Miliband is set to wreck the economy with the renewables prices he is offering in AR7. In 2025 prices, offshore wind is going to be offered £117/MWh, index-linked for 20 years which compares to today's price, set by gas of £73/MWh. A thread (1/n)
Real 2025 offer prices for fixed and floating offshore wind have risen 10-11% and onshore wind 3% compared to last year's offer prices. Solar prices have dipped, but these changes mask the impact of contract extensions (2/n)
In their impact assessment for extending the contract life to 20yrs from 15yrs, the Government estimated strike prices would fall 11-13%. On a like-for-like basis fixed bottom offshore wind would be costing £131/MWh (3/n)
These staggering prices do not include the extra costs of grid balancing & backup that currently cost an extra £32/MWh, nor the costs of the grid expansion that Ofgem says will cost £80bn and add £74 to our electricity bills by 2030 (4/n)
It's not even certain that projects will get built at these prices, because there's a history of contract cancellations and rebids at higher prices (5/n)
But these prices make a mockery of the CCC's estimates for the cost of offshore wind. The CCC estimated £38/MWh for new offshore wind delivered in 2030, but the AR7 offer price is 3X more. Floating offshore wind prices even higher (6/n)
It's shocking that AR7 strike prices, expressed in 2025 terms are higher than the current electricity price of £73/MWh set by gas with a carbon tax. And that is before adding on the extra costs of backup, grid balancing and extension (7/n)
Electricity prices are going to soar, sending a job destroying tsunami through the economy. Miliband and his cheerleaders in DESNZ, NESO, CCC & Ofgem must be stopped (8/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 (9/9) open.substack.com/pub/davidturve…
Hi @threadreaderapp unroll please.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The National Energy System Operator (NESO) just released their Future Energy Scenarios 2025 (FES 2025) report. It's like a hallucinogenic dream: uncosted plans forcing consumer demand flexibility and relying on uneconomic, unproven tech. Let's dive in. (1/11)
Money No Object: They don't optimise their pathways for costs. They’re planning to transform our energy system and calculating the cost of this programme is merely an inconvenient afterthought. Shocking oversight! (2/11)
Demand Flexibility Fiction: NESO wants to halve peak demand from 151GW to 69GW by 2050 via "flexibility" (aka rationing). Like a 3rd world country, consumers will no longer be able to rely on the grid and instead run their lives around the weather (3/11)
Ed Miliband is extending CfD contracts to 20 years, offering contracts to projects without planning permission & offering CfDs to support "repowering" onshore wind projects. He's making his CP2030 plan irreversible even if he loses his job. Short thread 🧵(1/n)
Nothing says "cheap renewables" quite like extending contracts to 20 years. The impact assessment suggests that extending the contracts will reduce strike prices & reduce short term subsidies, but concedes that consumers will likely pay more subsidies overall (2/n)
Miliband is scraping the barrel of projects by allowing projects without planning permission to bid for CfD contracts (3/n)
The hidden costs of renewables from grid balancing and backup are set to rise to 2X the cost of gas used to generate electricity. It's not gas driving our electricity bills higher. A thread 🧵(1/n)
Many have by now heard that renewables subsidies cost us a fortune, about £12bn per year made up of ROCs (£7.6bn), CfDs (£2.4bn) and FiTs (£1.9bn) (2/n)
Many do not realise that there are extra costs of renewables in the form of grid balancing and backup to make sure the lights stay on when the weather changes (3/n)
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)
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