This Substack has been highly critical of the Conservative Government’s energy policy. However, we are now in an election period, so it is time to subject Labour’s energy plans to some scrutiny. On Friday, Labour announced more details about its plans for Great British Energy.
Their plans include many promises, but precious little detail on how they will be achieved. Labour’s central claim is that they will “cut energy bills for good” and they put some flesh on the bones by claiming in the text of their regional maps their plans will “save £300 off the average annual household energy bill”. Labour’s claim appears to be based upon a report by the energy thinktank Ember. However, it does appear they mean a saving on electricity bills, not overall energy bills.
Magical thinking for renewable energy prices
Ember use Ofgem’s energy price cap for 3Q23, which states that the average household electricity bill was then £1,127. They claim that if we follow their “Delivering Commitments” scenario, electricity bills will fall to £828 by 2030, for a saving of £299 per year, which they conveniently round up to £300. The trouble is, the latest Ofgem price cap shows the average electricity bill will be £913 in 3Q24, or some £214 less than Ember’s starting point. More than two-thirds of the proposed saving has already been delivered, mostly by falling gas prices. In fact, the total energy bill (including gas for heating) in the price cap has already fallen by £449 since 3Q23, so on that measure 1.5 times the promised saving has already been made.
These reductions in the electricity price cap have been delivered despite a massive increase in the cost of renewables. Since 3Q23, the assumed cost of Renewables Obligations in the Ofgem Price Cap is up nearly 15% to almost £32/MWh supplied and Feed-in-Tariff costs have gone up over 18% to £7.64/MWh supplied. The annual cost of Contracts for Difference has gone up too, from around £770 million assumed in 3Q23 to £3,087 million in the latest price cap report. The CfD cost per MWh has gone up roughly four-fold from £3/MWh supplied to over £12/MWh supplied. Taken together, all these subsidy schemes add about 5.1p/kWh to our electricity bills, up from 3.7p/kWh in 3Q23. It is difficult to understand how adding more renewables will reduce electricity prices.
To square the circle, Ember relies on a single dodgy assumption. They assume that all new offshore wind power will be delivered at the price achieved in Allocation Round 4 (AR4). This is the round where several wind farms agreed to deliver electricity at £37.35/MWh in 2012 prices or about £52/MWh in today’s money. This is problematic because Vattenfall pulled out its Norfolk Boreas development last year because it could no longer deliver at the agreed price. Moreover, the other AR4 projects are being offered the chance of rebidding part of their projects at higher prices in AR6. The offer price for offshore wind in AR6 is £73/MWh in 2012 money or £102/MWh in today’s money, nearly double the winning bids in AR4. So, to support their claim of a £300 per year saving on electricity bills Ember relied upon magical thinking. They assumed offshore wind prices will be about half of what is being offered this year.
Labour also rely upon another report from Ember that contained completely unrealistic build out plans for renewables which I covered here. We are nowhere near on track to deliver the required renewables capacity.
Fantasy green jobs
Labour also claims they will create 650,000 new skilled jobs in the “industries of the future”. They are not quite clear what this means but let us assume they mean in the wind and solar power industries.
In 2021, the wind and solar sectors employed a total of 22,000 full-time equivalent people, at a cost of around £250k per job. Labour is proposing they will deliver a stunning 30-fold increase in employment by 2030. Even if they did manage it, we could not afford it. If it really takes so many people to deliver so much renewable power, then this should not be paraded as a badge of honour. Quite the contrary, it will be a sign that the productivity of the power sector has plummeted.
Spending on expensive energy sources
Labour promises to accelerate spending on floating offshore wind, tidal power and green hydrogen by co-investing with private partners.
In AR6, floating offshore wind is being offered £176/MWh in 2012 prices or £246/MWh in today’s money, which is three to four times recent wholesale electricity prices. Moreover, the Hywind floating offshore wind farm is being towed to Norway for major maintenance after just seven years of operation. This is hardly a sign that floating offshore wind is going to be our energy saviour.
Tidal Stream power is being offered £261/MWh in 2012 prices, or a staggering £364/MWh in 2024 prices. In December, the Government announced the results of its first green hydrogen auction. The average price offered was £175/MWh in 2012 prices, which equates to £244/MWh in 2024 prices. Electricity made from this green hydrogen would cost over £500/MWh.
All of these technologies are far more expensive than existing renewables and many times the cost of gas-fired electricity. This “co-investing” will only increase electricity bills, the exact opposite of their claim to reduce bills by £300 per year.
Where will the money come from?
Labour aim to inject £8.3 billion into Great British Energy over the course of a Parliament, which is about £1.7 billion per year. They plan to fund this by imposing a “proper” windfall tax on oil and gas companies. However, there is already a windfall tax of 35% which takes the marginal rate on oil and gas profits to 75%. The windfall tax, properly known as the Energy Profits Levy (EPL) raised £2.6 billion in its first year.
The offshore energy industry has already said that Labour’s tax plans could make the U.K. oil and gas sector uninvestable. Moreover, with Labour’s pledge to stop awarding new oil and gas licenses, there will not be much in the way of new investment in the North Sea. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the EPL will deliver an additional £1.7 billion per year to fund Great British Energy. We are left with fantasy plans that are essentially unfunded.
Endorsements of Labour energy plan
Labour’s plan has been endorsed by some of what we might call the usual suspects. For instance, RenewableUK has tweeted its support of Great British Energy. Support has also come from an unexpected source. Sir Patrick Vallance, has been wheeled out like the ghost of Covid past to support Labour’s plans. He said:
I believe that one such priority is the urgent need to end the era of excessive carbon emissions, high energy bills and energy insecurity by accelerating the Net Zero transition to clean, homegrown energy.
Which just goes to show his grasp of energy policy is even worse than his woeful Covid projections. It is thought Sir Patrick might be angling for a job advising any new Labour Government.
Mild criticism from BBC Verify
As if to illustrate how mad the plans for Great British Energy are, even BBC Verify managed some mild criticisms of Labour’s policy.
The BBC appeared to pour cold water on the deliverability of 98% clean energy by 2030 and said some of the figures were uncertain. However, the BBC made their own claim that renewables are cheaper, which is patently false and did not properly interrogate the £300 per year savings claim.
Conclusions
It is patently obvious that Labour’s plans are a fantasy. Their numbers on energy bills, the cost of renewables, jobs and sources of funding simply do not add up. If renewables really were cheaper, then private companies would be falling over themselves to install new capacity without Government subsidy. The fact that subsidies are rising substantially in AR6 proves that Labour’s claims are simply a big lie.
All in all, they amount to a Great British Energy suicide note. More expensive energy will be a disaster for industry and crippling for the poorest in society. Time for Labour to take their Great British Energy plans, and its logo, to a darkened room with a bottle of whisky and a revolver.
David Turver writes the Eigen Values Substack page, where this article first appeared.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
My default position nowadays for any political pronouncements is to assume “they’re lying.” I no longer believe a word any of them are saying. This article more than reinforces my opinion. Labour are lying as usual and seem to be working on the Goebbel’s maxim of telling a big lie, repeat it continuously and eventually the people will believe it.
This Nut Zero travesty will surely provide Labour with their best ever chance to finally succeed at that which they are best at – running the country in to the ground. Significantly this will be the last government they ever form.
Indeed
As I write this, 21.7% of our electricity needs are being supplied by other countries, half of that by France
When the sun goes down, the contribution from solar will obviously disappear. At this moment our capacity from wind is far from being 100% utilised – presumably because the wrong kind of wind is blowing or not enough of it. Installing more bird choppers does not help if the wind is not blowing.
They must know this so the whole plan is malevolent and not a cockup.
Yes, 100%. Anyone who doesn’t have trust issues with anybody in authority, not even just the perma-corrupt politicians, is gullible in the extreme, in my opinion. There’s always an agenda, there’s always an ulterior motive, there’s always something they’re withholding from us. Sounds like paranoia but there it is, it’s how I roll now.
A 4min montage demonstrating the failures of these hated, ugly, destructive wind turbines, including a brief glimpse of the tragic effects on the poor birds;
https://x.com/TheMilkBarTV/status/1795113082907226397
If a cat kills a sparrow then all cats should be destroyed, but if wind turbines virtually wipe out the Red Kite, like what has happened in Germany then we should build even more of them.
Thanks for the link Mogs
Putting Government in charge of energy is like having wolves tending sheep. But actually the most powerful force today regarding energy is not this government or the next one. It is the “Climate Change Commitee”. It is they who run the show. It is they who have decided what your standard of living is to be moving forward, and since energy is the most important commodity for our prosperity and well being and the CCC have decided our energy use is to be strictly rationed then there can only be one outcome. ——Lower Living Standard. The use of coal oil and gas is what has given us the standard of living we currently enjoy. It is the standard of living that the developing world hopes to have and is why China and India continue using coal to bring their populations out of abject misery and poverty. By removing fossil fuels we reverse our standard of living. The countries with the highest energy prices are the UK, Germany and Denmark. —Why? because they have the most wind turbines. Any government that wants to expand the use of wind will only cause prices to increase. The idea we will have cheaper energy bills by using more renewables comes from the mouths of LIARS.
The odious CCC was covered here:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/disband-the-climate-change-committee
Thans for that. Read it and saved it.
Quite apart from Labours usual fantasy orgasm non-policies I read recently that the average number of days without sun and / or wind is 110. That is 3 months of the year in the UK where anything relying on wind or sun cannot function. To put it bluntly that is 3 months with no light and no heat. Even if you have a gas boiler, how do you light it and drive the pump without electricity?
I didn’t read beyond the second mention of 3023
Only 9 comments. ————I am very surprised. There is no more important issue than energy for prosperity, health, life span and everything else that relates to our well being.
You are right, but I already feel defeated. If those in power decide to shut off the gas mains and stop petrol & diesel reaching the pumps there is nothing I can do to get them back.
And that is exactly what they will do …. but over a period of time, so that they don’t completely crash the economy or cause riots. It’s the classic “boiling frog” process.
The best thing we can all do is slow down the process by refusing to co-operate. Don’t buy an EV; don’t get a heat pump. Resist having a Smart Meter as long as possible. If you can, get an alternative heat source to gas and electricity.
So you vote for those that will stop Net Zero and currently the only party saying they will do that is REFORM. —–Not so easy if they were government to say it though as the entire Liberal Progressive machine of the western world would be down on them like a ton of bricks. No make that 50 tons of bricks.
Socialist Labour modus operandi when it comes to State run disasters, is keep the end-user price low by taxing them to subsidise the lower price.
The people have been falling for that one since 1945. Don’t forget when you use the NHS it is free – you don’t pay anything. State education similarly is free.
In the days of State owned gas, electric, coal, rail none of these made a profit – or surplus if you prefer – out of revenues, but prices were kept down.
In the case of energy, after it was privatised in the 80’s prices were still low and competitive. It was only after the Climate Change Act in 2008 (Miliband) that prices started to rise because wind is an expensive way to produce electricity, and also because the turbines were being paid for out of our bills. It isn’t privatisation that has cause high prices, it is government interfering in the energy market with pretend to save the planet policies.