Building a new gas turbine plant in the UK now costs roughly 50% to 66% more in baseline construction (CAPEX) compared to five years ago, while the raw cost of the heavy gas turbines themselves has skyrocketed by nearly 195%. Source Wood Mackenzie
Costs of gas turbines is the least of the problems, getting hold of any before 2030 is probably now impossible because of US data center power demands.
Anyone who thinks that is a good idea to replace power generators that work at large scale and consistently at ~90% productivity 24/7/365 with technologies that are dilute, unreliable, widely distributed and intermittent working at a measured productivity” ~18% or less, (~15% in Europe 2025) must be in error or malign.
The low productivity of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” means that installations must be about 5-6 times larger just to contribute the same amount power to the Grid. Even so they are still unreliable. If the installation costs of “Renewables” were equivalent, (they are in fact much higher when fully accounted including subsidieas and other accounting fixes), their power costs more than conventional gas, coal and even nuclear technologies.
· dependent on massive subsidies charged to customers
· require extended costly linkages to gather power from widely distributed power sources
· very destructive of the environment, agricultural land and wildlife.
Weather-Dependent Wind and Solar “Renewables” aren’t effective power sources: they can only ever be intermittent fuel-savers.
Burning fossil fuels does produce Carbon Dioxide CO2, but its warming effectiveness is radically diminished as its concentration increases. At its current level its warming effect is already ~80% effective. Any future Man-made CO2 emissions can now only make a minor contribution to Global temperature. Were CO2 emissions important, Gas-firing has half the CO2 emissions of Coal and about a quarter of imported biomass.
CO2 is essential Plant Food, its rise in the atmosphere has resulted in a massive increase in all plant and crop productivity worldwide. So, rising CO2 levels are reducing the need for agricultural land.
Having damaged its industrial base, the UK only produces ~0.8% of Global CO2 emissions. It is irrelevant compared to the growing CO2 output from the Developing world, particularly China and India.
Regarding the extensive nature of solar schemes, the rule of thumb is 2 hectares for 1 MW, meaning that a typical large scheme of 500 MW occupies 1000 ha of prime cropland.
The average wheat yield over the past ten years was 8 t/ha, or 8,000 kg/ha, so each new scheme would displace 8,000 t of wheat.
The government's food stats show average consumption of bread and cereals at about 1 kg/person/week, or ~50kg per year.
The displaced crops could have fed 8,000,000 kg / 50 kg/person = ~160,000 people.*
Developers do love to say how many homes their scheme can power. Perhaps they should also report how many people the land used could have fed?
If you look at the cereals section of Agriculture in the UK (AUK), you will see that we were a net exporter of wheat until about 2012, but since then import on net from the EU.
[ASTERISK: This figure is not true, because half of the wheat goes for animal feed. But still.]
You ask if the minister will agree that the “Plan” is off course……Mad Ed is a zealot and nothing is going to change course- the ultimate aim is to get rid of all man made emissions and both Mad Ed and his acolytes will push on regardless of cost- if nothing is manufactured, if no gas, oil, coal is burnt, no vehicular traffic allowed he will have succeeded- the collateral damage will off course be the reduction of the economy to an agrarian hellscape with a barter system in place of money, subsistence levels of poverty and mass emigration where those who can will get out while they can- we will become the boat people of the future, escaping a country that has collapsed but will be able to state one clear fact- Welcome to the UK, a Emissions Free Country, World Leader in Poverty.
Nuclear in the lowlands would OTOH be a good idea. A new Torness and Hunterston would provide secure power and strengthen the Scottish grid, reducing blackout risk. Deploying more nuclear in England would also make many wind farms and their associated pylons and costly interconnectors redundant, potentially saving huge costs.
My reaction to the amount of planned solar capacity is absolute bewilderment given that solar can produce close to name plate on good sunny days for a few hours, and that projected capacity is well over grid demand in summer. Much solar is beyond grid control being connected on the low voltage system.
It surely is a recipe for disaster, or am I missing something?
Agreed and I would at least force developers to stick in 8hr batteries as well for all new build over 50kW if the economics dont work then dont build it.
I think they will do it anyway - at least for an optimised capacity - so long as they can secure grid connections. In Australia all planned utility solar projects now include a BESS. The CFD regime effectively allows double dipping for co-located storage. It will pay out for midday generation based on a low wholesale price, topping up to strike price. The power charges the battery at the low wholesale price, and then resells the output into the evening peak.
The optimal size of battery for duration and charge/discharge rate relative to MWp of solar will be much smaller in the UK than in Australia because it will be little use in winter.
The solar which is beyond grid control is rooftop and behind the meter, that's a lot of the current capacity, but will make up only a small share of future growth.
The enormous increase in capacity will be provided by grid scale, which will be dispatchable and respond to prices in real time. New CfDs do not pay out when price is negative.
NESO are pushing for all units above 1MW to be compelled to come into the balancing mechanism so they have better visibility of whats going on in the sub 50MW arena as its voluntary only currenty.
Thanks for your continuing great work in documenting all these dreadful swindles and lies.
As I scanned the facts and figures, thinking "Mmmm-hm! Yup! OK! Yes, more of the same..." I remembered a saying from the days of my youth, back when I first opened my brand-new copy of the Club of Rome's report "The Limits to Growth".
"Everything takes longer and costs more".
While especially applicable to big corporate projects and, especially, government work, I think that sums up everything that has been found out about " Net Zero".
I anticipate nothing but more of the same. Meanwhile Mr Miliband and the corporate profiteers continue to draw their pay, profits, dividends, etc. at the expense of the rest of us.
At the same time our military capabilities to protect all our investments both offshore and onshore remain decimated by decades of political interference, changing priorities and convoluted supply chains that try to address that before. Already Miliband’s sub-sea assets are compromised. So all that investment by the taxpayer is at significant risk should operations in Europe become more widely kinetic. And so we drift on ………………….
It’s not just about cost, time and quality. There is no engineering basis for the assertion that the grid can be 95% decarbonised (Miliband’s “plucked from thin air” concession from his original 100% fantasy) when relying heavily on weather-dependent renewables. Look at the national blackout which happened in Spain when inertia-less renewable sources reached 78% of electricity generation. Within a few years the Scottish grid is on course to be inertia-less and potentially unworkable without its two aged remaining large synchronous generators.
Beyond the wild claim for 95% grid decarbonisation, the latest Statistical Review of World Energy 2025 from the Energy Institute reveals that fossil fuels accounted for 79% of the 2024 UK energy mix, with the world as a whole at 86.6%. Not even their climate propagandist partner Ember could disguise the fact that these numbers represent an unbridgeable chasm from ever achieving Net Zero.
Further to risk of blackouts due to lack of grid inertia, here’s a post I’ve just come across on how, unbelievably, the Net Zero zealots of the European Commission are pressuring Spain to use less gas-fired electricity which they ramped up after their April 2025 national blackout to reduce the risk of another such outage: https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/eu-calls-on-spain-to-lower-gas-reliance-to-stabilize-power-grid.
The problem for Spain is they are supposed to ditch their cheap Russian LNG next year along with France, Belgium and Netherlands. There is a new interconnector project between Bilbao and mid France, pushed heavily by ENTSO-E after the apagón.
However it does nothing to solve the weak solar dominated grid in the South and potentially increases long distance transmission from there, requiring yet more grid and stabilisation, while undermining the French grid with more surplus solar to wreck prices. It's EU politics, not common sense.
Thank you David. Not a comment on your latest post, which speaks for itself, I thought you and fellow subscribers may be interested in this Ed Conway report on North Sea gas. At one point he raises the possibility that getting what we can out of the North Sea could reduce UK net carbon dioxide emissions compared with the track we're on, as it would reduce the need for liquified natural gas (LNG): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDr0Z19x3p0
To address your post, promising and promoting a low-cost electric future and setting about producing an expensive and unreliable system to do it isn't something I'd want on my CV, but I expect 'Edcase will get away with it.
David, as the UK energy situation becomes more and more precarious I wonder if there is value in high-profile people such as yourself, Kathryn Porter, prof. Dieter Helm forming common cause to redirect energy policy back onto the straight and narrow.
I suspect that only a large organisation with serious people at the top will gain media recognition and thence the necessary political traction.
Dieter Helm finally came over to the dark side recently by calling for the Climate Change Act to be repealed. He was also much more forthright about the problems of CP2030 and wider energy policy, and making suggestions for how to unwind the nonsense. I suspect he has realised that it is most important to ensure that those who oppose Miliband's policy are well informed to criticise it and to deal with the aftermath should they get into government.
OK wasn't against taking action against climate change but did espoused a far more sensible approach to achieving it and has been calling out government approach for years as being hairbrained. Anyhow he wont be on Milibands Xmas card list but I could see someone like Burnham approaching him.
There will be a step up in OWF this year as Dogger Bank A/B come on line although there is something seriously awry with the A farm which is coming up close to a two year slippage with output stalled at c400/1200MW. EA3/Sofia in build as well and potential for turbines to be commissioned later in 2026. Inch Cape is ready to commence turbine tower installation so likely to start generation in 2027. Hornsea 3 about to start foundations. These will add c11GW by end 2028 but the picture beyond there is uncertain as im not sure anything else thats been consented has taken FID so target is now comprehensively missed.
Fortunately other than Inch Cape the next wave all connect into English grid so wont be exposed to level of constraints that Scottish connected assets are exposed to. Also to get the B4/B5 boundary capacity increased there are significant outages required that is depressing the capacity of this boundary below 50% for next two years. This is primary driver for forecasted increased constraint costs over the next few years and maybe it will outturn lower as Scottish OWF is lagging behind.
Of course wont admit to it but his deindustrialisation plan is also helping him get to his target just ignore all the other consequences.
Dogger Bank A is the burning platform long stop date is 30 Nov 26. Its running well behind with commissioning after a couple of blade failures and I wonder if there having to go back and change out all the blades before a certain date. Im guessing they have to be fully commissioned to activate CfD although may suit them to have part of it withdrawn. Also there already on 2nd extension of OFTO transfer to 18 Dec 26 but there is preferred bidder nominated.
Others in AR3 have long stop dates out to 2029 so with indexing will be £65-70/MWhr by then which should be sufficient as they all have financing secured at lower rates.
More politics over what makes sense for the grid, but note the English landfall is at Blyth, convenient for direct export to Norway via NSL.
Not sure how long cheap financing lasts. Many of these projects will need to refinance. Trigger points might be commissioning (previously a milestone that de-risks the project and reduced the risk premium in rates), or after 5 or 10 years. Few secured life of project finance at premium long term rates that would now look like a good deal.
I think it's convenient for NESO to blame constrained output on work to relieve the constraints, but adding 11GW plus a bunch of solar takes us further into the territory of more hours with larger surpluses over demand. They also have to ensure there is sufficient import capacity for Scotland to handle windless days, especially if the nightmare scenario of no Torness or Peterhead simultaneously occurs. Kathryn Porter recently discussed the Scottish problem in a speech she gave from her hospital bed (extraordinary dedication!) to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce.
I'm not sure that the grid has enough capacity to absorb the extra Dogger/Norfolk area generation: it's why they are desperate to build the huge East Anglia Green projects from Norwich and Sizewell (effectively the UK end of the LionLink interconnector to the Netherlands) to Tilbury, and the link to Kent that goes to the NEMO interconnector. These are all aimed at trying to export surplus wind which will probably be unwanted because of similar EU investment.
AR3/4 wind farms have very low strike prices, which means they will operate initially on a merchant basis, getting market price for their output until tranche by tranche Long Stop dates loom, forcing either commencement or termination of the CFDs. They will be first in line to curtail - any time when prices are negative they get no subsidy under the CFD anyway - and otherwise they face little (with the CFD) or no (without) loss of subsidy, and paid curtailment revenues will be low because of increased competition. They may also suffer grid constraint curtailment, ending up much like Seagreen. It's possible that some of these projects end up with so little revenue that they go bankrupt.
Short term grid can absorb Dogger Bank/Sofia but once the EGLs are commissioned things will become a bit more challenging on high wind days for sure even in Winter.
Good point about negative prices and I guess that could be contributor to forcing up strike prices from AR7 onwards to give themselves additional buffer. Mind you with electrification falling well behind demand is going to suppressed and much higher risk of negative prices.
Even if not very knowledgeable about power and contracts...another very readable and well researched Article. The graphs showing the stark 'reality gaps' ....Milliband doesn't care to notice even if an intelligent question came his way in the HoC. He would mount his Net Zero high horse and proclaim that the UK has led the world on 'Clean Green Energy', plaudits all round for him.....at the same as the UK's industrial base is reduced to a pile of rubble, and power supply becomes ever more 'whimsical'.
Don't worry - in Milliband's imaginary world all will be well. We can all rest assured that, as we watch our fellow citizens dying of the cold and from a lack of clean water, we can feel comforted that they died for the greater good. After all, Saving The Planet From The Weather is the cause Milliband knows is worth persuing as any price (not that he pays the price). I find it all absolutely terrifying - whatever happened to Environmentalism being about saving the trees and the birds and the whales? Where is the energy going to come from? We are sitting on an island of coal aren't we? Nobody is going to sell us their energy in a future where nobody talks to Russians or Iranians and nobody digs up coal. Absolutely terrifying
Yet another excellent analysis David, and another big Thank You for all you are doing.
Your dogged determination to extract the truth from amongst the relentless outpourings of utter garbage being dished out by our government 'bodies' and renewables industry spokespeople is truly remarkable and I sincerely hope your consistently sane overviews of all of this Net Zero nonsense will eventually gain traction with 'people in power' and lead to the complete reversal of policy that is so desperately needed in the UK.
I'm currently up to my neck compiling yet another objection to yet another proposal for yet another large-scale wind farm (they're coming at us from all directions now) that has been submitted near where I live in the stunningly beautiful, but incredibly vulnerable, environmentally sensitive, Cambrian Mountains area of Wales and I've decided I needed a break from it all and have treated myself to a bit of light relief by reading your latest post!
I know it may appear a bit strange for me to say that I gain relief from reading about even more of the damaging repercussions connected to Net Zero ideology, but it does give me the encouragement to keep on going with the thankless task of trying to tackle a planning system that has been deliberately engineered to overwhelmingly favour the granting of permission for large-scale intermittent wind and solar schemes throughout rural Wales, despite the huge extent and variety of environmental damages they are known to inflict.
It helps enormously for me to see that there are people 'out in the ether' who also have big problems with this crazy push towards the so-called 'decarbonisation' of our national electricity generation and grid system and, more importantly, that they have the expertise and willingness to devote their own time towards explaining clearly and concisely exactly what those problems are to others.
This sharing of valuable knowledge is incredibly reassuring for me as it provides firm evidence that there is absolutely nothing wrong with my powers of understanding and reasoning - I'm not wrong to take the stance I have, nor is it me that has taken leave of my senses.
I am perfectly justified in saying that there is absolutely nothing 'good' about Net Zero policy and it doesn't matter which way you try to look at it, it will never achieve any of the 'tackling of climate change' benefits that the climate doomsters keep parroting-on about.
I wonder if that makes me an heretic though?
Or should I be locked up for daring to speak out against the 'official narrative'?
Oh well...I'd better get back to the 'blocker' grindstone again. Official deadlines for 'submissions' won't wait for anyone......(a bit like Net Zero targets)
Wish me (and the threatened Welsh landscapes, wildlife, ecosystems, stressed-out residents, etc., etc,) pob lwc!
Building a new gas turbine plant in the UK now costs roughly 50% to 66% more in baseline construction (CAPEX) compared to five years ago, while the raw cost of the heavy gas turbines themselves has skyrocketed by nearly 195%. Source Wood Mackenzie
Costs of gas turbines is the least of the problems, getting hold of any before 2030 is probably now impossible because of US data center power demands.
Thats in the 100MW+ class but there is wider set of suppliers below that threshold but will be more costly per MW
Anyone who thinks that is a good idea to replace power generators that work at large scale and consistently at ~90% productivity 24/7/365 with technologies that are dilute, unreliable, widely distributed and intermittent working at a measured productivity” ~18% or less, (~15% in Europe 2025) must be in error or malign.
The low productivity of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” means that installations must be about 5-6 times larger just to contribute the same amount power to the Grid. Even so they are still unreliable. If the installation costs of “Renewables” were equivalent, (they are in fact much higher when fully accounted including subsidieas and other accounting fixes), their power costs more than conventional gas, coal and even nuclear technologies.
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/a-few-graphs-say-it-all-for-renewables/
Weather-Dependent “Renewables” are:
· dependent on massive subsidies charged to customers
· require extended costly linkages to gather power from widely distributed power sources
· very destructive of the environment, agricultural land and wildlife.
Weather-Dependent Wind and Solar “Renewables” aren’t effective power sources: they can only ever be intermittent fuel-savers.
Burning fossil fuels does produce Carbon Dioxide CO2, but its warming effectiveness is radically diminished as its concentration increases. At its current level its warming effect is already ~80% effective. Any future Man-made CO2 emissions can now only make a minor contribution to Global temperature. Were CO2 emissions important, Gas-firing has half the CO2 emissions of Coal and about a quarter of imported biomass.
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/proportions-of-the-temperature-contributions-of-greenhouse-gasses-h2o-co2-n2o-ch4/
CO2 is essential Plant Food, its rise in the atmosphere has resulted in a massive increase in all plant and crop productivity worldwide. So, rising CO2 levels are reducing the need for agricultural land.
Having damaged its industrial base, the UK only produces ~0.8% of Global CO2 emissions. It is irrelevant compared to the growing CO2 output from the Developing world, particularly China and India.
Regarding the extensive nature of solar schemes, the rule of thumb is 2 hectares for 1 MW, meaning that a typical large scheme of 500 MW occupies 1000 ha of prime cropland.
The average wheat yield over the past ten years was 8 t/ha, or 8,000 kg/ha, so each new scheme would displace 8,000 t of wheat.
The government's food stats show average consumption of bread and cereals at about 1 kg/person/week, or ~50kg per year.
The displaced crops could have fed 8,000,000 kg / 50 kg/person = ~160,000 people.*
Developers do love to say how many homes their scheme can power. Perhaps they should also report how many people the land used could have fed?
If you look at the cereals section of Agriculture in the UK (AUK), you will see that we were a net exporter of wheat until about 2012, but since then import on net from the EU.
[ASTERISK: This figure is not true, because half of the wheat goes for animal feed. But still.]
You ask if the minister will agree that the “Plan” is off course……Mad Ed is a zealot and nothing is going to change course- the ultimate aim is to get rid of all man made emissions and both Mad Ed and his acolytes will push on regardless of cost- if nothing is manufactured, if no gas, oil, coal is burnt, no vehicular traffic allowed he will have succeeded- the collateral damage will off course be the reduction of the economy to an agrarian hellscape with a barter system in place of money, subsistence levels of poverty and mass emigration where those who can will get out while they can- we will become the boat people of the future, escaping a country that has collapsed but will be able to state one clear fact- Welcome to the UK, a Emissions Free Country, World Leader in Poverty.
The Lib Dems still want nuclear in the far north of Scotland. The infrastructure cannot cope with what we have.
Nuclear in the lowlands would OTOH be a good idea. A new Torness and Hunterston would provide secure power and strengthen the Scottish grid, reducing blackout risk. Deploying more nuclear in England would also make many wind farms and their associated pylons and costly interconnectors redundant, potentially saving huge costs.
I agree, in Torness, but not in the Highlands.
Stop building raptor cullers too.
My reaction to the amount of planned solar capacity is absolute bewilderment given that solar can produce close to name plate on good sunny days for a few hours, and that projected capacity is well over grid demand in summer. Much solar is beyond grid control being connected on the low voltage system.
It surely is a recipe for disaster, or am I missing something?
I agree.
Agreed and I would at least force developers to stick in 8hr batteries as well for all new build over 50kW if the economics dont work then dont build it.
I think they will do it anyway - at least for an optimised capacity - so long as they can secure grid connections. In Australia all planned utility solar projects now include a BESS. The CFD regime effectively allows double dipping for co-located storage. It will pay out for midday generation based on a low wholesale price, topping up to strike price. The power charges the battery at the low wholesale price, and then resells the output into the evening peak.
The optimal size of battery for duration and charge/discharge rate relative to MWp of solar will be much smaller in the UK than in Australia because it will be little use in winter.
The solar which is beyond grid control is rooftop and behind the meter, that's a lot of the current capacity, but will make up only a small share of future growth.
The enormous increase in capacity will be provided by grid scale, which will be dispatchable and respond to prices in real time. New CfDs do not pay out when price is negative.
When the day ahead price is negative. Plenty of wriggle room for manipulation
Any chance of a wee atricle describing the shenanigans we can expect here please David?
Organised bidding to ensure the day ahead price is £1?
Covered in this article.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/agile-octopus-freeloader-problem?utm_source=publication-search
NESO are pushing for all units above 1MW to be compelled to come into the balancing mechanism so they have better visibility of whats going on in the sub 50MW arena as its voluntary only currenty.
Thanks for your continuing great work in documenting all these dreadful swindles and lies.
As I scanned the facts and figures, thinking "Mmmm-hm! Yup! OK! Yes, more of the same..." I remembered a saying from the days of my youth, back when I first opened my brand-new copy of the Club of Rome's report "The Limits to Growth".
"Everything takes longer and costs more".
While especially applicable to big corporate projects and, especially, government work, I think that sums up everything that has been found out about " Net Zero".
I anticipate nothing but more of the same. Meanwhile Mr Miliband and the corporate profiteers continue to draw their pay, profits, dividends, etc. at the expense of the rest of us.
"Drivin' that train, high on cocaine;
Miliband you better watch your speed.
Trouble ahead, trouble behind,
And you know that notion just crossed my mind".
At the same time our military capabilities to protect all our investments both offshore and onshore remain decimated by decades of political interference, changing priorities and convoluted supply chains that try to address that before. Already Miliband’s sub-sea assets are compromised. So all that investment by the taxpayer is at significant risk should operations in Europe become more widely kinetic. And so we drift on ………………….
It’s not just about cost, time and quality. There is no engineering basis for the assertion that the grid can be 95% decarbonised (Miliband’s “plucked from thin air” concession from his original 100% fantasy) when relying heavily on weather-dependent renewables. Look at the national blackout which happened in Spain when inertia-less renewable sources reached 78% of electricity generation. Within a few years the Scottish grid is on course to be inertia-less and potentially unworkable without its two aged remaining large synchronous generators.
Beyond the wild claim for 95% grid decarbonisation, the latest Statistical Review of World Energy 2025 from the Energy Institute reveals that fossil fuels accounted for 79% of the 2024 UK energy mix, with the world as a whole at 86.6%. Not even their climate propagandist partner Ember could disguise the fact that these numbers represent an unbridgeable chasm from ever achieving Net Zero.
Further to risk of blackouts due to lack of grid inertia, here’s a post I’ve just come across on how, unbelievably, the Net Zero zealots of the European Commission are pressuring Spain to use less gas-fired electricity which they ramped up after their April 2025 national blackout to reduce the risk of another such outage: https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/eu-calls-on-spain-to-lower-gas-reliance-to-stabilize-power-grid.
The problem for Spain is they are supposed to ditch their cheap Russian LNG next year along with France, Belgium and Netherlands. There is a new interconnector project between Bilbao and mid France, pushed heavily by ENTSO-E after the apagón.
https://www.inelfe.eu/en/projects/bay-biscay
However it does nothing to solve the weak solar dominated grid in the South and potentially increases long distance transmission from there, requiring yet more grid and stabilisation, while undermining the French grid with more surplus solar to wreck prices. It's EU politics, not common sense.
Thank you David. Not a comment on your latest post, which speaks for itself, I thought you and fellow subscribers may be interested in this Ed Conway report on North Sea gas. At one point he raises the possibility that getting what we can out of the North Sea could reduce UK net carbon dioxide emissions compared with the track we're on, as it would reduce the need for liquified natural gas (LNG): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDr0Z19x3p0
To address your post, promising and promoting a low-cost electric future and setting about producing an expensive and unreliable system to do it isn't something I'd want on my CV, but I expect 'Edcase will get away with it.
How does CP2030 address the problem of the intermittency of renewables?
Backup from gas turbines, interconnectors.
Interconnectors aren't energy security as at times of system stress any countries ESO can take whatever action it wants to protect its system
David, as the UK energy situation becomes more and more precarious I wonder if there is value in high-profile people such as yourself, Kathryn Porter, prof. Dieter Helm forming common cause to redirect energy policy back onto the straight and narrow.
I suspect that only a large organisation with serious people at the top will gain media recognition and thence the necessary political traction.
Regards, John C.
Im pretty sure Clare Coutinho is reading or being briefed by them as her parliamentary questions are much more clever these days
There's quite a few senior Parliamentarians and their staff subscribe to Eigen Values.
Evenly spread across all parties?
Dieter Helm finally came over to the dark side recently by calling for the Climate Change Act to be repealed. He was also much more forthright about the problems of CP2030 and wider energy policy, and making suggestions for how to unwind the nonsense. I suspect he has realised that it is most important to ensure that those who oppose Miliband's policy are well informed to criticise it and to deal with the aftermath should they get into government.
I prefer to think of it as him leaving the dark side and seeing the light. He should have published his piece on May 4th.
OK wasn't against taking action against climate change but did espoused a far more sensible approach to achieving it and has been calling out government approach for years as being hairbrained. Anyhow he wont be on Milibands Xmas card list but I could see someone like Burnham approaching him.
There will be a step up in OWF this year as Dogger Bank A/B come on line although there is something seriously awry with the A farm which is coming up close to a two year slippage with output stalled at c400/1200MW. EA3/Sofia in build as well and potential for turbines to be commissioned later in 2026. Inch Cape is ready to commence turbine tower installation so likely to start generation in 2027. Hornsea 3 about to start foundations. These will add c11GW by end 2028 but the picture beyond there is uncertain as im not sure anything else thats been consented has taken FID so target is now comprehensively missed.
Fortunately other than Inch Cape the next wave all connect into English grid so wont be exposed to level of constraints that Scottish connected assets are exposed to. Also to get the B4/B5 boundary capacity increased there are significant outages required that is depressing the capacity of this boundary below 50% for next two years. This is primary driver for forecasted increased constraint costs over the next few years and maybe it will outturn lower as Scottish OWF is lagging behind.
Of course wont admit to it but his deindustrialisation plan is also helping him get to his target just ignore all the other consequences.
Those AR3 units are going to be economic basket cases
Dogger Bank A is the burning platform long stop date is 30 Nov 26. Its running well behind with commissioning after a couple of blade failures and I wonder if there having to go back and change out all the blades before a certain date. Im guessing they have to be fully commissioned to activate CfD although may suit them to have part of it withdrawn. Also there already on 2nd extension of OFTO transfer to 18 Dec 26 but there is preferred bidder nominated.
Others in AR3 have long stop dates out to 2029 so with indexing will be £65-70/MWhr by then which should be sufficient as they all have financing secured at lower rates.
The portion of Berwick Bank that gained a CFD has landfall near Torness.
https://www.sse.com/news-and-views/2026/01/sse-secures-cfd-for-berwick-bank-wind-farm/
More politics over what makes sense for the grid, but note the English landfall is at Blyth, convenient for direct export to Norway via NSL.
Not sure how long cheap financing lasts. Many of these projects will need to refinance. Trigger points might be commissioning (previously a milestone that de-risks the project and reduced the risk premium in rates), or after 5 or 10 years. Few secured life of project finance at premium long term rates that would now look like a good deal.
There not expecting FID until 2027 so that will well past 2030 before complete
I think it's convenient for NESO to blame constrained output on work to relieve the constraints, but adding 11GW plus a bunch of solar takes us further into the territory of more hours with larger surpluses over demand. They also have to ensure there is sufficient import capacity for Scotland to handle windless days, especially if the nightmare scenario of no Torness or Peterhead simultaneously occurs. Kathryn Porter recently discussed the Scottish problem in a speech she gave from her hospital bed (extraordinary dedication!) to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce.
https://youtu.be/LUR62JhthuY
I'm not sure that the grid has enough capacity to absorb the extra Dogger/Norfolk area generation: it's why they are desperate to build the huge East Anglia Green projects from Norwich and Sizewell (effectively the UK end of the LionLink interconnector to the Netherlands) to Tilbury, and the link to Kent that goes to the NEMO interconnector. These are all aimed at trying to export surplus wind which will probably be unwanted because of similar EU investment.
AR3/4 wind farms have very low strike prices, which means they will operate initially on a merchant basis, getting market price for their output until tranche by tranche Long Stop dates loom, forcing either commencement or termination of the CFDs. They will be first in line to curtail - any time when prices are negative they get no subsidy under the CFD anyway - and otherwise they face little (with the CFD) or no (without) loss of subsidy, and paid curtailment revenues will be low because of increased competition. They may also suffer grid constraint curtailment, ending up much like Seagreen. It's possible that some of these projects end up with so little revenue that they go bankrupt.
Short term grid can absorb Dogger Bank/Sofia but once the EGLs are commissioned things will become a bit more challenging on high wind days for sure even in Winter.
Good point about negative prices and I guess that could be contributor to forcing up strike prices from AR7 onwards to give themselves additional buffer. Mind you with electrification falling well behind demand is going to suppressed and much higher risk of negative prices.
Even if not very knowledgeable about power and contracts...another very readable and well researched Article. The graphs showing the stark 'reality gaps' ....Milliband doesn't care to notice even if an intelligent question came his way in the HoC. He would mount his Net Zero high horse and proclaim that the UK has led the world on 'Clean Green Energy', plaudits all round for him.....at the same as the UK's industrial base is reduced to a pile of rubble, and power supply becomes ever more 'whimsical'.
Don't worry - in Milliband's imaginary world all will be well. We can all rest assured that, as we watch our fellow citizens dying of the cold and from a lack of clean water, we can feel comforted that they died for the greater good. After all, Saving The Planet From The Weather is the cause Milliband knows is worth persuing as any price (not that he pays the price). I find it all absolutely terrifying - whatever happened to Environmentalism being about saving the trees and the birds and the whales? Where is the energy going to come from? We are sitting on an island of coal aren't we? Nobody is going to sell us their energy in a future where nobody talks to Russians or Iranians and nobody digs up coal. Absolutely terrifying
Yet another excellent analysis David, and another big Thank You for all you are doing.
Your dogged determination to extract the truth from amongst the relentless outpourings of utter garbage being dished out by our government 'bodies' and renewables industry spokespeople is truly remarkable and I sincerely hope your consistently sane overviews of all of this Net Zero nonsense will eventually gain traction with 'people in power' and lead to the complete reversal of policy that is so desperately needed in the UK.
I'm currently up to my neck compiling yet another objection to yet another proposal for yet another large-scale wind farm (they're coming at us from all directions now) that has been submitted near where I live in the stunningly beautiful, but incredibly vulnerable, environmentally sensitive, Cambrian Mountains area of Wales and I've decided I needed a break from it all and have treated myself to a bit of light relief by reading your latest post!
I know it may appear a bit strange for me to say that I gain relief from reading about even more of the damaging repercussions connected to Net Zero ideology, but it does give me the encouragement to keep on going with the thankless task of trying to tackle a planning system that has been deliberately engineered to overwhelmingly favour the granting of permission for large-scale intermittent wind and solar schemes throughout rural Wales, despite the huge extent and variety of environmental damages they are known to inflict.
It helps enormously for me to see that there are people 'out in the ether' who also have big problems with this crazy push towards the so-called 'decarbonisation' of our national electricity generation and grid system and, more importantly, that they have the expertise and willingness to devote their own time towards explaining clearly and concisely exactly what those problems are to others.
This sharing of valuable knowledge is incredibly reassuring for me as it provides firm evidence that there is absolutely nothing wrong with my powers of understanding and reasoning - I'm not wrong to take the stance I have, nor is it me that has taken leave of my senses.
I am perfectly justified in saying that there is absolutely nothing 'good' about Net Zero policy and it doesn't matter which way you try to look at it, it will never achieve any of the 'tackling of climate change' benefits that the climate doomsters keep parroting-on about.
I wonder if that makes me an heretic though?
Or should I be locked up for daring to speak out against the 'official narrative'?
Oh well...I'd better get back to the 'blocker' grindstone again. Official deadlines for 'submissions' won't wait for anyone......(a bit like Net Zero targets)
Wish me (and the threatened Welsh landscapes, wildlife, ecosystems, stressed-out residents, etc., etc,) pob lwc!