Let's start by looking at offshore wind. You may CfDs were awarded to 7GW of offshore wind projects in AR4 and this was hailed as a great victory and there were claims that wind was 9 times cheaper than gas (2/n)
Of those 7GW, there have been 2.7GW of capacity reductions & 1.4GW of contracts have been terminated leaving just 2.9GW in progress with none yet in operation. Some of the capacity reductions (e.g. Hornsea Project 3) have been awarded new contracts at higher prices (3/n)
1.1GW of contracts were awarded in AR1 in 2015 & we're still waiting for NNG to come online. Of the 5.5GW of contracts in 2019's AR3, there have been 1.35GW of reductions and none are yet online. (4/n)
For onshore wind, of the 888MW awarded contracts in AR4, there's been 221MW of terminations & 12MW of capacity reductions and none yet in operation (5/n)
Just two solar projects with a capacity of 23MW awarded contracts in AR1 are live, with the others apparently terminated. Of the 2,209MW of projects awarded in AR4, 276MW have been terminated & 73MW capacity reductions. None of these projects are live. (6/n)
Wind & solar projects are far from quick to deploy, hundreds have been granted permission only for the consent to lapse before construction begins. More than half of AR4 offshore wind projects have reduced capacity or been terminated (7/n)
There is nothing about wind and solar renewables that suggests fast and reliable deployment. Just like we cannot rely upon their power generation if they do get built. (8/n)
If you enjoyed this thread, please like, share & signup for the full article on the link (9/9):
We hear that the "climate crisis" is urgent & cannot wait for nuclear power to come online because renewables are so quick to deploy, but permitting is an issue. But is it really true? Prepare to be enlightened (1/n)
The Renewable Energy Planning Database (REPD) lists 1,000's of renewables projects dating back decades. Looking at the projected granted permission from 2008 to 2020 we can select those that haven't started construction and not operational (see above) (2/n)
4.6GW of onshore wind projects granted planning permission are yet to start construction. Some 237 projects in total. For130 of them planning permission appears to have expired. A further 48 have no planning expiry date but permission expired >4 years ago. (3/n)
A new paper demonstrates that when it comes to Net Zero, our think tanks all think alike. But when everyone is thinking alike, no one is thinking at all. Time to make think tanks think again. A thread 🧵(1/n)
The paper in question comes from @CPSThinkTank. It accepts the premise of Net Zero and claims that if we tinker with it using the 20 ideas in the paper, we can make Net Zero palatable (2/n)
First, they want to decouple gas from electricity markets without explaining how that would be done. The paper is seemingly unaware that CfDs and FiTs are already decoupled in that generators get the strike price regardless of wholesale prices. (3/n)
NESO's plan for a Net Zero grid by 2030 is so fantastical, it requires Mad Miliband to believe six impossible things before breakfast. A thread 🧵(1/n)
First up, we have to believe that spending £44-48bn/yr or £264-290bn by 2030 is achievable. This is over 4X the rate from 2020-2024. The Government can't fund it, and we won't stand for it in our bills (2/n)
Then they would have us believe that spending £260-290bn to deliver only an extra 11% of electricity will be cheaper. But they rely on gas prices being 30% more than OBR forecasts and the cost of carbon goes up ~4X by 2030. (3/n)
The Climate Change Committee has been in the headlines again, demanding we cut emissions by 81% from 1990 levels by 2035. What does this mean in a global context and do the proposed measures add up? A 🧵(1/n)
This chart from OWID sets global emissions in context. Global emissions have risen the UK's fell. Global emissions grew by 333m tonnes in 2022, more than the UK total of 319m tonnes. We now represent 0.86% of the global total. Claims of climate leadership are risible. (2/n)
If we hit the CCC's target, UK emissions will be 0.3% of the 2022 total. A rounding error. The CCC's claim to be following the latest science is ridiculous. (3/n)
There has been a furore about the damaging effects of Rachel Reeves first budget. But was is the impact of #Budget24 on energy policy. A mixed bag, with some good news, but quite a lot of bad. A thread 🧵(1/n)
First the good news. Fuel duty was frozen again & the planned indexation in 2025/26 has been cancelled, which the Govt claim will save £59/yr for the average driver. The climate zealots are furious, but don't mention we already pay ~£25bn/yr in fuel duty. (2/n)
Sizewell C also got a boost, with £2.7bn of funding to 2025/26. But it is unclear quite how much of this is new money in #Budget2024. Final investment decision in Spring 2025 as part of Spending Review Phase 2. (3/n)
Time to don my tin hat and flak jacket and bust the fossil fuel subsidy myth. There's a form of Godwin's Law that says that when discussing renewables subsidies someone say: "Ackshually, fossil fuels are subsidised more than renewables." But it's a lie. A 🧵(1/n)
The IEA defines fossil fuel subsidies as “measures that reduce the effective price of fossil fuels below world market prices.” The IEA does not include the UK as one its Top-25 subsidisers (2/n)
So where do these claims of massive subsidies that we see in place like the Guardian and Politico come from? They come from eliding "support" and "subsidies" and making spurious claims from OECD data about less tax than arbitrary level being a subsidy (3/n)