Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The boss of British Gas’s owner has warned the UK faces fuel shortages this winter as stockpiles fall to just 30% owing to an over-reliance on imports.
The boss of British Gas’s owner has warned the UK faces fuel shortages this winter as stockpiles fall to just 30% owing to an over-reliance on imports. The Telegraph has more.
Chris O’Shea, the Chief Executive of Centrica, said Britain had “almost no gas in storage in the UK for the coming winter”.
O’Shea said low gas reserves in the UK were a “huge concern” and that the country had “for too long” relied on other countries for energy imports while underinvesting in storage and power plants.
Britain’s gas facilities were around 30% full this week, down from 46% at the same time last year. They were more than 90% full in the two years before that.
Gas levels are currently at the lowest level for August since records began, according to Bloomberg data.
It follows the dramatic fall in tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz during the Iran war, which usually accounts for a fifth of the world’s oil and gas shipping.
O’Shea wrote on LinkedIn: “We have almost no gas in storage in the UK for the coming winter, and this is a huge concern as energy security is national security.”
European gas prices have doubled since the start of the Iran war.
Dutch TTF, the European gas benchmark, rose to more than €69 per megawatt hour on Tuesday, its highest level since March.
The jump in gas prices comes just a day after Ofgem increased its cap on energy prices by 4%, putting average household gas and electricity bills at £1,723 a year.
No, it won’t—at least not in any meaningful sense of reliable, affordable, abundant energy that powers industry and households without massive ongoing costs or fragility.
AI generated by Grok
No, it won’t—at least not in any meaningful sense of reliable, affordable, abundant energy that powers industry and households without massive ongoing costs or fragility.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s August 2026 Telegraph piece is characteristically optimistic about a “winning mix” of nuclear, North Sea oil/gas, wind and solar turning Britain into Europe’s energy powerhouse and net electricity exporter by ~2030, with prices converging toward France and undercutting Germany et al.
The mechanics he cites (offshore wind capacity factors, NESO projections, tech/AI flexibility) are real trends, but they do not overcome structural problems of intermittency, system costs, nuclear delivery failures, depleted domestic hydrocarbons, and policy-driven price distortions.
UK electricity prices remain among Europe’s highest for households and especially industry.
Domestic unit rates under the Ofgem cap have sat well above most EU peers (outside high-tax cases like Germany or Ireland), with industrial prices routinely 50-80%+ above French levels and far above US or many Asian comparators.
Gas still frequently sets the marginal price, and policy costs, network charges, balancing, and capacity market payments load heavily onto bills. High prices have contributed to deindustrialization—refineries, steel, chemicals, glass, fertiliser closures or contractions. This is not a temporary transition blip; it is baked into the system design.
NESO and others project net electricity exports by 2030 under high-renewables pathways.
That is plausible on annual averages if offshore wind (Dogger Bank etc.) scales as planned and demand growth is managed. But annual net export ≠ powerhouse. Surplus often arrives in low-price or negative-price periods (high wind/solar), while deficits in dunkelflaute or peak demand still require imports, gas peakers, or demand destruction.
Constraint payments, curtailment, and the need to build out transmission, storage, and backup mean system costs rise even as pure generation costs for new wind/solar fall. Exporting subsidised power (via CfDs) can effectively mean British billpayers topping up European supplies.
The weak legs of the “mix”
Wind and solar: Excellent resource in the North Sea, capacity factors improving. Tripling offshore and doubling onshore by ~2030 is the plan. But intermittency requires overbuild, firming capacity, and a much larger grid for the same firm power. Dispatchable capacity has fallen sharply over the past 15 years while nameplate renewables rose; the grid’s productivity (output relative to capacity) has suffered. Batteries and interconnectors help but do not eliminate the problem at continental scale.
Nuclear: Hinkley Point C is years late and massively over budget (tens of billions). Sizewell C faces similar risks. Existing fleet is ageing and shrinking. Small modular reactors and fusion remain longer-term bets. Britain is not on a French-style trajectory of high, reliable nuclear share delivering low marginal costs.
Oil and gas: North Sea production is in long-term decline. Policy (tax regime under previous governments, new-field restrictions under Labour) has accelerated run-down rather than maximising extraction. Claims of large remaining recoverable resources under “no constraints” scenarios exist, but investment, geology, and politics make a major rebound unlikely. The UK is a substantial importer of gas and will remain so for years; oil is mostly exported as crude while refined products and petrochemicals face competitive pressure from high energy costs.
Europe as a whole has high energy costs relative to the US or China; Germany’s Energiewende experience is a cautionary parallel (high prices, industrial strain, reliance on imports and coal/gas backups). France’s nuclear fleet remains a relative strength. Norway is the actual hydrocarbon and hydro powerhouse. Britain becoming the “electricity backbone of north-west Europe” by 2035 requires flawless execution on generation, grid, storage, and demand-side measures that recent delivery track records (delays, cost overruns, cancellations) do not support.
What would actually make a powerhouse
Cheap, reliable, scalable energy—ideally firm and domestic or securely imported at competitive prices—drives industry, data centres/AI, living standards, and fiscal capacity.
Current UK policy prioritises rapid territorial decarbonisation of power with heavy subsidy and planning complexity. That can produce large volumes of intermittent electrons and eventual net exports in favourable years, but it has not produced (and shows little sign of producing) low system costs or restored industrial competitiveness.
Gas remains essential for balancing into the 2030s; pretending otherwise raises reliability risks. Nuclear needs faster, cheaper delivery than Britain has managed. Hydrocarbons need pragmatic extraction rather than accelerated phase-down while alternatives are immature at scale.
Evans-Pritchard is right that technology (better turbines, digital flexibility, potential fusion) and the resource base create upside, and that the “sick man of Europe” narrative can be overdone.
The claim that this mix will deliver a flourishing, export-capable, price-competitive system that “pleases both sides of the culture war” within 5–10 years overstates the case.
High costs, delivery risks, and the physics of intermittency are more binding constraints than optimistic capacity forecasts acknowledge. Britain can improve its position relative to a struggling continental Europe, but “energy powerhouse” implies something stronger than net seasonal electricity flows at elevated system cost.
Britain’s electricity system is shifting from a small number of large, dispatchable (easily controllable) power stations to a highly distributed mix dominated by wind, solar, batteries, and smaller/local generators. Engineers in the leaked report claim this expansion has outstripped NESO’s real-time visibility, forecasting accuracy, and centralized modeling capabilities.
Grid balancing is the continuous process of matching electricity supply and demand on a second-by-second basis while maintaining system frequency (50 Hz in the UK/Europe) and voltage stability. It ensures reliable power delivery without blackouts or equipment damage.
Traditional vs. Modern Grid Balancing
Reduced System Inertia and Frequency Stability Inverter-based resources (solar, most wind, batteries) respond electronically rather than mechanically. Frequency changes faster after a disturbance (higher Rate of Change of Frequency — RoCoF). This narrows the time window for corrective action and raises blackout risks if a large generator trips. Solutions include grid-forming inverters, virtual/synthetic inertia from batteries, and synchronous condensers.
Forecasting and Visibility Issues Wind and solar output is hard to predict accurately days or even hours ahead. Distributed generation (rooftop solar, local batteries) often sits behind distribution networks and isn’t fully visible to national operators like NESO. This leads to reliance on estimates, as highlighted in recent UK whistleblower reports.
Ramp Rates and the “Duck Curve” Solar drops sharply in the evening while demand may rise (evening peak). This creates steep net load ramps that require fast-responding resources (batteries, flexible gas, demand response).
Network Constraints and Congestion Renewables are often located far from demand centers (e.g., Scottish wind). Transmission limits cause curtailment (wasting clean energy) or high balancing costs. “Constraint costs” in the UK have risen significantly.
New Risks from Flexibility Assets Batteries can help but also create issues — e.g., simultaneous charging during stress events could worsen shortages. “Skip rates” (assets not being called when needed) remain a challenge despite improvements.
Longer-Term and Seasonal Balancing Daily/weekly variability is manageable with batteries and interconnectors, but seasonal mismatches (e.g., low winter solar) require longer-duration storage, hydrogen, or overbuild + curtailment.
Tools and Solutions for Balancing
Short-term (seconds to minutes): Frequency response services, fast batteries, grid-forming inverters.
Intraday/Real-time: Balancing Mechanism (BM), where NESO buys/sells adjustments from market participants.
Storage: Batteries for intra-day; longer-duration options (pumped hydro, hydrogen) for multi-hour needs.
Interconnectors: Importing/exporting power with neighbors.
Operational Changes: Better forecasting, improved visibility (e.g., through digitalization), and market reforms.
UK-Specific Context (2026)
Recent events (e.g., June 2026 heatwave) and the Cornwall Insight report underscore modeling uncertainties that could reach several GW by decade’s end, increasing costs and risks.
NESO is modernizing balancing platforms and working on reforms, while batteries are scaling rapidly but introducing new coordination challenges.
These challenges are real and well-understood in the industry — not insurmountable, but they require significant investment in grid infrastructure, flexibility, and control systems. Costs ultimately flow to consumers unless managed efficiently. The transition rewards systems that combine technological innovation (e.g., advanced inverters) with market design and strategic network buildout.
Countries like the UK, Australia, California, and Texas are at the forefront of testing solutions in real time.
‘We don’t have control of the system’, warn NESO engineers
Engineers at the UK’s National Energy System Operator (NESO) have issued a stark warning in a leaked confidential report: they no longer feel they have full control of the electricity system. This is due to the rapid growth of variable renewables (wind, solar), batteries, and distributed/local generation, which has outpaced their ability to monitor, forecast, and manage the grid in real time.
Core Issue
Britain’s electricity system is shifting from a small number of large, dispatchable (easily controllable) power stations to a highly distributed mix dominated by wind, solar, batteries, and smaller/local generators. Engineers in the leaked report claim this expansion has outstripped NESO’s real-time visibility, forecasting accuracy, and centralized modeling capabilities.
Control room teams increasingly rely on estimates and forecasts instead of precise data. Without a robust single model for system needs, decisions can vary by operator judgment. This raises risks to balancing supply and demand, frequency stability, and overall security.
Key Points from the Report and Whistleblowers
Visibility and Modeling Issues:
The shift away from a few large, predictable power stations to thousands of smaller, intermittent sources means much generation isn’t fully visible in NESO’s control room. Operators rely heavily on forecasts and estimates rather than precise data. There is reportedly no single centralized model for calculating required power to maintain stability, leading to inconsistent methods and heavy dependence on individual operator judgment.
June 23 Incident (Extreme Heat):
During a period of high demand and stressed supply (low wind, pressure on gas and imports), grid frequency moved outside normal operating ranges for ~48 minutes total. Transmission constraints were breached (one by ~700MW). Actions taken included calling on batteries, using interconnectors (with partial success), and emergency measures. NESO maintains the system stayed within statutory limits, no customers lost power, and it was secure. Whistleblowers and internal reports suggest otherwise, with claims of compromised security.
Whistleblower Statements:
Engineers claim they’ve raised safety concerns with Ofgem for two years without adequate investigation. A quoted message: “We don’t have control of the system. We have tried our best. It’s now over to the public and the regulator. Please help.” They describe June 23 as “just another day” and allege attempts to downplay the event or alter records/models.
Broader Implications
This is not an immediate “lights out” crisis—the UK grid remains one of the more reliable globally—but it highlights known transition challenges: lower inertia, variability, forecasting difficulty, and the need for better tools (e.g., improved visibility, digital models, flexibility services). A Cornwall Insight-type analysis suggests inaccuracies could raise consumer costs and risks if unaddressed.
Critics see it as evidence that the net-zero timeline is outpacing engineering reality. Supporters view it as manageable teething issues solvable with investment in grid modernization, storage, and demand flexibility.
This fits into ongoing debates about the UK’s transition to a renewables-heavy system. Similar whistleblower concerns and reports (e.g., from The Times and Daily Mail) highlight risks of blackouts, higher costs, volatility, and modeling uncertainties as more intermittent sources connect. NESO has faced scrutiny over record-keeping, corporate affairs involvement in operations, and transparency. Ofgem is reviewing the June event and compliance.
NESO’s Position (from related coverage):
They insist the system remained secure, use standard tools for balancing, and are investigating allegations and the incident. Margin notices (like the one issued) are routine signals to the market, not indicators of imminent blackout risk.
This reflects real engineering challenges in managing a low-inertia, high-renewables grid with greater variability—issues NESO and others have discussed in operability reports, though the whistleblowers argue the pace of change has created unmanageable gaps in visibility and control.
Ed Miliband’s Net Zero push has seen costs balloon and staff numbers surge by up to 382% across Britain’s top four energy quangos. The Telegraphhas the story:
Ofgem, the Climate Change Committee, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) and Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC) have all exploded in size over the past decade as Britain races to cut climate emissions, a study from the Taxpayers Alliance (TA) found.
Among the biggest beneficiaries is the little-known LCCC, which administers the UK’s multi-billion-pound annual Net Zero subsidies to generators.
It has seen its headcount soar by 382% from 49 employees to 236 staff while costs have also tripled, TA said on Tuesday.
Those costs are set to more than double by 2029 as more subsidised wind, solar and other projects commissioned by Mr Miliband come into operation.
Similarly, regulator Ofgem saw expenditure rise by 237% from £77 million to £260 million while its headcount more than doubled from 907 staff to 2,276, making it one of the largest energy regulators in Europe.
Much of the growth in all four bodies is linked to the increasing focus on achieving Net Zero targets, the growing complexity of the UK’s energy systems and especially decarbonising electricity.
The data covers 2015 to 2025, meaning Mr Miliband was in charge of energy policy for only a small amount of that period. However, the Labour Energy Secretary has dramatically stepped up the country’s Net Zero push since coming to power.
The Climate Change Committee’s headcount rose 89% from 30 to 57.
A Government spokesman said such quangos were good value for money. “Net Zero is the economic opportunity of the century… We are absolutely focused on ensuring every pound spent of taxpayer money delivers for the public”.
In 2024/25, total balancing costs hit £2.7 billion, of which £1.7 billion arose from constraint payments. Prior to the Climate Change Act, these balancing costs would have been inconsequential.
Grid upgrades will add about £9 billion a year to bills by 2031. Self evidently, this cost will far outweigh any potential savings. What they might do, of course, is reduce the cost of future constraint bills, which are projected to massively increase:
NESO project that constraint payments could rise to £7.2 billion in 2030, before OFGEM’s £80 billion grid upgrades kick in, dropping back to £2.9 billion in 2031.
In other words, after the upgrades, constraint payments will be just as high as now. If we don’t upgrade, constraints will increase. If we do, network charges will increase.
Either way, our bills go up!
Significantly, NESO state that constraint payments will resume their upward increase after 2031, as more renewables come on stream. This will require yet more grid upgrades, a never ending roundabout it seems!
In fact, NESO have underestimated long term constraint costs.
This is how they define them:
So, for example, there is a lot of surplus wind power in Scotland at times, but not enough transmission capacity to take it south to markets. In large part, OFGEM’s upgrades are intended to solve this problem.
But there is a much bigger problem looming, that no amount of grid upgrades will cure – soon, there will be far more power on the grid on windy/sunny days than there is demand for.
In their Clean Power 2030 Report, NESO reckoned we would have to throw away 83 TWh of excess wind and solar power in 2030 – 22 TWh curtailed and 61 TWh exported at a loss (they hope!).
NESO stressed in their report that their projections assumed full implementation of OFGEM’s network upgrades, so existing bottlenecks are not to blame for the 83 TWh of wasted power.
Indeed, the Counterfactual scenario, which assumes no accelerated progress, is virtually constraint free – the £80 billion upgrades will do their job.
The extra constraint costs are the direct consequence of building out more and more renewables.
So, let’s recap:
OFGEM want to spend £80 billion on upgrading the grid in the next five years, adding £9 billion to electricity bills.
Expansion of intermittent renewable capacity to meet Net Zero targets will necessitate wasting billions of pounds worth of power, when it is too windy or sunny.
Post 2030, tens of billions more will need to be spent to cope with increasing renewable capacity.
Far from reducing bills, this never ending cycle of increasing renewable capacity/upgrading the grid will inevitably increase them.
Nobody in their right mind would have designed such a system. Unfortunately by the time of the next election, most of the damage will be irreversible.
It does not take a genius to work out that when Ed Miliband succeeds in tripling wind power capacity, there will be far too much wind power for the grid to handle.
I have analysed the half hourly generation data for the full winter just gone. It’s a fairly basic summary, but my model assumes a tripling of wind output, 4400 MW of fixed nuclear generation and existing demand profile.
It calculates that there will be 19 TWh of surplus wind power during those periods when wind and nuclear exceed demand. Obviously there will be other periods when wind and nuclear cannot supply all demand.
Whatever battery storage we have by 2030 will be far too tiny to make any difference, so most of that 19 TWh will have to be constrained. At a going rate of £100/MWh, that could cost £1.9 billion. And this is just for winter.
With much lower demand in summer and plenty of solar power as well, plenty more surplus electricity will have to be chucked away.
The problem is probably much worse still. Although I have not factored in higher demand, the increased proportion of offshore wind in the mix will increase wind generation above my projections.
There is also the issue of grid stability. I cannot see how the grid can operate stably with above 90% of generation coming from wind at times. Including some dispatchable power to stabilise the grid will automatically increase the projected surpluses.
Thirdly is the question of regional imbalances. Will the grid be able to cope with large amounts of wind power coming from Scotland and the North Sea? It is, of course, lack of transmission capacity which results in constraint payments to Scottish wind farms. OFGEM is busy spending tens of billions upgrading the grid, but whether even that will cope in future must be debatable.
Some of the surpluses are massive, as much as 32 MW on one occasion. Surpluses were above 20 MW on 16% of the three month period. The model also predicts that more than half of wind generation will have to be constrained for 10% of the time.
The practical difficulties faced by NESO in having to implement all of this, every half hour are mid boggling.
Just a glance at yesterday’s generation shows how huge the problem is. Demand was 35.9 GW. Of that, 21.5 GW came from wind and 3.4 GW from nuclear. Triple that wind capacity and you are looking at about 68 GW from wind and nuclear.
Half of that will have to be switched off on average, and more at times of low demand.
The report is remarkably data free, but offers this summary:
As I noted earlier, the benefits mentioned are totally spurious. They say:
“we now incorporate our assessment of co-impacts to fully appraise the value of the Net Zero transition. These include health benefits from improved air quality and active travel, warmer and less damp homes, and healthier eating habits. We also include benefits from avoided climate damages.”
Eat less, give up driving and be grateful, seems to be the message!
As for the monetary costs and savings, they merely reiterate the Seventh Carbon Budget that laughingly claimed the net additional cost would only be £4 billion a year, £100 billion by 2050:
Our Seventh Carbon Budget advice report estimated the additional cost of the Balanced Pathway – our pathway to Net Zero – would be around £4 billion per year on average between 2025 and 2050, relative to a baseline of no further emissions reductions from today
Dishonestly they don’t include the costs we have already incurred and continue to incur for Net Zero. According to the OBR, the bill will amount to £150 billion just in the next five years alone, to cover renewable subsidies and Ed Miliband’s crazy plans.
We also had the NESO analysis published in December, which found that aiming for 80% emission reduction, instead of the 100% demanded in Net Zero, would save 0.4% of GDP every year till 2050 on average. That adds up to £14 billion a year, or £350 billion by 2050.
If we can save £350 billion by slowing down Net Zero, how much more could we save if we dropped the whole idea?
As I pointed out at the time, NESO made wholly unrealistic and optimistic assumptions such as price parity for EVs by next year and offshore wind prices of £70.10/MWh. The recent AR7 set prices of £90.10/MWh:
As with all these official analyses, it’s a case of pay now and you might get a spoonful of jam in twenty years time. As I never tire of pointing out, nobody has the slightest what the future will hold in 2050; attempting to analyse it is a fool’s errand.
But what we can realistically estimate are the costs in the short term, the next five or ten years, say.
Again, we can turn to NESO.
They costed Labour’s 2030 Clean Power Plan, and found that it would add £25/MWh in non-generation costs – that’s £10 billion a year, which is of course on top of the current costs we already incur.
The supposed saving on generation costs was fake, as they inflated gas generation costs by including a massive jacking up of carbon taxes. Given what we know of the CfD round, the roll out of wind power will add billions more to energy bills…
NESO did not factor in the power grid upgrades needed for Net Zero, which are estimated to be around £130 billion. Nor did they cost the distribution network upgrades needed to cope with higher electricity demand – even optimistic projections put a cost on this of £200 billion. The eventual bills will, of course, be much higher when return on capital is allowed for.
Meanwhile heat pumps are not coming down in price, as naively believed. A typical household will have to pay a premium of maybe £12000 over above the cost of a gas boiler. With annual sales of 2 million, that adds another £24 billion a year to the Net Zero bill.
And even the CCC cannot deny the fact that carbon capture and hydrogen are horrifyingly inefficient and expensive ways of doing what natural gas does already.
Households are already £800 worse off a year as a result of Net Zero policies on electricity costs, whether directly via energy bills or indirectly via higher taxes and prices.
Based on NESO/OFGEM figures, that figure will likely double in the next few years.
Being forced to buy a heat pump will add another £1000 a year to household costs, including loan interest. And with EVs still costing thousands more than petrol cars, they will be unaffordable for many.
You don’t need a fancy analysis to work out that people will be much worse off if Net Zero policies continue to be enforced.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has published its latest Economic & Fiscal Outlook, following the Chancellor’s Spring Statement this week. The Outlook contains details on the Government’s tax and spending plans for the next five years.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has published its latest Economic & Fiscal Outlook, following the Chancellor’s Spring Statement this week. The Outlook contains details on the Government’s tax and spending plans for the next five years.
It offers a stark reminder of how much we are already spending on Net Zero and how much this will increase in coming years.
Starting with Ed Miliband’s Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) itself, RDEL, day-to-day spending, is running at £2 billion a year. On top of that, CDEL or capital spending adds up to £53 billion for the five years to 2029/30:
A total of £60.7 billion, pretty much all of which could be saved if the Department was shut down, as it should be.
The OBR also include in their figures what are called “Environmental Levies”. These are levies added to energy bills because of government policy. They are all directly or indirectly subsidies for renewable energy. (Note that the Renewable Heat Incentive, which pays subsidies to households to fit renewable heat systems, such as biomass boilers, is funded out of taxation.)
These various subsidy schemes are expected to cost £15.2 billion, rising to £19.8 billion in five years’ time.
Levies are paid via our energy bills, while DESNZ costs are funded through taxation. But one way or another, we will be paying more than £150 billion in the next five years for the obsession with Net Zero.
We can add to these costs the climate change levy, an environmental tax introduced in April 2001. It applies to the non-domestic use of certain forms of energy, including electricity and gas, with the primary aim of encouraging businesses to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This raises £1.8 billion a year currently and impacts the rest of us through higher prices.
Similarly with the Emission Trading Scheme, which raises over £3 billion a year. This penalises electricity producers and heavy industry for using fossil fuels. This tax directly impacts the price we pay for electricity. It has been estimated that the ETS alone is adding 10% to electricity bills, as it increases the cost of gas generation, which in turn tends to set the wholesale price.
Both the CCL and ETS are damaging the competitiveness of UK industry.
These costs are only the tip of the iceberg, as far as Net Zero is concerned. They are only the items that appear on the government’s balance sheet.
They do not include, for instance, the £80 billion OFGEM have said needs to be spent in the next five years on the electricity grid, specifically to make it Net Zero ready. Or the £200 billion which has been estimated to upgrade the electricity distribution network, the low-voltage system which brings power into our towns and homes, and which will be needed to cater for the extra electricity we will need for electric cars and heat pumps.
Nor does it include the costs imposed on households and businesses, forced to pay for unaffordable heat pumps, electric cars and decarbonisation nonsense.
We are used to seeing broken promises from politicians. But this new campaign promise from the Lib Dems is simply fraudulent:
Families and pensioners are being clobbered with energy bills that are still more than £50 a month higher than they were five years ago. And businesses are suffering too.
Generating electricity from solar or wind is now much cheaper than gas. But people aren’t seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power, because electricity prices are still tied to the price of gas.
Years of terrible energy policies under the Conservatives pushed up everyone’s bills, and this Labour Government has failed to prioritise cutting them.
The Lib Dem plan would break the link between gas prices and energy costs, so people can enjoy the benefits of cheap, clean power. This would halve bills and save families £870 a year on average.
“This would halve bills and save families £870 a year on average.”
According to OFGEM, a typical 2-3 bedroom house uses 2700 kWh a year, which at the new cap of 24.67p/kWh works out at an annual cost of £666. So how can electricity bills be cut by £870?
Although they talk of “energy costs”, their proposals will obviously not cut gas bills.
They also lie about “Generating electricity from solar or wind is now much cheaper than gas”.
This is simply not true.
In the last financial year, 74.1 million ROCs were handed out to wind and solar generators. Each is worth around £70, meaning that these generators are subsidised to the tune of £5.2 billion a year, equivalent to £98/MWh.
They each receive subsidies on top of the market price they receive from sales, which has been around the £80/MWh mark for most of the past year:
This is why our electricity prices are so high.
It is the same story with newer generators covered by CfDs. Last year, we paid out £2.02 billion in subsidies to offshore wind farms alone, as their guaranteed strike prices were much higher than market ones.
The Lib Dems are of course right to draw attention to the link between gas prices and wholesale electricity prices, but not for the reason they claim.
Their ploy is to mislead the public into believing that the pricing system stops people from benefitting from “cheap renewables”. The problem is the diametric opposite.
When gas prices increase, renewable generators make windfall profits, benefitting from higher market prices in addition to the obscene subsidies they receive on top.
That is why the link needs to be abolished. This, of course, is easier said than done, but I am sure it is not beyond the wit of even Lib Dem politicians!
A fixed market price needs to be established for all intermittent generators, at a much lower level which reflects their inherent lack of value.
A separate market needs to be established for dispatchable generators, who can supply power as and when needed. This would work in the same way as the current system.
About a quarter of electricity generation is covered by ROCs, around 75 TWh a year. Given they receive subsidies of about £100/MWh already, I would suggest a fixed price of, say, £20/MWh. This would save about £5 billion a year, about £180 per household.
Secondly, bearing in mind the current spike in energy costs triggered by the Iran crisis, the Government should IMMEDIATELY suspend the Emission Trading Scheme until further notice.
According to EMBER, carbon costs accounted for a third of wholesale electricity prices last month. Suspension would lead to an immediate saving of £7 billion a year.
Britain’s biggest energy provider is raising the cost of charging electric cars in a fresh blow to drivers.
Octopus Energy said it will restrict its cut-price electric vehicle (EV) tariff from the new year, in a move that could cost some drivers hundreds of pounds annually.
It comes amid rising household electricity prices and as EV owners face new taxes that have put the Government’s net zero targets under pressure.
Octopus’s Intelligent Go tariff is Britain’s most popular EV plan, used by 260,000 drivers – or more than one in 10 EV owners. It allows motorists to enjoy cheap household energy when their car is charging, significantly cutting the cost of running an electric vehicle.
However, the company has written to customers telling them that discounted charging will be limited to six hours a day from January.
Limiting use of cheap charging rates is likely to drive up energy bills, since motorists will pay peak rates roughly four times higher when they wish to charge their car for longer periods.
The whole EV tariff is a big con anyway. What you save on night time EV charging is lost through higher day tariffs.
The EV tariff is set at 8.5/kWh between 0.30 and 5.30 am, based on the typical Octopus Go package. My standard rate is 23.45p/kWh, so ostensibly I could save about £300 on charging an EV.
However, the Octopus Go rate for the rest of the day is 29.37p/kWh. Based on my current usage, I would have to pay an extra £285 pa. Standing charges are also £17 higher with Octopus Go.
Of course, if you need a full charge for your EV, it would take longer than five hours, incurring yet more cost.
The only way I could save money is if I switched loads of appliances on after midnight.
You must be logged in to post a comment.