DECC Forced To Release Data Showing Impact Of Climate Policies On Energy Prices

By Paul Homewood


Earlier I posted on the news that Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) tried to cover up official data showing how electricity prices are expected to skyrocket, as a direct result of climate policies. (See above Telegraph article).

I’ve now had a chance to dissect this data.

They base their assumptions around three scenarios of fossil fuel prices – high, central and low, and all numbers are at 2014 prices, so do not reflect normal annual inflation. They do not clarify exactly what constitutes the fossil fuel price bands, but they use Sep 2014 wholesale electric prices as the starting point.

Let’s start by looking at the central band. First the effect on households.


I have not shown the projections for 2030, as these are little more than guesswork. The key numbers are:-

1) The various green levies will add £188 to household dual bills by 2020, about 13%. Of this, we are already paying £89/yr.

2) Based on 26 million households, this will equate to £4.9 bn a year by 2020.

3) DECC claim that we will all be saving £276 on average by using less energy because of their kind and thoughtful policies. This rather ignores the fact that energy efficiency has continually improved over the years without government help.

4) Notably, a large chunk, £77, arises from “building regulations”. Unfortunately, very few people live in new houses affected by this, and therefore will not save a penny.

5) Electric only households will be disproportionately affected, as electricity price rises will be much greater than gas. The projected green levies will add 23%. It should be remembered in this context, that government policy is to massively switch consumers onto electric heating of homes and electric cars, leaving us ever more vulnerable to higher electricity prices.

DECC have been a bit crafty in the way they have presented their figures, as the “Bill impact of price effects” is calculated against the anticipated lower consumption figures. For instance, household electricity use is expected to fall from 4.5MWh to 3.2MWh by 2020.


The reality is that they expect electricity prices to rise from £141/MWH to £194/MWh by 2020, as a direct result of their policies, an increase of 37%. If we carry on using 4.5MWh a year, the extra cost to households will be £238.


Based on a low fossil fuel price scenario, the extra cost of climate change policy is even greater, adding 42% to electricity prices. Even under the high fossil fuel price option, climate policies will still be adding 29%, and as consumers will be paying more still for energy, the slightly lower climate subsidy won’t come as much of a consolation.

It is also worth pointing out that,even under the high fossil price scenario, by 2030 climate policies will have increased the price of electricity to £233/MWh, from £181/MWh without such policies. In other words, the argument, often wheeled out, that we need renewable energy to protect us from ever rising fossil fuel prices, is dead in the water.


Effect on businesses

The effect on small and medium sized businesses is, if anything, even more scary. Again using the central scenario, we can see that small businesses will be paying 50% more for their electricity, and medium sized ones an astonishing 62% extra.



As the Renewable Energy Foundation correctly points out, it is domestic households which will end up paying for these extra costs to business, through higher prices, lower wages and lost jobs. That is, of course, assuming we have any businesses left.

Following the non agreement that appears to have emerged from Lima, there can be no possible justification left to continue with the flawed and huge expensive Climate Change Act. It is not difficult to see why DECC attempted to hide this data from the public.


All of the DECC data is here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rick K
December 17, 2014 4:14 pm

Great work Paul. I hope this gets wide distribution and stirs up a hornets nest…

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Rick K
December 17, 2014 6:23 pm

Agreed, a good work doing the detailed analysis revealing what I suspected but never pursued,

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 18, 2014 12:55 am

Paul says;
‘3) DECC claim that we will all be saving £276 on average by using less energy because of their kind and thoughtful policies. This rather ignores the fact that energy efficiency has continually improved over the years without government help.’
It also ignores the fact that we cant afford to use energy so have had to cut down, with the result that homes are much colder than we want them to be.

James Bull
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 18, 2014 9:58 am

I have to keep the house warmer nowadays as my wife has become disabled and does not move around so much and therefore gets colder.
I have followed the advice of another writer in the Daily Telegraph Jeff Howell who advises not to set the heating to switch on and off each day but to leave it on all the time and set the thermostat at a slightly lower temp (you can get timer thermostats that raise and lower the temp night/day). The effect is to allow the walls to dry out and so makes them better at keeping the heat in the house. The effect of this is that it costs less now than before to heat the house even allowing for price rises!
James Bull

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 18, 2014 12:06 pm

I have debated leaving the heating on all the time but I think the telegraph guy is one of the few that thinks its a good idea. I can see both sides but have you got solid proof that it works?

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 19, 2014 12:53 pm

December 18, 2014 at 12:55 am
Paul says;
‘3) DECC claim that we will all be saving £276 on average by using less energy because of their kind and thoughtful policies. This rather ignores the fact that energy efficiency has continually improved over the years without government help.’
It also ignores the fact that we cant afford to use energy so have had to cut down, with the result that homes are much colder than we want them to be.
Thanks – I think you are saying that the next fifteen winters will see sales of woollen cardigans/blankets soar.
Or have I misunderstood? – from balmy Croydon [nearly 6C – say 43F – at 2100 local time in mid December].
And – yes – I have a fleece on.

December 17, 2014 4:17 pm

What’s missing from this pricing analysis is the effects of the policies on reliability of supply with a higher proportion of intermittent generation in the mix.

Al McEachran
Reply to  Questing Vole
December 17, 2014 10:23 pm

Questing Vole you are absolutely correct in your assertion. System reliability will necessitate a 1 for 1 building of gas powered standby power in relation to wind power. Gas generation at the expected low capacity factor will be at least triple the cost of coal fired generation. Germany is on the brink and coal is resurging. The politicos in the UK have a chance to learn from Germany’s mistakes but I doubt if they are even looking.

Reply to  Al McEachran
December 19, 2014 1:00 pm

They’re looking.
Today [19th] our Government – already burning £100 thousand million pounds a year it doesn’t have fro income (so has to borrow) – will pay carbon utilities almost 950 million a year to have their kit ready for when the wind doesn’t blow . . . . In 2019.
Mods – no – no /SARC. This is Gospel according to Ed Davey, who, somehow presents this as a major hike in power costs.
Sorry, no – Sony (OR some-won) hacked me.
. . . presents this as a significant improvement in the likelihood of lights staying bright!
Auto, wearing several layers, even if it is seasonably warm!

Doug Proctor
December 17, 2014 4:24 pm

So, even with the higher fossil fuel price projections, DECC hereby admits that Green Energy will not be cost-effective and will require very significant subsidies to “compete”.
And how will the liberal, eco-green, pro-renewable lobby field this one?
Ah, well, we (the low-income ones, actually, not us) have to suffer a bit in the Noble Cause.
The Noble Cause wouldn’t be so apalling if they simply told the truth about the costs, economically, socially and politically, of a non-fossil fuel society. Informed consent, strangely enough, is not a tenet of the philosophically nurturing world they propose to create.

Reply to  Doug Proctor
December 17, 2014 6:51 pm

In the absence of ethics, informed consent becomes redundant.

Gary Pearse
December 17, 2014 4:24 pm

Good stuff Paul. You can be sure if these guys were forced to disclose the cost, then it will be a substantial underestimate. They will have rosy efficiencies and low maintenance and replacement costs for the Amazon forest of windmills and rain panels they’ve installed in Scotland. They’ll have unrealistic improvements in energy savings, storage, etc. These guys are creative accountants. This is basically what government is expert at. This gives me 95% confidence that costs will surely more than douible! Have they also used a discount rate? If not, they will use it as a talking point anyway. Why are you former ruler of the waves not firing this bunch?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 19, 2014 10:16 am

I am afraid that we have a very dim electorate, many of whom can barely read or write.

December 17, 2014 4:48 pm

What is the “40pc” in the paper’s headline? A rounded 40%, or is “pc” a unit of money?

Reply to  AnonyMoose
December 17, 2014 4:54 pm

I was wondering the same thing. If it’s a unit of money, it fails to distinguish between Microsoft pc and Apple pc units. It could make a difference. 🙂

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Louis
December 18, 2014 3:08 am

Is it not just a shortened expression for % (percent)?

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  AnonyMoose
December 17, 2014 6:25 pm

pc = pesos canadienses

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 18, 2014 6:58 am

Net effect, less pocket Quid.

December 17, 2014 4:49 pm

Another factor,
A sky high birthrate which is only going to increase unless HMG reins in its; ‘hey all you fecund foreigners drop another [waif] un – and the UK taxpayer in the guise of child benefits will pick up the bill’ policy.
MORE, yes there’s MORE: a policy of open door mass immigration – 583,000 wandered in or, popped over last year alone, the figures are probably underestimated by HMG to the tune of some 200K.
A creaking grid, as the network is a nigh on capacity now – just how are these [boondoggle birdmincers and photo voltaic arrays]…erm “renewable sources” going to cope with rising demand?
Evidently, the genius green gurus running the DoECC have not even given a moments thought to >demand – all their figures are predicated on forcible demand reduction……………….
So………………….how’s that gonna work?
As the blackness descends and outages will be guaranteed! Soon in the UK, it’ll be just like living in a third world country……………oh wait
– all along: that’s what they wanted!

December 17, 2014 4:50 pm

Why not put the name of the country in the title? Is UK that hard to spell? I do thank you, however, for telling us what DECC means, but “Department of Energy & Climate Change” does not identify a location. The link has UK in it, allowing me to figure it out, but why make us guess?
I realize that stories about the US are also myopic at times and just assume people know what country is being talked about, so I will extend my request to all authors to identify what country they are writing about.

Reply to  Louis
December 17, 2014 6:04 pm

If you stay informed and keep up with the players, one doesn’t have to guess. Then there is that magic hi-tech website called google that can help answer all questions. Don’t let being spoon fed all knowledge to dull the inquisitiveness for learning for yourself.
Now in the US, President Obama explained his “cap and trade program” would cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket”.
Birds of a feather..

Reply to  Louis
December 17, 2014 7:31 pm
What part of dot co dot uk is it that you don’t understand? too taxing for your mind?

Reply to  clipe
December 17, 2014 11:59 pm

What part of “The link has UK in it, allowing me to figure it out…” do you not understand? Maybe you should read my comment before you make a fool of yourself. I have seen articles in the Telegraph that were about countries other than the UK so that is not conclusive. What is so hard about putting “UK” in the title to begin with? It’s only 2 letters! Doesn’t that make sense for a world-wide blog?

Man Bearpig
Reply to  clipe
December 18, 2014 1:48 am

Well Louis, perhaps the pound sign (£) might help in the graphics ?
of course, you may not be familiar with that too

Reply to  clipe
December 18, 2014 10:33 am

Man Bearpig asks if I’m familiar with the pound sign (£). Perhaps he isn’t familiar with the fact that the pound is also used outside the UK in places like British Overseas Territories, the South Sandwich Islands, the British Antarctic Territory, and Tristan de Cunha. Often, a foreign currency is converted to pounds or dollars by the author. So the use of a pound sign is not conclusive, either.
Look, I was just making a suggestion for future articles. Which is more efficient, forcing thousands of readers to search for clues and use Google to figure out what country you’re talking about, or having the author simply take 5 seconds to include the name of the country in the title or near the beginning of the article? It’s just a matter of convenience and efficiency. If you like solving puzzles and have the time, fine. But why read these articles at all. Why not just do all the research yourself so no one can claim that you want your information “spoon fed” to you?

Reply to  Louis
December 18, 2014 12:01 pm

Louis, I agree with you.
Coming from the UK I didn’t twig for a minute that there was any doubt about this being a UK story . What other country would be so daft as to have a Government department called the Department of Energy and Climate Change – as though the two are the same issue? And we have a Department of the Environment as well. We Brits know a UK folly when we see it.
But it is reasonable to expect others around the world to not recognise our keywords.
So state the Country in the article.

December 17, 2014 4:51 pm

What is missing is an estimate of jobs exported, dreams lost, opportunities missed.

Gerry, England
Reply to  John H. Harmon
December 17, 2014 6:18 pm

It is reckoned that currently each tax payer subsidised green job destroys 3.4 real jobs. Aluminium smelting has ended in the UK. Oil refineries are struggling against cheaper imports – energy costs were mentioned during the recent Grangemouth industrial dispute and Milford Haven may soon close.

M Courtney
Reply to  Gerry, England
December 18, 2014 6:37 am

Milford Haven refinery has virtually gone already.
And thus a further £3.5million is being spent to try and regenerate an area that had been successfully making money whilst benefiting the economy as a whole.
The multipliers of raising energy costs are all on the downside..

Eamon Butler
Reply to  John H. Harmon
December 18, 2014 5:57 am

Lives destroyed/ lost…

Rhoda R
Reply to  John H. Harmon
December 18, 2014 11:08 am

Not to mention the cost savings from early deaths of the elderly.

Stuart jones
December 17, 2014 5:09 pm

Your calculations fail to take into account the fact that pensioners wont be able to afford the price hikes and will therfore not use the electricity thus reducing consumption…as well as reducing the population through death by cold..oh wait…..

Reply to  Stuart jones
December 18, 2014 7:17 am

The BBC, the broadcast propaganda wing of renewable energy, TOTALLY fails to mention price rises as the explanation for reducing energy consumption and increases in the winter death rate.
Today there was a discussion in which the usual suspects were blaming the government for not stopping the elderly from dying, all the while ignoring the main reason – fuel poverty.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Stuart jones
December 18, 2014 11:10 am

Oops – sorry Stuart, I didn’t read your input before I gave mine. Yours is much better.

December 17, 2014 5:31 pm

Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Where has all the Money gone?
And WHY?

jolly farmer
Reply to  norah4you
December 17, 2014 6:35 pm

Ed Davey, Ed Miliband, Chris Huhne will continue to rake in the cash.
So, all those who voted for the Climate Change Act should be barred from public office and no longer be in receipt of public monies.
Then we can look at prosecution and gaol time.

Reply to  jolly farmer
December 17, 2014 6:55 pm

No need to. Didn’t someone say there would be an abundance of empty coal trains to ship ’em out?

Reply to  jolly farmer
December 18, 2014 12:22 am

In 5 months time this trio will have complete and unfettered control of the UK . It is we, the people, who will be imprisoned.

December 17, 2014 6:08 pm

Congratulations on bringing this document to people’s attention. I’d just like to tone down some of the commentary, specifically:
1/ “…all numbers are at 2014 prices, so do not reflect normal annual inflation.” This is is the best practice approach to dealing with costs (and benefits) that are incurred over future time periods. It ensures that the reader is able to make an exact ‘apples with apples’ comparison of future costs by bringing them all back to 2014 year dollar figures.
2/ “DECC have been a bit crafty in the way they have presented their figures, as the “Bill impact of price effects” is calculated against the anticipated lower consumption figures.” The best practice approach is to incorporate future expected behavioural consumption changes in the analysis. If not, then it would be valid to accuse them of hiding something and/or producing misleading analysis.
My (admittedly brief) reading of the work strongly suggests that the underlying analysis is robust and defensible. The presentation of the results of the analysis is also appropriate – all relevant information is available to the reader.
The interpretation of the results is where the rubber hits the road and is where (most often) ‘differences of opinion’ arise. This is the part of your post I most appreciate.

Reply to  Mladen
December 18, 2014 10:06 am

The problem is that many, if not all, of those “expected behavioural changes” will NOT be available to the people who are worst hit by price increases. “Just replace all your appliances with more efficient ones” or “replace your boiler / heating system” or “move to a more efficient house” simply isn’t an option.
As an example, we have a fridge freezer that’s about 4 years old now and working perfectly well, but is far less efficient than a new one. We’re very unlikely to be replacing it before 2020 because:
(a) We can’t really afford to if we don’t need to
(b) Any savings from a single appliance will be very small and we certainly can’t afford to replace everything in one go, and (possibly most importantly),
(c) Throwing out a perfetly servicable appliance is not only an anathema to anyone with common sense, it’s really rather bad for the environment in an immediate, undeniably real, and quantifiable way!!!!

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Mladen
December 19, 2014 6:47 pm

I disagree. It is extremely disingenuous to imply that the forecast modest bill reduction is not due to high price increases as the predominant feature. High prices could be imposed simply by having high taxes without wasting them on expensive windmills etc. (the UK government is running a large budget deficit and could use more tax revenue to reduce it). Moreover, the figures ignore the costs of energy saving measures, so the “saving” on the energy bill is in practice offset by spending on more expensive appliances, building insulation, fancy boilers etc. When you look at the real economics of these “savings” many of them have extremely long payback periods, and would be loss making at a normal rate of interest – leaving aside rather optimistic engineering assumptions about the quantity of saving.

December 17, 2014 6:25 pm

Another lie brought to light. You would think that by now most people listening to the AGW propaganda would figure out that it is simply not true and the media is supporting the lies….knowingly or not.

December 17, 2014 7:07 pm

Paul – guess DECC’s disclosure might have promped the following from Cameron in Parliament this week:
16 Dec: Guardian: Andrew Sparrow: Cameron questioned by MPs about climate change and radicalistion: Politics Live blog
He said he was opposed to any more onshore windfarms. Confirming that the Tories would scrap subsidies for onshore windfarms after 2015, he said the public were “fed up” with them and that he did not expect any more to be erected without subsidy.
Cameron: “On onshore windfarms, I think the public are, frankly, fed up with so many windfarms being built that won’t be necessary. Now we’ve reached some 10% of our electricity by onshore wind, we don’t need to have more of these subsidised onshore. So let’s get rid of the subsidy, put them into the planning system and, if they can make their case, they can make their case. I suspect they won’t. And we’ll have a reasonable amount of onshore wind, we will have safer electricity supplies as a result, but enough is enough. I’m very clear about that…”…
Cameron says he believes in cutting carbon at the lowest cost.
There have been disagreements in the coalition, but not huge ones.
The public is fed up with onshore wind farms, he says. He wants to cut their subsidy. Enough is enough, he says…
Cameron says the Green Investment Bank should be the “first investor”.
***There are plenty of other investors, like pension funds, also keen to invest in energy…
more insanity:
16 Dec: CarbonBrief: UK Government holds first capacity market auction
Companies will today bid for government subsidies to ensure power plants are available at the flick of a switch, as part of the new capacity market. The market is designed to ensure the lights always stay on, even when demand is high and the weather means renewables aren’t generating electricity.
Under the scheme, power providers are paid to be available when the National Grid needs them…
The capacity market’s first auction begins this morning. We explain how the market works, and how it fits with the government’s wider energy and climate change policy goals…
The government created the capacity market to ensure there will be enough power into the 2020s. It should ensure there’s always enough electricity to meet peak demand, even when the weather prevents renewables from generating any power.
Only non-renewable energy providers can participate in the capacity market as they are designed to provide power around the clock…
The results from the first auction will be available on January 5th 2015, with provisional results due at some point the next five days…
Controversially, four old coal fired power stations appear on the list…
The capacity market money will enable the (coal) plants to stay open for a further 10 to 20 years, Sandbag suggests…
The government designed the capacity market above all to ensure the lights stay on…

Reply to  pat
December 17, 2014 10:24 pm

Thanks for this Pat. Looks like our coalition is stealing yet another UKIP policy. No surprises – but at least the message is getting through.

Reply to  pat
December 17, 2014 11:52 pm

If smooth-faced Dave declares publicly that “the public is fed up with wind farms” then they are not so dumb after all. This is not going to make the James Abbotts happy.

Ian W
December 17, 2014 7:25 pm

In UK in every winter month thousands of people die of cold in energy poverty – more than three times the number that die on the roads in a year die of cold in each winter month. This increase in prices will increase the number of deaths and the politicians in UK will not say a word. Presumably because these are only ‘old people’ with very limited QALYs scores. Besides which many politicians are making a lot of money from ‘renewables’ and would not want to rock the boat. The Prime Minister’s father in law is being paid £1000 a day for having subsidy farms on his land. That money is coming from the poor who are in increasing energy poverty.
Imagine the outcry if 5000 people died on the roads in one month. Yet that number can die of cold in one month directly due to government policies and not a word is said no questions in parliament.
How do these politicians look at themselves in the mirror?

Chris Wright
Reply to  Ian W
December 18, 2014 3:39 am

I couldn’t agree more.
I voted Conservative in the past but I’m now proud to be a UKIP voter. I will never again vote Conservative until they have promised to scrap the Climate Change Bill. It is almost certainly the most expensive suicide note in history. It would be mad even if global warming really were a problem. But as the modest and natural warming we enjoyed during the last century is a benefit, and much of the science wrong and even fraudulent, it is doubly mad.
Because the scientific fraud has vast financial implications, it is also financial fraud. It threatens to defraud the world of trillions of dollars that could have been spent on real problems, not the make-believe fantasies of the IPCC.

Walt D.
December 17, 2014 8:07 pm

Is this SCAMFEST? (I think it stands for Samantha Cameron’s Father Electricity Subsidy Tax?) Apparently PM David Cameron’s father-in-law has a wind farm that is subsidized.

Nigel S
Reply to  Walt D.
December 17, 2014 11:36 pm
December 17, 2014 8:07 pm

Similar thing happened here in Ontario, Canada:
“The energy ministry grossly over-estimated the benefits of the smart meter program. It figured the net benefit would be $600 million over 15 years. But it forgot to include a yearly inflationary increase of $50 million. That reduces the net benefit of the huge project to $88 million over 15 years.”
Here, the Minister tried to squink (i.e., apply squid ink) by saying that this is a really, really complicated file and the auditor just doesn’t get it. He’s been on the energy file since June. The auditor spent 10 years in the industry…

December 17, 2014 10:06 pm

Paul Homewood’s great article includes the following line: “In other words, the argument, often wheeled out, that we need renewable energy to protect us from ever rising fossil fuel prices, is dead in the water.”
Proof: In the UK, there are around 4 million ‘often overlooked’ households in rural areas with oil-fired central heating – as there is no mains gas network available. Along with other fossil fuels, Heating Oil (kerosene) is the cheapest it has been for four years. Filling a 1,000 litre tank today cost £460 – but the same quantity last December cost £620. 1,000 litres typically lasts about 8 months.
We live in a rural area, have oil-fired central heating, a log stove, and a huge grin on our faces.
PS. This wry grin is made even wider by the fact that our ‘Eco’ neighbours who have a hideous array of shiny black solar panels nailed to their roof were in total darkness on Monday night. Their mains electricity supply had been breached from a faulty telegraph pole connection.

Reply to  GeeJam
December 17, 2014 11:23 pm

Revenge is a dish best eaten cold

Reply to  johnOfEnfield
December 18, 2014 12:36 am

Really tough luck John. Enfield is blessed with a gas and electricity supply.

Reply to  GeeJam
December 17, 2014 11:28 pm

Me too. I live in the middle of nowhere, I’ve just topped up my oil tank and my log store is full. The generator is also good to go.

Reply to  phillipbratby
December 18, 2014 12:40 am

Good for you Phillip. Our cottage is in a picturesque village on the Rutland/Lincolnshire border about 7 miles north of Stamford. You can’t be far away.

Reply to  phillipbratby
December 18, 2014 12:52 am

I’m in the middle of Devon, on a single track lane with grass growing down the middle.

December 17, 2014 11:21 pm

The economic lunacy of the UK’s self inflicted Climate Act is not limited to electricity generation.
All government establishments are required to have policies which reduce their carbon footprint. The costs are not published, but he cash strapped National Health Service is spending millions on this, whilst their carbon output is only 3% of the national total, which itself is only about 1.5% of world output, which itself is growing by a similar figure annually.
The situation is quite surreal, but the imbeciles that created it are still running the country and strutting their stuff in Lima and elsewhere, at the tax payers expense.
You really couldn’t make it up!

December 17, 2014 11:25 pm

The UK Government excuse for keeping the impact of green policy (massively rising electricity costs) a secret was because it would confuse people. Yes, of course it would – the sheeples are all dumb.

December 17, 2014 11:27 pm

Jimbo, this might be slightly off the beaten track for you but do you have any delicious list with prognostications of cheaper energy in the future or similar?.
If you get my drift?

December 17, 2014 11:28 pm

Like how nuclear was going to be “too cheap to meter”…etc…

Reply to  jones
December 18, 2014 12:57 am

Not that old fallacy of the anti-nukes again:
NOBODY in the nuclear industry ever said that commercial nuclear fission power plants would be “too cheap to meter”. That expression was coined not by the nuclear industry but by a Government official; namely then AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss. Strauss was NOT speaking about commercial fission power plants when he said this – he was speaking of future FUSION power. In 1954, Strauss predicted that atomic power would make electricity “too cheap to meter.” He was referring to Project Sherwood, a secret program to develop power from hydrogen fusion, not uranium fission reactors as is commonly believed.

David Cage
December 17, 2014 11:34 pm

There is talk in the UK of organising an anti green day. i was thinking of doing a feasibility study to see if it was a realistic proposition as the official media has effectively blocked any protest organisation. The BBC has admitted it has no intention of giving unbiased coverage as mandated in its charter and several of the papers here such as the Guardian and the Independent ban even comments by non climate change faithful let alone articles. How about opening discussion of how it can be publicised in view of this deliberate brainwashing.

Reply to  David Cage
December 18, 2014 1:17 am

I would support it. This is the first I’ve heard about it.
Some placard suggestions . . . .
“12M loaves of bread sold each day in UK. That’s 51,500 tonnes of CO2 per year. Get over it.”
“Conservatory 4 degrees, Lounge 20 degrees. MY BODY CAN COPE.”

Reply to  GeeJam
December 18, 2014 6:19 am

I’d focus on the first of your suggestions.
The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2, and the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 attributable to human activity.
A couple of nine character numbers on a plain white tee.

Non Nomen
Reply to  David Cage
December 18, 2014 1:58 am

Support UKIP.
They are against those useless and ugly wind-turbines and capable of thinking outside the box.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  David Cage
December 18, 2014 6:19 am

Great idea. Though, a lot of people assume ”Green”= Good, so it would be important to get the correct message out to explain why the ”Green” way should be opposed.

December 18, 2014 12:15 am

Great work. Expose the lunacy of the major UK political parties who all subscribe to this, Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative.

Reply to  Keith
December 18, 2014 12:59 am

Lib Dem is no longer a major party. It has been overtaken by the even more lunatic Green Party.

Ivor Ward
December 18, 2014 12:40 am

The BBC in the form of Roger Harrabin sees it as all positive and this is the story the sheeple are going to have thrust down their gullets..

Reply to  Ivor Ward
December 18, 2014 1:35 am

Thanks Ivor. Just read your link. Harrabin pulls yet another ‘help the BBC combat climate change’ spin just to cover-up the real story. Should there be a caption competition for the photo of the attractive brunette smiling in anticipation, my entry would be “where do I put the batteries?”.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Paul Homewood
December 18, 2014 5:39 am

The thing about the “energy efficiency” claim though is at what cost in terms of dollars and also in terms of what you are actually getting. Often, when saving energy becomes the goal, other important considerations go out the window.

Alan the Brit
December 18, 2014 3:22 am

Harrabin & the Beeb were doing their typical PDRofEU promotion this morning claiming that we’re all using 10% less energy today than 10 years ago, all as result of EU policy of making us use less. Sure they cited better energy efficiency of white goods & homes, although most UK homes cannot meet modern regulations without turning off the power to comply! Will click on Ivor Ward’s link I’ve just noticed! Harrabin failed to mention anything about ever increasing rates of fuel poverty in the UK, typical of the slime!

John Law
Reply to  Alan the Brit
December 18, 2014 4:28 am

The BBC is worse than any Soviet news source ever was!

M Courtney
Reply to  Alan the Brit
December 18, 2014 6:49 am

What is Roger Harrabin’s job?
-He’s not a journalist He was given the scoop on Climategate (the biggest environmental story since Bhopal) and then suppressed it – that is not a journalist.
-He’s not a politician. He has never stood for election.
-He’s not a campaigner. The BBC is unable to employ such people by its Charter.
So what is Roger Harrabin’s job?

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  M Courtney
December 18, 2014 8:46 am

It would seem to be spouting propaganda ….or boot licking….

Harry Passfield
December 18, 2014 3:52 am

DECC claim that we will all be saving £276 on average by using less energy

So, we’re paying more for less – but that doesn’t get through the indoctrinated skulls of DECC. They just like playing [xxx] (xxx insert deity of choice)

John Law
December 18, 2014 4:26 am

But Ed Miliband the author of this disaster, has promised to freeze prices if elected; we are all saved!

M Courtney
Reply to  John Law
December 18, 2014 6:55 am

Notice that the UK Climate Change Act was supported by all the MPs in the House with only 5 exceptions (Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Peter Lilley, Andrew Tyrie, and Ann Widdecombe).
This is not a Party political issue. All the parties voted in favour, overwhelmingly.

Bruce Cobb
December 18, 2014 5:03 am

Well, there is always cake…

December 18, 2014 6:28 am

What is the “products policy” portion? Is it rebates for people buying new appliances or some other boondoggle?

December 18, 2014 7:12 am

“I have not shown the projections for 2030, as these are little more than guesswork.”
When it comes down to it, it’s all guesswork, WAGs & SWAGs & crystal balls.

Kon Dealer
December 18, 2014 8:19 am

These price increase are a direct result of the insane Climate Change Act- basically the wet-dream of the scientifically illiterate English graduate and ecofascist Bryony Worthington (she was an FoE activist) who, God help us, a member of the House of Lords.
This Bill was proposed by the equally scientifically-illiterate “Red” Ed Millibrain, leader of the crypto-communist Labour party. It received more or less 100% support from the scientifically-illiterate, time-serving cretins who “represent the people” in the House of Commons.
DECC, run by the scientifically-illiterate PPE (arts) graduate and criminally insane Ed Davey, is the “genius” behind policy implementation.

December 18, 2014 8:29 am

One of the earliest comments posted under the original Telegraph article provides a link to evidence given in October this year by Professor Dieter Helm to a committee of the House of Lords considering UK electricity system resilience. His slot lasts about an hour and includes some interesting analysis of energy market behaviour, the economics of competing technologies, etc.
The main problem is that his conclusions are driven by the fact that he has swallowed the carbon lie, hook, line and sinker and regards the need for “de-carbonisation” as unquestionable, indisputable.
He berates recent DECC ministers for basing UK energy policies on the mistaken assumption that gas prices will rise, but doesn’t see the plank in his own eye, that he’s basing his analysis on assumptions that the world is warming and that carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels is to blame, even though it is increasingly clear that the theoretical models on which those assumptions were based are increasingly out of step with observed climate trends.
At one point he does comment that ‘assumption might not turn out to be the case’, but only in the context that a centralised distribution system may not be needed if, for example, advances in solar film technologies connecting to improved energy storage systems make very local generation more effective than is envisaged at present.
Couldn’t help thinking, it’s good to have this footage in the Parliamentary archive ready for when another enquiry comes along to ask how we got it all so wrong. OK, so he’s only a professor of economics (and only at Oxford University), but it will be evidence that even an apparently superior intelligence could be misled by the propagandists.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Questing Vole
December 19, 2014 6:54 pm

I doubt he would have been invited to give evidence if he hadn’t promised to subscribe to the carbon dioxide myth. However, he does castigate the DECC and OFGEM muppets quite effectively in his opening statement.

M Courtney
December 18, 2014 8:31 am

By the way, if you think DECC are a bunch of Scrooges who don’t care if the elderly freeze to death this Christmas… they are!
The Telegraph reports that they have banned the word Christmas from their thing-mas cards.

Silver ralph
December 18, 2014 10:13 am

Meanwhile, a report is out saying that electric cars are more poluting than standard fossil fuel cars.
When I pointed this out to Professor Mackay, the government energy advisor, a few years ago, he threatened to sue me. However, I have not received a writ yet. Are you listening, Mackay?
In explanation, Prof MacKay wrote a government advisory pamphlet, saying that electric cars were five times as efficient as petrol cars. But this claim was so disingenuous, it was bordering on frawdulent. And having called him out, in the Sunday Times, he got all upset.
But will the professor now withdraw his frawdulent claim? If not, will he come onto this website and justify his claim. He is still telling the government that electric cars are 5X more efficient. See the pamphlet ‘Renewable Energy without the Hot Air’. I think the claim was on p129, but I will look that up.

Reply to  Silver ralph
December 18, 2014 11:25 am

“if a coal plant is used to produce it”…and I doubt their findings. That being said…another example of how the media picks up a non fact, theory, or even conjecture and promotes it as fact. All the AGW crowd has to do is feed them snippets of thought and the media turns it into full blown scare mongering. The unethical scientists feeding the media must laugh all the way to the next grant.

Reply to  markl
December 18, 2014 12:34 pm

I think you mis-read the article. Fossil-fueled power plants ARE producing the electricity for your electric car.
In the UK, nearly 70% of our electricity is coal or gas – so 70% of your electric car top-up is coal or gas. Thus 70% of of the electricity in an electric car, has already pumped out its CO2 and other emissions at the power plant. I calculate that most electric cars pump out 10% more CO2 per mile, than my turbo-diesel 5-door saloon. And that is despite my saloon being a hefty great lump, rather than those super-light Tesla things.
Government figures. 70% of UK electricity is coal or gas – See page 3:

Reply to  ralfellis
December 18, 2014 4:08 pm

“I think you mis-read the article. Fossil-fueled power plants ARE producing the electricity for your electric car.” I understand. I was referring to the “3.6 times more smog and soot”. Scrubbers on today’s coal fired plants actually work pretty well.

December 18, 2014 10:14 am

UK citizens will pay more money for electricity.
Co2 in the EARTH’S atmosphere will continue to rise irrespective.
What is this all for?

Reply to  Jimbo
December 18, 2014 11:50 am

The official line is that, if the UK takes a lead on the issue, the little countries like China and India will soon follow along.
We have an Empire, after all, and they are mere foreigners – why wouldn’t they listen to their betters?
No really, from Implementing the Climate Change Act 2008 page 5:

Why taking action on climate change is important?…
3… The UK has a vital role to play as a leader in the global initiative to tackle climate change and is working
through the European Union and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) to reach a global agreement on action to mitigate climate change.

george e. smith
Reply to  Jimbo
December 18, 2014 12:17 pm

So MCourtney,
Just where does Cameron get off thinking it is ok for him to chastise us colonials (and our Aussie Mates) for not agreeing to jump off the cliff along with y’alls ??
The umbilical was cut years ago, so go ahead and jump, and see if we will come and help you again.

Reply to  george e. smith
December 18, 2014 12:24 pm

I didn’t vote for him. I don’t think he’s go this right. But he does and we, the little people, should respect our betters.
When you Colonials get a little more experienced I’m sure you’ll understand.

Lil Fella from OZ
December 18, 2014 11:57 am

Of course it is going to cost and not just a bit, but lets hide that truth!

george e. smith
December 18, 2014 12:13 pm

Well Obama told us up front that (US) electricity prices, must “necessarily” sky rocket when he implements his energy policies.
So just what is the eventual intent of having expensive energy, along with worthless money ??
So wadja have in mind back then Barri ??

Reply to  george e. smith
December 18, 2014 3:47 pm

“So wadja have in mind back then Barri ??” Redistribution of wealth and you’ll save the world as an added bonus.

Verified by MonsterInsights