There is no limit to our electricity bills as new spending on renewables has diminishing impact on emissions intensity. Our bills are going to infinity and beyond. A thread (1/n)
First up, we need to acknowledge that measuring the emissions intensity of electricity generation is an imprecise science. Three different datasets from Ember, DUKES and NESO give different results although have a similar shape. (2/n)
The numbers are also a bit of a con, because they ignore the CO2 emissions from burning trees at places like Drax. If these are added back, assuming similar emissions as for coal, the the picture is less impressive (3/n)
Going back to the NESO data, it is clear that the main driver of reduced emissions intensity (solid orange line) has been the removal of coal from the system (grey area) (4/n)
From a peak in 2012, emissions intensity fell from 519g/kWh in 2012 to 195g/kWh in 2019 as coal generation fell from 137TWh to single digits. Each extra GW of wind and solar capacity led to a reduction in emissions intensity of 11.9g/kWh (5/n)
Since 2019, extra emissions reductions have been hard to come by, with emissions intensity falling to 151g/kWh after an addition of a further 9.2GW of wind and solar capacity. A reduction of just 4.8g/kWh per GW of added capacity (6/n)
This is hardly a surprising result because despite big increases in wind capacity, the minimum generation has hardly changed since 2015. 1 x 0 =0, 10 x 0 = 0 and 100 x 0 = 0 (7/n)
Looking at the dotted lines out to 2030, we first have to make an adjustment to the forecast emissions intensity. NESO and the Government decided to ignore the emissions from waste incineration and combined heat & power plants, another con. (8/n)
Adding that back means that emissions intensity falls from 151g/kWh in 2023 to 51g/kWh in 2030 after an addition of a further 81.8GW of wind and solar. This gives a measly reduction of just 0.8g/kWh per GW of extra capacity (9/n)
If we believe the Government can achieve the big acceleration of wind and solar deployment, NESO estimate it will cost £260-290bn. Assuming 8% cost of capital & 2% operations costs, we can expect our bills to rise by £26-29bn per annum or about £1,000 per household (10/n)
The diminishing returns on extra wind and solar capacity means that to achieve the truly "zero-carbon electricity" promised in their manifesto, Labour will send our electricity bills to infinity and beyond. (11/n)
If you enjoyed this thread please like and share. You can sign up for free to read the full article here (12/12):
Why has Hornsea 3 been awarded CfD contracts with a capacity in excess of what is being built? DESNZ, NESO and LCCC are covering up what happened. A thread (1/n)
To recap, Orsted's Hornsea Project Three was originally awarded a CfD contract in 2022 under Allocation Round 4 (AR4) for a capacity of 2,852MW at £37.35/MWh (2012) or about £52/MWh in today's money (2/n)
Then last year Hornsea Project Three was awarded a further 3 contracts of 360MW each, a total of 1,080MW, under the Permitted Reduction Scheme. The strike price was £54.23/MWh or £78.27/MWh in today's money (3/n)
In a development that won't surprise many people, on Monday the BBC World At One #WATO aired some of the worst misinformation about the cost of renewables I have ever heard. A thread 🧵(1/n)
Sarah Montague interviewed Adam Berman of Energy UK. His argument was that gas sets the wholesale price of electricity most of the time and the marginal costs of gas-fired electricity are higher than those of wind power (2/n)
Link from 18:45: bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0…
If we could just get rid of all that pesky gas and move quickly to almost all intermittent renewables then bills would be lower. There is a grain of truth in the argument, but he ignored the elephants in the room of renewables subsidies and other extra costs. (3/n)
Steve runs Persuasion UK. Persuasion claims to be non-partisan but has sold its soul to the green blob. This makes it difficult for Steve to understand the energy market, because his salary depends on not understanding it. Short thread 🧵(1/n)
The website for @Persuasion_UK shows they are funded by various misanthropic organisations such as the Meliore Foundation and the European Climate Foundation (ECF) (2/n)
ECF's mission is to empower people to create a net-zero world. So they're bound to be in favour of wind power, despite its many drawbacks (3/n)
Total Contract for Difference (CfD) subsidies for wind, solar and biomass renewables break the £10bn barrier and the outlook is for even higher subsidies to come. A thread 🧵(1/n)
FY2024/25 was the second highest CfD subsidy year on record, driven by a big increase in biomass subsidies, a euphemism for burning trees (2/n)
The biggest recipients of this subsidy largesse are Hornsea 1, Walney, Beatrice and Dudgeon offshore wind farms. With Drax biomass plant coming in 3rd place (3/n)
A new "misinformation" database produced by Tortoise Media, C3DS & sponsored by Octopus Energy turns into showcase for Net Zero scepticism. A thread (1/n)
Helpfully, you can filter the database by author. Yours truly is the highest ranked UK individual, with US creators like Tom Nelson, Steve Milloy and Alex Epstein topping the list (2/n).
They breakdown the type of scepticism into Denial, Delay and Control categories. But quoting IPCC reports and acknowledging 1.5C of warming is classified as "denial". Yes, acceptance is the new denial. (3/n)
The CCC has clammed up and refusing to answer FOI requests. A thread (1/n)
The CCC's estimates of capex and opex in the 7th carbon budget are expressed as the difference between the costs of the Balanced Pathway and a notional baseline level of spending. It's not possible to work out the gross costs of either from the data they released (2/n)
So, I asked for the spreadsheets that back up their claims. But they don't hold the data in spreadsheets & claim the data is too complex to be released on the general public (3/n)