Thread by @rcolvile

Argh. I know elections are a time for bad numbers on all sides. But Labour's sums on energy/savings are a particularly aggravating form of bullshit. Quick thread (1/?) bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

Labour says that its plans would 'turn the page on the cost of living crisis' and reduce bills by £300 per household. To justify this figure, it points to 'research by think tank Ember'.

The Ember report, which you can download here, does indeed say that moving to a completely clean energy grid would result in lower bills. But it says nothing at all about the costs of getting to that grid!

The Ember scenario is based on the govt meeting its existing generation commitments (50GW offshore wind, 70GW solar, 10GW hydrogen, 2GW CCUS) plus @NationalGridESO's 'Leading the Way' scenario, which sees power sector emissions hit net zero in 2034.

But the Leading the Way scenario will cost us £2.8 trillion in today's money between 2020 and 2050! That's £93 billion a year in investment, to save customers a hypothetical £8.7 billion a year.

Now, in fairness, Leading the Way ('LW') is actually the cheapest scenario @NationalGridESO came up with. It reckons that every version of keeping the lights on costs in the region of £3 trillion. nationalgrideso.com/news/analysing…

You could argue that investing more in renewables is therefore a pretty good deal - you spend the least (marginally, according to NG/ESO) and you end up with the cheapest bills (Ember). But you can't pretend that getting to the savings is cost free!

And there are three more problems.

First, Labour's promise isn't to decarbonise the grid by 2034 (Leading the Way), or 2035 (existing govt target). It's to do it by 2030. Which given it is 2024, requires a HUGE acceleration of this programme, and a load more £££££££.

In other words, Labour are claiming household bill savings for a 2034 decarbonisation while promising a 2030 decarbonisation. These are not the same thing!

Second, Labour are promising to do all this without the £28 billion that they not just pledged to spend, but said was utterly essential in delivering this pledge.

In other words, that £94 billion a year has to come either from private investment, or from our bills, or both.

Now, there are lots of companies who want to invest in this space. But everyone else is decarbonising too! So getting them to make that investment here may involve incentives, of the kind we've seen in US/China. Which, again, cost ££££££.

And the third problem, of course, is that this involves shutting down our oil and gas sector. And on this, Labour have been not just contradictory but ridiculously so.

Starmer is in Aberdeen today, promising people won't lose jobs, and saying oil and gas 'will be part of the mix for decades to come'. But they're also saying they won't issue any more licences!

I hate to break it to Keir, but people to not tend to invest in sectors where the government has said you absolutely can't expand and also we fully intend to ban you. (And if the sector evaporates, as is likely, we won't have the skills we need to transition to CCUS.)

My personal view - and that of many people in the sector - is that we've only just fixed the problems @Ed_Miliband caused last time he was in charge of the grid, so giving him the big seat again may not be the best idea.

But you'd at least hope that they could justify it with better maths. ENDS

PS Left out the Ember link - it's here. Also a £93/94 billion typo ember-climate.org/insights/resea…