The problem, Mr Turver is that you're trying ot apply science and logic to a system of control. The state is manipulating the market for energy specifically to protect it's favoured causes.
If there was no subsidy, there would be no windmills. It's as simple as that. Whenever government has to heavily tax one side to pay the other we have corruption and fraud, perpetrated by the state on the public. It is, surely, long past time this were refused and the scam ended?
Until the tax payer can stop government - of any stripe - from wasting our money in this egregious manner nothing will improve.
Earlier in the year DESNZ ran a consultation about terms for AR7. They have yet to comment on the results in detail, but here is the most relevant item in this context.
Currently, developers may reduce their contracted capacity prior to commissioning the construction of their power stations (i) by 25% before the Milestone Delivery Date; and/or (ii) by meeting only 85% (for offshore wind) or 95% (for all other technologies) of their Installed Capacity Estimate by the Longstop Date. Under existing rules, developers can then enter any surrendered contracted capacity in future allocation rounds.
However, such opportunity for capacity re-bidding may encourage generators to increase their income under CfD beyond that agreed in their original contract, with consumers ultimately bearing the additional cost. The government therefore proposes to prevent generators from bidding for previously reduced capacity in AR7, while the government reviews and clarifies its policy in time for AR8. Participants in AR7 will therefore have to confirm that their applications do not include any capacity that was previously subject to a CfD awarded in ARs 1-6.
I think there is still a lot of muddleheaded thinking in DESNZ. Within the constraint of having adopted a high cost renewables based strategy they should surely be aiming to deliver it at lower cost where possible. Where a project cuts its planned capacity there is no real scope for an alternative to take up the acerage it doesn't occupy. Connections to shore or the grid are in place for the rest of the project. So provided it can come in cheaper than originally bid or than currently bid for new stand alone projects, because of the existing infrastructure, surely it makes sense to take some advantage.
Against that criterion the AR6 rebids do make some sense, coming in at lower cost than AR6 new projects. Without the rebid it is likely that they would have fallen by the wayside and joined Norfolk Boreas et al in being cancelled altogether. At least Hornsea may have the advantage of having locked in a low price for its turbines and jackets - the FID press release effectively claimed a project cost of £8.5bn for 2.9GW, compared with £3.5bn for 1,080 MW at Inch Cape. Of course now we are in the post ZIRP era project finance is going to cost a lot more with 20 year gilts yielding over 5%.
The Hornsea case does suggest that DESNZ might not have been even handed, although it might be the case that other projects were not in a position to offer extra capacity. Perhaps that lies behind their reluctance to comment. It certainly seems odd that they failed to portray the consumer benefit of a lower strike price than other AR6 capacity.
Doubt its corruption more the fact that Hornsea 3 owners had said 25% rebid wasn't enough for them to go ahead with the projects so a fudge up had to be sought. The other AR4 developers will of course will be wise to this so im sure will have made representations to DENZ etc.
As a reminder, in addition to over 2GW of cancelled AR4 projects with terminated CFDs there were the following post auction events for AR4:
Capacity reductions totalling 1,452MW (percentage reduction and any successful rebid capacity) were
EA3 318MW – 23% (Offshore Wind): 158.9MW rebid
Hornsea Project Three 705.9MW – 24.75% (Offshore Wind): 1,080MW rebid
Inch Cape 270MW – 25% (Offshore Wind): 266MW rebid
Moray West 73.5MW – 25% (Offshore Wind): 73.5MW rebid
10 solar farms 73MW – 20%
2 Onshore wind farms minor reductions 12MW
Total rebid successfully: 1,579MW into AR6
So even the overall total capacity awarded rebids under AR6 exceeded the volume of capacity reductions.
Worth noting too that AR6 rebid capacity pays slightly less than AR6 virgin capacity - £78.27/MWh compared with £84.97/MWh at current value, so they could claim they were saving billpayers money. Strange they didn't even try to make that argument.
AR4 never stacked up economically despite all the celebrations of the low strike price at the time by eco evangelists who were conspicuous by their absence in explaining why they had to be bailed under AR6. Im surprised they can make it pay at even at the consolidated AR4/6 price but all those offshore windmill parks are moving forward I believe so maybe they are banking on high wholesale prices being the norm and they don't need to actually actualise their contracts.
I think they are banking on two things: the delay before they must commence the CFD available under the contract, and the opportunity to renegotiate under REMA. There are sotto voce noises about the latter as the announcement of the great REMA reset draws near.
Assuming nothing changes and we fast forward to 2029 with Hornsea 3 in operation. On a given day, it is generating 1GW of power. What does it get paid for that power? A 75/25 split on the AR4/6 pricing, or do they get all AR6 pricing until they exceed the AR6 capacity and then fall back to AR4 pricing?
Nice question. Under CFD contract rules each CFD is supposed to have its own separately metered BMU. Hornsea 3 has 4 separate CFDs - one for the original project, while the AR6 bids are split across three separate CFDs. Each CFD gets commenced separately by a notice to the LCCC. So it is entirely possible that we will see the higher price AR6 CFDs commenced while the AR4 ones are not. Obviously whenever market prices allow CFD compensation (i.e. are not negative) it will make more sense to ensure that the production from the higher priced units is maximised over the other one. It will make more sense to allocate any partial curtailment to the cheaper unit too.
But TBH I haven't double checked the detailed AR6 contracts which might limit some of these options. I'm not even sure that the full terms have been published, especially if they are in the specific contracts. The standard terms are Version 6, 13 March 2024, which apply to all AR6 CFDs.
If each CfD is supposed to have its own metering BMU then presumably they will have designate individual turbines to a BMU although this must have been thought through for the rebid sites but doesn't appear to have a dedicated T&Cs for those sites.
The bigger issue raised though is being able to actualise under AR6 but not AR4 if wholesale prices are higher although you would have thought they would have made sure that scenario is blocked on the rebid sites.
The metering is subject to physical audit which means they won't be able to switch which meter each turbine goes through. However, they should be able to predict which sections of the wind farm will do better, and designate accordingly.
I don't think that shutting off the options was necessarily ignored. It does provide opportunities to enhance income which otherwise might have required a higher bid that might have meant the projects were lost. But it is certainly possible that the sparks aren't bright enough in DESNZ to understand.
Is this not a matter for the National Audit Office? Given it looks suspiciously like a government controlled body may have manipulated procurement rules in favour of a particular bidder.
It seems to fall within their remit and parliamentary committees (particularly the PAC) tend to place great reliance on its findings. It is also one of the few truly independent bodies able to hold government to account.
Regardless of whether or not they ‘have teeth’, the NAO is independent and whatever they find becomes a matter of public record. Once out in the open their findings can be used by others to hold government to account.
NAO do good work and produce reports but they only have recommendations and most SoS say we will need to look closely at the report first (code for they bin it when they get back into the office).
NAO are no longer the force they were. The outstanding leader was Sir John Bourn, who was always forthright in his criticisms of government. Amyas Morse was not bad, with that fine example to follow. Gareth Davies is not quite in that mould, often being platitudinous about government policy rather than calling it out - particularly over energy issues.
I doubt if this extract from a report on a totally different subject has any relevance but it might be of interest. “In August 2019 a power cut was caused by a lightning strike affecting one million consumers through loss of 150 MW, then two large power stations, Hornsea One wind farm (737 MW) and Little Barford gas-fired (690 MW) caused a plunge in mains frequency and subsequent disconnections. Two of the owners made a voluntary payment of £4.5 million each into Ofgem’s redress fund.” https://thinkscotland.org/2021/11/who-put-the-lights-out/
Fortunately SNP under Swinney has had a good dose of reality applied and whilst they haven't abandoned NZ they've kicked the can along way down the road. Reality is Scottish wind is substantially oversubscribed already and its been futile to add any more to the system until transmission capacity has caught up which is at least five years away and then really only neutralises todays problem and only after spending best part of 10B.
Nice one! These ferries are still a shambles thanks to the SNP. We are booked to cross to Arran at the end of May and have just had notification that we will leave from Troon instead of Ardrossan due to some new breakdown or another.
They expect there will be a scheme for compulsory purchase of Scottish hydrogen by the English, much as with wind power. Probably complete with compensation for any reduction in production when the English don't buy it. Again, much like wind power.
I have noted that Milliband has this morning been reported to be thrashing around like a beached fish in an attempt to counter the growing realisation in the other parties of the complete disaster Net Zero is. All very similar to one in his death throes. I hope that is true.
Yet he still wastes money on farce. It's simply not good enough that there are rumours and headlines.
When the state says 'we will waste 500bn on windmills and other unreliables' in a speech we turn around as the electorate and say 'Ha, no you won't. Build a dozen micro nuclear reactors.' and the state has to do as we instruct.
When Starmer kicks him and his ilk out of the cabinet then we will be assured that at least NZ will be recalibrated to a timeline where perhaps the much talked about UK green jobs will actually have time to materialise by having a 50% local content requirement in anything receiving a consumer subsidy.
Ed Miliband said in yesterday’s Observer that the government will "double down" on its environmental agenda and accused those against the move to Net Zero of "making up nonsense and lies": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czjn0pn830ko.
Of course Hornsea 3 is another great example of British consumers supporting Green jobs just not in Britain. Germany - wind turbines, Thailand - converter stations, Japan - HVDV equipment, Holland - installation vessel etc etc and us consumers aren't allowed to know where our bill money is going and has been correctly expended.
Not sure where all the supply really comes from. The very first commercial Siemens Gamesa 14MW turbine was installed a few days ago in Taiwan, and I suspect it was made in Tianjin, China rather than Germany or Spain. The installation vessels at that size are likely to come from a Chinese shipyard, or possibly a Korean one. The Dutch operate them.
Surely this easy fodder for Coutinho or Tice or any other MP who wants to see fairness and transparency in cost of energy to consumers to ask the appropriate question in HoC. Milibrain or his energy minister wouldn't know the answer but they would have to provide a written answer. Also attack lines through Public Accounts Committee or DENZ Committee should shine a spotlight on how this all being managed.
It should be perfect fodder for those who seek to further their political stance ie Tice etal. But it won't be taken. They are all part of the greater political problem. They are the part of uniparty albeit outliers.
There looking to score points in HoC or on media programmes rather than put down raw facts but with the full knowledge their not going to get a reaction but in actual fact they are laying the foundations to score a much bigger win down the line.
I’d venture to speculate that embedded persons with an agenda ‘employed’ by the government entities concerned will ensure there is no transparency whatsoever, after all their current jobs, future jobs and ultimate personal wealth depend on obfuscation.
You've got The Nose David. It starts with a tiny whiff of something that smells just a bit off, but it can end with the discovery of an entire factory manufacturing cans of worms.
Im afraid FoI is an illusion designed to project to the ignorant that we are free state when in reality they will keep lid on anything that could smell or be negative and they have tombola of excuses to use.
Must have touched a nerve. It smells like a lot of people are making a lot of money. Tax payers money. I bet they freaked out when you mentioned baroness Brown. Keep up the good work. 👍
Well done in pursuing the evidence that amounts in appearance to fraud on a grand scale. Have you engaged the parliamentarians in this, to ask the questions in the House? You must have friends within whom could be persuaded, ideally collectively, to get answers to what amounts to a conspiracy of silence.
Oh yes, as part of that the interesting question would be what corrective measures need to be put in place, including that of the position of Milliband.
This project had a power boost to each turbine and can deliver the power required.
The problem, Mr Turver is that you're trying ot apply science and logic to a system of control. The state is manipulating the market for energy specifically to protect it's favoured causes.
If there was no subsidy, there would be no windmills. It's as simple as that. Whenever government has to heavily tax one side to pay the other we have corruption and fraud, perpetrated by the state on the public. It is, surely, long past time this were refused and the scam ended?
Until the tax payer can stop government - of any stripe - from wasting our money in this egregious manner nothing will improve.
Earlier in the year DESNZ ran a consultation about terms for AR7. They have yet to comment on the results in detail, but here is the most relevant item in this context.
Currently, developers may reduce their contracted capacity prior to commissioning the construction of their power stations (i) by 25% before the Milestone Delivery Date; and/or (ii) by meeting only 85% (for offshore wind) or 95% (for all other technologies) of their Installed Capacity Estimate by the Longstop Date. Under existing rules, developers can then enter any surrendered contracted capacity in future allocation rounds.
However, such opportunity for capacity re-bidding may encourage generators to increase their income under CfD beyond that agreed in their original contract, with consumers ultimately bearing the additional cost. The government therefore proposes to prevent generators from bidding for previously reduced capacity in AR7, while the government reviews and clarifies its policy in time for AR8. Participants in AR7 will therefore have to confirm that their applications do not include any capacity that was previously subject to a CfD awarded in ARs 1-6.
I think there is still a lot of muddleheaded thinking in DESNZ. Within the constraint of having adopted a high cost renewables based strategy they should surely be aiming to deliver it at lower cost where possible. Where a project cuts its planned capacity there is no real scope for an alternative to take up the acerage it doesn't occupy. Connections to shore or the grid are in place for the rest of the project. So provided it can come in cheaper than originally bid or than currently bid for new stand alone projects, because of the existing infrastructure, surely it makes sense to take some advantage.
Against that criterion the AR6 rebids do make some sense, coming in at lower cost than AR6 new projects. Without the rebid it is likely that they would have fallen by the wayside and joined Norfolk Boreas et al in being cancelled altogether. At least Hornsea may have the advantage of having locked in a low price for its turbines and jackets - the FID press release effectively claimed a project cost of £8.5bn for 2.9GW, compared with £3.5bn for 1,080 MW at Inch Cape. Of course now we are in the post ZIRP era project finance is going to cost a lot more with 20 year gilts yielding over 5%.
The Hornsea case does suggest that DESNZ might not have been even handed, although it might be the case that other projects were not in a position to offer extra capacity. Perhaps that lies behind their reluctance to comment. It certainly seems odd that they failed to portray the consumer benefit of a lower strike price than other AR6 capacity.
Smells like corruption to me. It can't be dressed up any other way once information is not forthcoming via FOIs.
Doubt its corruption more the fact that Hornsea 3 owners had said 25% rebid wasn't enough for them to go ahead with the projects so a fudge up had to be sought. The other AR4 developers will of course will be wise to this so im sure will have made representations to DENZ etc.
As a reminder, in addition to over 2GW of cancelled AR4 projects with terminated CFDs there were the following post auction events for AR4:
Capacity reductions totalling 1,452MW (percentage reduction and any successful rebid capacity) were
EA3 318MW – 23% (Offshore Wind): 158.9MW rebid
Hornsea Project Three 705.9MW – 24.75% (Offshore Wind): 1,080MW rebid
Inch Cape 270MW – 25% (Offshore Wind): 266MW rebid
Moray West 73.5MW – 25% (Offshore Wind): 73.5MW rebid
10 solar farms 73MW – 20%
2 Onshore wind farms minor reductions 12MW
Total rebid successfully: 1,579MW into AR6
So even the overall total capacity awarded rebids under AR6 exceeded the volume of capacity reductions.
Worth noting too that AR6 rebid capacity pays slightly less than AR6 virgin capacity - £78.27/MWh compared with £84.97/MWh at current value, so they could claim they were saving billpayers money. Strange they didn't even try to make that argument.
AR4 never stacked up economically despite all the celebrations of the low strike price at the time by eco evangelists who were conspicuous by their absence in explaining why they had to be bailed under AR6. Im surprised they can make it pay at even at the consolidated AR4/6 price but all those offshore windmill parks are moving forward I believe so maybe they are banking on high wholesale prices being the norm and they don't need to actually actualise their contracts.
I think they are banking on two things: the delay before they must commence the CFD available under the contract, and the opportunity to renegotiate under REMA. There are sotto voce noises about the latter as the announcement of the great REMA reset draws near.
Assuming nothing changes and we fast forward to 2029 with Hornsea 3 in operation. On a given day, it is generating 1GW of power. What does it get paid for that power? A 75/25 split on the AR4/6 pricing, or do they get all AR6 pricing until they exceed the AR6 capacity and then fall back to AR4 pricing?
Nice question. Under CFD contract rules each CFD is supposed to have its own separately metered BMU. Hornsea 3 has 4 separate CFDs - one for the original project, while the AR6 bids are split across three separate CFDs. Each CFD gets commenced separately by a notice to the LCCC. So it is entirely possible that we will see the higher price AR6 CFDs commenced while the AR4 ones are not. Obviously whenever market prices allow CFD compensation (i.e. are not negative) it will make more sense to ensure that the production from the higher priced units is maximised over the other one. It will make more sense to allocate any partial curtailment to the cheaper unit too.
But TBH I haven't double checked the detailed AR6 contracts which might limit some of these options. I'm not even sure that the full terms have been published, especially if they are in the specific contracts. The standard terms are Version 6, 13 March 2024, which apply to all AR6 CFDs.
If each CfD is supposed to have its own metering BMU then presumably they will have designate individual turbines to a BMU although this must have been thought through for the rebid sites but doesn't appear to have a dedicated T&Cs for those sites.
The bigger issue raised though is being able to actualise under AR6 but not AR4 if wholesale prices are higher although you would have thought they would have made sure that scenario is blocked on the rebid sites.
The metering is subject to physical audit which means they won't be able to switch which meter each turbine goes through. However, they should be able to predict which sections of the wind farm will do better, and designate accordingly.
I don't think that shutting off the options was necessarily ignored. It does provide opportunities to enhance income which otherwise might have required a higher bid that might have meant the projects were lost. But it is certainly possible that the sparks aren't bright enough in DESNZ to understand.
Is this not a matter for the National Audit Office? Given it looks suspiciously like a government controlled body may have manipulated procurement rules in favour of a particular bidder.
It seems to fall within their remit and parliamentary committees (particularly the PAC) tend to place great reliance on its findings. It is also one of the few truly independent bodies able to hold government to account.
Has the NAO commented on any of the green scam monies? Have any of the previous subsidy wate been criticised?
Independent it may be, but like a train, it goes where you put the rails.
Regardless of whether or not they ‘have teeth’, the NAO is independent and whatever they find becomes a matter of public record. Once out in the open their findings can be used by others to hold government to account.
Worth a punt I would have thought.
NAO do good work and produce reports but they only have recommendations and most SoS say we will need to look closely at the report first (code for they bin it when they get back into the office).
NAO are no longer the force they were. The outstanding leader was Sir John Bourn, who was always forthright in his criticisms of government. Amyas Morse was not bad, with that fine example to follow. Gareth Davies is not quite in that mould, often being platitudinous about government policy rather than calling it out - particularly over energy issues.
I doubt if this extract from a report on a totally different subject has any relevance but it might be of interest. “In August 2019 a power cut was caused by a lightning strike affecting one million consumers through loss of 150 MW, then two large power stations, Hornsea One wind farm (737 MW) and Little Barford gas-fired (690 MW) caused a plunge in mains frequency and subsequent disconnections. Two of the owners made a voluntary payment of £4.5 million each into Ofgem’s redress fund.” https://thinkscotland.org/2021/11/who-put-the-lights-out/
Fortunately SNP under Swinney has had a good dose of reality applied and whilst they haven't abandoned NZ they've kicked the can along way down the road. Reality is Scottish wind is substantially oversubscribed already and its been futile to add any more to the system until transmission capacity has caught up which is at least five years away and then really only neutralises todays problem and only after spending best part of 10B.
They are gearing up for major offshore wind developments (and North Sea oil rig decommissioning) at the port of Ardersier not far from where I live: https://www.haventus.com/news-page/ardersier-port-receives-300m-investment-to-create-a-nationally-significant-energy-transition-facility/.
The SNP seem to be pushing hydrogen in a big way, although where they will find a market for such an expensive product is a mystery.
Perhaps they can foist it on Caledonian McBrayne for ferries after the great success of the LNG ferries!!
Nice one! These ferries are still a shambles thanks to the SNP. We are booked to cross to Arran at the end of May and have just had notification that we will leave from Troon instead of Ardrossan due to some new breakdown or another.
I believe that is due to the fact the new ferries are too big for Ardrossan harbour!
They expect there will be a scheme for compulsory purchase of Scottish hydrogen by the English, much as with wind power. Probably complete with compensation for any reduction in production when the English don't buy it. Again, much like wind power.
I have noted that Milliband has this morning been reported to be thrashing around like a beached fish in an attempt to counter the growing realisation in the other parties of the complete disaster Net Zero is. All very similar to one in his death throes. I hope that is true.
Yet he still wastes money on farce. It's simply not good enough that there are rumours and headlines.
When the state says 'we will waste 500bn on windmills and other unreliables' in a speech we turn around as the electorate and say 'Ha, no you won't. Build a dozen micro nuclear reactors.' and the state has to do as we instruct.
When Starmer kicks him and his ilk out of the cabinet then we will be assured that at least NZ will be recalibrated to a timeline where perhaps the much talked about UK green jobs will actually have time to materialise by having a 50% local content requirement in anything receiving a consumer subsidy.
Ed Miliband said in yesterday’s Observer that the government will "double down" on its environmental agenda and accused those against the move to Net Zero of "making up nonsense and lies": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czjn0pn830ko.
Paul Homewood has now debunked Miliband’s lies: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/04/20/mad-miliband-resorts-to-lies-to-defend-net-zero-agenda/.
Of course Hornsea 3 is another great example of British consumers supporting Green jobs just not in Britain. Germany - wind turbines, Thailand - converter stations, Japan - HVDV equipment, Holland - installation vessel etc etc and us consumers aren't allowed to know where our bill money is going and has been correctly expended.
Not sure where all the supply really comes from. The very first commercial Siemens Gamesa 14MW turbine was installed a few days ago in Taiwan, and I suspect it was made in Tianjin, China rather than Germany or Spain. The installation vessels at that size are likely to come from a Chinese shipyard, or possibly a Korean one. The Dutch operate them.
It's all about building trust!
Surely this easy fodder for Coutinho or Tice or any other MP who wants to see fairness and transparency in cost of energy to consumers to ask the appropriate question in HoC. Milibrain or his energy minister wouldn't know the answer but they would have to provide a written answer. Also attack lines through Public Accounts Committee or DENZ Committee should shine a spotlight on how this all being managed.
It should be perfect fodder for those who seek to further their political stance ie Tice etal. But it won't be taken. They are all part of the greater political problem. They are the part of uniparty albeit outliers.
There looking to score points in HoC or on media programmes rather than put down raw facts but with the full knowledge their not going to get a reaction but in actual fact they are laying the foundations to score a much bigger win down the line.
I’d venture to speculate that embedded persons with an agenda ‘employed’ by the government entities concerned will ensure there is no transparency whatsoever, after all their current jobs, future jobs and ultimate personal wealth depend on obfuscation.
It stinks.
You've got The Nose David. It starts with a tiny whiff of something that smells just a bit off, but it can end with the discovery of an entire factory manufacturing cans of worms.
They don't like people with The Nose.
Im afraid FoI is an illusion designed to project to the ignorant that we are free state when in reality they will keep lid on anything that could smell or be negative and they have tombola of excuses to use.
Must have touched a nerve. It smells like a lot of people are making a lot of money. Tax payers money. I bet they freaked out when you mentioned baroness Brown. Keep up the good work. 👍
Its not taxpayers money its those of us that have to pay our electricity bills because we don't get any handouts who are being burdened yet again.
Well done in pursuing the evidence that amounts in appearance to fraud on a grand scale. Have you engaged the parliamentarians in this, to ask the questions in the House? You must have friends within whom could be persuaded, ideally collectively, to get answers to what amounts to a conspiracy of silence.
Oh yes, as part of that the interesting question would be what corrective measures need to be put in place, including that of the position of Milliband.
There's quite a few Parliamentarians that subscribe to this Substack. So hopefully they will fire the bullet I have loaded for them.