Any faith I had in Burnham has evaporated - "One of the most interesting and significant snippets from the leaked No 10 briefing that was compiled to help Keir Starmer remain in office can be found at paragraph number 24, headlined “North Sea (Budget)”. It reads: “We should also explore how to tie any further North Sea production to guaranteed domestic supply, to reduce exposure to global price shocks and enhance energy independence.” In other words, greater exploitation of North Sea oil and gas could reduce domestic bills. And yet, just one month before this memo was written and circulated in No 10, a government spokesman reiterated the official government line and the view of Ed Miliband, the then net zero secretary, that issuing new exploration permits for the North Sea “cannot give us energy security and will not take a penny off bills”. It’s a fascinating insight into just how dysfunctional Starmer’s government was"
How ignorant. Don't they know that renewables will lower bills (some day)?!
Britain fires up gas power stations as wind power fails to deliver - "Neso’s warning comes as the UK enters a period of “dunkelflaute” conditions, the German term for still and gloomy weather that causes renewable power generation to plummet. Figures showed that just 16pc of the UK’s electricity was generated by wind at noon on Monday, while 58pc was being produced by gas... Neso also called on neighbouring countries to send additional energy and questioned whether British suppliers could take steps to reduce demand. The energy operator issued several calls for additional energy supplies over the summer as Britain’s network grappled with a series of sweltering heatwaves and a rise in electricity usage from air conditioning units and fans. The latest warning came as a new report from Ms Porter warns that Britain is “increasingly depending on electricity imports” when renewable energy generation falls. The report warned that this created a “material risk to security of supply”, especially as neighbouring countries such as Norway and France often experience similar weather conditions to the UK."
Proof that they need to build even more wind plants to lower energy prices because gas sets prices!
Planet Normal: Britain's energy grid is 'one failure away' from blackout - "Mr Lyon, who previously worked in the oil and gas industry, says Britain is running its electricity grid “very close to the margins”, pointing to a recent incident when the country was “one generating station away from a national blackout” over summer this year. He says based on his experience, “We would never run the grid this way. We would never run this close to the margins that they run them at.” Adding the incident occurred when, on a warm summer evening, the wind dropped and Britain was buying coal-generated power from the Netherlands at £1,500 per megawatt hour. Mr Lyon also lays out why he believes nuclear power is necessary, “The reason that hydrocarbon and nuclear are different from wind and solar is because hydrocarbon and nuclear store the energy, and you can release [it] at will.” He adds, “Because hydrocarbon is now starting to deplete, the only other energy source that has the concentration to replace it would be nuclear… that is why we have to make nuclear work.”"
Factory energy use crashes to record low - "Energy use by domestic factories has hit a record low as Andy Burnham pledges to “reindustrialise” Britain. Industrial energy consumption tumbled by 4.9pc last year, according to official figures, reaching the lowest level on record. The Government insisted on Thursday that the decline was because of “improvements in energy efficiency and a move from traditional manufacturing to higher value processes, such as pharmaceuticals”. But opponents pointed to surging energy prices and the offshoring of heavy industry, warning it was becoming “too expensive to do business” in Britain. The figures emerged barely 48 hours after petrochemicals giant Ineos became the latest company to mothball UK plants because of soaring energy costs. Sir Jim Ratcliffe, Ineos’s billionaire owner, on Tuesday blamed Labour’s net zero policies and accused ministers of “economic vandalism”... Andrew Bowie, the shadow energy secretary, warned that “far from something to be pleased about” the figures showed that “industry is leaving the United Kingdom”. He said: “We’re losing our industrial competitiveness, and energy-intensive industries are finding it too expensive to do business here. “That’s why we’re seeing petrochemical plants closing down, refineries closing down, potteries closing down, and all that being offshored and jobs moving overseas.” Rian Chad Whitton, an industrial expert at Bismarck Analysis, said Britain remained “largely on the same trajectory it has been during the 21st century” despite Mr Burnham’s pledges to reindustrialise after he became Prime Minister. Factory output has remained largely stagnant for the past 20 years when adjusted for inflation, according to official statistics, he added. Mr Whitton said: “While some of the loss in energy intensity can be attributed to efficiency, the larger reason is decline in output. Production output peaked in 2006. “While energy prices are a key reason for this decline, there are also huge trade challenges and fierce competition from other, more well-resourced states who want these sectors a lot more than the British government does.” Earlier this week, Ineos said it was mothballing three petrochemical plants in Hull, employing some 4,000 workers, because the sites “just cannot compete” with US and Chinese rivals. Sir Jim blamed “ridiculously high” energy prices and warned that jobs were being “exported” as a result."
UK’s net zero strategy is an ‘abject failure’, says chemicals plant boss - "One of America’s most prominent industrialists has launched a withering attack on Britain’s “absurd” energy policy, branding the pursuit of net zero an “abject failure”. Unable to compete with global rivals because of sky-high energy prices, UK manufacturers spanning the entire industrial base are shutting down operations or leaving altogether, billionaire Peter Huntsman warned. Mr Huntsman, whose eponymous industrial empire includes a critical chemicals plant in Wilton, Teesside, said the charge towards renewables doesn’t make “any sense whatsoever”. The environmental benefits of green zealotry are outweighed by “the destruction to society” caused by widespread job losses. With energy costs “getting progressively worse”, manufacturers are asking “‘how do I get out?’ rather than ‘where can I invest?’” he added. Yet there is an alarming “lack of urgency” from those in charge, Mr Huntsman said, with officials still intent on hitting net zero by 2050. His criticism echoes that of Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who accused Labour of “economic vandalism on an industrial scale” after the tycoon mothballed three vital chemical plants in Hull last week. Sir Jim blamed “ridiculously high” gas prices for the decision, claiming that UK factories are paying up to 12 times more than their rivals in the US. This has been blamed largely on carbon taxes and the decline in domestic gas production, which has forced many factories to rely on expensive imports. Mr Huntsman warned in March that his company could be forced to close its Wilton factory, which makes aniline, a chemical used in everything from car seats to aircraft components, if the cost of gas remained high. The plant is the last of its kind in the country... Mr Huntsman said he was alarmed at suggestions that companies may have to agree to commit to using any state support for new “energy efficient” projects. “Nobody’s putting money into new projects,” he said. “That’s just absurd.” The Wilton plant, which employs up to 100 people, is one of the last surviving remnants of Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), Britain’s largest manufacturer in the 20th century... in recent years, the company’s UK operations have been bogged down energy policies that aren’t “grounded in reality”, said Mr Huntsman. This has been compounded by the Government’s broken promises on net zero, particularly its failure to deliver a “hydrogen economy”. “We were all told that consumers would demand carbon-free products. That never materialised,” he said. “We were also told we were going to have cheap electricity, cheap wind power, solar power – essentially free power. Well, that didn’t work either.” Prominent figures like himself have long warned about the dangers of allowing swathes of the steel industry and the chemicals industry to vanish. Yet the exodus of critical manufacturers continues, he said. “The part manufacturers that make the components for the automobile, aerospace, and pharmaceutical industries – they’re all leaving,” he said. He added: “The question is, how bad can it get?”... He said the UK is simply “outsourcing its pollutants” by swapping domestic fossil fuel supplies for those imported from abroad, therefore “the climate is suffering too” from the Government’s net zero commitments. As a result, Mr Huntsman said he was perplexed by Labour’s decision to ban new drilling in the North Sea while continuing to import vast quantities of oil and gas from Norway, Qatar and other overseas suppliers... “If the UK can get to a place where it no longer uses natural gas and petrochemicals, terrific. That really would be an example to the rest of the world. “But the simple fact of the matter is, you’re going to become more dependent on it [oil and gas] than ever before in the coming technological age.” The UK’s preference for importing Norwegian fossil fuels over the exploitation of its own resources in the North Sea was “astounding” given that its reserves came from the same region, he said. “Half the gas that you [Britain] consume is from Norway, and the gas that they are supplying in many parts comes from joint fields,” he said. “They are taking hydrocarbons from underground formations that probably straddle the UK and selling it back to you. “I don’t understand how people can look at that and say, ‘Well, it’s good that we’ve got Norway as a supplier to supply us with our own gas.’ I can’t even process that because it’s so idiotic.” Mr Huntsman said he thought the UK’s North Sea operations were probably still doomed even if the Tories or Reform win the next election because investors won’t be willing to take the risk of Labour returning to power. “When they do, guess who gets shut down again?” he said. He urged the UK to take a similarly pragmatic approach to fracking and let local people decide whether it takes place in their communities. “If they don’t want the economic benefit, that’s fine,” he said. But it should be “a national priority to try to extract it in the most economical and the most environmentally feasible way” rather than banning it on safety grounds. “Usually in society – particularly in the UK – when something was declared unsafe, you didn’t abandon it,” he said. “You just made it better. “The first steam engines that were ever built were blowing up all the time. The first railroads were terribly unsafe, but we got better and in the United States we have made fracking work.”"
Climate change hystericists claim China's massive carbon emissions aren't real because they're due to demand for products from the West (i.e. the West is to blame once again) even if it's only 14.8% of the total, yet they think domestic fossil fuels must be killed and reliance on imported fossil fuels has no carbon emissions
Burnham ‘determined’ to reach net zero by 2050 - "Andy Burnham has said he is “determined” for Britain to reach net zero by 2050. The Prime Minister recommitted to the headline environmental target, declaring that “in the coming years, we need to change the way we travel, build homes and produce energy”. Writing for The Guardian, Mr Burnham said he had “long seen the green transition as the best chance we will ever have to reindustrialise Britain”."
When the deindustrialisation due to Net Zero isn't happening fast enough to wreck the country for your tastes
North Sea shutdown to cost Treasury billions in tax relief - "The NSTA predicts at least £28bn will be spent on shutting down the North Sea from now to 2035. This implies a total cost to the Treasury of around £13bn over that period. Ashley Kelty, an oil and gas analyst at investment bank Panmure Liberum, said: “This shows the folly of the drive to shut down the North Sea. “Another risk that ministers fail to appreciate is that closing down some of the key offshore hubs will leave other fields stranded and also forced to close. It means the basin closes down even faster, with less tax generated and more relief having to be given.”"
"we are increasingly choosing to import what we could produce domestically, often with a higher carbon footprint. That is not climate leadership; it is carbon leakage combined with economic self-harm"
Time for more windfall taxes to punish greedy companies!
BP turns to Venezuela as it rejects Andy Burnham’s Britain - "Meg O’Neill, BP’s chief executive, said the North Sea “doesn’t compete for capital” and told shareholders she had decided instead to “focus our portfolio and direct capital to our highest-value opportunities”. It suggests BP now sees Venezuela as a better investment proposition than the British North Sea."
We’ll never invest in Britain again, says FTSE oil giant - "The boss of one of Britain’s oldest energy companies has said it will never invest in the UK again because of the country’s “crazy” politics. Jim Johnson, the chief executive of Hunting, said the UK had become “uninvestable” and warned Andy Burnham’s hopes of rebuilding industry were doomed because of punitive oil and gas taxes and unpredictable policy decisions. It comes after Hunting, one of the London Stock Exchange’s oldest listed companies, shed dozens of staff and shut down 80pc of its UK operations last year. Mr Johnson said: “The reality is that Britain has become uninvestable. Everything your politicians have done has shown me that we cannot trust them. So why would I make a big investment here? “It will never happen – the UK has become less investable than Venezuela.” North Sea operators have been squeezed after Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor, imposed a 38pc windfall tax on oil and gas profits, which was subsequently raised further by Labour to 78pc. The industry has also been hit by a ban on new drilling, which was introduced by Ed Miliband when he was energy secretary... A consultation determining the fate of the Rosebank oil field, the North Sea’s largest undeveloped site, is expected to close on Monday, with a decision on the Jackdaw gas field also pending. Mr Johnson said uncertainty among investors has been exacerbated by the Government’s failure to approve the schemes. He added: “Those two developments were discovered more than 20 years ago. So if you’re an oil company, are you willing to drill and spend money, knowing 20 years from now, you might still never see a dime of returns? “These policies have done a lot of damage, and I just can’t see the UK being a growth area again. “The contrast I draw is with Norway, which loves oil and gas. They understand the impact it has on the nation’s treasury. We have just given up hope on the UK.”"
Net zero tycoon Dale Vince backs North Sea drilling - "It represents an apparent change of position from Mr Vince, who previously said allowing new drilling in the North Sea “would be a betrayal of millions of us” and cast doubt over the financial benefit to The Treasury of approving Rosebank. Less than a year ago he told his followers on X that he was “opposed to new drilling absolutely”."
Why Britain’s electricity bills are some of the highest in the world | The Week - "British electricity prices, which were among the lowest in Europe in the early 2000s, are now very high by global standards. Only Denmark, Germany and Ireland have more expensive domestic electricity, while industry pays at least 50% more for electricity in the UK than it does in most of the rest of Europe – and over three times more than in the US... The underlying causes are complex: they include an ageing national grid; high network operating costs; a lack of storage; and the practicalities of being on an island (in Europe, electricity can be transmitted to where it’s needed more easily). Finally, there are “policy costs”: levies to support green energy and vulnerable customers. Of a typical electricity bill, under Ofgem’s price cap (the highest tariff providers can charge), about 20% consists of network costs; 15% is the energy supplier’s costs; 11% is policy costs; 5% is VAT; and suppliers’ profits are 2.4%. But the biggest chunk, around 45% of a bill, is the wholesale cost of energy, which is largely dictated by the price of natural gas, which is both high and volatile, for reasons beyond government control... wind and solar are, in theory, very cheap. However, much electricity for the grid is bought short-term, with an auction for every half-hour period, and the price is determined by the most expensive provider for that moment. Electricity is bought from generators – wind farms, power plants – in “merit order”: cheapest first. But the price for all is set by the last or “marginal” generator needed; and in the UK that’s almost invariably a gas-powered turbine. This is known as “marginal pricing”. Electrical grids must be exactly balanced between supply and demand. In the UK, gas-powered plants are the only practical means of topping up the grid during a sudden shortage. Nuclear reactors can’t quickly be switched on and off; wind and solar are intermittent, and we can’t yet store enough of their output. For now, the only way to be sure of keeping the lights on when there’s a surge in demand involves gas. As a matter of economics, many, from Boris Johnson to the energy supplier Octopus, have questioned marginal pricing. But both Labour and Tory governments have concluded that it is the most efficient system; it is used across most of Europe and the US. In theory, the green part of “policy costs” comprises under 10% of our electricity bills. But the true price is much higher. Connecting the grid to wind and solar farms is expensive, as is back-up and grid-balancing. In 2024/25, about £2.7bn was spent balancing the grid – for instance, paying wind farms to “curtail” generation when the system was overloaded. Besides, high gas-derived prices often govern real renewable prices anyway. The UK relies heavily on gas, because it got rid of coal-fired stations. Marginal pricing means gas set the price of electricity 98% of the time in Britain in 2023, compared with the European average of 58% (in France, prices are mostly set by cheaper nuclear, and in Poland, by coal)... Dieter Helm, the Oxford energy economist, doubts that renewables will reduce bills long-term. Decarbonising the grid by 2030 would be a massive undertaking. Big British infrastructure projects usually run hugely over budget and schedule. Mechanisms for balancing a mostly renewable grid are untested, and will be expensive. Vast amounts will need to be invested – which will come, ultimately, from Britain’s electricity bills. Manufacturing is likely to be lost to nations with cheaper power. Although reducing emissions is a worthy aim, if those emissions only go abroad, it won’t help the climate. Helm thinks it would be better to move more slowly, and to be cautious about phasing out fossil fuels... Marginal pricing is a fiendishly complex issue, but it was thought to be the best method of setting prices in a way that incentivises investors and generators, and ensures a reliable supply. Ministers are nervous of anything that might interfere with security of supply."
One climate change hystericist cope is that renewables correlate with high power prices because places with pricey power adopt renewables so prices will drop. So much for that.
Another cope is that electricity prices are linked to gas spot prices, so this proves that gas is the problem and you need even more renewables - which is a totally misunderstanding, unless you like blackouts when unreliable "renewable" energy doesn't work
Kemi Badenoch is right on net zero - "Tim Stanley and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard rightly highlighted in these pages Britain’s proud tradition of conservatives acting on behalf of nature, from Benjamin Disraeli to Margaret Thatcher. As Lord Frost argued, these politicians were always acutely aware of the “human consequences” of their policies. They set achievable, cost-effective goals that delivered improvements to people’s lives. Today, Britain’s environmental policies too often do the exact opposite. Obsessing over a net zero target that is unlikely to be hit has burdened British business with among the highest energy costs in the developed world. If anyone needed proof of those costs, it came yesterday with the news that BP has decided to quit the North Sea. If government policy makes it unattractive for firms to operate, then the UK as a whole suffers, with thousands of jobs lost and billions in tax revenue unrealised. There may be an argument for this if Britain’s actions actually made a noticeable difference to the global climate. But the evidence suggests otherwise, as Allister Heath made clear. Today we contribute less than 1 per cent of global CO2 emissions. To put that in context, between 2013 and 2020, China pumped out more carbon emissions than the UK has done in total since 1750. Britain alone cannot save the planet.By pioneering a self-harming energy policy, the country has staked its economy on the vain hope of providing “moral leadership” to the world. But very few have followed. It is time to scrap net zero."
10 historic British villages threatened by Labour’s net zero obsession - "The vandalising of ancient properties, the installation of acres of Chinese-made solar panels, the constant thrum of subsidised wind turbines slicing through the local bird population, towering pylons blotting out the sky, electricity substations lighting up the night, the vibrations of heavy lorries thundering down country lanes... This is the nightmare that hundreds of Britain’s villages face as net zero spreads desolation across the loveliest countryside in the world."
Eclipse pushes Britain’s power bill to £6.2m - " Britain’s grid operators had to pay £6.2m for extra electricity to keep UK lights on the day of the solar eclipse. The National Energy System Operator (Neso) had to pay gas-fired power stations premium rates for supplies as it scrambled for extra power on Wednesday... Neso also had to import extra power from Europe via subsea interconnectors to keep the UK system stable. At one point during the evening, it had to breach limits imposed by the EU to stop the UK’s growing reliance on the system from disrupting EU power markets, according to analysts... “Most of the imported power would have come from gas and coal fired power plants in other countries, showing our continuing reliance on fossil fuels.”"
Climate change hystericist logic: this proves that gas is the problem and we need less of it. Of course, blackouts are a great idea.
Left wing logic: this proves that the UK must rejoin the EU, rather than not have a suicidal energy policy.
I’m not ashamed of funding Extinction Rebellion, says City billionaire
Left wing logic: get billionaires and their money out of politics. Of course, billionaires donating to left wing causes are just being decent human beings and are not being political
Exceptional heatwave of September 1906 - "The end of August and start of September 1906 saw one of the most exceptional heatwaves to ever occur in the UK."
A climate change hystericist claimed that the UK didn't need air conditioning before climate change
Labour’s Left are scrambling to save net zero. Andy Burnham should ignore them - "As for Labour’s manifesto pledge to bring down energy bills by £300, that is “in tatters”, Richard Tice, Reform UK’s energy spokesman, claimed – not unreasonably. Against this damning backdrop, some Labour figures – mostly on the Left of the party – are desperately scrambling to salvage an energy policy with net zero at its very heart. This is despite a mounting wall of evidence that such a commitment is built on a false promise of cheaper energy. The latest rearguard action came in response to analysis showing the Government’s full-throttle dash to build a so-called “clean” electricity grid is achieving the exact opposite of what it claims. Rather than delivering affordable energy that makes us all wealthier, the research – conducted by Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, and centre-Right think tank Onward – shows the complete opposite: Britain is in fact becoming “poorer and weaker”, as Coutinho puts it. The shadow energy secretary and Onward offer a genuinely credible alternative in which electricity would be nearly 80pc clean by using “a bit more gas and a lot more nuclear”, in her words. It would also be, crucially, “much cheaper”. Predictably, the study sent some of Labour’s net zero acolytes into meltdown... What has the Left’s net zero zealots truly in a tizz is the fear that Burnham is more inclined to prioritise the cost of living and economic growth instead of arbitrary clean power deadlines after he removed net zero requirements from public procurement. The Prime Minister is also expected to approve North Sea drilling after promising to adopt a “pragmatic” approach to oil and gas exploration... Burnham’s VAT cut is merely a continuation of a long-established approach that treats the symptoms not the cause and shifts costs between different groups. The £150 annual warm homes discount for poorer households, for example, is funded by a £40 levy on household bills. Yet none of these schemes fix the problem, which is that the UK is having to build an expensive underlying system to enable it to shift to net zero under an entirely self-imposed timeline. The outcome of this is that Britain is blighted by the highest electricity prices in the developed world and rather than bills coming down by £300, as Labour promised, they’ve gone up by £300 instead. What’s more, many experts expect them to rise even further in the next four years because of network upgrade costs and subsidies. With the case against net zero rapidly mounting, the Left is trying to scare Burnham into believing that abandoning the target would be politically ruinous. A recent poll shows support for green policies is waning, yet Sandher has urged the Government to ignore the findings on the basis they are “driven by falls in support by hardcore Reform and Conservative voters who do not support us and never will”. Labour voters, meanwhile, “see our planet burning and our voters get the need to deal with it”, he said. While it’s true that support for net zero has dropped more steeply on the Right, what Sandher is less forthcoming about is that it is falling among Labour voters too – just not as sharply. What is even more disingenuous is the suggestion that anyone who rejects net zero isn’t serious about tackling climate change. As Coutinho points out, it is possible to have cleaner electricity that is also cheaper.But it would mean accepting the need for a small and temporary increase in gas, and much more nuclear, rather than doubling down on intermittent wind and solar."
EDF: Net zero grid upgrade costs spiralling out of control
Octopus Energy: Don’t use electricity during solar eclipse - "Britain’s biggest energy supplier is urging people to avoiding using electricity during this week’s solar eclipse. Octopus Energy is asking customers to delay using washing machines, dishwashers and other plug-in devices between 6pm and 8pm on Wednesday, when the Moon is expected to block up to 95pc of sunlight. The eclipse will send solar generation plunging just as electricity demand begins to rise as millions of people return home from work. The slump could knock out as much as 1.3 gigawatts (GW) of supply, according to the National Energy System Operator (Neso), which runs Britain’s electricity grid. That is enough electricity to power roughly half a million homes. Gas-fired power stations will have to be turned on to make up some of the shortfall, alongside other sources of electricity... The plea showcases Octopus’s wider push to persuade households to change when they use electricity, rather than how much they consume. The company, which overtook British Gas as the country’s biggest supplier last year, has promoted time-of-use tariffs for years. Its “Agile” tariff, for example, changes electricity prices every half hour in line with wholesale costs. The changing price is meant to encourage people to use more electricity when its plentiful and less when it is more scarce. This is becoming more important as Britain increasingly relies on wind and solar power, which can produce huge amounts of electricity at some times and little at others... critics claim that changing electricity prices according to the time of day unfairly punishes households that cannot easily shift their consumption, such as those reliant on electronic medical devices. Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, has also criticised the intention of such schemes, saying last year: “Our energy system should suit what people want to do, not the other way around.”"
Proof that the UK needs even more wind energy and to get off natural gas!
Climate change hystericists keep blaming gas prices for how expensive renewable energy is, because they have no idea why it's needed
Cost of switching off UK wind farms soars to ‘absurd’ £1bn - "British bill payers have spent an “absurd” £1bn to temporarily switch off wind turbines so far this year as the grid struggles to cope with their power. The amount of wind power “curtailed” in the first 11 months of 2024 stood at about 6.6 terawatt hours (TWh), according to official figures, up from 3.8 TWh in the whole of last year. Curtailment is where wind turbines are paid to switch off at times of high winds to stop a surge in power overwhelming the grid. Households and businesses pay for the cost of this policy through their bills. The cost of switching off has reached about £1bn so far this year, according to analysis of market data by Octopus Energy which was first reported by Bloomberg. This is more than the £779m spent last year and £945m spent in 2022. The jump in curtailment follows the opening of more wind farms at a time when the country still lacks the infrastructure needed to transport all the electricity they generate at busy times... According to the National Energy System Operator (Neso), curtailment costs are on course to surge to £6bn by 2030 if the status quo continues."
Time to increase renewable energy!
Ditching net zero would save households £540 a year, Badenoch claims - "Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, said: “This is the most detailed costing of our electricity system that’s ever been done. “It finishes the work I started in government that Ed Miliband cancelled – a true costing of renewables which shows they are not cheaper when you take into account their full system cost.”"
Labour can’t dodge blame for energy costs policy - "Ministers give the impression that this is all beyond their control and no fault of Labour policies. Miatta Fahnbulleh, the Energy Secretary, said that it is not true that net zero is adding to costs. She pointed out that marginal pricing of energy means cheap renewables are charged at the market gas rate. But this is an argument for reviewing the system, otherwise the benefits of cheaper wind and solar energy will never be passed on. Moreover, if gas is a globally priced commodity, why do other countries, notably America, have much lower prices? Indeed, industrial electricity in the UK remains more expensive than in its competitor economies, making Mr Burnham’s vaunted plans to revive British manufacturing a pipe dream. The Government continues to dither over whether to exploit North Sea oil and gas fields to secure tax revenues, improve energy security and reduce the carbon footprint associated with importing it, mainly from the US and Norway. The fact is that the UK’s energy policy has been a mess for the past 50 years and remains so."
The cope is that since gas is expensive, the country needs to cut its dependency on it. Because even higher energy prices and/or blackouts and people dying are better.
New wind farm subsidies will push energy bills even higher, Tories warn - "AR8 is the eighth allocation round of the Government’s contracts for difference (CfD) scheme, an auction for subsidies to develop net zero projects. Under the terms of these CfD contracts, the Government protects developers against energy price dips by guaranteeing a minimum price that they will be able to sell their energy for... Ms Fahnbulleh admitted on Wednesday that investment in net zero projects has pushed up household bills alongside higher wholesale energy prices... Energy supplier EDF warned on Wednesday that energy prices will be “stubbornly high by the end of the decade”, with a typical annual bill expected to rise by another £130. EDF said this was because the cost of the green levies and grid upgrades that are incorporated into bills would outweigh anticipated falls in wholesale costs. Boston Consulting Group has warned that by 2035 household electricity bills could rise by as much as £264 because high prices are driving down consumption. This means that renewable subsidies and the cost of grid upgrades are making up an increasing proportion of bills."
