Given this misrepresentation and outright decceit, why can we not force them to acknowledge them and re-work the data to be accurate?
The state could not then argue that net zero/climate change is economically viable. It would open them up to acknowledging their decisions were damaging and unworkable, based on a false premise.
Ah, hang on. I've answered my own question. While such abuses exist for political gain we're sunk. I is indicative of just how perverted the tax scam of climate change is that statistical bodies lie so to keep the cash flowing in.
I hope that at some point you will bring Energy Storage into the conversation. Storage is a critical component of the plan to eliminate High-Carbon generation.
The capacity of energy storage needed (as GWh) is vastly under estimated. It is a function of Capacity Factors which are affected by seasonal weather.
The Capital cost of storage is significant. Also, the LCOS is high due to it's intermittent utilization over the year. This can be seen as storage uses arbitage to achieve positive economics (ROI)
Actually i will wager that if the CEGB had been given the task to decarbonise the grid it would have done a far better job of ensuring transmission was in place before generators were built. aka go back to the 50/60's there was never a power stn that couldn't deliver full output because of grid constraints. The mess we are in now is because they believe there is a market solution there isn't thats why we need subsidies so you might as well just plan it yourself as it would have costs less than the overly complex system we have created. Of course Walter Marshall would have actually told them we just need to go full nuclear!
It’s shocking that we are faced with such blatant lying by the CCC. Writing to your MP about it would get you nowhere (Reform MPs excepted), just a fobbing off if they bother to reply at all.
Apart from the fact that these exorbitant costs are wrecking the economy, the entire ramshackle Heath Robinson network (see this report by Kathryn Porter: https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/30/high-wind-and-forecasting-errors-cause-havoc-on-the-gb-grid/) of non-synchronous so-called renewables and interconnectors is liable to collapse at any time, as happened a few weeks ago in Spain, and has happened before on a smaller scale here in the UK. Either that or we will run out of supply in a midwinter Dunkelflaute (no wind, no sun) when power is needed most.
The recent Spain blackout and public discussion of the importance of grid inertia prompted me to investigate what the late Chief Scientist Sir David Mackay had to say about it in his 2008 opus "Renewable Energy - without the hot air". The answer is nothing! The word "inertia" is never mentioned in his 383-page ebook: https://www.inference.org.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf.
If Professor Mackay (a scientist, not an engineer) was blissfully unaware of the fundamental incompatibility of non-synchronous wind and solar with how the grid was designed to operate, you can be sure that the climate activists and politicians were equally ignorant, and mostly still are.
What a mess, to have rank amateur charlatans thinking they can redesign our energy infrastructure, with the incumbent professionals cowed into keeping schtum or face the sack.
Mackay's aims, as he states in the opening two sentences of 'Without the Hot Air' are:- "I’m concerned about cutting UK emissions of twaddle – twaddle about sustainable energy. Everyone says getting off fossil fuels is important, and we’re all encouraged to “make a difference,” but many of the things that allegedly make a difference don’t add up."
Perhaps he thought grid transmission stability issues were less significant (and technically more complex to explain) than exposing the limits of scaling up the renewable energy harvesting infrastructure itself? Plus he already had a relatively long and complex book anyway to attempt to deliver his message as clearly as possible!
I checked back. He covered Dunkelflaute but failed to appreciate that the storage requirement was not determined by just one longish partial lull (he came up with 1.2TWh which is 2 orders of magnitude too small), and he looked at maximum ramp rates based on Irish 15 minute data. He didn't dig further, apparently reassured by a website called yes2wind (!) that at a national level fluctuations are smoothed out.
Of course SEWTHA dates from 2008 and he died in 2016.
By his final interview he had concluded that renewables would not work for the UK and advocated a nuclear dominated system. I think that the many explorations and debates at Energy Matters were important in changing his mind. He occasionally commented there, and was evidently a keen reader.
I think you are right. MacKay was a “greenie” at heart but his head told him that the renewables route was impossible. Leo Smith who set up Gridwatch was a colleague of his at Cambridge and has said the same.
I fear that the general public will not wake up fully until we start to experience regular power cuts. Scotland will soon be very vulnerable due to lack of grid inertia when the last nuclear power station (Torness) is closed down for good in 2030. The only CCGT plant of any significance in Scotland is Peterhead, due to be replaced in 2027 by a lower-capacity Carbon Capture and Storage gas plant, if that ever works. Apart from that, it’s just some hydro to provide short-term grid inertia.
The other thing the general public might notice is Miliband’s year-on-year abject failure to progress on his target of 95% grid decarbonisation by 2030. I have a theory that grid decarbonisation is not feasible beyond maybe 50% due to the inertia problem. It was noticeable that Spain was boasting of running the grid entirely on renewables including hydro (wind 46%, solar PV 27%) shortly before their spectacular grid collapse, since when they have curtailed wind and solar to a much lower penetration. I fumbled my way towards a “proof” that there is a fundamental limit to grid decarbonisation in this email to my MP (he didn’t reply): https://metatron.substack.com/p/climate-change-and-the-corruption.
The other thing that would spike the establishment’s narrative of supposed man-made global warming and catch the attention of the general public is if we are suddenly faced with global cooling. Unfortunately, all the corrupt, retrospectively-adjusted establishment temperature series such as NASA's GISTEMP have been faked to show relentlessly rising global temperatures, with the latest temperatures easing off only slightly: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/. Such faked graphs are used by climate propagandists to say things like “as global temperatures continue to rise”.
In contrast, the uncorrupted UAH temperature series shows a completely different picture of a series of transient natural ENSO spikes since 1998 with the current unprecedented natural spike slowly dissipating, caused by the massive Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption which the establishment hides from the general public: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2025_v6.1_20x9-1-scaled.jpg
It’s too complicated for the public to understand, remember competition has been difficult for them hence the proliferation of price comparison sites. They do not, why should they, understand the structure of the competitive market nor how that impacts the prices on a regional level and thus themselves. None of the organisations charged with representing them and assisting them have actually done so or even explained how supply works in nice easy steps. When the power goes off the public will be fed the usual bs by the usual suspects and some suitable company will be found probably British Gas to blame. The public will believe that the industry as a whole is lying to them.
Wrote a reply but substack seems to have lost it. If we keep wasting resources on this dead end we will never reach a post scarcity civilisation and we also won't reach net zero (whatever you think about that). I wrote about what I think we should be doing, before natural gas runs out over here: https://open.substack.com/pub/scouch1/p/the-strategic-energy-transition-manifesto
Thanks for the offer. I've been investing for 35 years though starting out in a private office for some very old money so I'm good. Good luck with the venture though people struggle to understand money itself let alone the various markets 😅
Good morning Oscar. Just so you know, if you click on the three dots at the right hand end of the line with your name, you should be able to edit your comment, should you wish.
Clear your browser's 'substack' cache maybe quit and restart the browser, and / or try restating your computer - fixed 'substack' rendering / options etc. issues for me :-)
Does anyone know if the capital costs of offshore wind developments include the offshore transmission assets ie. the wind farm to shore cables and associated switchgear?
I know that although these are built by the developers they are then “transferred” to separate entities at a value and their tariffs (transmission charges) tendered separately.
Not insubstantial sums that will only increase as more remote assets are developed.
The developer initially fund the offshore transmission assets but these are then sold to a third party by OFGEM and they will then make an adjustment to their capital base. So you do need to make sure that element is included as they are hefty sums and add quite a few £'s/MW. As an aside the new owners get paid an annual fee for usage which is adding a fair chunk onto TNUoS charges now as more are connected.
Thank you David. Not to be outdone by the Climate Change Committee, I offer a complete fantasy of my own. When I sweep to power, the CCC will be gone and there will be no more public investment in wind and solar. I shall focus on new gas plant, hoping against hope to replace the current ageing plant before the lights go out. The principal focal point will be new nuclear plant on existing sites, cloned under licence from Korea, hoping to win the race against existing wind power reaching the end of its life. The Office for Nuclear Regulation will be instructed to give rapid approval or take to their bicycles.
I shall enjoy a few years of absolute power, while aiming to retain my humility.
Hunterston apparently has the extra land space for a new nuclear power station that could be built while the old shut-down plants continue their dismantling process. The irony is that the new plant could be built, on a Korean construction timeline, in far less time than the painfully laborious dismantling.
SNP boss John Swinney thinks he is “holier than thou” in stating that retired Scottish nuclear power stations will not be replaced. He’s an ideologue who hasn’t got a clue. How is Scotland going to avoid repeated Spanish-type national blackouts when the only source of vital inertia connected to the Scottish grid is the modest-capacity Peterhead CGCT plant and piddling amounts of hydro? What will happen when Peterhead is offline for essential maintenance? See my comment below for details: https://open.substack.com/pub/davidturver/p/the-ccc-reveal-their-errors?r=8t7a0&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=123906705.
Thinking about these projects in simple terms - you have equipment cost and development costs.
The early stage project needed to be competent so we’re done where development costs (depth, distance, connection etc) were simplest and thereby cheapest.
As the projects grow they invariably have to move to more expensive development area, increasing that element of the cost even if the capital for the visible turbine or solar panel falls.
The balance of these falling turbine/solar panel costs vs rising development costs a key determinant of cost pathway.
I tend to agree that the balance has shifted to development costs dominating and thereby increasing cost profiles over time.
Then there is cost of capital as you say, which from 2008-2022 - to quote Peter Zeihan- was so low that even pigs could fly.
Shallow water opportunities are pretty well exhausted if they all get built and thats a big if so they need to move to floating solutions to harvest the deep water wind opportunity which is good and will improve load factor but at an eyewatering cost.
Not disagreeing. I was trying to demonstrate that it is possible the cost of one part of a system to fall, yet the cost of the full system to rise substantially. Something that is generally glossed over when groups push the “learning by doing” and “scale lowers costs” arguments.
Vestas and Siemens already build nacelles on a production line basis but that didn't stop them losing a shed load of money. They've both shied away from bigger is better as well for the time being which was part of the cost reduction strategy ie less foundations, towers, array cables etc. The Chinese haven't yet so maybe they will come to the rescue. Whoever it is it wont be UK green jobs.
The solution is to replace it by a red team that does what David has done here across all their output - show up its false assumptions as basically lies - and then bury it, with the BBC required to report the truth in detail, and a televised trial of their reporters conducted by a truth commission. Sackcloth and ashes optional extras.
It's the grey matter (David) meets grey anti-matter (CCC) situation. Huge explosion releasing even more energy than nuclear fusion! Good news: the CCC will disappear completely. Bad news: David won't survive the encounter!
Given this misrepresentation and outright decceit, why can we not force them to acknowledge them and re-work the data to be accurate?
The state could not then argue that net zero/climate change is economically viable. It would open them up to acknowledging their decisions were damaging and unworkable, based on a false premise.
Ah, hang on. I've answered my own question. While such abuses exist for political gain we're sunk. I is indicative of just how perverted the tax scam of climate change is that statistical bodies lie so to keep the cash flowing in.
I call it another Greenwish.
Great Analysis as usual
I hope that at some point you will bring Energy Storage into the conversation. Storage is a critical component of the plan to eliminate High-Carbon generation.
The capacity of energy storage needed (as GWh) is vastly under estimated. It is a function of Capacity Factors which are affected by seasonal weather.
The Capital cost of storage is significant. Also, the LCOS is high due to it's intermittent utilization over the year. This can be seen as storage uses arbitage to achieve positive economics (ROI)
I did that here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/davidturver/p/royal-society-large-electricity-storage-report?r=nhgn1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I asked ChatGPT what the errors are in the CCC’s seventh carbon budget. Its answer is summarised here:
Issue/Criticism:
Territorial-only accounting -
Ignores global supply-chain emissions
CCS/storage estimation
Underestimates real requirements
Cost projections
Assumes overly optimistic tech savings
Tech pricing assumptions
Doesn’t reflect current rising costs
Equity in burden-sharing
Not aligned with Paris Agreement’s equity principles
Governance transparency
Potential conflicts of interest among CCC leadership
Insufficient ambition
Falls short of IPCC-aligned emission cut urgency
Price discovery should be the job of the market. We are discovering again that central planning committees don’t do a good job.
Actually i will wager that if the CEGB had been given the task to decarbonise the grid it would have done a far better job of ensuring transmission was in place before generators were built. aka go back to the 50/60's there was never a power stn that couldn't deliver full output because of grid constraints. The mess we are in now is because they believe there is a market solution there isn't thats why we need subsidies so you might as well just plan it yourself as it would have costs less than the overly complex system we have created. Of course Walter Marshall would have actually told them we just need to go full nuclear!
It’s shocking that we are faced with such blatant lying by the CCC. Writing to your MP about it would get you nowhere (Reform MPs excepted), just a fobbing off if they bother to reply at all.
Apart from the fact that these exorbitant costs are wrecking the economy, the entire ramshackle Heath Robinson network (see this report by Kathryn Porter: https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/30/high-wind-and-forecasting-errors-cause-havoc-on-the-gb-grid/) of non-synchronous so-called renewables and interconnectors is liable to collapse at any time, as happened a few weeks ago in Spain, and has happened before on a smaller scale here in the UK. Either that or we will run out of supply in a midwinter Dunkelflaute (no wind, no sun) when power is needed most.
The recent Spain blackout and public discussion of the importance of grid inertia prompted me to investigate what the late Chief Scientist Sir David Mackay had to say about it in his 2008 opus "Renewable Energy - without the hot air". The answer is nothing! The word "inertia" is never mentioned in his 383-page ebook: https://www.inference.org.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf.
If Professor Mackay (a scientist, not an engineer) was blissfully unaware of the fundamental incompatibility of non-synchronous wind and solar with how the grid was designed to operate, you can be sure that the climate activists and politicians were equally ignorant, and mostly still are.
What a mess, to have rank amateur charlatans thinking they can redesign our energy infrastructure, with the incumbent professionals cowed into keeping schtum or face the sack.
Mackay's aims, as he states in the opening two sentences of 'Without the Hot Air' are:- "I’m concerned about cutting UK emissions of twaddle – twaddle about sustainable energy. Everyone says getting off fossil fuels is important, and we’re all encouraged to “make a difference,” but many of the things that allegedly make a difference don’t add up."
Perhaps he thought grid transmission stability issues were less significant (and technically more complex to explain) than exposing the limits of scaling up the renewable energy harvesting infrastructure itself? Plus he already had a relatively long and complex book anyway to attempt to deliver his message as clearly as possible!
I checked back. He covered Dunkelflaute but failed to appreciate that the storage requirement was not determined by just one longish partial lull (he came up with 1.2TWh which is 2 orders of magnitude too small), and he looked at maximum ramp rates based on Irish 15 minute data. He didn't dig further, apparently reassured by a website called yes2wind (!) that at a national level fluctuations are smoothed out.
Of course SEWTHA dates from 2008 and he died in 2016.
By his final interview he had concluded that renewables would not work for the UK and advocated a nuclear dominated system. I think that the many explorations and debates at Energy Matters were important in changing his mind. He occasionally commented there, and was evidently a keen reader.
https://euanmearns.com/david-mackay-the-final-cut/
Thanks, yes I remember reading all about that back then!
I think you are right. MacKay was a “greenie” at heart but his head told him that the renewables route was impossible. Leo Smith who set up Gridwatch was a colleague of his at Cambridge and has said the same.
I was a “greenie” - until I read the Hot Air book a few years after it came out!
I fear that the general public will not wake up fully until we start to experience regular power cuts. Scotland will soon be very vulnerable due to lack of grid inertia when the last nuclear power station (Torness) is closed down for good in 2030. The only CCGT plant of any significance in Scotland is Peterhead, due to be replaced in 2027 by a lower-capacity Carbon Capture and Storage gas plant, if that ever works. Apart from that, it’s just some hydro to provide short-term grid inertia.
The other thing the general public might notice is Miliband’s year-on-year abject failure to progress on his target of 95% grid decarbonisation by 2030. I have a theory that grid decarbonisation is not feasible beyond maybe 50% due to the inertia problem. It was noticeable that Spain was boasting of running the grid entirely on renewables including hydro (wind 46%, solar PV 27%) shortly before their spectacular grid collapse, since when they have curtailed wind and solar to a much lower penetration. I fumbled my way towards a “proof” that there is a fundamental limit to grid decarbonisation in this email to my MP (he didn’t reply): https://metatron.substack.com/p/climate-change-and-the-corruption.
The other thing that would spike the establishment’s narrative of supposed man-made global warming and catch the attention of the general public is if we are suddenly faced with global cooling. Unfortunately, all the corrupt, retrospectively-adjusted establishment temperature series such as NASA's GISTEMP have been faked to show relentlessly rising global temperatures, with the latest temperatures easing off only slightly: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/. Such faked graphs are used by climate propagandists to say things like “as global temperatures continue to rise”.
In contrast, the uncorrupted UAH temperature series shows a completely different picture of a series of transient natural ENSO spikes since 1998 with the current unprecedented natural spike slowly dissipating, caused by the massive Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption which the establishment hides from the general public: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2025_v6.1_20x9-1-scaled.jpg
It remains to be seen if and when predicted cyclical global cooling takes over, in the form of the cold phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation https://x.com/WorldClimateSvc/status/1580989087519223810 and/or a severe Grand Solar Minimum https://iainhunter.substack.com/p/the-grand-solar-minimum-is-here.
It’s too complicated for the public to understand, remember competition has been difficult for them hence the proliferation of price comparison sites. They do not, why should they, understand the structure of the competitive market nor how that impacts the prices on a regional level and thus themselves. None of the organisations charged with representing them and assisting them have actually done so or even explained how supply works in nice easy steps. When the power goes off the public will be fed the usual bs by the usual suspects and some suitable company will be found probably British Gas to blame. The public will believe that the industry as a whole is lying to them.
The CCC is a comic opera. Pinchbeck is the Dame.
Mad Ed is sat in the VIP box laughing his head off, saying:
"I like that, I think I will make it government policy!"
Wrote a reply but substack seems to have lost it. If we keep wasting resources on this dead end we will never reach a post scarcity civilisation and we also won't reach net zero (whatever you think about that). I wrote about what I think we should be doing, before natural gas runs out over here: https://open.substack.com/pub/scouch1/p/the-strategic-energy-transition-manifesto
Thanks for the offer. I've been investing for 35 years though starting out in a private office for some very old money so I'm good. Good luck with the venture though people struggle to understand money itself let alone the various markets 😅
A devastating critique
I would suggest that the government will not question their figures as it supports their fantastic claims of cheaper electricity from more renewables.
They will use it as evidence that government critics of their policy and costs are wrong.
As always except work highlighting the corruption of the CCC and the suppliers.
And a nice reference to the Nolan Principles which seem to be completely ignored by all people in positions of public service.
**excellent work** not except work.
Good morning Oscar. Just so you know, if you click on the three dots at the right hand end of the line with your name, you should be able to edit your comment, should you wish.
I did try that, but for some strange reason the edit option was not available... its something I use frequently.
Clear your browser's 'substack' cache maybe quit and restart the browser, and / or try restating your computer - fixed 'substack' rendering / options etc. issues for me :-)
Does anyone know if the capital costs of offshore wind developments include the offshore transmission assets ie. the wind farm to shore cables and associated switchgear?
I know that although these are built by the developers they are then “transferred” to separate entities at a value and their tariffs (transmission charges) tendered separately.
Not insubstantial sums that will only increase as more remote assets are developed.
The developer initially fund the offshore transmission assets but these are then sold to a third party by OFGEM and they will then make an adjustment to their capital base. So you do need to make sure that element is included as they are hefty sums and add quite a few £'s/MW. As an aside the new owners get paid an annual fee for usage which is adding a fair chunk onto TNUoS charges now as more are connected.
Thank you David. Not to be outdone by the Climate Change Committee, I offer a complete fantasy of my own. When I sweep to power, the CCC will be gone and there will be no more public investment in wind and solar. I shall focus on new gas plant, hoping against hope to replace the current ageing plant before the lights go out. The principal focal point will be new nuclear plant on existing sites, cloned under licence from Korea, hoping to win the race against existing wind power reaching the end of its life. The Office for Nuclear Regulation will be instructed to give rapid approval or take to their bicycles.
I shall enjoy a few years of absolute power, while aiming to retain my humility.
Hunterston apparently has the extra land space for a new nuclear power station that could be built while the old shut-down plants continue their dismantling process. The irony is that the new plant could be built, on a Korean construction timeline, in far less time than the painfully laborious dismantling.
SNP boss John Swinney thinks he is “holier than thou” in stating that retired Scottish nuclear power stations will not be replaced. He’s an ideologue who hasn’t got a clue. How is Scotland going to avoid repeated Spanish-type national blackouts when the only source of vital inertia connected to the Scottish grid is the modest-capacity Peterhead CGCT plant and piddling amounts of hydro? What will happen when Peterhead is offline for essential maintenance? See my comment below for details: https://open.substack.com/pub/davidturver/p/the-ccc-reveal-their-errors?r=8t7a0&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=123906705.
I'd vote for you!
Money remains a universal solvent.
The UK's best course is obviously to buy some reliable nuclear power stations from Russia or China.
Thinking about these projects in simple terms - you have equipment cost and development costs.
The early stage project needed to be competent so we’re done where development costs (depth, distance, connection etc) were simplest and thereby cheapest.
As the projects grow they invariably have to move to more expensive development area, increasing that element of the cost even if the capital for the visible turbine or solar panel falls.
The balance of these falling turbine/solar panel costs vs rising development costs a key determinant of cost pathway.
I tend to agree that the balance has shifted to development costs dominating and thereby increasing cost profiles over time.
Then there is cost of capital as you say, which from 2008-2022 - to quote Peter Zeihan- was so low that even pigs could fly.
Shallow water opportunities are pretty well exhausted if they all get built and thats a big if so they need to move to floating solutions to harvest the deep water wind opportunity which is good and will improve load factor but at an eyewatering cost.
Turbine costs are not falling. And keep an eye on panel costs if the silver price keeps going up.
Not disagreeing. I was trying to demonstrate that it is possible the cost of one part of a system to fall, yet the cost of the full system to rise substantially. Something that is generally glossed over when groups push the “learning by doing” and “scale lowers costs” arguments.
Vestas and Siemens already build nacelles on a production line basis but that didn't stop them losing a shed load of money. They've both shied away from bigger is better as well for the time being which was part of the cost reduction strategy ie less foundations, towers, array cables etc. The Chinese haven't yet so maybe they will come to the rescue. Whoever it is it wont be UK green jobs.
Great analysis again David. Think you should join the CCC and bring some much needed knowledge and intelligence to UK energy policy.
The solution is to replace it by a red team that does what David has done here across all their output - show up its false assumptions as basically lies - and then bury it, with the BBC required to report the truth in detail, and a televised trial of their reporters conducted by a truth commission. Sackcloth and ashes optional extras.
Yeah, when someone successfully mixes oil and water. The CCC will violently reject anyone who tries to use common sense, facts and mathematics.
So violently, indeed, that this might be a promising new source of energy.
It's the grey matter (David) meets grey anti-matter (CCC) situation. Huge explosion releasing even more energy than nuclear fusion! Good news: the CCC will disappear completely. Bad news: David won't survive the encounter!
Hear hear !