Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
David Turver Profile picture
@7Kiwi
May 10 • 12 tweets • 3 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
Renewables funds like Greencoat UK Wind (UKW), Octopus Renewables (ORIT) & The Renewables Infrastructure Group (TRIG) market themselves as low-risk investments. But plunging share prices and wide discounts to NAV suggest management in denial. A thread (1/11) $UKW, $ORIT and $TRIG in denial about the risks of net zero energy policy changes.
Labour govt changes: ROC indexation cut (RPI to CPI) & Carbon Price Support removal in 2028. Funds took NAV hits but downplayed them. New Wholesale CfDs offered as partial offset. These are minor vs. what could come from Reform & Tories. (2/11)
Bigger risks: Tories & Reform pledge to scrap Net Zero elements. Remove CPS + ETS (carbon taxes boosting wholesale prices), abolish ROC scheme early. This would slash revenues for ROC-dependent assets far more than current tweaks, further impacting NAV & share prices. (3/11) Plunging share prices for ORIT, TRIG and UKW
$UKW claims "simple, transparent, low risk". Share price down >40% from peak. NAV hit 1.9% from ROC change, expects 3-5p more from CPS. Sensitivity analysis only models mild 10% power price drops – ignores full subsidy/carbon tax removal. (4/11)
$ORIT aims for "attractive income + capital growth". Share price down >48%. Green certificates ~1/3 of revenues. 10% power price cut = ~10% NAV hit. Acknowledges Reform risk but sensitivity doesn't quantify full ETS/ROC abolition impact. (5/11)
$TRIG: "Robust investment proposition". Down >52%. 65% revenues from subsidies over next decade; 19% from ROCs/FiTs in 2026. Sensitivity: 10% price drop or 1yr asset life cut = small NAV impacts. Notes potential solvency threats from retroactive subsidy withdrawal. (6/11)
Funds admit some policy risks but treat major changes (ETS removal, early ROC abolition) as low-probability. Yet ETS adds more to prices than CPS. Ending subsidies would hammer power price assumptions & asset lives. (7/11)
Performance reality: Massive discounts to NAV show market scepticism. NAVs fell in 2025 despite subsidies. Marketing talks "secure, clean electricity" & value creation – but shareholders have seen big losses. (8/11)
Boards appear in denial. Sensitivity analyses understate risks from anti-Net Zero policies. A Reform/Tory govt could devastate economics via lower prices + lost subsidies. Funds not stress-testing severe scenarios. (9/11)
Conclusion: These "low-risk" funds have delivered poor returns despite generous subsidies. As politics shifts on high energy costs, risks are rising. Investors should note the massive NAV discounts & incomplete risk evaluation. (10/11)
If you enjoyed this thread, please like and share. You can sign up for free to read the full article on the link below (11/11):
davidturver.substack.com/p/renewable-in…Image
Hi @threadreaderapp unroll please.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with David Turver

David Turver Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @7Kiwi

David Turver Profile picture
May 8
Yesterday, @EnergyUKcomms caught a bad case of Net Zero Derangement Syndrome by claiming that removing carbon taxes will increase bills. A thread (1/n) Image
They first claimed that decarbonisation and economic growth go hand-in-hand. But data from OWID shows that faster decarbonisation leads to slower growth (2/n) Image
They went on to claim that scrapping the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) would increase gas demand by 25%. This claim would mean almost doubling the amount of gas used for electricity, which is implausible (3/n) Image
Read 9 tweets
David Turver Profile picture
May 3
The Government said they reduced the indexation rate for renewables because they'd been over-compensated. That's not even half the story.
New analysis shows wind farms have already received more in subsidy than the build cost, enriching overseas investors. A thread (1/n) Image
Starting with the six offshore wind farms that have received most subsidies under the ROC scheme: Greater Gabbard, Gwynt y Mor, London Array, Race Bank, Sheringham Shoal and West of Duddon Sands (WODS). (2/n) Greater Gabbard, London Array, Race Bank, Sheringham Shoal and West of Duddon Sands (WODS) wind farms received more in subsidy that it cost to build them
Greater Gabbard has received £2.2bn in subsidies but it only cost £1.4bn to build it (exc. OFTO sale proceeds). London Array has received £2.9bn in subsidies but net cost as ~£2.3bn. WODS received £1.8bn subsidies vs £1.1bn net cost (3/n)
Read 11 tweets
David Turver Profile picture
Apr 26
🚨UK Net Zero & energy subsidies have exploded to £585 BILLION 🚨

Our taxes funding unreliable renewables, backups, carbon capture & subsidies to use the expensive energy. A new update to the Subsidy Control Database exposes the scale of the madness. (1/11) Image
Breakdown of the insanity:
- Renewables Obligation (ROCs): £104bn
- Contracts for Difference (CfDs): £102bn inc. £40bn for AR7
- £31bn for FiTs

In total over £260bn to subsidise renewables that don’t produce when we need it most, or FIVE Hinkley Point C’s (2/11)
Wind and solar are intermittent, so we pay another £72bn for the Capacity Market – backup power for when the wind doesn’t blow or sun doesn’t shine. And a further £1bn to subsidise making turbines. (3/11)
Read 12 tweets
David Turver Profile picture
Apr 19
Ember, the people who came up with Miliband's promise to cut bills by £300 have been torturing the data to claim renewables saved money in March. Record CfD subsidies for March of £258m tell a different story. We're witnessing the dying embers of Net Zero propaganda (1/n) Image
It's true that gas prices spiked in March at the opening of hostilities with Iran, and electricity prices rose too (2/n) Image
But gas prices didn't rise by as much as 2022, and the impact on electricity prices was muted by a reduction in carbon costs, as Ember should know, because it's in their data (3/n) Image
Read 11 tweets
David Turver Profile picture
Apr 12
Net zero advocates love to claim renewables are cheaper than gas by waving around Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) models from Lazard, IRENA, and the UK Government’s Generation Cost 2025 report. But these models are junk. Here’s why. (1/19) Image
LCOE sums up all capital and operating costs over a plant’s lifetime, discounts them, and divides by total electricity generated. Result: £/MWh or p/kWh in a chart like Lazard's below. Sounds scientific… until you look closer. (2/19) Image
Classic LCOE compared dispatchable sources (gas, coal, nuclear, hydro) that match demand. Now it’s used for wind & solar, whose output depends on weather, not demand. A midday solar kWh when supply>demand is worthless. Peak-hour gas power is priceless. LCOE ignores this. (3/19)
Read 20 tweets
David Turver Profile picture
Apr 5
We're facing an energy crisis that is going to require radical solutions to solve. Many countries are ramping up coal-fired electricity generation in response. Is it time for the UK to go for Coal not Cold? A thread (1/n) Image
Looking first at UK coal reserves and resources. Euracoal has estimated we're sitting on 3,560 million tonnes of hard coal resources & 1,000Mt of lignite. Plus 277Mt of economically recoverable hard coal reserves. Plenty to go at (2/n)
So, what about the benefits of using coal? First, fuel diversification. War in Iran has again demonstrated the fragility of global supply chains, particularly LNG. Using our own coal would give welcome fuel diversification & energy security (3/n)
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(