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):
One failed turbine at Scroby Sands exposes the scale of the cost of decommissioning offshore wind farms. And there’s precious little cash being set aside to cover it. A thread (1/n)
Scroby Sands is a relatively small 60MW offshore windfarm. In 2023 one of the 30 turbines caught fire and owner RWE has decided to decommission that single turbine (2/n)
In the accounts up to end 2024, we can see the wind farm is losing money, with pre-tax losses of £4.7m, despite earning ROC subsidies worth £9.8m, or nearly 48% of revenue (3/n)
The data is in, so now we know how much the Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) scheme cost us in 2024/25. A thread 🧵(1/n)
First, overall generation under the scheme was down on the year at just under 8TWh. It is beginning to look like a downtrend has been in place since 2020/21 (2/n)
The total cost of the scheme fell slightly too to £1.84bn (3/n)
If NESO cannot produce a complete set of energy scenarios and we can't rely on the costs, then what is the point of NESO. A thread (1/n)
Many green blobbers have got very huffy about my report for the IEA looking into the various estimates of the cost of Net Zero (2/n) iea.org.uk/publications/t…
Fulminator-in-chief was @ret_ward who even went even went so far as to write to the @iealondon and demand the report was withdrawn (3/n)
Another record year for CfD subsidies with £2.6bn paid out to renewables generators. Where does all the money go? A thread 🧵(1/n)
2025 was a record year, with £2.6bn paid out, up from £2.4bn in 2024. Offshore wind took the lion's share of over £2bn, with tree-burning taking £428m, dedicated biomass £118m. Onshore wind took 67m and solar £0.1m. (2/n)
September to December 2025 were also the top 4 subsidy months on record, with November 2025 being the highest month taking £311m. (3/n)
Yesterday's AR7 results show that Miliband, NESO and the CCC are gaslighting the nation. AR7 is locking in index-linked high electricity prices for decades. A thread 🧵(1/n)
So, what happened? A total of 8.4GW of offshore wind was awarded contracts. Of this 8.2GW was fixed-bottom at an average of £91/MWh in 2024 prices, with 0.2GW of floating at £216/MWh. But these prices show the price of offshore wind is rising (2/n)
AR7's 20-year index-linked contracts are only about £9/MWh above AR6's Hornsea 4 15-year contract that was cancelled as uneconomic. However, on a like for like basis AR7 would probably have cost about £105/MWh (3/n)
Alastair and Rory caught telling porkies about solar power while shilling for lossmaking Fuse Energy. When facts and truth are ignored, The Rest is Propaganda. A thread 🧵 (1/n)
The central claim of their clip was that solar is a “very cheap and affordable way to generate electricity”. But in the UK at least, that claim is manifestly untrue. Solar is in fact very expensive (2/n)
We subsidise solar in 3 ways. The basic cost of solar from feed-in-tariffs is £229/MWh for 2024/25. To that we must add £33/MWh for grid balancing and backup costs, giving a total of £282/MWh, or >3X gas-fired electricity including carbon costs (3/n)