Is wind and solar power the cheapest source of electricity?
You would be forgiven for thinking so, given the incessant misinformation fed to us by the renewable lobby.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
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.
The BBC fact check is up there with claiming Hitler to be friend of the Jews.
Does anyone that’s aware of the purpose of the BBC – to promote far-left propaganda – still listen to their psychological manipulation? Personally, I stopped over ten years ago and am mentally healthier for it… which doesn’t say much about my prior mental state!
This is the organisation that buried saville was a known paedo for 50 odd years.
Who would have thought that our beloved State Broadcaster would tell us things that are NOT TRUE? ———But for a start when you compare wind and sun with gas or coal you are comparing apples with chimpanzees. Wind and sun are part time energy whereas gas and coal are full time. Imagine if you had a car that only worked 4 days a week but you could never be sure on what days, and never be sure if it was available during the day or at night when you didn’t need it. You could never rely on getting back and forth to anywhere you were going. Then you compared that car to one that you can drive all day every day whenever it was required, like the one you have now. It is clear that the unreliable car is going to cost you more, because you will need to pay for some other form of transport when your dumb car isn’t available. This is exactly what happens with renewables. They have to rely on full time energy solutions to fill in when they are not available, which is OFTEN. Government are taking your taxes and feeding them in the form of huge subsidy to Renewables and guaranteeing the return they get, and the reason they do this is because no one in their right mind would ever build a wind turbine as they are simply uneconomical. This is the energy government wants to give you for ideological purposes. Un reliable unaffordable pretend to save the planet energy, and they and their mainstream media buddies at BBC, SKY Guardian Independent etc etc will tell you bare faced lies straight to your face about cost. ———–In a year and 2 years time when we look at our energy bills let us see who is telling the truth. I guarantee it will not be Miliband and will not be the BBC.
Good points but the unreliable car you imagine, works closer to 1 in 3 days rather than 4 in 7.
Minor detail…..You agree with me though. Isn’t it incredible that the BBC can take information that is clearly false and then claim they have checked it an declared it TRUE. 40 years ago I used to look at things coming out of the old Soviet Union and how Pravda would tell the Russian people what was true, and used to think I was glad I did not live in a place like that. ——Now look where we are today doing exactly he same thing.
“The BBC Has ‘Fact-Checked’ Labour’s Claim that Renewables are Cheaper than Fossil Fuels and Declared it to be True.”
As per yesterday’s exchanges on this subject, when a headline such as this appears my automatic conclusion is that the BBC are lying. Job done.
Isn’t it incredible that 85% of the population believe the BBC etc over the green scam.
As far as I can see a large sector of the UK population believe the BBC on everything. For many people it is very much am article of faith, it is like losing your religion when you realise the BBC is not beyond reproach.
And the scamdemic and dangerous murderous gene therapy treatments and and and……..
Pravda
Paying renewable producers to stop producing, paying for additional grid capacity and for batteries and for available stand-by generation are not incidental costs of renewables that can be ignored.We would not think of ignoring the cost of downtime for maintenance or for the cost of fuel or for decommissioning conventional power units so why exclude costs wholly and exclusively caused by renewables.
The last para should be prefaced with “Up to 20% of”.
Does anyone know the best way to publicly challenge the BBC Fact Check team with some real facts?
Talk to a wall – you would get more response.
Nut zero.
Only a mad person could believe that energy generation by wind and solar necessarily backed by gas generators could possibly be cheaper than exactly the same gas generators on their own.
Plentiful gas, upfront construction costs of necessarily double banked generation factored into through life costs by means of a discounted cash flow analysis, added to the decommissioning costs, maintenance costs, not to mention the environmental damage of birdstrike, countryside amenity disfigurement, the demand for scarce raw materials of finite supply produced by child labour, must, quite clearly, rule that out, in any sane world.
It is no longer a sane World.
Double, triple and quadruple… in six years, as well as build 1500 houses a day? Yeah, right…
“…the cost of a unit of power from a new solar or wind project is lower than the cost from a new gas generator”.
Cost and price are not the same thing. Price is the amount which a business has to sell its product to cover all its costs and make an acceptable return on investment.
Solar and wind have high capital costs and operating costs. The price of output has to cover these and yield a profit, but unlike other businesses the output is not continuous, is unpredictable and cannot be controlled to match demand.
So revenue cannot be continuous and cannot increase with demand.
No business which cannot plan and control its output which is intermittent is viable.
Therefore the price of wind and solar has to reflect that intermittency by charging more when it can supply to make up for no revenue when it cannot.
Worse: because of the ‘wind us always blowing somewhere’ nonsense, there are too many wind installations so when conditions are favourable, there is a glut of electricity meaning as is always the case, selling prices fall – in some cases they have gone negative. But costs don’t fall, they are constant.
So wind and solar are relient on subsidies and over-pricing their output to remain solvent… although technically they are not.
Since gas-fired power stations must be on continuous back-up, and must withdraw to give wind/solar preference, they too suffer from the intermittency and lost revenue, they too must recover cost and profit contribution through higher pricing, therefore this must be added to the cost to the consumer.
So subsidies, higher pricing of fossil fuel (and nuclear) and wind/solar all land on the consumer via the higher prices they pay.
As more wind installations are added, the intermittency costs will increase.
The problem here is the nitwits in charge look only at cost of consumables – gas prices, but wind is free – ignore intermittency cost and don’t understand how businesses are run.
And of course no clue about market economics.
Great post!
It would be quite clear how disingenuous, mendacious, quite possibly venal, the politicians involved must be if it wasn’t absolutely crystal clear how staggeringly dim, innumerate and grotesquely incompetent they all are.
Or they are all bought and paid for. We could actually use a period now of grid failure to
wake people up to this folly
I do hope you are right that no energy and high prices might wake a few people up. Although one of the paid leftie loons on GBNews was stating it was our duty to accept power failures and pay higher energy prices to save the planet.
I can see where they are going with that angle, however I’d say that’s a MAJOR change to the social contract we have in our society – UK power is some of the most reliable in the world, same for water, sewage, gas etc… people just expect it to ‘work’
“MAJOR change to the social contract we have in our society “
“Covid” was one extreme example of major changes to the social contract that are all going in one direction – fake collectivism designed to benefit the rich and powerful.
I honestly expected major civil unrest during “covid” but it never happened. If they can swing that, the odd power cut is not going to make much difference.
You may be right, who knows eh – I agree on covid, literally saw people go mad around me including sensible family members – I’d based my prediction on the removal of power = no access to social media / internet… I think that could be the kicker
Yes maybe taking away the “soma” of social media might wake some up
Your unceasing faith in politicians’ honesty is bizarre. Lots of people are dishonest when they get the chance, if they think they can get away with it and there is something in it for them. Do you think people who go into politics are somehow a breed apart?
It’s an interesting one – you’d think a sample of politicians would represent a usual selection of society, the clever, the smart, the practical, the dreamers and idealists etc… it does appear in my opinion politics instead over represents the latter – seems to be less representation of people who can understand the practical realities. Or, as we’ve all said – they understand, but have a higher motivation (or lower) instead…
Indeed. I refuse to believe in “thick” politicians. I have met “thick” people and they can hardly speak, struggle with abstract concepts, struggle to read and write.
Agreed they must be reasonable able to become an MP, you’d like to think – it’s not easy… for most
People who can hardly speak are often highly intelligent.
Politicians who can hardly think can be good at speaking: for example, the well named Hancock
Being articulate is by no means always a sign of intelligence.
How would you measure/define “intelligence”?
‘unceasing’?
Where on earth do you get these strange ideas from?
Quite clearly, many politicians are not honest.
The key politician here, Mr Miliband, on the other hand, may very well be honest. We cannot say, with any certainty.
But we can assert that he is dim and, quite possibly, innumerate.
Ed Miliband saw the 2008 global financial crisis that had exposed the flaws of financialised capitalism as an opportunity to renew social democratic politics.
That was phenomenally dim, probably innumerate.
Eating a bacon sandwich in front of a battery of cameras, the Ed stone……
A YouGov poll 2013: ‘Almost a third (31 per cent) of people agreed Labour under Mr Miliband is ‘nice but dim’.
You have made multiple references to stupidity being the main reason for various “cock-ups”.
“Innumerate: without a basic knowledge of mathematics and arithmetic”. Miliband got an “A” grade in A level mathematics. If he’s innumerate then that makes me an amoeba.
YouGov poll, lol. 31% of YouGov members are dim probably.
surely a simple question to ask is, if renewables are really cheaper and better then why do they need any subsidies?
“Solar Power: £84.79/MWh”
does this figure include opportunity cost of ruined prime farm land? How about the body bags when there’s a war and the ruined land can’t be safely restored?
Also, mass subsidies ruin the efficiencies of a market economy and ultimately cause famine in countries hell bent on commie command economic models.
Do the costs quoted reflect that gas plants have a much longer life than wind turbines?
They always conveniently ignore the backup systems costs and the vast subsidies.
Today at 9.30am wind is providing 4% and solar 12% of our needs. We’re even using a couple of percent of coal, presumably to keep this vital top up running. Without gas we would be stuffed, a FACT that experts seem to be ignorant of. If they’re not ignorant then they should be charged with treason.
We are also increasingly dependent on the various inter-connectors into mainland Europe – fine as long as all is well, very likely to be re-prioritised if their home countries need the power in an emergency situation – will leave a huge gap in our network
Yes. So much for energy security. We are generally drawing 23% of our requirements from France and the Nordic countries at great cost. 3% is also being continously sent to N.Ireland who like to claim they are often self-sufficient in renewables.
It has to be a totally innumerate mind that thinks that one can replace controllable power generation providing ~90% productivity / capacity with undispatchable Weather-Dependent “Renewable” installations that provided power at the following European combined productivity / capacity percentages in 2023:
This means that “Renewables” installations have to be roughly 5+ times larger to produce an equivalent level of power output. As “Renewables” are more expensive than Gas-fired installations in capital costs it is clear that using “Renewables” have to be significantly dearer for the power produced.
So, would anyone sane buy a car that only goes one day in five and you don’t know when that day might be and then insist that its technology is the only way to provide energy support for a developed economy!!
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/the-myth-of-cheap-renewable-power-in-the-uk/