From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
It’s official! Renewable energy is definitely cheaper than fossil fuels and the tens of billions we pay out to subsidise reduce your electricity bills!
It must be true – the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit says so!
I complained about a BBC World at One soft soap interview with the lobbyist for the wind industry, Adam Berman, a few months ago. He was allowed to get away with the lie that renewable energy is cheaper than gas power, and that our electricity bills are high because of the price of gas.
I covered the story here.
Predictably the ECU has rejected my complaint. In doing so they have totally ignored the evidence I sent them, viz:
1) Fiscal data from the OBR regarding Environmental Levies, aka subsidies for renewables, which will amount to £17.1 billion this year, all of which is added to bills.
2) Costs of grid balancing, which amount to £2.6 billion, nearly all of which are incurred because of the intermittency of renewables, and all of which are added to bills.
3) Details of subsidies paid out via CfDs, which specifically destroy the notion that renewables are cheaper.
4) Details of other subsidies, such as Renewables Obligation.
Not only did the ECU ignore this evidence, they failed to refute it or explain why it was in any way irrelevant to electricity bills.
In rejecting my complaint, the ECU concluded:
In my judgement, the interview provided a duly accurate and clear explanation of how the UK electricity market functions. It served to clarify the complex relationship between gas prices and electricity costs, and the role of renewables in the current day to day pricing structure.
Bear in mind that the specific topic of discussion was “why are UK electricity prices so high?”. It was not a discussion of how the market works. As such the ECU’s response is not relevant.
As for the ECU’s “proof” that renewables are cheaper, they state:
In the second half of 2021 and most of 2022, the price of gas significantly increased because of market changes after Covid-19 restrictions were lifted and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This has made renewables comparatively even cheaper.
Even before the rise in gas prices, new renewables schemes were able to generate electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels. In 2021, the global average lifetime cost of electricity generation for new solar panels and hydropower generators was 11% lower than the cheapest new fossil fuel generator, while onshore wind was 39% lower.
The fact that gas prices spiked in 2022 have no relevance to why prices are so high now.
As for the second paragraph, they link to this report from the International Renewable Energy Agency:
https://www.irena.org/publications/2022/Jul/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2021
Their theoretical costings are global ones, based on new construction and have no connection whatsoever to the actual prices and subsidies paid out in the UK for wind and solar farms built years ago, or that still continue to be built.
Why does the ECU need to go back to a theoretical study published four years ago and based globally, when there is the actual data readily available?
It is not theoretical costings that determine our bills, it is what we actually pay to generators.
The ECU also wheel out that old BEIS study from 2023, purportedly showing that new build renewables are cheaper.
In addition, the most recent Government assessment of electricity generation costs shows the levelised cost of electricity from wind and solar is generally lower than for gas-fired generation.
The same report they wheel out every time this issue is raised. Whether they are cheaper is irrelevant, because wind farms built in future don’t affect current bills.
But what really struck me was this section at the end of the ECU letter:
However, I think it is worth noting Contracts for Difference provide low carbon generators with a guaranteed price per MWh of electricity generated but they also mean generators have to make payments back to suppliers if the market price of electricity is higher than the guaranteed, so-called “strike” price. My understanding is most CfD strike prices are currently below the wholesale market price.
My understanding? What does “your understanding” have to do with anything? Is it so difficult to get hold of the facts?
I presented the facts surrounding CfDs, which conclusively show that “your understanding” is false. So why do you still maintain otherwise?
So, just to make this crystal clear. The OBR say that CfDs will be paid a subsidy of £1.4bn this year, and this will increase in the next four years:
https://obr.uk/download/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2025
And on a monthly basis, subsidies have been paid throughout the period of the scheme, except for a few months in 2021/22:
https://data.spectator.co.uk/energy
The response was sent by Colin Tregear, who you may recall is off on a six-month course with the Oxford Climate Journalism Network, which aims to make the ‘climate crisis’ a central element in the journalism of the attendees.
The ECU will always defend the BBC against complaints, regardless of the facts.
But this latest judgement proves that it is also prepared to defend the BBC’s Net Zero agenda, come what may!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks to climate policy we have ever cheaper electricity. As an added bonus we now also can admire flying elephants.
…and pigs!
One gets paid to use pixie dust and magic carpets.
I always thought it was Proxy Dust
Dumbo in full glory
Of course we have. Yesterday it was cheaper than today, and today it’s cheaper than tomorrow. It’s cheaper every single day!
…aims to make the ‘climate crisis’ a central element in the journalism…
Its been front and centre of reporting since 2007 when the BBC declared the science is settled.
What more can they do?
And the committee which decided what the Beeb’s policy would be included the “Head of Comedy”. You couldn’t make it up!
It’s like early Gutenberg press owners deciding that Bibles should be central to their efforts…customer baiting….
Imagine if the BBC went from being compulsive liars about climate and energy to being forced to tell the truth for 24 hours. They would start to try to tell lies, but instead, to their shock and horror the truth would come out. It would even make for a funny movie.
New movie: Liar, Liar, BBC On Fire.
From the article: “It is my understanding”
That’s funny. And not even close to being definitive.
It’s *my* understanding the the BBC apologist either doesn’t have a clue about what he is talking about, or is deliberately lying. I think I’m closer to the truth than he is.
Renewables are cheaper. It stands to reason. After all, they just collect free energy from the sun and the wind so they must be cheaper.
On a completely separate subject, I have absolutely no idea why my electricity bills are so much higher than they used to be before we started collecting all this free energy.
Frank – you could start with “duplication of generating equipment”.
And add in “cost of real estate footprint”.
Octopus Energy in Britain claim that all the electricity they supply is sourced from renewable sources. (No, I don’t know how they do that either)
That must mean their customers have by far the lowest bills. After all the BBC says ‘ onshore wind was 39% lower.’
Indeed, customers are promised they could save up to 15 pounds a year if they switch to Octopus Energy.
I used to be with Octopus because they were the lowest cost. That’s not true at all anymore.i have left them.
Hmm…interesting point as my fix deal expires next month. I was not a voluntary Octopus customer as they bought Shell Energy – losing me a 3% discount at the pumps – but will run a cost check. With Energy Cap rises coming in October, January and possibly April as well fixing is a good idea.
ROCs is how they do it – bits of paper that allow them to lie.
The patriarchy or something. End all farming now!
Free
“I don’t think that word means what you think it means”
sarc…
If you only measure the cost of generation – then yes – renewables are less expensive.
However, it is total costs that matter, not the cost of a single component of electric generation. There is a lot of talk of subsidies that renewables receive.
Biggest subsidy Renewables receive is that they dont pay for any of the costs associated with maintain stability and their intermediacy. In order to cover those costs, renewables will need to build tremendous redundancy into the grid along with huge investments in storage. That is a minumum of what is needed to cover the slack periods. 4x-10x for periods of a few hours to a few weeks. Now with the redundant level of storage and redundant level of capacity, there is now considerable excess capacity for the good days. now on those good days, there is lots of electricity that is generated but not used.
The denominator drastically falls (due to the wasted electric generation) and the numerator skyrockets (due to the costs associated with the redundancy). The result is an LCOE that 5x-10x the lazards LCOE computation.
Electricity cost to the consumers has increased considerably and the people know it. The only thing that is different is the addition of ‘renewables’ and the people know that as well. Blaming the cost increase on what was keeping the cost in check is the height of stupidity. Things like this is why the people don’t trust the media and politicians anymore.
Story Tip: Lies upon lies does not prove renewable electricity generation is cheaper than generating electricity with fossil fuels. Simply plot electricity prices country by country and the share of electricity generated by renewables. You will find a strong upward slope. Doing a similar exercise on a state by state basis in the U.S. shows similar results.
The BBC is now a propaganda machine, with net zero value from a news perspective. They’ve gone from the greatest organisation with huge respect from the UK population to the worst organisation with negative respect from the UK population in less than half a generation.
The worst thing of all is the arrogance with which they brush off anyone who dares to challenge them, with a complaints department completely devoid of reality. It’s truly sad to see this once-great British institution reduced to such a pathetic state; and the worst thing of all is that they themselves can’t see it.
This is as simple as this, the CAGW crowd has been crowing for years that more wind and solar have been added than ever before. In that same time frame our power bills have done nothing but go up. So they must not be using all of the cheap electricity that wind and solar are generating or they are lying to us. You know the answer, they are lying.
So what’s the next move? Ofcom?
There’s little point in OFCOM. Much better is to get more publicity elsewhere.