It's still shocking to me that the government and various 'green' companies and groups can trot out how many billions renewables have saved. It's obviously not true when looking at the numbers you presented as well as the recent subsidy auctions. At the very least I may have to complain to ASA about some misleading quotes from energy companies, see what happens.
Thanks and glad to hear someone has tried. I was already pondering what the most simple way to disprove the claim would be as anything technical I thought wouldn't work. Surely it's not an excuse to just quote numbers you like, especially when it's so important.
You may also want to check out the National Emergency Briefings Youtube channel so see what our MPs, peers and other influential figures in public life are being exposed to with regards to climate catastrophe.
Scotland's iconic Loch Ness is in danger of being converted into a kind of giant flushing toilet.
Apparently when you say you're tackling a 'climate emergency' you get a free pass to destroy the environment, industrialise it, kill all the wildlife, wreck the natural landscape and then offload the costs onto the everyone's energy bills and taxes.
It is my belief, based on many observations, that the climate alarmist loons only think in one dimension and simply disregard the catastrophic damage they are doing to wildlife and other forms of environmental vandalism, all in the name of "Catastrophic Climate Change".
It is very similar to PETA and the RSPCA, which are strangely silent about the ritualised slaughter of sheep and cows in the UK.
The levels of contorted hypocrisy in these groups are a thing to behold and marvel at!
Please could you show in the analysis the impact of the various compensation schemes the UK has for industrial EIIs: indirect ETS cost compensation; exemption from RO/FiT/CfD; reduction in Network Charging costs.
These lower the costs for eligible EIIs, but increase the costs for all other users as paid for in bills.
Government would describe these schemes as levelling the costs with third countries, I think they are more sticking plasters helping some, penalising others.
Unfortunately they don't breakdown those compensation schemes on a per kWh basis.
I am on a very dodgy connection this morning, however if you go to the Archive section on the website and search for Subsidies Galore, you will find an article I did about the billions in subsidies and cross-subsidies.
The exemption from ROC/Fit and Capacity Mkt payments not CfD is covered by the aptly named "British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme" planned to go live in 2027. Its expected to apply to 7000 companies although at the rate of deindustrialisation there wont be that many left.
This scheme is utterly laughable as it directly admits that govt schemes are making electricity prices too high and presents this as part of its industrial strategy to support and grow UK industry. Anyhow govt proposal indicates a saving of £35-40/MWh but overall savings aren't quoted.
There is then modifications to the British Industry Supercharger scheme to provide 100% (85% now) relief including CfDs. There is also a proposal to increase relief from 60 to 90% for the EII Network Charging Compensation scheme.
The current schemes are funded through EII Support Levy which adds an extra cost to all our bills and as usual the govt portray it as look at what we are doing without being honest and of course not dealing with the underlying cost drivers.
Its not but not clear how they are going to fund BICS scheme from what I can find and i would imagine its going to run to 100's of millions if the discount is worth £35-40/MWh. Can't see how they can load that onto consumer bills so maybe will end up in general taxation.
The Network Charging Compensation Scheme is the easiest to get data on that I've found. The total fund numbers are here and are broadly £19million per month.
Within the Ofgem energy cap price work up, the NCC element is worked through to around £0.92/MWhr, although that seems to be only covering around £113million per year, somewhat less than the numbers being shown on the Elexon site. At the £0.92/MWHr, the "typical" household is paying out about £2.5-3.0 per annum to cover these cost compensations.
Interesting that Dutch gas is priced so high; they still have massive resources. So, they are, like the uk, deliberately killing off businesses in the ideological divide.
After closing Groningen the Dutch have had to make L-gas by adding nitrogen to H-gas while they convert the L-gas network and appliances to H-gas. A lot of extra cost spread across consumers. TTF is an H-gas basis.
They blamed some small tremors on extraction. Similar to uk approach to fracking! Between the USA and Russia, we are in a costly, a dangerous and a highly dependent situation thanks to a long term “climate change madness”.
Reminds me of Dunkirk without the small boat rescue miracle. Perhaps Farage is Churchill, but a pale imitation? I grieve for my country of birth, sacrificied by disgusting greed on the alter of "climate change". Putin and Xi are chuckling with glee as Europe and the UN self destruct and Trump is in danger of losing the House.
We cannot hope to compete in traditional energy intensive industries or industries of the future like making batteries or AI with such extortionate electricity prices.
I've often wondered if eventually the data companies will provide their own energy sources and sell that to consumers, as it is far less valuable than the data itself.
However, then you realise the online harm bill is designed to force censorship and control over the network, so only the state will make use of heuristics to make our lives worse.
It is, perhaps a dystopian view, but one I can see all too clearly. True AI would do away with the political class in a heartbeat and undo their malicious stupidity.
It’s always surprising that so many people still believe the government genuinely cares about them and is trying to help. In reality, most politicians these days don’t work for ordinary voters—they work for powerful corporations, lobbyists, and government contractors who fund and benefit from the system. The public’s role is mostly reduced to footing the bill, while decisions are made to protect insiders, not the people paying the taxes.
This madness will not stop until the government is pushed to rethink the net-zero program, under pressure from public opinion and the threat of losing votes,
What is the result of the most expensive scientific experiment of all time - a trial to find if we can transition from conventional power to wind and solar?
After spending Trillions of dollars and other currencies, we have electricity that is more expensive, less reliable and stable in voltage and frequency, with incalculable damage to the landscape, ranging from mining operations overseas to the forests and farmlands of Britain.
Someone has blundered!
The root of the problem is quite simple. Think about the primary requirement for wind power! It is WIND, moving fast enough to generate power from the turbines.
No wind, or slow wind (under 3 to 4 meters per second (m/s), or 7 to 9 mph ), means no wind power.
The meteorologists didn’t issue wind drought warnings and the official agencies that advised the May Government didn’t check.
How did they manage to ignore the wind records on the oil and gas rigs in the North Sea, collected over sixty years?
The people have to see the wind drought problem with their own eyes and they can look at the National Grid Live dashboard to check the supply of RE between sunset and sunrise, or dinner and breakfast time for convenience (and a family discussion.)
I don't think they care on jot. The entire point of the green scam is power - not the energy sort - at any cost. They do not care about science, facts, data or even physics because, at heart the political class know the whole hoax has nothing to do with that.
It's a control system. A method of keeping the proles in line while the elites swan about.
My point is to engage the people who are suffering and explain the "low wind" problem so they can see it for themselves by looking at the dashboard regularly at dinner and breakfast.
It is up to people who can understand this to explain it to people who at the moment do not. This has to start with people with platforms like David and others who can educate their friends and relations, also workmates, people at bus stops and lifts, taxi drivers and hairdressers.
It can be done in a friendly and informative way, without being aggressive or political about it.
Come to think of it, what about a campaign to focus on taxi drivers, barbers and hairdressers and others who spend time talking to people one-on-one?
You're bringing reason and common sense to - what is - a religious debate.
We have people who think that the reason energy is expensive is because of privatisation, and want to nationalise energy. Now, just think that through: some people do not understand the reason energy is expensive is because of crushing taxes applied for ideological reasons *by the state* and want that same destructive government to be put in full control of our energy grid - not that they're not practically already, something which must change.
I've nothing against wind or solar. We have solar panels on the roof. I'd like a battery to store energy during the summer. However the idea of running the country on windmills or sunlight is ludicrous. Worse, it's not 'sustainable' as they do horrific ecological damage, cannot survive without subsidy and are, in a pure economic fashion, a complete waste of material and resources.
While useful to compare to European prices it misses the point that industry competes internationally- the international price comparison is much more important. David rightly makes that point several times in the article.
DESNZ should catch up with this reality and spend more time publishing international comparisons. That will provide the clear evidence base that we’ve gone down the wrong path.
Like neighbour Sweden, Finland's power is dominated by nuclear and hydro, so any trade between them is also at low prices. Although the nuclear includes the EPR Olkiluoto 3, the Finns were canny enough to secure a contract that put all the cost overrun and technical amendment of design on the French, so their cost is around €40/MWh. The older plants are inherently cheaper. As it's winter with lights on 24x7 in much of the country they are also topping up with thermal generation, which is made more effective by being CHP.
We could duplicate low cost nuclear, but we don't really have much possibility of expanding hydro production which is a cheap way to provide balancing flexible output. The French also benefit from using hydro that way, and of course also have much lower costs based on their nuclear fleet.
I had not known about the canny contract, thanks for that! Yes, England has no access to the two best 'green' energies, Hydro and Geo. Nuclear is the next best option, call it yellow.
As with the attack on farmers with IHT which *will* lead to the decimation of small family farms, the apparent intentionality in such high electricity prices start to look like they are designed to destroy the economy.
I know this lot are the greatest bunch of numbskulls to inhabit the Government benches but even they can't be blind to what they are doing.
I think these people think it either virtuous (in which case they're stupid) or a control system - which is far more likely as it's in the mindset of meddling, evil people to want to force such on others.
I don't think it's an accident. I believe it's deliberate, wilful malice. Anything to force the Left wing utopian vision of a command economy, socialist, communist central control - all by unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats (who, of course, never suffer such privation).
Good grief, no wonder the entire eurozone is collapsing into a uncompetitive, no growth perma-recession.
The question I want answered is 'what is 'net zero'? When we reach it, what then? When the lights are out, when there's no industry, when there's no fuel, food, least of all clean water - what then? What are the success criteria? What are the failure standards - because we're well over those.
We had a blackout here recently. It was ruddy frightening. We all clubbed together to share candles and wind up storm lights but do we start buying those battery packs? I'm going to, if only for light in the bedrooms. We're a decent road and our concern was for our very elderly neighbours but what if you're not in such an area?
But what happens when energy is simply unaffordable, when the economy has been nuked by Left wing policy? When we *can't* rebuild? After the rationing, then famine, then further deaths from disease - what then? Will the greeniacs still say it was a success?
This utter farce is all being driven by spiteful communist eurocrats - the eu being nothing more than a retirement home for such failures. It must be stopped, now.
Just as an aside, Mr Turver, I found several grant bodies doling out tens of millions of pounds (from funds worth tens of millions) all dedicated to 'climate change'.
What this really means is a bunch of academics poncing off on an all expenses paid holiday for a year and a bit, scuba diving, snorkelling, generally pratting around and coming back to agree with what the funder wants them to say.
It's all utterly, thoroughly putrid.
I compared it to a thorium reactor research grant - that was in the tens of thousands of euros.
It's still shocking to me that the government and various 'green' companies and groups can trot out how many billions renewables have saved. It's obviously not true when looking at the numbers you presented as well as the recent subsidy auctions. At the very least I may have to complain to ASA about some misleading quotes from energy companies, see what happens.
Cafe,
good luck, but I found the ASA to be weak on technical matters.
Also you have to press them for a response as it is 'not their policy' to keep you updated, so you have no Idea of their actions.
I kept on at them and in the end admitted that it was out of their depth and passed it to the Trading Standards authority.
Thanks and glad to hear someone has tried. I was already pondering what the most simple way to disprove the claim would be as anything technical I thought wouldn't work. Surely it's not an excuse to just quote numbers you like, especially when it's so important.
''Having the highest electricity prices in the EU and by extension the rest of the developed world, ought to be considered a national emergency.''
No, no, no David there is another emergency going on as claimed in this Sky News piece. ;-D
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newsky-news-climate-change-a-threat
You may also want to check out the National Emergency Briefings Youtube channel so see what our MPs, peers and other influential figures in public life are being exposed to with regards to climate catastrophe.
"MPs, peers and other influential figures in public life are being exposed to with regards to climate catastrophe."
There is nothing more effective than to use exaggerated hyperbole to set up a serious, logically structured argument and have it taken seriously!
Scotland's iconic Loch Ness is in danger of being converted into a kind of giant flushing toilet.
Apparently when you say you're tackling a 'climate emergency' you get a free pass to destroy the environment, industrialise it, kill all the wildlife, wreck the natural landscape and then offload the costs onto the everyone's energy bills and taxes.
https://messingwithnature.substack.com/p/playing-god-exploring-the-science
It is my belief, based on many observations, that the climate alarmist loons only think in one dimension and simply disregard the catastrophic damage they are doing to wildlife and other forms of environmental vandalism, all in the name of "Catastrophic Climate Change".
It is very similar to PETA and the RSPCA, which are strangely silent about the ritualised slaughter of sheep and cows in the UK.
The levels of contorted hypocrisy in these groups are a thing to behold and marvel at!
Please could you show in the analysis the impact of the various compensation schemes the UK has for industrial EIIs: indirect ETS cost compensation; exemption from RO/FiT/CfD; reduction in Network Charging costs.
These lower the costs for eligible EIIs, but increase the costs for all other users as paid for in bills.
Government would describe these schemes as levelling the costs with third countries, I think they are more sticking plasters helping some, penalising others.
Unfortunately they don't breakdown those compensation schemes on a per kWh basis.
I am on a very dodgy connection this morning, however if you go to the Archive section on the website and search for Subsidies Galore, you will find an article I did about the billions in subsidies and cross-subsidies.
Found it now.
https://open.substack.com/pub/davidturver/p/subsidies-galore?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
The exemption from ROC/Fit and Capacity Mkt payments not CfD is covered by the aptly named "British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme" planned to go live in 2027. Its expected to apply to 7000 companies although at the rate of deindustrialisation there wont be that many left.
This scheme is utterly laughable as it directly admits that govt schemes are making electricity prices too high and presents this as part of its industrial strategy to support and grow UK industry. Anyhow govt proposal indicates a saving of £35-40/MWh but overall savings aren't quoted.
There is then modifications to the British Industry Supercharger scheme to provide 100% (85% now) relief including CfDs. There is also a proposal to increase relief from 60 to 90% for the EII Network Charging Compensation scheme.
The current schemes are funded through EII Support Levy which adds an extra cost to all our bills and as usual the govt portray it as look at what we are doing without being honest and of course not dealing with the underlying cost drivers.
Its not but not clear how they are going to fund BICS scheme from what I can find and i would imagine its going to run to 100's of millions if the discount is worth £35-40/MWh. Can't see how they can load that onto consumer bills so maybe will end up in general taxation.
The Network Charging Compensation Scheme is the easiest to get data on that I've found. The total fund numbers are here and are broadly £19million per month.
https://www.elexon.co.uk/what-we-do/about-our-services/network-charging-compensation-scheme/estimated-levy-fund/
Within the Ofgem energy cap price work up, the NCC element is worked through to around £0.92/MWhr, although that seems to be only covering around £113million per year, somewhat less than the numbers being shown on the Elexon site. At the £0.92/MWHr, the "typical" household is paying out about £2.5-3.0 per annum to cover these cost compensations.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-regulation/domestic-and-non-domestic/energy-pricing-rules/energy-price-cap/energy-price-cap-default-tariff-levels See annex 4- policy costs.
'Neanderthals, Denisovans very low energy users, scientists find.'
Remember those smiling faces of Reagan and Thatcher..?
Ask the Brits how they like the Total Privatization now:
youtube.com/shorts/16wMqJH5qrk
youtu.be/VQ4_y3rkX5Q?t=108
Interesting that Dutch gas is priced so high; they still have massive resources. So, they are, like the uk, deliberately killing off businesses in the ideological divide.
TTF and NBP have a close correlation so they must be loading it with other costs
After closing Groningen the Dutch have had to make L-gas by adding nitrogen to H-gas while they convert the L-gas network and appliances to H-gas. A lot of extra cost spread across consumers. TTF is an H-gas basis.
The Dutch shut in their massive Groningen gas field and now depend on LNG imports.
They blamed some small tremors on extraction. Similar to uk approach to fracking! Between the USA and Russia, we are in a costly, a dangerous and a highly dependent situation thanks to a long term “climate change madness”.
I'd bet if the home owners were offered free electricity they'd not worry about a tea cup getting rattled.
Reminds me of Dunkirk without the small boat rescue miracle. Perhaps Farage is Churchill, but a pale imitation? I grieve for my country of birth, sacrificied by disgusting greed on the alter of "climate change". Putin and Xi are chuckling with glee as Europe and the UN self destruct and Trump is in danger of losing the House.
Exactly right:
We cannot hope to compete in traditional energy intensive industries or industries of the future like making batteries or AI with such extortionate electricity prices.
I've often wondered if eventually the data companies will provide their own energy sources and sell that to consumers, as it is far less valuable than the data itself.
However, then you realise the online harm bill is designed to force censorship and control over the network, so only the state will make use of heuristics to make our lives worse.
It is, perhaps a dystopian view, but one I can see all too clearly. True AI would do away with the political class in a heartbeat and undo their malicious stupidity.
It’s always surprising that so many people still believe the government genuinely cares about them and is trying to help. In reality, most politicians these days don’t work for ordinary voters—they work for powerful corporations, lobbyists, and government contractors who fund and benefit from the system. The public’s role is mostly reduced to footing the bill, while decisions are made to protect insiders, not the people paying the taxes.
The relevant comparable isn't Rest of EU, it's China and Texas ... and that comparison spells doom for UK/EU industrial sector
This madness will not stop until the government is pushed to rethink the net-zero program, under pressure from public opinion and the threat of losing votes,
What is the result of the most expensive scientific experiment of all time - a trial to find if we can transition from conventional power to wind and solar?
After spending Trillions of dollars and other currencies, we have electricity that is more expensive, less reliable and stable in voltage and frequency, with incalculable damage to the landscape, ranging from mining operations overseas to the forests and farmlands of Britain.
Someone has blundered!
The root of the problem is quite simple. Think about the primary requirement for wind power! It is WIND, moving fast enough to generate power from the turbines.
No wind, or slow wind (under 3 to 4 meters per second (m/s), or 7 to 9 mph ), means no wind power.
The meteorologists didn’t issue wind drought warnings and the official agencies that advised the May Government didn’t check.
How did they manage to ignore the wind records on the oil and gas rigs in the North Sea, collected over sixty years?
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/a-curious-tale-of-the-north-sea-winds/
The people have to see the wind drought problem with their own eyes and they can look at the National Grid Live dashboard to check the supply of RE between sunset and sunrise, or dinner and breakfast time for convenience (and a family discussion.)
https://grid.iamkate.com/
These are the instructions for grid-watchers in the US.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/will-windpower-heat-your-breakfast
I don't think they care on jot. The entire point of the green scam is power - not the energy sort - at any cost. They do not care about science, facts, data or even physics because, at heart the political class know the whole hoax has nothing to do with that.
It's a control system. A method of keeping the proles in line while the elites swan about.
My point is to engage the people who are suffering and explain the "low wind" problem so they can see it for themselves by looking at the dashboard regularly at dinner and breakfast.
It is up to people who can understand this to explain it to people who at the moment do not. This has to start with people with platforms like David and others who can educate their friends and relations, also workmates, people at bus stops and lifts, taxi drivers and hairdressers.
It can be done in a friendly and informative way, without being aggressive or political about it.
Come to think of it, what about a campaign to focus on taxi drivers, barbers and hairdressers and others who spend time talking to people one-on-one?
You're bringing reason and common sense to - what is - a religious debate.
We have people who think that the reason energy is expensive is because of privatisation, and want to nationalise energy. Now, just think that through: some people do not understand the reason energy is expensive is because of crushing taxes applied for ideological reasons *by the state* and want that same destructive government to be put in full control of our energy grid - not that they're not practically already, something which must change.
I've nothing against wind or solar. We have solar panels on the roof. I'd like a battery to store energy during the summer. However the idea of running the country on windmills or sunlight is ludicrous. Worse, it's not 'sustainable' as they do horrific ecological damage, cannot survive without subsidy and are, in a pure economic fashion, a complete waste of material and resources.
While useful to compare to European prices it misses the point that industry competes internationally- the international price comparison is much more important. David rightly makes that point several times in the article.
DESNZ should catch up with this reality and spend more time publishing international comparisons. That will provide the clear evidence base that we’ve gone down the wrong path.
Yes, but WHY is Finland's electricity so much cheaper? That's your answer and your solution.
Like neighbour Sweden, Finland's power is dominated by nuclear and hydro, so any trade between them is also at low prices. Although the nuclear includes the EPR Olkiluoto 3, the Finns were canny enough to secure a contract that put all the cost overrun and technical amendment of design on the French, so their cost is around €40/MWh. The older plants are inherently cheaper. As it's winter with lights on 24x7 in much of the country they are also topping up with thermal generation, which is made more effective by being CHP.
https://openinframap.org/#5.7/62.115/24.925/L,P,S
We could duplicate low cost nuclear, but we don't really have much possibility of expanding hydro production which is a cheap way to provide balancing flexible output. The French also benefit from using hydro that way, and of course also have much lower costs based on their nuclear fleet.
https://driftsdata.statnett.no/Web/ProductionConsumption/LatestDetailOverview?language=en
I had not known about the canny contract, thanks for that! Yes, England has no access to the two best 'green' energies, Hydro and Geo. Nuclear is the next best option, call it yellow.
As with the attack on farmers with IHT which *will* lead to the decimation of small family farms, the apparent intentionality in such high electricity prices start to look like they are designed to destroy the economy.
I know this lot are the greatest bunch of numbskulls to inhabit the Government benches but even they can't be blind to what they are doing.
I think these people think it either virtuous (in which case they're stupid) or a control system - which is far more likely as it's in the mindset of meddling, evil people to want to force such on others.
I don't think it's an accident. I believe it's deliberate, wilful malice. Anything to force the Left wing utopian vision of a command economy, socialist, communist central control - all by unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats (who, of course, never suffer such privation).
Good grief, no wonder the entire eurozone is collapsing into a uncompetitive, no growth perma-recession.
The question I want answered is 'what is 'net zero'? When we reach it, what then? When the lights are out, when there's no industry, when there's no fuel, food, least of all clean water - what then? What are the success criteria? What are the failure standards - because we're well over those.
We had a blackout here recently. It was ruddy frightening. We all clubbed together to share candles and wind up storm lights but do we start buying those battery packs? I'm going to, if only for light in the bedrooms. We're a decent road and our concern was for our very elderly neighbours but what if you're not in such an area?
But what happens when energy is simply unaffordable, when the economy has been nuked by Left wing policy? When we *can't* rebuild? After the rationing, then famine, then further deaths from disease - what then? Will the greeniacs still say it was a success?
This utter farce is all being driven by spiteful communist eurocrats - the eu being nothing more than a retirement home for such failures. It must be stopped, now.
Just as an aside, Mr Turver, I found several grant bodies doling out tens of millions of pounds (from funds worth tens of millions) all dedicated to 'climate change'.
What this really means is a bunch of academics poncing off on an all expenses paid holiday for a year and a bit, scuba diving, snorkelling, generally pratting around and coming back to agree with what the funder wants them to say.
It's all utterly, thoroughly putrid.
I compared it to a thorium reactor research grant - that was in the tens of thousands of euros.