From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
I briefly touched on floating offshore wind in the new AR7 auction, but it is worth a closer look.
At a strike price of £216.49/MWh at 2024 prices, or £226/MWh at today’s the technology remains ridiculously expensive, at more than four times the cost of gas power.
It is supposed be a new, developing technology, demanding investment. Yet the Hywind project off the coast of Peterhead has been operational since 2018.
Worse still, the current AR7 prices are even higher than the £201.97/MWh current strike price for Green Volt’s floating wind farm set in last year’s AR6.
Prices are going up, not down. So why are we still wasting money on what appears to be a white elephant?
The two new projects for floating wind agreed at AR7 have a budgeted subsidy of £133 million a year. This may sound insignificant, given that their electricity output will also be tiny, with capacity of just 192 MW.
But these CfDs give guaranteed, index linked strike prices for twenty years. Over the full period of the contract, a subsidy of £2.7 billion will be paid at current prices. Remember this is on top of the revenue from the electricity produced.
It still pales into insignificance when the whole of AR7 is added up. We have so far concentrated on costs per MWh, but in total over twenty years, we will be paying out a subsidy of £38 billion.
I can think of no other branch of government that could, or ever has, signed away £38 billion of taxpayers’ money on a white elephant that has zero value at all to the country.
We are being governed by innumerates. They complain that money is tight but they are willing to waste an infinite amount of money on the net zero insanity.
They are assymtotes.
Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband pledged that average household energy bills will be £300 lower by 2030 as Britain shifts to a greener economy.
Labour made the promise during the general election campaign – The Standard
If the UK has more renewable energy, why aren’t bills coming down?
Responding to the 6% price cap rise, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said it was due to “our reliance on the fossil fuel markets” – BBC
Everybody knows mad Ed’s utterly ludicrous rationale for his net zero zealotry; and he really thinks simply saying renewables are cheaper enough times will, magically, make it so.
Meanwhile in the real world…
latest accounts from the Climate Change Committee – a taxpayer-funded body which tracks and advocates for measures to push Britain closer to Net Zero – show its chief executives have been handed a plum pay increase. – Guido Fawkes
Saving democracy…
Labour is set to allow at least 23 councils to cancel their local elections this coming May, according the BBC. That’s around 4 million people denied the vote…. – Guido Fawkes
From the Voters.
In Labour world £2.7 billion is a drop in the bucket.
Interesting that those Big Tech companies who have been promoting green shit like crazy for years are turning to nuclear when they need constant reliable supply while the plebs is forced to go renewable.
Same old pattern as with Obama who built 2 huge gastanks on his Vineyard property (while violating environmental laws that have been adjusted in his favor) instead of installing panels and windmills.
Merz, Chancellor, said it was a gross mistake to shut down perfectly good Nuclear plants in Germany.
When Merkel agreed with the eco-krazies to do that, back in about 2000, I thought she was nuts.
Jeeze, that was 25 years ago.
Now they’re building gas plants!
They went along with it… until they stopped going along with it.
There goes the neighborhood. I see that Kamala Harris purchased an $8 million dollar beach side mansion in Malibu. Of course it features natural gas appliances.
Huge is right – 20,000 gallon propane tanks. On the other hand, an angry peasant might…
He must not have watched the end of “Jaws!”
All Norwegian-designed, floating Hywind windmills at Peterhead, Scotland, have been towed back for major overhaul in Stavanger, after about six years of operation.
That means these units were grossly UNDERDESIGNED.
It is not known when they will be towed back and be put in operation again.
But it is known, this over-hyped, white elephant will ultimately be costing A LOT OF MONEY.
But the eco-brainwashed Norwegians are rich, so they don’t give a sh..
Regarding EVs, the subsidies are so high, they effectively reduce the lifetime cost of owning and operating an EV by 50%.
No wonder Norwegians buy a lot of EVs each year.
They hate Musk, because of the government-controlled Corporate Media foghorn, but love his Teslas
costing A LOT OF MONEY
We simply haven’t got.
When I worked in a government department, tge common saying was “Tge taxpayers have deep pockets”. Said as a joke, but not really.
It’s noteworthy that Norway’s topography is dominated by mountains and fjords. This gives them a huge number of dams and hydropower generation. Their electricity costs have become near zero, making EV operating costs very low. Net Zero works just fine if you’re talking electricity bill.
Keep fantasizing and dreaming.
I lived in Norway for three years.
Electricity cost/kWh are very high if you include all the bs charges added to the monthly bill.
Gasoline and diesel are about $9/gallon, due to huge taxes.
Buying a gasoline car, such as a FWD Subaru Outback, costs about $70,000.
Even more to the same point, Norway’s electricity consumption exceeds Sweden’s with half Sweden’s population. Norway has already developed nearly all of its hydro resource so where else to go to charge their PEVs and to power their heat pumps?
Now, Norway prays wind will save them, and we all know how well that works. BUT, Norway has oil and gas in their Arctic reserves and they are going after it tooth and nail. Norway has also announced that the cables sending power south will be crow-barred when Norway’s price of electricity jumps due to the energy policy of Germany. Even Norway has some sense of self-preservation.
It will be interesting to learn if Germany will kidnap Norway’s leaders to ensure Norway’s resources are available to Germany. But, no one would actually do that, would they?
They don’t reduce the costs over a lifetime. They just shift the costs to someone other than the buyer.
Of course!
Norway talks out of both sides of its mouth. Their oil-gas reserves are very large, and as a low population country, they can afford to be carrots (in Welsh). Their appointed, female dominated bureaucracy (by design) is talky-feely, admitting large numbers of new welfare voters while pursuing gas and oil in the Arctic. Norway is also doing great things with their hydro-, setting up to drain impoundments due to the GREAT SUCK from AI and PEVs, while building floating wind turbines which last six years before “repowering”.
One can learn much from Norway.
It is when it’s someone else’s money you’re spending. It’s different when the money is your own.
When reports contained estimated values displayed to the penny you know they are the result of an innumerate using AI and a spreadsheet, not someone who comprehends the real world
“Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
― Jeff Lebowski
IEA: Renewables have cut fossil-fuel imports for more than 100 countries
And it’s still a better deal than Hinkley Point C.
Shouldn’t that be “CO2Brief”?
Do they not know the difference?
The same IEA that explains why “Net Zero Will Bankrupt Britain”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16k9EyuhgLo
“Join Andy Mayer, IEA Chief Operating Officer, with David Turver, independent energy analyst and author of the Eigenvalues Substack, for an unflinching examination of Britain’s net zero policy. This episode of Free the Power explores Turver’s forensic analysis of the true costs of decarbonisation, revealing how official estimates from bodies like the Climate Change Committee and National Energy System Operator dramatically understate the financial burden on British households and businesses.
Turver traces the origins of net zero from the 2008 Climate Change Act through Theresa May’s 2019 commitment, explaining how an 80% emissions reduction target became a 100% target with minimal parliamentary scrutiny or proper costing. The discussion unpacks the accounting tricks, flawed assumptions about renewable energy costs, and the staggering scale of investment required, with estimates ranging from £7.6 trillion to over £9 trillion when carbon costs are included, all to reduce emissions that represent just 0.8% of the global total.”
Interesting times ahead. I hear that Starmer is willing to defend Ukraine with the last drop of non-immigrant UK blood.
Unfortunately they are not the same IEAs
Username was referring to the International Energy Agency,
Andy Mayer is from the Institute of Economic Affairs a London based organisation.
‘IEA: Renewables have cut fossil-fuel imports for more than 100 countries
That report says :-
‘Denmark has cut its reliance on fossil-fuel imports by nearly half over the same period.’
Denmark has interconnectors which can supply about 120% of their demand, when there is no sun and little wind.
Fairly often, Britain supplies electricity to Denmark, which needs our gas plants to supply them with electricity when their wind turbines are falling short.
Not every day, of course, but it happens.
That would be the Viking interconnect. As I write, it is almost maxed-out, at 1GW
Jeff Lebowski
Trust you to quote an utter bum. Still, it could have been Walter Sobchak, couldn’t it…
That must be difficult to say in a crowded room full of intelligent, well educated people given that Wind and Solar generate nothing of value beyond the subsidies they farm.
Why is New York State now championing nuclear as a reliable backbone?
When your president destroys every working solution, you have to take what you can get.
Wind and Solar are NOT working solutions to anything but Subsidy Farming!
They fail to generate when needed most.
They fail to generate during Peak Demand times
They fail to generate at night
They fail to generate during storms
They Fail!!!
You sure its NOT because …
Solar only works, at anywhere near nameplate, for a couple hours a day…off peak.
Wind only works, if the wind is blowing in the goldilocks zone… “Just Right” and only 40% of the year.
Even the combination fails at night under blocking highs.
So expensive, volatile Back-up Storage is needed to make the power available at peak demand.
While Nuclear generates power 24/7/102 (-2)
…24 hrs a day
…7 days a week
…102 weeks over 2 years (with 2 weeks off every 2 years for refueling) and doesn’t require expensive, volatile storage.
You may need to refuel Nuclear once every couple years but you can’t depend on the weather to provide the “Free Fuel” when needed.
And Nuclear lasts up to 80 years while Wind craps out at 20 or sooner and Solar crashes and burns with every passing hailstorm but doesn’t last much longer than 15 years before needing Total Replacement.
You’ll totally replace wind assets 3 times over the lifespan of Nuclear and Solar more than 5 times.
Seems to work fine for China and Texas
Chart: Solar is finally bigger than coal in Texas
China, who has Coal fired Back-up coverage for 100% of their renewables. That China?
.
China, who is singly responsible for 34% of All Global Emissions. That China?
.
China, who has more than 43,000 EV fires yearly. That China?
.
China, who uses forced Uyghur slaves to produce Cheap Solar Panels. That China?
.
Using China as an exemplary pillar for any purpose is a fools errand.
Yes, that china that has lower capacity factors for its coal power plants each year.
Analysis: Coal power drops in China and India for first time in 52 years after clean-energy records
That china offering cheap energy soltions to developing countries.
30% compared to the US 14% with 4 times the population. But I thought we don’t care about that?
If the west wouldn’t hand every new technology to china they could produce it themselves. Germany was once leading in that technology – before fossil fuel interests destroyed the industry.
Europe at least tries now to keep its wind industry.
I need a source for the 43000.
Germany was once a leading producer in Many Industries…Carbon Intensive Industries…until the Green Zealots forced them out and into China along with their emissions. So Germany is a little more emissions free (and accordingly industry free) but those same emissions are still being created…just in a country with far fewer environmental regulations and no accountability to it’s people.
Projecting much?
Projecting what?
No one available to tell you how to answer?
Greens have systematically tried to destroy every working energy source in the pursuit of unreliable, intermittent wing and solar, that still needs reliable backup.
Yeah, the famous greens of china. And india. And pakistan.
🤣 clueless
I’ve taken quite a bit of heat from my friends (it’s not your enemies you need to watch) for arguing here in Virginia that Dominion Energy should be allowed to complete its project, now that it is 75-80% complete and also because cancellation is going to cost us customers, not the company. But the other half of my position is that there should be no more OSW, nada, until or unless they pass total economic muster as the best choice, “reasonable and prudent” as law says, (a standard they likely will never meet.) I always appreciate more data on what is going on across the pond where their projects have gotten even more expensive (is this why the hotel in London is going to cost so much?)
“sunk-cost fallacy
the phenomenon whereby a person is reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it, even when it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial.”
1) You have to trust that it’s 80% done based on expert opinion from people whose income depends on keeping the project going.
2) You have to believe that it will pay for itself if you ignore costs up until right now. You have to trust maintenance and operation cost estimates made by people whose income depends on keeping the project going
3) What do the businessmen with their powerpoints and well practiced pitches and the construction teams and their expensive custom OSW tools do when the project ends in a way that can be marketed as a success?
It’s hard to believe that anything could beat the fraud level in Minnesota, but this appears to do it.
Yeah, Minnesota fraud just accounts for a few billion wasted dollars.
Climate Change fraud accounts for TRILLIONS of wasted dollars.
Red Ed is a traitor. The truth is something he has never understood.
Ed Miliband is a stranger to the truth
If one has to spend the money, rather than not spending, there must be better uses. Reliable, reasonable cost electricity, industrial production/jobs, and national security come to mind.
All issues in the West.
Why is that?
Who benefits?
In 2023, the US government spent $659 Billion for Interest on the National Debt.
“As Senator Paul’s report highlights, the U.S. Department of the Treasury spent $659 billion(!) in Fiscal Year 2023 just on interest payments.”
And the income off those debt instruments is deeply appreciated in this household! I know where the 4% money market return is coming from!
Ahh, Steve…..That 4% won’t balance with inflation and tax increases. The depletion of your savings…is simply part of the administration’s plan…however, those “pretty good” returns on your investments created by printing new money instead of creating value….seems to be turning us into a country of rent seekers and expensive gov’t program believers instead of believers in hard work and hard thinking…
“the administration’s plan”
Which one? Problem probably started with Nixon ending the gold standard. Arguably it goes as far back as Lincoln creating the greenback. Modernists might site Reagan’s cold war budgets.
But, but, but Intermittent Renewable Power is CHEEP! says the canary in the mine, dying of bad air.
Maggie Thatcher was exactly accurate.