Tag: Telegraph

No, Britain Won’t Be Europe’s Energy Powerhouse

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.

Kathryn Porter: The true affordability of net zero

The true affordability of net zero, was launched at an event hosted by The Lord Offord of Garvel, Shadow Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero in the House of Lords. The event was attended by MPs, Peers and members of the energy community as well as the press. It’s the first time a report of mine has received quite so much attention. Ahead of the launch it was covered by UnHerd and the Telegraph.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Kathryn Porter’s new report on electricity prices has already garnered a lot of attention:

This evening my latest report: The true affordability of net zero, was launched at an event hosted by The Lord Offord of Garvel, Shadow Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero in the House of Lords. The event was attended by MPs, Peers and members of the energy community as well as the press. It’s the first time a report of mine has received quite so much attention. Ahead of the launch it was covered by UnHerd and the Telegraph.

My report reviews in depth the costs of renewable generation and their impact on our bills, driving British industrial electricity costs to the highest in the developed world, and our domestic costs to fourth highest. We’re told this is due to the cost of gas, yet our gas bills are only 15th highest in the world. According to international energy price statistics published  by the UK Government, as of June 2024 (the last month included in the dataset), large British firms were paying 27.91 p /kWh for electricity while those in the EU paid just 10.80 p /kWh. But this was not always the case. Back in July 2011 there was almost no difference between the price paid by industrial consumers in the UK versus those in the €7.48 p /kWh compared with 7.04 p /kWh.

My report sets out all of the additional costs applied to bills as a result of net zero policies which in 2023-24 amounted to over £17 billion, and are projected to increase to over £20 billion per year in 2029-30. My analysis indicates that had Britain continued with its legacy gas-based power system in the period since 2006, consumers would have been almost £220 billion better off (2025 money) even taking into account the impact of the gas crisis.

Read the full report here.

I would highlight two graphs, the first of which disproves the lie that our electricity prices are high because of high gas prices:

The second shows the full cost of policy costs:

Net Zero Will Pose Massive Risks for Global Economy

Meanwhile the Earth Edition of the Telegraph discusses some of the real risks associated with the mad rush to Net Zero.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Meanwhile the Earth Edition of the Telegraph discusses some of the real risks associated with the mad rush to Net Zero.

Associate Political Editor, Tony Diver, uncovers the government’s own report into Net Zero, which it tried to bury:

Labour’s net zero drive risks taking Britain back to the 1970s and could have the same effect as an “oil price shock” on the economy, leaked documents reveal.

A report by the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) found that the transition to net zero by 2050 could have a significant impact on growth and could spur inflation.

Officials warned that green policies “could act like a supply side shock, with some similarities to a standard oil price shock”, like the global financial crisis caused by the 1973 oil embargo imposed by Arab states on Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

The document, written in November 2023, reveals significant scepticism about the Government’s net zero plans by civil service analysts.

The report said that the shift to net zero could see a drop in private-sector consumption because companies will be forced to retire “stranded” machinery and other goods earlier than planned.

That will redirect money from spending into unplanned capital investment, which would pose a “particular challenge” to the economy, it said, adding: “Estimates suggest that by 2030, 10 per cent of GDP will have been subtracted from consumption to turn unsustainable output into sustainable output.

“A decrease in consumption levels poses a particular challenge following a decade of relatively weak real wage growth and households facing an extended cost of living crisis due to high inflation.”

Read the full story here.

And Matt Ridley also has a piece:

A leaked government analysis has found that Net Zero could crash the economy, reducing GDP by a massive 10 per cent by 2030. Yet the spectacular thing about this analysis is that it expects this to happen not if Net Zero fails – but if it succeeds. In effect, it is saying that if the government really does force us to give up petrol cars, gas boilers, foreign holidays and beef, then there would be perfectly useful things left idle: such as cars, boilers, planes and cows. Idling – or stranding – productive assets in this way is an expensive economic disaster.

Even more intriguing was the government’s economically illiterate response to the leak. A spokesman said: “Net zero is the economic opportunity of the twenty-first century, and will deliver good jobs, economic growth and energy security as part of our Plan for Change.”

Do they really think that economic growth is the same thing as spending money? Because it isn’t.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/21/net-zero-broken-window-fallacy-leaked-report-economy-gdp

He uses the broken window analogy:

“Imagine the government saying that it is going to require the entire population to throw out all their socks and buy new ones by next Thursday. Under the logic it espouses for Net Zero, this would result in a tremendous burst of economic growth. Think of all the jobs created in the sock industry and the shops! They would be better off. Ah, but you, the consumer, would be poorer: you would have as many socks as before but less money. This is the broken window fallacy, exploded by Frederic Bastiat nearly 200 years ago: going around breaking windows makes work for glaziers but does not create growth.”

In reality the risk to the UK goes far wider than these domestic issues. The DBT report also highlighted global risks of stranded assets, from which the UK won’t be immune. If the global economy crashes, ours will as well.

Moreover, UK banks and pension funds are heavily invested in all sorts of international businesses, many of which stand to be badly affected – and these won’t just be oil companies.

Telegraph Spread Fake Disease Scare

He goes on to list main threat as the dengue transmitting Tiger Mosquito. Proper scientists would have told him that the spread of this charmer has nothing to do with “climate change”, as it has always been able to thrive in temperate climates, such as ours. Its spread has been solely the result of the expansion of global trade in recent decades.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

How Joe Pinkstone gets to be the Telegraph’s Science Correspondent beats me if this naive little article is any indication!

Disease-carrying bugs from Europe are increasingly crossing the Channel and arriving in Britain as a result of climate change, government scientists have warned.

Insects that once only survived in the warmer climes of the Mediterranean or further south are now migrating to northern Europe. They are then blown over the Channel on the wind or hitch a lift on ferries or trains.

Studies show that the pests are now also able to flourish in the UK as temperatures rise and winters become less intense.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/24/bugs-from-europe-pose-deadly-danger-scientists

He goes on to list main threat as the dengue transmitting Tiger Mosquito. Proper scientists would have told him that the spread of this charmer has nothing to do with “climate change”, as it has always been able to thrive in temperate climates, such as ours. Its spread has been solely the result of the expansion of global trade in recent decades.

Pinkstone goes on to warn us about bluetongue disease:

Meanwhile, this summer veterinarians at Defra were preparing for a deluge of tests for bluetongue, an infection that affects farm animals such as cattle and sheep, and is characterised by a blue tongue in infected animals.

Midges, belonging to the culicoides species, spread the virus to anything they bite, which includes sheep, deer, llamas and goats. It does not affect people or food security, experts say.

Farmers, vets and Government scientists up and down the country have been put on high alert for bluetongue, with the latest Government guidance saying “infected culicoides may be spread to Great Britain via the wind” from the coastal clusters in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium.

There is a “medium” risk of incursion of a midge that carries a disease for which there is no vaccine, experts say.

Ele Brown, the UK deputy chief veterinary officer, said: “Vector-borne diseases account for more than 17 per cent of all infectious diseases in humans around the world, with mosquitoes and ticks representing a growing threat to the UK due to the fact that they are both established and invasive.

“Climate change, in the form of warmer summer temperatures and milder wetter winters, could increase the abundance of the native mosquito populations, prolong the active vector season and enable invasive mosquito species to establish in the UK and increase their ability to transmit diseases.

Notice the weasel word “COULD”! But as she admits, these midges and mosquitoes are already well established in the UK.

The situation regarding bluetongue is much more complex than Pinkstone suggests, something which a competent science correspondent should surely have explained.

The principal reason for the rapid spread of bluetongue through Europe in recent years has been its transfer to the obsoletus and pulicaris families of Culicoides midges, both of which are endemic throughout most of Europe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetongue_disease
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/culicoides-pulicarislupicaris-current-known-distribution-march-2023

Note the presence of the midges in much colder climates in Scandinavia.

Another factor in the spread has been the ability of the virus to survive in harsh winters. This survival has nothing to do with climate change:

Shame on the Telegraph for allowing this reporter to write such garbage.

Government will hit target of 600,000 annual heat pump installations, insists minister

Britain will hit the target of installing 600,000 new heat pumps each year, the energy efficiency minister Lord Callanan has insisted today, as the Government announced a boost to the scheme.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

They really do live in Cloud-Cuckoo Land, don’t they!

From the Telegraph today:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/12/18/rishi-sunak-latest-news-heat-pumps-nhs-wes-streeting-live/#1702887814864

Want More Miles From Your EV? Lose Weight!

How to get the most miles out of your electric car? Don´t buy one.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

Some wonderful tips from the useless Telegraph for squeezing a few miles more out of your EV!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/how-get-most-miles-out-your-electric-car/

The tips include:

  • Don’t drive when the weather’s too hot or cold
  • Turn your heating down in winter
  • Fit a heat pump
  • Don’t use the motorway
  • Lose weight
  • Slow down

The best advice they could give is stick with a proper car!

As usual, the commenters hit the nails on the head:

Ben Marlow In Cloud Cuckoo Land Again

The Rosebank oilfield is located around 80 miles north-west of the Shetland Islands, 3,600 feet below the surface of the North Sea.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

How this guy still has a job at the Telegraph is a mystery to me:

The Rosebank oilfield is located around 80 miles north-west of the Shetland Islands, 3,600 feet below the surface of the North Sea.

It is into this black abyss that any semblance of a coherent plan to power Britain has slipped after its owners were granted permission to drill for new oil and gas.

The timing of the announcement alone was comically bad. Just 24 hours after the International Energy Agency warned that any new oil and gas infrastructure was incompatible with the Paris Climate Agreements of limiting global warming to 1.5C – an accord of which the UK is a signatory – the North Sea Transition Authority gave the green light to a development that is expected to produce as much as 500m barrels of oil over its lifetime.

A cross-party group of MPs and peers estimate that is equivalent to 200m tonnes of carbon dioxide – “more than the combined annual CO2 emissions of all 28 low-income countries in the world.”

The truth of Rosebank is that it does none of the things that ministers and its cheerleaders claim. Instead, it underlines how desperately muddled our energy policy has become. It is the price we must pay for decades of failure to invest in, and plan for, an energy system capable of replacing one dominated by fossil fuels.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/28/rosebank-price-energy-failures-oilfield-north-sea/

It’s the same load of old tripe we are used to getting from Marlow.

The fact that his main argument against it is the Paris Agreement says it all! Does he not realise that the Paris Agreement actually formalised rapid increases in emissions? Does he not realise that it gave carte blanche to China, India and the rest of the developing world to carry on using as much fossil fuels as they want? Whatever your beliefs about global warming, nobody should pretend that it should be an economic blueprint for the UK, more a straitjacket.

Marlow clearly has not realised that we will still be using huge amounts of oil and gas for many years to come. It’s not me saying that, even the CCC accept this. So why should it make more sense to ship the stuff half way round the world, when we could supply some of it ourselves.

His main complaint seems to be that the amounts involved at Rosebank are small fry, in terms of our overall energy consumption. But so what? The same argument could be made about every economic policy decision.

He goes on to moan about the failure of the offshore wind auction this month. Evidently he is happy for the public to pay even greater subsidies for their electricity. As ever, he offers no solutions to the problems of intermittency.

His final moan is about our failure to build more nuclear, especially since he says there is a risk that Hinkley Point might not be ready till 2036. Maybe he should have been arguing for this 20 years ago, when his favourite Miliband and the rest of the Labour Party banned new nuclear, whilst setting the destruction of our energy security into motion.

The delays show just how short sighted it would have been to put all of our eggs in the nuclear/wind basket, as Marlow suggests.

Is it not time for the Telegraph to employ somebody who actually understands the energy sector, and send Ben Marlow packing to the Guardian, where he should feel more at home (judging by the avalanche of critical comments he gets every time he writes this nonsense!)

Telegraph Scrape The Bottom With Latest Climate Scare

The media seem to be having a competition to see who can print the biggest pile of BS about climate change!

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Paul Kolk

It is sad to see how far the Telegraph has declined since its days as a serious newspaper:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/climate-change-global-warming-wildfires-drought-floods/

The media seem to be having a competition to see who can print the biggest pile of BS about climate change!

I won’t bother copying this latest rubbish from the Telegraph – it’s the usual claptrap about wildfires, droughts, floods and typhoons, as if none of these had ever happened in the past.

But almost to a man, the commenters have had a field day, tearing this drivel to pieces; for instance:

There are a couple of comments about Bill Gates and his Global Health Security outfit. Sure enough, at the bottom of the article is this:

Click on the link, and you get this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/global-health-security-site/

In short, the Telegraph has prostituted itself to Bill Gates’ billions. Despite its protestations about full editorial control, there is no way the paper would have published such ill researched, manifestly fake news in the past, when it could rightly lay claim to being a serious newspaper.

And if you want proof of this, just look at the author of this article, Harriet Barber:

Ah! Human rights, violence against wimmin and the refugee crisis. That obviously makes her a qualified expert on climate!

Her co-author, Verity Bowman, is , as some surmised, still in her twenties, and like Barber has no real world experience in these or other matters:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/verity-bowman-aa9943124/?originalSubdomain=uk

Telegraph: “How central bankers got it spectacularly wrong on net zero inflation”

“The net zero transition is disinflationary”: Central bankers are clinging to the fantasy that renewable energy investment will cause a dramatic fall in energy prices.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Peta of Newark; “The net zero transition is disinflationary”: Central bankers are clinging to the fantasy that renewable energy investment will cause a dramatic fall in energy prices.

How central bankers got it spectacularly wrong on net zero inflation

Experts fear the elite’s obsession with going green will cause prolonged pain for millions

By Szu Ping Chan

10 July 2023 • 6:00am

However, as the transition to net zero speeds up, and wind and solar power replace oil and gas, it is becoming increasingly clear that prices are not coming down fast. Instead experts fear that going green will make the inflation crisis worse – in a fresh blow to the credibility of a string of central bankers who have predicted the opposite.

“The green transition will be expensive and, if tax collection does not keep up with increased spending, there will be an expansionary fiscal impact that could add to economic demand relative to supply, and thereby inflation,” says George Buckley, UK chief economist at Nomura.
…
All of this is likely to confound the central baking elite, who have called for a swift end to fossil fuels.

“The net zero transition is disinflationary,” Mark Carney insisted in a speech last year. The former governor of the Bank of England doubled down on this assertion last month, admitting that while prices would probably rise for about a decade in pursuit of net zero, going green will ultimately help to keep inflation low and stable.
…
In the long run, net zero may indeed bring down prices. But before then, the politicians – and central bankers – face the challenge of explaining to the public that their utopian rhetoric on green energy is falling short of reality. 

Read more: 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/07/10/central-bankers-spectacularly-wrong-net-zero-inflation/

How could otherwise smart people get the inflationary impact of renewable energy so wrong, when it is obvious to anyone with basic scientific training that renewables are not fit for purpose?

There is only one explanation which makes sense. They don’t personally understand the science, and they are getting bad advice.

The only question is, how long will central bankers persist with this folly until they realise the emperor has no clothes? How long until they wake up to the reality that renewables will never have a deflationary impact, that pushing forward will lead to inevitable economic ruin?

And once bankers realise the green energy revolution has failed, how long one of them summons the courage to speak out, to admit their tenure as a central banker has all been a ghastly mistake?

We can only hope that at least one central banker is brave enough to remember their first duty is to the public. It will only take one central banker to tell the truth, to shatter the green mirage, to awaken everyone in the financial world to the reality that renewables are a dead end. Because if no central banker has the courage to step forward and say “enough”, we are all in for a hell of a ride.

Update (EW): Added the last paragraph of the Telegraph article, which claims one day renewables might bring down prices.

Offshore Windfarms Threaten To Pull Out Of Uneconomical Contracts

There is of course no such race, which implies that there is some sort of reward for those countries jumping off the clifftop first! On the contrary, most of the world is quite happy to let Britain, the EU and US continue with the madness, while they make themselves richer with the help of fossil fuels.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

The wheels are falling off the offshore wind bandwagon:

A string of offshore wind projects meant to power Britain are in jeopardy after the global race to net zero sent costs soaring, casting doubt over the industry’s future as a cheap source of energy.

A surge in supply chain costs has pushed up the price of wind turbines, while increases in global interest rates have raised refinancing costs substantially.

It has made several projects unviable just a year after they won government subsidy contracts – leading to fears from industry insiders that Britain’s future is in jeopardy as the “Saudi Arabia of wind”.

Inch Cape, a 50:50 joint venture between Ireland’s ESB and China’s Red Rock Power to develop a project located 15km off the east coast of Scotland, is understood to be at risk, with the Irish side refusing to proceed with a so-called final investment decision (FID) after balking at the economics of the project.

One source said: “People won’t invest if it doesn’t give you a decent return on equity. And presently, it’s hard to see how it can.”

Schemes developed by Danish company Ørsted and Swedish player Vattenfall are among other projects understood to be at risk, as the industry seeks more government help to ensure projects remain viable.

Senior executives have also described Net Zero Secretary Grant Shapps as a “remote” figure who is reluctant to engage with company bosses.

The struggles faced by some of the biggest offshore wind developers raise fresh questions about whether the Government will achieve its target of 50GW of offshore wind by 2030, from current levels of around 14GW.

So-called contracts for difference (CfDs) are designed to guarantee companies that operate offshore wind projects fixed prices to sell electricity over a 15-year period. If the market price falls below the so-called strike price, the Government makes up the difference.

However, if the reverse is true, the companies must pay money back to the Government.

Last year’s CfD auction was the biggest to date and secured enough capacity to provide more than 10 million homes with clean power.

However, it is understood that the £37.35 strike price secured by Inch Cape is currently “below the waterline” for ESB, meaning they are not satisfied with the level of returns on offer.

“It should be nearer £50 to £55,” a source said.

The Norfolk Boreas offshore wind farm operated by Vattenfall is also understood to be at risk as costs mount.

A spokesman admitted that market conditions were “extremely challenging”, suggesting that a final investment decision was not forthcoming. He warned that the Government must reflect the realities of the market, suggesting Vattenfall was unwilling to proceed without more state help.

Catrin Jung, the company’s head of offshore wind, said: “Vattenfall has not yet taken FID on the Norfolk Boreas offshore wind farm.

“Market conditions are extremely challenging currently, with rising costs and a supply chain crunch as well as increasing costs of capital. We are looking at the best way forward for all three projects which make up the 4.2GW Norfolk Offshore Zone and how we can work with the supply chain, including what opportunities there are for UK businesses.”

Ørsted’s Hornsea 3 in the North Sea is also understood to be at risk, although a spokesman insisted that the company was “increasingly confident that we will be in a position to take a Final Investment Decision during 2023”.

The spokesman added: “The offshore wind sector has delivered huge growth in the UK over the last decade but it has arrived at an inflection point.

“It will require continued focus from stakeholders in Government and across industry to ensure offshore wind delivers on its potential to become the backbone of the UK’s energy system and bring further investment, provide low-cost electricity for consumers and help deliver our net zero ambition.”

Insiders suggested that Red Rock Power, a subsidiary of China’s state-backed SDIC, is willing to proceed with Inch Cape at a loss in order to avoid the embarrassment of abandoning what would be its biggest investment in offshore wind in Europe.

However, it is understood that any decision to proceed would have to involve a project redesign.

A joint statement issued by ESB and Red Rock Power said the companies remained “strategically aligned and committed to the delivery of the Inch Cape Offshore Wind Farm project”.

A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman insisted that Mr Shapps “regularly engages with the industry”. The spokesman said: “Offshore wind is a vital part of our work to boost energy security and cut emissions.

“Our plans to power up Britain, combined with the annual auction process now in place, gives the industry more confidence to invest.

“We have already attracted £120bn of private investment in renewables since 2010 and expect to attract a further £100 billion of investment which will support up to 480,000 jobs by 2030.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/24/net-zero-at-risk-offshore-wind-companies-turn-away-britain/

It has been apparent for a long while that the prices agreed under CfDs by offshore wind farms are in no way viable. It is worth noting that the £55/MWh figure quoted as a reasonable price is at 2012 prices, and works out at about £67/MWh at current prices. This certainly does not equate to the “cheapest” claims made by the renewable lobby. Furthermore because CfD prices are inflation linked, these prices will likely be over £80/MWh by the time the wind farms come on stream.

With interest rates now back to proper levels, and supply chain issues pushing up costs, the economics of offshore wind look distinctly unfavourable. If investors in these Round 4 auctions are getting cold feet, despite the fact they can sell on the free market anyway, what chance is there that investors will bother to bid at even lower prices for the next allocation round? And if these investors pull out, the 2030 wind power target is pie in the sky.

Meanwhile the reply by the increasingly absurd DESNZ is the usual stock reply – £100 billion investment, which we will have to repay with interest eventually; and all of those wonderful green jobs, which never actually seem to materialise!

But perhaps the most absurd comment of all is this:

“Senior executives have also described Net Zero Secretary Grant Shapps as a “remote” figure who is reluctant to engage with company bosses.”

Well, I am very sorry, but when you sign a contract, you are expected to fulfil it! You don’t go back moaning a year or two alter saying “I’m sorry, but I got my calculations wrong, can I have some more money?

FOOTNOTE

Yet again we see this silly comment by the Telegraph about a global race to net zero. This is the pathetic nonsense spouted by the increasingly irrelevant Jeremy Warner and Ben Marlow.

There is of course no such race, which implies that there is some sort of reward for those countries jumping off the clifftop first! On the contrary, most of the world is quite happy to let Britain, the EU and US continue with the madness, while they make themselves richer with the help of fossil fuels.