Filling the current UK Economy “50 Billion Black Hole” with Light

How Kardashev Money removes all requirements to raise the taxes threatened by Sunak and Hunt, whilst even fixing inflation.

Frederick Bott
10 min readNov 8, 2022


So we’ve seen Rishi and Jeremy are working on what is being called a 40 to 60 Billion “Black Hole” in the UK economy, which they say is due to public spending.

They claim this has to be filled by raising taxes on the UK population, including all businesses, already struggling with cost of living due to rising inflation.

If we understand Kardashev Money, then we understand why above is unnecessary.

Technically, the money issued comprising that 50 Billion of public spending, is Kardashev Money. As long is this is not recognised, we will see the inflation continue to fly out of control, driven by the undeniable physics of nature.

To know how a figure like 50 Billion relates to Kardashev Money, we need to do some forensic investigation on power usage data.

Sounds horrible I know, but I will try to do in a way that makes it kind of interesting.

To estimate the solar product put to use in a credible way, we have to use generally accepted data, the same data used by the government to justify their policy.

For example:

And (Source data understood to be from official sources):

The most interesting feature in the data in the article above, is the characteristic of the electricity usage in the UK to have reduced, since 2005.

No official attempt is made to try to find what other sources might be attributable for this puzzling result, in the presence of an ever growing population in UK, due to immigration, if nothing else. So in fact the energy demand has to be still going up, not down, if other historical data and acccepted trends are anything to go by:

So there is a well known historical correlation between energy consumption and population, which is somehow being bucked, by the energy system in UK.

The population is up by 10% whilst the electricity consumption is down by 20%.

What gives?

It is in the presence of continual development of domestic and community solar power.

Most of that is still grid connected, but how it is “Rewarded”, is simply to reduce the usual electrical bills payable by the solar asset owning consumer. When such consumers supply Joules into the grid, their effect is simply subtracted from the total Joules supplied outwards by the grid.

So when a lot of solar is connected, it follows this will be seen as a reduction in grid demand, therefore the grid necessarily generates less.

The consequence of this is that only solar power assets owned by grid and related business, is considered as existing.

Domestic and community solar assets, more than 90% of the solar capacity, is not accounted for by grid companies, other than being seen as an “unexplained” reduction of demand in grid supplied electricity.

It makes perfect sense that this is the real reason we see reduction in electricity demand since 2006, so this is the conclusion I will use in the Kardashev calculation.

The easiest way to visualise this, for calculation from source data courtesy of

, obtained from his article linked earlier, is shown below:

(Sorry for carving up your nice diagram Jan, I hope you agree it is all for a good cause.)

The red diagonal line is the deduced trend of actual consumption, that we should expect from knowing that power consumption should track population growth.

The wobbly doted orange line is the data of measured electricity consumption.

{Note Jan calls this energy production, but we are talking about the same thing, from the pov inside and outside of the grid, respectively. If the grid produced it, the public consumed it. The point here is that the public consumed / produced a lot more than the grid indicates}

The transparent area in green represents the deduced TWh contributed by addition of unaccounted-for renewables, over the years since their growth became significant, around 2005, thus effecting the steady downward trend in grid electicity consumption seen since then.

Since wind assets and larger solar farms are mostly commercial grid associated company owned, they are not included in the green area above, because the output from those put to use, would be seen as energy to be charged for, from the generation side of the grid, as opposed to the consumer side pushing energy back in, lowering grid demand.

The transparent green areas, represent consumers mostly using their own domestic and community solar installations. Not many of those will be using wind.

So now to the math, sorry but this has to be done;

The x-axis of the graph is in years. The TWh seen for each year need to be totalled up, to give the whole amount used in any period.

The period we are interested in is the period of grid electricity use decline, from 2005 to 2021, the final year shown in the data.

Highlighted in green, we see two right-angled triangles, each of which represent the area of half of a rectangle that we might easily draw to minimally contain both triangles. In effect, the total area of those two triangles represents half of the area of the rectangle bounding them.

The height of the rectangle is 88.5 + 115.4, where 115.4 is calculated by looking at the ratio of the heights of the two triangles, which is around 1.3, given by the toolset used to draw the triangles.

This gives us 203.9 TWh, for the height of the bounding rectangle.

The width of the rectangle is the number of years between 2005, and 2021, which we can see in the graph, ie 16.

So the total TWh in the bounding rectangle is 16 x 203.9 = 3262.4 TWh

Half of that, is 1631.2 TWh.

This is our estimate of TWh put to use from solar, given Jan’s data.

This in effect, represents the current UK “Solar product in the bank”, upon which officially no money has yet been issued, the deficit of which we might expect is the actual physical cause of economic inflation.

The consumers who put this to use, effectively saved themselves some money on bills.

That money saved, is what we need to identify as being Kardashev Money.

The bills those consumers would have paid, if they had not had solar, represents Kardashev Money, in a fair world, I would say.

Remember, Kardashev Money is not money owed by the good folk who made the savings by having the solar installations, but owed by the issuers of money, who would have issued the money as debt, effectively monetising extracted energy, if those solar installations did not exist, to supply the effort of extraction that would have been needed, if the consumption had tracked population growth, as it did until around 2005.

28p per KWh, is an average value we see mentioned, prior to October 2022

This is the price those consumers would have paid in bills to the grid energy companies, if they had not gone to solar.

This converts to £280 per MWh, and £280M per TWh.

So the Kardashev money calculation is 1631.2 x £280M = £456Bn

For this year alone, the calculation is 203.9 x £280M= £57Bn

This is revenue lost by Energy companies, due to the business of energy moving to demestic consumers themselves, but the government / banks, failed to issue money on, so we should not be surprised to now be seeing inflation. Money is literally becoming progressively less representative of actual product added to the economy by being put to use, as surely as if it had been converted to fuel, and added to fuel commodities.

Imagine how much it will be next year, when the new rate of around 50p per KWh has been in effect for 12 months, and domestic solar has continued to scale up, as it must.

If the £50Bn Black hole is a shortfall created by public spending, then that can simply be subtracted from the historical total of £456Bn, leaving still £400Bn which should be issued.

Issue of this as stimulus, honestly identified as Kardashev Money, would boost the rate of solar adoption immensely, as well as fixing inflation.

We should expect by that to be fully solar powered in only a year or two, giving us complete energy security.

There, we see how to fill the black hole, with light, literally.

Not filling it, will have catastrophic effects on inflation, literally beyond calculation. No amount of fiddling with interest rates can change that.


Update following comments:

Jan confirms his data is accurate, by being from “Dukes”

Indeed, this is the data we need to use, to be sure we are linking into the same conversation as being spoken by government. Thanks again Jan, I had no doubt your data was from a good source, I could see you are obviously a specialist, and would not risk your professional reputation by using poor data.

Further Addendum, following consideration of replies (1 day);

Readers should notice Jan is not in agreement with my analysis.

This is not surprising, as his business, and the sum of his technical experience is as a specialist within the energy supply industry, whilst my own specialism is the tools and techniques of putting multiple systems together to analyse systemic effects.

My final comment to Jan, is that this is outside his domain and expertise, whereas this is my usual bag as a systems Engineer, to take the data of specialists, and put this towards the bigger picture, ie the “System of Systems” view.

Jan has not provided any reasonable logical argument countering the conclusion above, despite his repeated criticisms of the language I use to talk about things he sees from within the domain of his expertise.

I point out that there are entire languages and techniques used by Systems Engineers, that Jan has had no exposure to, therefore conclude he does not have the expertise needed to investigate my entire analysis, documented now in 300 stores in Medium, but the source of which is captured in multi-language, multidisciplinary formal system models (which I maintain external to Medium), and he is not motivated to do so in any case, since his career and future depend on the future of the utilities energy industry.

Jan’s own data indicates the utilities business is declining.

I put it that the reason for that, is that the business is transferring to community and domestic solar.

I show the analysis underpinning that conclusion, and the outcome of not changing the issue of money to reflect the conclusion, unstoppable inflation.

He denies that, with no logical reason underpinning his argument.

My analysis still stands, unchallenged.

It is Jan’s opinion of this analysis being “A dream”, which is in error.


Further addendum 29/11/2022:

Absorbing the above information takes a few days, but when we do, seeing the full consequences of it, we maybe realise folk are likely to be extremely unhappy, that our governments and banks could have allowed us to get into such a situation.

It is important to realise this is a systemic problem that no individual really could have predicted. Even scientists will have difficulty taking this in, because it shows a very basic flaw in our understanding and use of energy, that we’ve been using throughout the industrial revolution, specifically that we never thought to mathematically sign it, according to where it comes from; negative if from Earth, subtracting Joules from Earth, or positive if from sun, adding Joules to Earth.

Signing it, solves all the problems, but the process of rectification will be very disruptive, it is important we don’t blame any individuals for this disruption, the fault is with all of us, for allowing the problem to happen in the first place, over 100 years ago.

What happens next, is what is important, it obviously has to be fixed.

The get-out clause for all, is we simply omitted to sign energy, because no-one ever thought it could ever become important. But now we realise it is, existentially important, and destroying our economy, and our planet, and all life on it, until fixed.

The fix is Kardashev Money.

As soon as that is issued, we will see the problem fixed.

A later development, based on this story is the one below: