A good and clear article that needs to be repeated in UK quality media such as the Times and Daily Telegraph, maybe the Mail as well. That will help get the message out to the general public and, hopefully, hasten this appalling government’s downfall.
Thank you for an excellent article showing the demise of offshore wind in numbers. I wonder if the costs of building wind farms in this hostile environment, in isolation an impressive engineering feat, were underestimated due to optimism. That wouldn't be a first.
Now this is not a defence of wind energy, but I have wondered whether the taxpayer would have been better off funding only the construction costs (plus profit), and harvesting the "free energy", paying on an ongoing basis only for essential maintenance. Using high energy prices as a bribe leaves the lied-to taxpayer on the hook for years to come. In the end, none of this matters - the deciding factor is the inability of politicians ever to admit a mistake.
I also wonder whether Danish taxpayers have been committed by their government to buying a pile of wind-up gramophones.
Follow the money- the whole of Net Zero is just a scam that the UK taxpayer is funding. Totally corrupt and wholly against the interest of the British people, and particularly punitive on the poor.
Makes you wonder what ‘experts’ thought deployment costs would come down, that subsidies would come down, and electricity prices from something with zero fuel costs would be lower.
The era of low interest rates was a bubble where renewables appeared ‘cheap’ The reality now strikes and yet the subsidies rise. CfD’s continue even though there are rumours they were only ever intended to be a short term requirement to incentivise ‘the market’
The level of support for low-carbon generation will be set according to a series of principles, foremost amongst which is the need to deliver decarbonisation whilst minimising costs to consumers. The Government’s position remains that the best way to do this in the long term is through competitive price setting, but until market conditions can support such processes, prices for all low-carbon technologies will be set administratively or through negotiation.
During Stage 1 (to 2017) – for renewable technologies the initial process will be similar to that used for the most recent Renewables Obligation banding review, giving visibility of prices for a five-year period to enable planning. Strike prices for early stage CCS projects (including those supported under the UK CCS Commercialisation Programme) and nuclear projects will be determined through cost, risk and price discovery processes and negotiation.
Stage 2 (2017-2020s) – as technologies and the market begin to mature, the Government intends to begin to move to a competitive price discovery for specific technologies. For renewable technologies deploying after 2020 it is expected this may begin as soon as 2017.
Stage 3 (2020s) – technologies and the market have matured sufficiently for Government to move to technology-neutral competitive price setting.
Stage 4 (late 2020s and beyond) – CfDs no longer needed, as market sufficient to drive competition.
For reference the core document is:
Planning our electric future: a White Paper for secure, affordable and low‑carbon electricity
No one will ever build an offshore wind farm that competes in an open market. When the wind is blowing, such a wind farm will make very little because prices will be too low. When the wind isn't blowing, the wind farm won't make any money because it isn't producing anything. The Goldilocks spot where the wind is just right rarely exists.
I think the problem is that our politicians are functionally illiterate in science and engineering - they are all politics/history etc graduates. 'Free' energy does not exist, low density energy harvesting such as wind and solar is expensive and wasteful, the ROEl is absurd and the necessary enhancements to the grid drastically reduce the efficacy and stability of the grid.
None of this is being explained to the public. On the demand side the vast and unchecked expansion of data centres, hoovering up water and electricity is nuts . I have just returned from rural Ireland where the electricity network falls over with increasing regularity - caused in part I believe by up to the fifth of their grid being sucked up by data centres.
Miliband is an Oxford PPE graduate, but he did double Maths, Physics and English at A level so you might think he had some basic numeracy and rudimentary understanding of engineering.
Hi David, another great article. I would be very interested to see a similar detailed analysis for Cubico Sustainable Investments who have just applied for 17x180m turbines as an extension to Scout Moor, a 26 turbine windfarm between Rochdale and Rossendale. From what we can gather they are very cagey about committing to a specific turbine but are desperate to keep below the 100MW limit for NSIPs. They are also putting up a huge met mast to provide wind data so that they can get financing from the wind turbine manufacturer. I haven’t come across this before. It’s all very odd. This will be the first major onshore windfarm to go for council approval in England since the moratorium. Hence may be seen as a significant test case. You can find out more at https://saynotoscoutmoor2.org.uk.
Perhaps a little late to comment, but our experience in Scotland — planning is devolved — is that planning law, which should be the public’s means of democratic control of land use, is fundamentally broken. When developments are in receipt of subsidy there should be an obligation to open the books; there isn’t. There should be an obligation to compensate those who suffer material financial damage; there isn’t. There should be an obligation to consider the whole impact of a project, including export lines, roads, quarrying etc; there isn’t. And there should be an obligation to disclose the basis of design — which would at least allow the public to comment on what they see as improvements; needless to say, there isn’t.
I’m trying to kick start discussion of this ahead of next year’s Holyrood elections. Having it spoken of in England too would be a great help.
Yes - the planning system is broken badly here in England. We have just been given 30 days to response to an application with over 200 extensive technical documents. We would then get 5 minutes to speak against it at a planning meeting. It’s a sick joke.
Here’s our latest press release from our campaign to fight Cubico and Scout Moor 2:
To some extent you’re lucky that the project is going through local planning, you can at least engage with your local councillors. If you can persuade them to reject it, the developer will likely appeal, thus triggering a planning enquiry. That gives more time to pull objections together. My only, forlorn suggestion is to focus on matters that planning law accepts as legitimate. One is decommissioning and site restoration at end of life. If it’s not done, the cost (under environmental protection legislation) falls on the council. Councils can impose terms (section ? Agreements — its s.75 in Scotland, something different in England) to protect the public purse. You should push your councillors hard to impose the severest possible regime, both technical and financial. Councils have neither the manpower nor technical expertise, so seek a requirement that the requirements be evaluated by an independent environmental consultant and civil engineering contractor appointed by the council, but paid for by the developer; that the cost is secured from day one using standby letters of credit from a UK bank at least A+ rated; and that the arrangements and costings are reviewed annually, at the developers expense. Another tack is to make sure that planning consent is in principle only, not final unless and until the applicant can demonstrate the technical and financial capability to complete the project. This makes it harder for a Mickey Mouse outfit to work up a project to be sold on. The purchaser inevitable want to change the design, which is an easier process than initial consent. Also try to make sure that the landowner is jointly and severally liable for decommissioning costs and that any assignment of rights from the applicant, or transfer of beneficial ownership of the applicant need council approval.
The best way to stop developments is to make them financially unattractive.
Thanks David. Afraid both councils are controlled by Labour and on the face of it prepared to go ahead at any cost to the environment. We are on top of all the planning issues but both councils are tied into the climate emergency and therefore will invoke exceptional circumstances as they have just done for the BESS application by the same developer. It’s clear this get out clause will be used again. That said we will of course plough ahead on the merits of planning policy but our best bet may be to get in called in, which we have requested.
Investors in the older offshore wind farms are doing well. Banks that lent the money too. However, Orsted sold off stakes in its more lucrative projects to fund the likes of Hornsea 2 & 3 and now is struggling to offload stakes in its newer projects.
The British electricity user is saddled with paying for the offshore wind boondoggle, but it only gets worse going forward.
As more wind power is installed, the times when wind generation exceeds supply become more frequent. More power will be wasted or sold at a loss via interconnectors to the rest of Europe.
If this is allowed to carry on, electricity prices will double or triple from their existing very high levels.
I think you mean that wind farms will be paid to not deliver more power, and/or the grid has to dump it.
On the bright side, in the USA, Kennebec copper mine has benefited. The last stage of coppermining is electroplating every atom of copper out of solution. Kennebec can accept a lot of dumped power from wind and solar in that operation. It's one of the few industrial applications that can do well with massive surges. They can get a range from nearly free power in these surges to getting paid to accept it. (I am being a bit facetious here about the bright side, but it's real.)
The demand for copper from net-zero infrastructure is mind boggling. I'll post the report cite to David above.
Michaux S. (2024) Estimation of the quantity of metals to phase out fossil fuels in a full system replacement, compared to mineral resources. Technical report Bulletin 416 Special Edition, Geological Survey of Finland. http://dx.doi.org/10.30440/bt416
The quantity of copper required for net-zero infrastructure is mind boggling. Perhaps doable by harvesting copper asteroids, but that is a ways off and global copper ore is much lower quality than it used to be. The amount of energy require to refine copper is very high and rising. And copper is just one metal.
If you haven't run across BF Randall, here you go.
PS - Did you know that someone made the decision way back to use SF6 as lubricant in windmills? It's very stable, but it's also one of the strongest, longest-lived greenhouse gases that exists when it gets loose. Think that SF6 is removed/sequestered when a windmill is decommissioned? Or when one burns?
With Hornsea 4's CFD having been formally terminated at the end of July, Ørsted are now formally wallied from applying for new projects in AR7. That means less competition and higher clearing prices. Not that they will worry about that in their present condition.
They aren't the only one backing away from further investment. RWE are trying to sell stakes in their North Sea portfolio. Equinor are equivocal about further investment. Vattenfall, who cancelled Norfolk Boreas from AR4, are in no hurry to join the fray.
Could we end up like AR5 - Olé-biscuit-barrel-ftang-ftang - no bids at all?
Maybe Miliband will buy it?
But using our money I suspect!
Of course. the only money Government has is OPM!
It would be a disaster if he got GB Energy to take a stake
A good and clear article that needs to be repeated in UK quality media such as the Times and Daily Telegraph, maybe the Mail as well. That will help get the message out to the general public and, hopefully, hasten this appalling government’s downfall.
Thank you for an excellent article showing the demise of offshore wind in numbers. I wonder if the costs of building wind farms in this hostile environment, in isolation an impressive engineering feat, were underestimated due to optimism. That wouldn't be a first.
Now this is not a defence of wind energy, but I have wondered whether the taxpayer would have been better off funding only the construction costs (plus profit), and harvesting the "free energy", paying on an ongoing basis only for essential maintenance. Using high energy prices as a bribe leaves the lied-to taxpayer on the hook for years to come. In the end, none of this matters - the deciding factor is the inability of politicians ever to admit a mistake.
I also wonder whether Danish taxpayers have been committed by their government to buying a pile of wind-up gramophones.
Follow the money- the whole of Net Zero is just a scam that the UK taxpayer is funding. Totally corrupt and wholly against the interest of the British people, and particularly punitive on the poor.
.......and particularly punitive on the poor, whose numbers will swell.
Makes you wonder what ‘experts’ thought deployment costs would come down, that subsidies would come down, and electricity prices from something with zero fuel costs would be lower.
The era of low interest rates was a bubble where renewables appeared ‘cheap’ The reality now strikes and yet the subsidies rise. CfD’s continue even though there are rumours they were only ever intended to be a short term requirement to incentivise ‘the market’
Page 8 of this document for instance
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a78e595ed915d042206633d/5358-annex-b-feedin-tariff-with-contracts-for-differe.pdf
The level of support for low-carbon generation will be set according to a series of principles, foremost amongst which is the need to deliver decarbonisation whilst minimising costs to consumers. The Government’s position remains that the best way to do this in the long term is through competitive price setting, but until market conditions can support such processes, prices for all low-carbon technologies will be set administratively or through negotiation.
During Stage 1 (to 2017) – for renewable technologies the initial process will be similar to that used for the most recent Renewables Obligation banding review, giving visibility of prices for a five-year period to enable planning. Strike prices for early stage CCS projects (including those supported under the UK CCS Commercialisation Programme) and nuclear projects will be determined through cost, risk and price discovery processes and negotiation.
Stage 2 (2017-2020s) – as technologies and the market begin to mature, the Government intends to begin to move to a competitive price discovery for specific technologies. For renewable technologies deploying after 2020 it is expected this may begin as soon as 2017.
Stage 3 (2020s) – technologies and the market have matured sufficiently for Government to move to technology-neutral competitive price setting.
Stage 4 (late 2020s and beyond) – CfDs no longer needed, as market sufficient to drive competition.
For reference the core document is:
Planning our electric future: a White Paper for secure, affordable and low‑carbon electricity
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a78b0dce5274a2acd1890be/2176-emr-white-paper.pdf
No one will ever build an offshore wind farm that competes in an open market. When the wind is blowing, such a wind farm will make very little because prices will be too low. When the wind isn't blowing, the wind farm won't make any money because it isn't producing anything. The Goldilocks spot where the wind is just right rarely exists.
I think the problem is that our politicians are functionally illiterate in science and engineering - they are all politics/history etc graduates. 'Free' energy does not exist, low density energy harvesting such as wind and solar is expensive and wasteful, the ROEl is absurd and the necessary enhancements to the grid drastically reduce the efficacy and stability of the grid.
None of this is being explained to the public. On the demand side the vast and unchecked expansion of data centres, hoovering up water and electricity is nuts . I have just returned from rural Ireland where the electricity network falls over with increasing regularity - caused in part I believe by up to the fifth of their grid being sucked up by data centres.
Add economics to their list of illiteracies.
TANSTAAFL: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
They might be history graduates, but: "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.", George Santayana
Miliband is an Oxford PPE graduate, but he did double Maths, Physics and English at A level so you might think he had some basic numeracy and rudimentary understanding of engineering.
Hi David, another great article. I would be very interested to see a similar detailed analysis for Cubico Sustainable Investments who have just applied for 17x180m turbines as an extension to Scout Moor, a 26 turbine windfarm between Rochdale and Rossendale. From what we can gather they are very cagey about committing to a specific turbine but are desperate to keep below the 100MW limit for NSIPs. They are also putting up a huge met mast to provide wind data so that they can get financing from the wind turbine manufacturer. I haven’t come across this before. It’s all very odd. This will be the first major onshore windfarm to go for council approval in England since the moratorium. Hence may be seen as a significant test case. You can find out more at https://saynotoscoutmoor2.org.uk.
Perhaps a little late to comment, but our experience in Scotland — planning is devolved — is that planning law, which should be the public’s means of democratic control of land use, is fundamentally broken. When developments are in receipt of subsidy there should be an obligation to open the books; there isn’t. There should be an obligation to compensate those who suffer material financial damage; there isn’t. There should be an obligation to consider the whole impact of a project, including export lines, roads, quarrying etc; there isn’t. And there should be an obligation to disclose the basis of design — which would at least allow the public to comment on what they see as improvements; needless to say, there isn’t.
I’m trying to kick start discussion of this ahead of next year’s Holyrood elections. Having it spoken of in England too would be a great help.
Yes - the planning system is broken badly here in England. We have just been given 30 days to response to an application with over 200 extensive technical documents. We would then get 5 minutes to speak against it at a planning meeting. It’s a sick joke.
Here’s our latest press release from our campaign to fight Cubico and Scout Moor 2:
https://saynotoscoutmoor2.org.uk/august-2025-update/
To some extent you’re lucky that the project is going through local planning, you can at least engage with your local councillors. If you can persuade them to reject it, the developer will likely appeal, thus triggering a planning enquiry. That gives more time to pull objections together. My only, forlorn suggestion is to focus on matters that planning law accepts as legitimate. One is decommissioning and site restoration at end of life. If it’s not done, the cost (under environmental protection legislation) falls on the council. Councils can impose terms (section ? Agreements — its s.75 in Scotland, something different in England) to protect the public purse. You should push your councillors hard to impose the severest possible regime, both technical and financial. Councils have neither the manpower nor technical expertise, so seek a requirement that the requirements be evaluated by an independent environmental consultant and civil engineering contractor appointed by the council, but paid for by the developer; that the cost is secured from day one using standby letters of credit from a UK bank at least A+ rated; and that the arrangements and costings are reviewed annually, at the developers expense. Another tack is to make sure that planning consent is in principle only, not final unless and until the applicant can demonstrate the technical and financial capability to complete the project. This makes it harder for a Mickey Mouse outfit to work up a project to be sold on. The purchaser inevitable want to change the design, which is an easier process than initial consent. Also try to make sure that the landowner is jointly and severally liable for decommissioning costs and that any assignment of rights from the applicant, or transfer of beneficial ownership of the applicant need council approval.
The best way to stop developments is to make them financially unattractive.
Thanks David. Afraid both councils are controlled by Labour and on the face of it prepared to go ahead at any cost to the environment. We are on top of all the planning issues but both councils are tied into the climate emergency and therefore will invoke exceptional circumstances as they have just done for the BESS application by the same developer. It’s clear this get out clause will be used again. That said we will of course plough ahead on the merits of planning policy but our best bet may be to get in called in, which we have requested.
Someone is making money out of this. The quedtion is who?
Or is this one of those financial 'black holes' we are so often told of?
Investors in the older offshore wind farms are doing well. Banks that lent the money too. However, Orsted sold off stakes in its more lucrative projects to fund the likes of Hornsea 2 & 3 and now is struggling to offload stakes in its newer projects.
But they do well because of contracts that pay them to not deliver power.
The British electricity user is saddled with paying for the offshore wind boondoggle, but it only gets worse going forward.
As more wind power is installed, the times when wind generation exceeds supply become more frequent. More power will be wasted or sold at a loss via interconnectors to the rest of Europe.
If this is allowed to carry on, electricity prices will double or triple from their existing very high levels.
I think you mean that wind farms will be paid to not deliver more power, and/or the grid has to dump it.
On the bright side, in the USA, Kennebec copper mine has benefited. The last stage of coppermining is electroplating every atom of copper out of solution. Kennebec can accept a lot of dumped power from wind and solar in that operation. It's one of the few industrial applications that can do well with massive surges. They can get a range from nearly free power in these surges to getting paid to accept it. (I am being a bit facetious here about the bright side, but it's real.)
The demand for copper from net-zero infrastructure is mind boggling. I'll post the report cite to David above.
Interesting.
Copper refineries operate with continuous stable power 24/7.
Good point "As more wind power is installed, the times when wind generation exceeds supply become more frequent."
David, Have you seen Michaux's report?
Michaux S. (2024) Estimation of the quantity of metals to phase out fossil fuels in a full system replacement, compared to mineral resources. Technical report Bulletin 416 Special Edition, Geological Survey of Finland. http://dx.doi.org/10.30440/bt416
The quantity of copper required for net-zero infrastructure is mind boggling. Perhaps doable by harvesting copper asteroids, but that is a ways off and global copper ore is much lower quality than it used to be. The amount of energy require to refine copper is very high and rising. And copper is just one metal.
If you haven't run across BF Randall, here you go.
COPPER: Out of Touch with Reality
https://bfrandall.substack.com/p/copper
PS - Did you know that someone made the decision way back to use SF6 as lubricant in windmills? It's very stable, but it's also one of the strongest, longest-lived greenhouse gases that exists when it gets loose. Think that SF6 is removed/sequestered when a windmill is decommissioned? Or when one burns?
Yes, I am familiar with Michaux. And BF Randall
I wrote about copper recently.
https://open.substack.com/pub/davidturver/p/silver-copper-will-derail-net-zero-fantasy?r=nhgn1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
With Hornsea 4's CFD having been formally terminated at the end of July, Ørsted are now formally wallied from applying for new projects in AR7. That means less competition and higher clearing prices. Not that they will worry about that in their present condition.
They aren't the only one backing away from further investment. RWE are trying to sell stakes in their North Sea portfolio. Equinor are equivocal about further investment. Vattenfall, who cancelled Norfolk Boreas from AR4, are in no hurry to join the fray.
Could we end up like AR5 - Olé-biscuit-barrel-ftang-ftang - no bids at all?
Orsted have been issued a stop order on their offshore Revolution Wind project in America. What will this mean for its upcoming rights issue?
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2025/08/23/breaking-trump-administration-stops-construction-on-80-pct-complete-offshore-wind-farm/