Dale Vince is pushing a Guardian article which claims that wind power is saving us money. This is, on the face of it, bonkers. I'm looking at the underlying paper (a preprint actually) and it looks like extraordinary nonsense... (THREAD)

https://x.com/DaleVince/status/1983120187709894925

Take this for example. If you wanted the wholesale price, why would you use the system price from Elexon, i.e. the Balancing Mechanism price?

1⃣Ed Miliband is altering the rules of CfD auctions so that he can throw money at the developers. The Statutory Instrument to enable him to do this is being debated tomorrow. The Impact Assessment alongside it is sickening. (THREAD) 2⃣The SI is designed to enable a vast expansion of the renewables fleet. Since developers are getting cold feet, Miliband needs to stuff their mouths with gold. A vast capacity at high prices means a lot of money is going to be spent. Electricity consumers will foot the bill.

If I showed you this temperature station record, would you say it was evidence that man is affecting the climate? Most people surely would. (Thread) What if I said I had posted it upside down, and that it should look like this? Is this evidence against?

(Well I suppose it's just one station, and the climate is complicated...)

In the FT, @pilitaclark attempts to diagnose the reasons behind increases in electricity bills. Unfortunately, she has got this badly wrong, mainly because she only looks at the wholesale price. (THREAD) It is true that the wholesale price is the biggest component of electricity bills. Here's a breakdown of a bill...

The Climate Change Committee has launched the latest Carbon Budget today. As usual, it doesn't rise above the level of pure fantasy. (THREAD) The Committee reckons we are going to have to increase annual spending on Net Zero stuff from around £16bn today to £40bn or more in 2029, sustaining that level of expenditure for a decade.

I have uncovered new data showing that Whitehall figures on offshore windfarm output are baloney. (THREAD) For many years, DESNZ has claimed that offshore windfarms commissioning in 2025 will deliver a lifetime average of 61% of its nameplate capacity ('a capacity factor of 61%')

Time after time, I come across people saying that it’s madness that everyone in the electricity market receives the same price as the most expensive generator to run (typically a gas-fired power station). Here's why this is necessary.

(THREAD) Consider a grid with three kinds of generator:
·         offshore windfarms
·         new, efficient gas-fired power stations
·         old, inefficient gas-fired power stations.

The huge cost of paying windfarms to switch off – so-called constraint payments – hits the headlines from time to time. It’s a scandal, of course, but it’s even more scandalous than you think (THREAD). The main grid constraint is across the Scottish border. The windfarms that are getting the big money for switching off are therefore north of the border.

As the CPS’s @rcolvile has set out, @NESO has produced a veritable dodgy dossier to support Ed Miliband’s plans to decarbonise the grid by 2030. But the scale of the deception Colvile has uncovered is only the tip of the iceberg. (THREAD)

https://x.com/CPSThinkTank/status/1862419396893057073

The public have been deceived on an extraordinary scale, and Mr Miliband’s department has been at the centre of it. That’s because almost everyone in the field uses DESNZ’s estimates of the cost of renewables.

With the government having announced subsidies for hydrogen for industrial heat, we will see a lot of this kind of thing. But the underlying agenda is not what you think. (THREAD) The new regime for hydrogen guarantees a price of 24p/kWh. This covers the costs of the electrolysers, which would otherwise be able to compete with natural gas at 8p/kWh.

At the Climate COP, the Prime Minister announced a new subsidy for windfarms. This is yet another scandal. (THREAD) The Clean Industry Bonus (a rebranding of a plan put together under the last government) hands out cash to windfarms that say they will develop UK supply chains. The rewards are substantial - £27 million per megawatt of capacity.

A few weeks back I wrote a long thread about overproduction in the renewables sector, and some murkiness surrounding the responses to the problem. It has now become very murky indeed. (THREAD) In 2023, the renewables fleet started to overproduce from time to time. When both solar and wind were producing at high levels, supply outstripped demand and market prices crashed, as everyone tried to offload their surpluses.

One of the hidden horrors of Net Zero is the need to pay out very large sums of money for things that were previously free. A recent Government data release reveals an eye-watering case in point. (THREAD) Back in the olden days, coal fired power stations naturally stabilised the grid. Huge rotating turbines essentially acted as a store of energy – ‘inertia’ in the jargon.

Last week, I noted important new evidence that official estimates of the cost of offshore wind are wildly incorrect, and that Net Zero will therefore be much more expensive than thought. This week, there is more. (THREAD) Link here in case you missed it.

https://x.com/aDissentient/status/1846488011631911145

Claims that Net Zero can be done cheaply all have, at their centre, the same wild prediction. I have just had new evidence that it is completely incorrect. (THREAD) All these claims cite the prediction of the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) that offshore windfarms commissioned in 2025 will be extraordinarily cheap, delivering power at £44/MWh, half current market prices.
gov.uk/government/pub…

If you think things are crazy now, wait until you hear how bonkers they are likely to become. (THREAD) From time to time, the renewables fleet is now generating more electricity than the country needs. When this happens, market prices collapse, and sometimes even go negative.

Last week, I looked at some of the implications of Ed Miliband’s mad plan to expand the renewables fleet. I’ve now taken the analysis further to see what it might mean for household bills and the rest of Mr Miliband’s plans. This is rather startling. (THREAD). (The link to the original post is here, for those that missed it).

https://x.com/aDissentient/status/1814239901094654095

It's fun to look at what electricity supply and demand will look like once Labour's bonkers energy plan - double onshore wind, triple solar, quadruple offshore - is in place. (Thread) I've crudely estimated the Labour Party fleet as 90GW of wind, 42GW solar, plus 6GW nuclear, and assumed a modest rise in demand to 330TWh.

In this thread, I will try to explain why electricity is going to get much *much* more expensive. As I’ve said before, there is evidence of some cost reductions for offshore wind – Hornsea 2 and Triton Knoll are the first developments that might have costs below £100/MWh.

Two different figures are bandied about for the cost of Net Zero. There are a lot of misunderstandings of what they represent. In fact, they are not even comparable. But it doesn’t matter because they are both junk. Here’s why. (Thread) The two estimates are £1.5 trillion from the Climate Change Committee and £3 trillion from National Grid ESO.

From @RossjournoClark, I learn that @Policy_Exchange and @AuroraER_Oxford are claiming Labour's energy plans will cost £116 billion by 2030.

The number is preposterous. Here's why (thread). It’s straightforward to calculate that Labour’s plans involve building 40GW offshore windfarms, 20GW onshore plus 36 GW of solar.