From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
David Turver explains why energy bills will keep on rocketing:
https://insider.iea.org.uk/p/cost-of-renewables-to-double-by-2030
His analysis is all based on official projections from the OBR and NESO.
First of all we have the various direct subsidies for renewables, which will increase from £11.8bn in 2024/25 to £15.2bn in 2031/31:
Some of the RO bill is being funded out of general taxation for the next three years, but as they are still a cost they are included in the analysis.
On top of this bill, the cost of grid upgrades and balancing will also increase massively because of the rollout of wind and solar power.
NESO confirmed last September that transmission charges would increase to £13.6bn in 2030/31, from £4.2bn in 2024/25:
https://www.neso.energy/document/367801/download
NESO also estimate that grid balancing costs, such as constraint payments and the cost of reserve provisions, will triple to £7.3bn.
On top of that is added the cost of running the Capacity Market, paying for standby capacity. The OBR say this will increase from £1.3bn to £4.4bn.
Adding the three elements together, the total cost of grid integration will rise from £8.0bn in 2024/25 to £25.0bn in 2030/31:
In total, including direct subsidies, Net Zero will increase the cost of electricity by £20.3bn :
That is equivalent to about £750 for every household in the country, of which about a third will feed through onto our energy bills.
The rest, of course, the public will still have to pay for one way or another, whether through higher taxes, higher prices and lost jobs.
Not even St. Tony of Bliar can melt mad Ed’s cold heart.
Abandoning net zero and drilling for more oil and gas in the North Sea would be a massive setback for the UK and would not help the economy, leading experts have said in response to claims by the former prime minister Tony Blair.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/may/28/tony-blair-fossil-fuel-advice-bizarre-energy-climate-crises-experts-say
Helping the economy means destroying it first.
The Guardian calls these people “leading experts”. Everybody else calls them science denying lunatics who seem intent on destroying the British economy and making life more difficult for the British people. Invariably, these “leading experts” are middle class halfwits who can afford higher energy bills but couldn’t care less about people who find higher energy bills very difficult to pay.
The Guardian and the Times have never been closer.
You have to destroy the village in order to save it.
A Labour source told the Guardian: “Blair has made these interventions many times before and they have not shifted the dial inside the government one bit. The government’s commitment to net zero and the North Sea position has been rock solid, and this is not going to change.”
Fanatics, they are.
Double-down on stupid.
These “leaders” have no clue, and thus they pose a great danger to the UK.
Are there enough critical thinkers in the UK to turn this situation around? Or has the Leftwing brainwashing been too much?
I have the same question for American voters. Can they see through the blizzard of Leftwing propaganda?
The left controls the media and most institutions.
Unfortunately.
And too many people believe what the Left tells them. This causes political power to be in the wrong hands, like now in the UK.
Yesterday I posed the question: how difficult can they make it to park a car? Answer: 11 charging bands based on area in M^2
Today- how difficult can they make it to drive?
Countryside LTNs’ quietly rolled out across England
Oxfordshire becomes latest county to adopt scheme that reduces traffic on rural roads
Hundreds of countryside roads have quietly turned into low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) that favour cyclists and pedestrians over drivers…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/30/countryside-ltns-quietly-rolled-out-across-england/
Very difficult indeed
https://www.desmog.com/institute-economic-affairs/
Another Tufton Street conspiracy theory.
Most amusing.
DESmog?
Just when we thought you’d finished scraping the barrel with your thought-free comments.
DeSmog’s article is a textbook smear job that attacks the Institute of Economic Affairs through guilt by association, highlighting old fossil fuel donations while ignoring the IEA’s consistent free-market principles since 1955.
The IEA accepts the basic science of warming but criticises the high costs, impracticality, and poor prioritisation of aggressive net zero policies. Pointing out that trillions spent on climate programmes could instead address real issues like clean water, energy poverty, and adaptation is legitimate policy debate, not denial.
DeSmog’s selective outrage reveals its activist agenda more than it exposes the IEA.
PS No doubt tomorrow you will race to be the first to post your usual drivel on the Sunday Open Thread.
I have a challenge for you: Instead of posting, wait to see my post on clean water and then give me your thoughts, I’d be really interested in seeing what you have to say.
Deal?
Clean water? We’ll see. About the race – maybe consider time zones existing?
Looks like I hit a nerve with this link, though. How about going outside that Heartland / Heritage bubble for a while?
Time zones? We’re both Brits aren’t we?
Not at all. The issue is you post stuff that you don’t think about. It’s almost like you don’t understand what you’re doing. You must be better than that, surely?
When nobody comments, LooserName declares that everyone agrees with him.
If anyone criticizes his comments he declares that he has hit a nerve.
Typical climate nut logic. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Paul,
While you show some costs increasing yoy, if we showed your analysis to our Australian officials, I suspect that they might reject it by saying that cheap renewables are increasing in volume while expensive fossils are decreasing yoy, so that saving should also be listed. Or is this effect already in your analysis? (I have long found it hard to absorb accounting methods and nomenclature). Geoff S
Now, now, it’s all for a good cause: fattening the wallets of Big Green and others in the Climate Industrial Complex.
Story Tip: The Dash From Gas
…the Prime Minister is planning a major intervention on electricity, to be announced in the coming weeks. More specifically, Starmer is looking to impose a ‘rush to electrification’ scheme aimed at moving masses of households off gas in a rapid timeframe. The Prime Minister will look to seize on the Iran war and its impact on energy bills to bring the public onside as he announces a rapid national dash from gas to the grid. – The Spectator
mad Ed is in the chair.
These guys are unbelievable!
And they are in charge until 2029?!
As Ehrlich himself might have opined:
By the year 2029 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people…
73 million hungry people by 2029 if another three million arrive by boat between now and then.
This article demonstrates how absurd it is to add windmills and solar to the grid.
Forty billion dollars wasted, accompanied by deindustrialization, costing hundreds of billions more dollars.
You have to be a real idiot to inflict windmills and solar on the unsuspecting public like this. That, or you secretly desire the destruction of the UK.
But the public is waking up to it now, even if UK “leadership” is not.
But it is free energy, right?
The energy is freely available but harvesting that energy with windmills and solar drives up the cost of electricity everywhere they are implemented, and puts electric grids in danger of blackouts.
The UK for instance is actually running duplicate power grids, one powered by conventional generator like coal and natural gas, and one powered by windmills and solar.
That’s one reason the UK has such high electric bills: You are running two separate power generation systems.
A sane government would scrap the windmills and solar, and run their grid off conventional power generator. Then there would not be a reason to spend hundreds of billions of dollars/pounds to subsidize windmills and solar.
When you try to shoehorn windmills and solar onto the grid, the costs skyrocket. Don’t do that!
Coal?
DRAX used to burn coal until some “genius” decided it would be better to import wood chips from the United States and burn them instead of coal.
Any comments about the UK paying for two separate electrical systems (required to incorporate windmills and solar into the grid), thus increasing the price of electricity?
The job loss from being uncompetitive will cost a lot more than that.
If there are fewer jobs there will be less carbon pollution.
Are you talking about CO2?
Only if you think a lost decade or lost generation is pastoral. Utopianist tend to believe that. But regime change tends to come first.
Well, the current energy policy has the UK on a course to be a third-world country economically. They are now dependent on other countries for both food and energy production. OTOH, their immigration policy is on track to convert the country to a third-world culture. So in a weird sense they are devolving smoothly. Hard to have much sympathy, though, since they elected leaders pushing these policies.
Rivers of green but the dumb schmucks will pay-
‘Hellbent on knocking me over’: Bowen accused of political blame game over Snowy Hydro