Yesterday, the OBR released its Financial Risks Report that old us about the dire state of the public finances. The OBR also told us that Net Zero would cost the public purse £803bn out to 2050. But part of their analysis relies on fake numbers from the CCC. A thread🧵 (1/n)
The public cost of Net Zero is made up of lost tax revenue and increased spending and the overall cost at 21% of GDP is down from 29% the OBR's last report (2/n)
Public expenditure is at 6% of GDP is some 5 points down on their prior estimates driven by “the CCC’s downward revisions to the whole-economy costs of transition.” (3/n)
The OBR simply parrot the CCC's whole economy costs from the 7th carbon budget, estimated at £116bn by 2050. Nobody explains why the whole economy costs can be 7X lower than the cost to the public purse (4/n)
But the CCC numbers are fake. They rest on fairytale costs of renewables. The CCC say offshore wind will cost £38/MWh in 2030. But Hornsea 4, awarded a contract in AR6 at ~£85/MWh (2025 prices) was cancelled as uneconomic (5/n)
The CCC also ignore the cost of floating offshore wind that will be required to hit the capacity targets, awarded a contract at over £200/MWh in AR6 and being offered higher prices in AR7, at least 5X the CCC's estimate (6/n)
The CCC estimate of solar costs was half what was awarded in AR6. They didn't even bother to put a cost on onshore wind, expected to more than double capacity by 2050 (7/n)
So, the CCC numbers are junk, but the OBR has simply cut and pasted the CCC numbers. The OBR is supposed to be an independent fiscal watchdog that should conduct its own due diligence and challenge the CCC (8/n)
Instead, it's asleep at the wheel and our real fiscal position is even worse than the dire straits they describe because Net Zero will cost a lot more than their and the CCC's estimate (9/n)
If you enjoyed this thread please like and share. You can sign up for free to read the full article on the link below (10/10):
How did Dale Vince become a green energy tycoon? Is it because wind is cheap as he claims? Or is it through subsidies? Declining performance and expiring subsidy support could spell trouble ahead. Let’s dive in! (1/16)
Dale Vince’s empire, Green Britain Group, includes Ecotricity and Forest Green Rovers. At the heart is Ecotricity Generation Limited, with wind and solar farms harvesting subsidies from Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). (2/16)
Ecotricity’s wind farms, like Fen Farm (£29.7M), Bambers Farm (£17.3M), and Bristol Port (£10.3M), have earned £115M in ROCs since 2002. But ROC income dropped from £9.15M (2023/24) to £7.87M (2024/25). (3/16)
UK’s energy policy is failing: high costs, low reliability & environmental harm. A physics-first approach - focusing on EROEI, reliability, environmental footprint, security & cost—can save us. Why we need to ditch renewables ideology & embrace nuclear, gas, and hydro. (1/17)
Ed Miliband’s Clean Power 2030 plan relies on wind and solar, cutting gas to 5% and virtually ignoring nuclear. Result? UK has the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world. Net Zero’s low-energy future risks economic stagnation. (2/17)
A physics-first energy policy prioritizes:
- High Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI)
- Reliability and flexibility
- Small environmental footprint
- Energy security
- Low total system cost
Net Zero is a far-left tyrannical Death Star, cloaking state control as climate action. It crushes free markets with subsidies & bans. Time to fight for freedom! #NetZeroTyranny (1/11)
On the Political Compass, Net Zero is far-left: massive subsidies for renewables, bans on oil/gas, & Soviet-style plans like Miliband’s Clean Power 2030. No free market here! #NetZero (2/11)
Net Zero is peak authoritarianism. The Climate Change Committee (CCC) overrides Parliament, mandating how we heat homes, drive, & eat. Tyranny, not progress! #FreedomVsNetZero (3/11)
Late last month, the CCC released their Methodology Report that gave a little more insight into their thinking, or lack thereof, when they produced the 7th Carbon Budget. How did they get it so wrong. A thread 🧵(1/n)
First up, they assume even lower costs for fixed-bottom offshore wind than the Government's woeful Generation Cost report from 2023. The CCC's assumed costs for 2030 are less than half the value of contract awards in last year's AR6 auction. (2/n)
Floating offshore wind is even more expensive and being offered £245/MWh in AR7, some six times more than the CCC's estimate for 2030 delivery. Worse, the CCC shows a declining cost trend, whereas recent auctions have shown an upward trend in prices (3/n)
Last week, the Government released new data about energy costs in the UK & EU, and by extension the developed world. The bad news is that the UK still has the highest industrial electricity prices in Europe. But what else is going on in the data? A thread 🧵(1/n)
The chart above is for medium consumers, where UK prices are 89% higher than EU14 median. Large & v. large UK user prices are 132% & 113% respectively higher than the EU14 median. Very large UK users pay 22.32p/kWh compared to the lowest Finland with just 4.19p/kWh (2/n)
But it can't be gas driving these eyewatering electricity costs because UK industrial gas prices are below the EU14 median (3/n)