process.

Socialism doesn't work. It has been proven multiple times.

That's an interesting idea but production lines cannot just be stopped and started like that - you could carry much more produced inventory to make up for lost days but that will be expensive.

Everything is expensive when it comes to climate mitigation/adaptation. The question is what is more expensive - say CCS or stopping/starting production lines.

> Everything is expensive when it comes to climate mitigation/adaptation. The question is what is more expensive - say CCS or stopping/starting production lines.

Or, you know, just use nuclear power:

> https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/

> There is no a real need to run say an auto-manufacturing plant 24/7.

There are plants like steel furnace that have to run 24/7 as the iron has to be kept melted. If solidifies, you will never be able to get it liquid again.