{"id":369599,"date":"2025-03-12T17:59:36","date_gmt":"2025-03-12T16:59:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=369599"},"modified":"2025-03-12T17:59:38","modified_gmt":"2025-03-12T16:59:38","slug":"the-sun-will-come-up-tomorrow","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=369599","title":{"rendered":"The Sun Will Come Up\u00a0Tomorrow"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Climate Scepticism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Mark Hodgson<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s only a decade away<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0Economical With the Truth<\/a>\u00a0I took issue with a BBC Verify report that asked, \u201cIf the UK has more renewable energy, why aren\u2019t bills coming down?\u201d.<\/em>\u00a0It ignored lots of the net zero-related reasons for this, and largely blamed gas prices, while continuing to claim that renewable energy is cheap, and will deliver lower prices in due course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It may as well have been a dry run for a report<\/a> released today by Energy UK (\u201cthe voice of the energy industry<\/em>\u201d), and which makes many of the same claims, while indulging in some short-term special pleading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Energy UK claims to be the voice of the UK energy industry, it is completely signed up to the net zero agenda, fossil fuel outfits don\u2019t seem to get a look-in, and it might as well describe itself as the voice of the renewables industry (which is doing rather well, given that it already has its own trade body \u2013 Renewable UK). Energy UK\u2019s most recent chief executive was Emma Pinchbeck, who is now chief executive of the Climate Change Committee. The Energy UK board she leaves behind includes top people from Centrica, Drax, E.ON UK, EDF, and a new chief executive who is on the board of Green Alliance and who, prior to joining Energy UK, led work on net zero, the future energy system and decarbonisation at Citizens Advice. Its Chairman is David Laws, former leading MP for the Liberal Democrats, a party also extremely keen on net zero. Others have biographies that tell us they variously held roles across low carbon generation at Equinor, Orsted and EDF Energy; have worked in the Executive teams at Ofgem and National Grid ESO, leading a range of operational functions, with responsibilities spanning decarbonisation, network development, and security of supply; helped to deliver the CBI\u2019s \u201cground-breaking\u201d report on climate change in 2007, which helped shift the perception of the role business can play in the low-carbon economy, and set up and led the CBI\u2019s climate change team before becoming Director of Infrastructure; and so on. We get the picture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No surprise, then, that today\u2019s report, which runs to just 15 pages, including frontispiece, executive summary, and lots of large graphs, seeks to tell us that we need to decarbonise faster to enjoy cheaper electricity prices, but that we might need some government (aka taxpayer) help in the short term to get there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It tells us that UK energy bills are too high, and that the consequence is that growth is being held back and living standards are being damaged \u2013 at least we can agree about that. 40% of customers struggle to afford energy, over three million households live in fuel poverty, and energy debt is running at a record high of close to \u00a34 billion. Fortunately, the government has committed to reducing bills by \u201cup to\u201d \u00a3300 by 2030, and reducing our reliance on international gas prices is the only long-term answer (apparently). The problem is, although the report reiterates (without evidence) that the \u201cClean Power mission\u201d\u00a0will<\/strong>\u00a0lead to lower energy bills, there\u2019s a bit of a problem with that happening by 2030. They are supremely confident that \u201cClean Power\u201d will achieve tangible results in the next decade, but there\u2019s still an issue:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whilst wholesale prices may start to decrease by 2030, it\u2019s expected that increases in other parts of the bill may offset these reductions. This presents a clear problem.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s all gloriously vague, but \u2013 so they say \u2013 a rapid acceleration of critical network connections could<\/strong> reduce bills by \u00a3100, and extending the length of the Contracts for Difference from 15 to 20 years could<\/strong> enable an additional \u00a320 reduction (apparently). But savings are only going to be achieved by behavioural changes by customers \u2013 heat pumps, solar, EV charging, and other forms of consumer \u201cflexibility\u201d (weren\u2019t we told that this wouldn\u2019t be necessary?).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hilariously (well, it would be hilarious, were it not so serious) we are told that one of the main reasons bills are so high is because:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many of the costs of transition to a clean energy system are being levied on energy bills, rather than being paid for through general taxation. This includes increases in existing schemes such as Contracts for Difference (CfD) and the Capacity Market, as well as new charges to fund investment in technologies such as nuclear, hydrogen, and carbon capture and storage.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shocking, isn\u2019t it? What is the government thinking of? The huge extra costs of \u201cClean Power\u201d, which mean that it isn\u2019t cheap at all, are visible for energy users to see, right there on their energy bills. Far better to pretend, and to fund the costs through general taxation (which we all pay anyway) and to pretend<\/strong> that energy bills are cheap!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There follows a graphic which explains that annual bills by 2030 will be impacted by various factors:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Distribution networks account for \u00a3138 as local grids are reinforced to cope with rising demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Transmission networks account for \u00a340 to fund long distance lines to connect more capacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Capacity market accounts for \u00a321 to pay for backup generation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

System operations account for \u00a332 because curtailment cost could double by 2030.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contracts for difference account for \u00a334 \u2013 they are likely to increase as more capacity comes online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legacy renewables subsidies account for \u00a3121. It is hoped Renewables Obligation and Feedin Tariff costs will start tapering away from 2027, saving around \u00a310 off typical bills by 2030, but there will be some costs until the 2040s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They hope that gas will set the price of electricity less frequently. They assume that this will gradually save the current cost of \u00a3311.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supplier costs and VAT account for \u00a3208. They assume that these won\u2019t change significantly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key mechanisms to reduce bills<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There follows a table which includes some of the same fallacious thinking as that above which seems to think that energy costs are covered by general taxation so that they don\u2019t appear on our energy bills then they are not costs at all. For instance, \u201ctargeted customer support\u201d (essentially taxpayer money being diverted to help those customers who are struggling the most) could save \u00a3400 per annum for the 3.17 million households currently in fuel poverty. Then there\u2019s the \u00a313.2 billion already committed to in the Labour Party manifesto to \u201cinvest in energy efficiency\u201d, which might save \u00a3140 per annum on the average bill. But it all still costs the taxpayer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Making British business more competitive<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Businesses are just as impacted by high energy costs as households \u2013 especially manufacturers competing with foreign firms who face much lower costs, including those in Europe, the United States and China. Most of these options will also reduce costs for businesses because they lower the total cost of the system. Businesses can also be supported by more targeted policies, including investment in electrification, exemption from certain costs (like the supercharger) and a review of non-domestic policy costs.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can you spot the flaws? No questions are asked as to why countries with proportionately much less \u201cClean Power\u201d \u2013 especially the US and China \u2013 have \u201cmuch lower costs\u201d than UK businesses. \u201cSupporting\u201d businesses by more targeted policies and exemption from certain costs is moving the deckchairs on the Titanic \u2013 we are still heading for the iceberg.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Optimising the energy system to deliver savings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here we really enter Looking Glass World. First up is \u201cmaximising flexibility\u201d, which really amounts to insisting that consumers use energy when they don\u2019t want to and can\u2019t have it when they would like it. \u201cFlexibility\u201d is a euphemism for rationing in this context. It\u2019s also only really effective for households with batteries, heat pumps and EVs, and even they are said to be in line for possible (\u201ccould\u201d is the word they use) savings of just \u00a3115 per annum. For the rest of us (we might, for instance, run dishwashers overnight) \u201csmaller reductions\u201d will be achieved. You can say that again. Pressing on with the roll-out of smart meters is also part of this wizard wheeze, despite the problems they have experienced to date, and the ongoing huge costs (\u00a318 billion?). Bizarrely, this section of the strategy is described as having minimal costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Working with our European neighbours, they say, could save \u00a310 billion this Parliament. Where that figure comes from is a mystery, since they talk of annual savings of \u00a3120-\u00a3370 million. They want us to link carbon trading systems, and to achieve more efficient electricity trading arrangements. It isn\u2019t explained, but I assume that this is a reference to the use of the interconnectors. Given that we are massive net importers of electricity via said interconnectors (and we tend to offload when it\u2019s windy and sunny, and buy during dunkelflautes), it\u2019s difficult to understand what benefits we can achieve here. Do they really think our continental neighbours will pay higher prices to us for electricity when there\u2019s a glut and charge us lower prices when there\u2019s a shortage? This section ends with a bizarre \u2013 and very discouraging \u2013 paragraph:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If this issue is not resolved over the coming years, the costs to households and businesses is forecast to increase substantially in the 2030s given the combination of highly interconnected European markets and the UK\u2019s role as a net electricity exporter.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Net electricity exporter? Really?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have to quote the next paragraph in full, both because of the reality of the costs it expresses, and the naivety of the thinking as to how those costs can be reduced:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The system operator manages the electricity system in real time by paying power stations to turn their production up and down. The cost of this will increase from \u00a32.4 billion in 2023\/24 to an estimated \u00a34.7 billion in 2030,20 although successfully achieving Clean Power by 2030 will play an important role in reducing these costs. Charging and discharging batteries is often the cheapest way to balance the system. However, over three-quarters of the time21 the system operator uses a more expensive power station \u2013 often a gas plant \u2013 because its systems were not designed to cope with lots of small batteries. Continuing to upgrade the national control room will allow us to use more, cheaper batteries as well as encouraging further investment in clean energy. Giving the system operator a clear objective to operate the system more effectively \u2013 from system planning to re-dispatching power stations and encouraging all flexibility to participate in markets \u2013 could significantly reduce costs.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Investing public money in a strategic and targeted way to deliver significant guarantee bill reductions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here the paper doubles down on the idea that re-directing taxpayer\u2019s money to ease the burden on bill-payers (\u201cThe only way to lock in significant energy bill savings by 2030 is by injecting public money into the energy system) is somehow a solution to the problem of the high costs associated with rushing to decarbonise the grid by 2030. They clearly don\u2019t understand (or don\u2019t want to accept the reality) that is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul (or, often, robbing Peter to pay Peter).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Energy bills are high because some of the costs of decarbonising the energy system are added to energy bills (or, as they would have it \u201cEnergy bills are artificially inflated by the costs of government policies recovered from bills, costing the typical household \u00a3180 per year). This discourages households from switching to electricity for heating, via devices such as heat pumps. The answer is \u2013 to them \u2013 blindingly obvious:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Removing all policy costs would cost around \u00a36.5 billion a year and save households between \u00a3130 and \u00a3370 per year. The Government should also ensure that future policy costs such as CCUS, hydrogen, and nuclear don\u2019t exacerbate the gas to electricity price ratio.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, the \u00a36.5 billion removed from bills every year will be added to our taxes instead. The same is true of their proposed expenditure of \u00a31.5 billion per annum from general taxation to help bill-payers in fuel poverty. And it\u2019s also true of the \u00a313 billion warm homes plan, which they reckon will save \u00a3140 per annum on the average bill. That last proposal might have more logical merit than the others, but I\u2019d like to see a detailed costing acoompanied by a realistic cost\/benefit analysis first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Capitalising on the benefits of a rapidly evolving energy system<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This strikes me as a strange heading for the section that follows. NESO, they say, estimate the cost of achieving \u201cClean Power\u201d by 2030 at \u00a3200 billion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the short run, that investment must be paid for. It can be paid for either by taxpayers or billpayers, now or in the future. The more costs are moved away from current consumers, the lower bills will be in the short term.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is just more of the same. Transfer the costs from bills to general taxation. Hope the consumers see lower bills and that they don\u2019t realise that this is paid for by their higher tax bills.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They recognise that the massive, planned extension of wind power will be paid for via the Contracts for Difference (CfD) regime. In order to bring down the annual costs of CfDs, they suggest extending their life from 15 to 20 years. Investors will no doubt love the extended government price guarantee (how many businesses enjoy such a guarantee over 15 years, let alone 20?), but the claimed annual saving for consumers of \u00a315-20 per annum is dubious, and is in any event paltry given the extent to which the agenda has raised costs to date and continues to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They acknowledge that \u201c[a]chieving clean power by 2030 will require \u00a360 billions of investment in energy transmission. This will ultimately be recouped via energy bills\u201d but they believe that accelerating critical connections (this \u201cwill require boldly driving them through the planning process\u201d)\u00a0could<\/strong>\u00a0save \u00a350 per household in 2030 (and not before then). Wow! Trash the planning process so that infrastructure developers can ride roughshod over local communities and keep your fingers crossed that in five years\u2019 time it will\u00a0possibly<\/strong>\u00a0knock \u00a350 per annum off our bills.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The next suggestion is little better (possibly worse):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To achieve policy cost rebalancing for non-domestic users, legacy renewables policy costs and Climate Change Levy payments should be moved off energy bills. This reduction in electricity bills would be partly funded by gradual increases to gas CCL rates leaving \u00a31-4 billion of revenue a year to be covered by general taxation and hypothecated CBAM and ETS revenues. This proposal could save UK supermarkets up to 15% on their energy costs, which could translate to cheaper groceries for British households. A typical pub not serving food would see very little change in its short-term bills (+\/- 5%), but would be incentivised to electrify its operations, saving around 15% on its energy costs.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

All highly dubious, and involves no reduction in costs, simply a policy of moving bill costs to general taxation again. This doesn\u2019t make anybody better off at all, but no doubt it helps the energy companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where does this leave us?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report ends by asking this question. Where indeed? Not in a good place, that\u2019s for sure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Guardian, of course, reports<\/a> on all this in a reasonably favourable way, and concludes with a quote from DESNZ:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As shown by National Energy System Operator\u2019s independent [sic] report, clean power by 2030 is achievable and will deliver a more secure energy system, which could see a lower cost of electricity and lower bills.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The operative word is \u201ccould\u201d. One thing is<\/strong> clear \u2013 UK bill-payers face some of the highest energy bills in the world and the next five years are likely to see them increasing substantially. Energy UK\u2019s proposals don\u2019t deal with that fundamental problem. At best we will be paying those extra costs via general taxation rather than via our energy bills, but however they cut it we will all be much worse off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In\u00a0Economical With the Truth\u00a0I took issue with a BBC Verify report that asked, \u201cIf the UK has more renewable energy, why aren\u2019t bills coming down?\u201d.\u00a0It ignored lots of the net zero-related reasons for this, and largely blamed gas prices, while continuing to claim that renewable energy is cheap, and will deliver lower prices in due course.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":369603,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691827894,691818270,691819461,691830320,691827736,691818181],"class_list":{"0":"post-369599","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-clean-power","9":"tag-contracts-for-difference-cfd","10":"tag-energy-bills","11":"tag-energy-uk","12":"tag-green-alliance","13":"tag-renewable-energy","15":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/00IMG_6491.webp?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1y9h","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":409170,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=409170","url_meta":{"origin":369599,"position":0},"title":"Green Levies To Blame, Say Energy\u00a0Bosses","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"20\/10\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"UK\u2019s biggest gas and electricity providers urge ministers to address ballooning net zero costs","rel":"","context":"In \"electricity bills\"","block_context":{"text":"electricity bills","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=electricity-bills"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AQMQ3EXQfDoTnaSSZxgBP8_3nPUjNg5p18IhIyzgQoxV8oeFHjbc4Kn29vb5H4Yx_rDijRixEDc2GSownyspY1Km42glN_JWqcOoKsPoI5C2pmWAx2EsggrctUBQnW6x8yD0gZHwqh1U432ZwU801XoDgh09gg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AQMQ3EXQfDoTnaSSZxgBP8_3nPUjNg5p18IhIyzgQoxV8oeFHjbc4Kn29vb5H4Yx_rDijRixEDc2GSownyspY1Km42glN_JWqcOoKsPoI5C2pmWAx2EsggrctUBQnW6x8yD0gZHwqh1U432ZwU801XoDgh09gg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AQMQ3EXQfDoTnaSSZxgBP8_3nPUjNg5p18IhIyzgQoxV8oeFHjbc4Kn29vb5H4Yx_rDijRixEDc2GSownyspY1Km42glN_JWqcOoKsPoI5C2pmWAx2EsggrctUBQnW6x8yD0gZHwqh1U432ZwU801XoDgh09gg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AQMQ3EXQfDoTnaSSZxgBP8_3nPUjNg5p18IhIyzgQoxV8oeFHjbc4Kn29vb5H4Yx_rDijRixEDc2GSownyspY1Km42glN_JWqcOoKsPoI5C2pmWAx2EsggrctUBQnW6x8yD0gZHwqh1U432ZwU801XoDgh09gg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AQMQ3EXQfDoTnaSSZxgBP8_3nPUjNg5p18IhIyzgQoxV8oeFHjbc4Kn29vb5H4Yx_rDijRixEDc2GSownyspY1Km42glN_JWqcOoKsPoI5C2pmWAx2EsggrctUBQnW6x8yD0gZHwqh1U432ZwU801XoDgh09gg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":385869,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=385869","url_meta":{"origin":369599,"position":1},"title":"BBC Still Ignore The\u00a0Elephant","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/06\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Berman claimed that the principal reason was the high price of gas, exacerbated by the energy market mechanism which normally sets the wholesale price on the price of gas power. This supposedly stops consumers from benefitting from what he calls cheaper renewable energy. His claims went unchallenged by Montague.","rel":"","context":"In \"Adam Berman\"","block_context":{"text":"Adam Berman","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=adam-berman"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ChatGPT-Image-26.-Mai-2025-10_22_01-1.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ChatGPT-Image-26.-Mai-2025-10_22_01-1.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ChatGPT-Image-26.-Mai-2025-10_22_01-1.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ChatGPT-Image-26.-Mai-2025-10_22_01-1.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":219059,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=219059","url_meta":{"origin":369599,"position":2},"title":"Switching to renewable energy could save trillions \u2013 study","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"15\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The BBC are kite flying again!","rel":"","context":"With 1 comment","block_context":{"text":"With 1 comment","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=219059#comments"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-763.png?fit=715%2C768&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-763.png?fit=715%2C768&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-763.png?fit=715%2C768&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-763.png?fit=715%2C768&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":250429,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=250429","url_meta":{"origin":369599,"position":3},"title":"UK Govt\u2019s green subsidy \u2018reform\u2019 punishes the poor and benefits the rich","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"31\/03\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Commenting on today\u2019s package of energy policies released by the UK government, Net Zero Watch warned that Rishi Sunak and his colleagues appear to have learned nothing from the bitter experiences of the energy cost crisis and are ignoring the growing burden of renewable energy.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1310.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1310.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1310.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1310.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1310.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":270571,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=270571","url_meta":{"origin":369599,"position":4},"title":"Renewable energy isn\u2019t as cheap as advertised \u2013 so\u00a0far","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"31\/07\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"These are vast costs and, as long as \u201cNet Zero 2050\u201d remains in place, the process of spreading them around will become increasingly politically contentious. Any government wanting support for such targets to be maintained should start by finding a way to ensure renewables start delivering much cheaper energy bills.","rel":"","context":"In \"Energy Costs\"","block_context":{"text":"Energy Costs","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=energy-costs"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0renewable-energy.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0renewable-energy.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0renewable-energy.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0renewable-energy.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0renewable-energy.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":227901,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=227901","url_meta":{"origin":369599,"position":5},"title":"Would We Be Better Off Now, If We Had More Renewables?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/11\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Instead of trying to second guess past decision making, what both the BBC and Carbon Brief should be doing is addressing the current situation.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/0image-22.png?fit=703%2C768&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/0image-22.png?fit=703%2C768&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/0image-22.png?fit=703%2C768&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/0image-22.png?fit=703%2C768&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/369599","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=369599"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/369599\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":369605,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/369599\/revisions\/369605"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/369603"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=369599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=369599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=369599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}