The Government recently announced the results of the International Investment Summit held earlier in October with much fanfare. It claims the summit has secured £63bn of investment and nearly 38,000 jobs. But how much of this investment is really new, and what will be the impact on consumers?
International Investment Summit Sector Breakdown
The Government announcement lists 23 different items of investment across several industrial sectors as shown in Figure 1.
By far the largest sector is energy, taking £34.3 billion of the total £64 billion investment. The second largest sector is data centres with £24.3 billion. The remaining 8.5% of investment is spread across ports, airports, property, medicines and what I have loosely termed innovation.
How Much is New Investment?
However, the headline announcement is not quite what it seems. Many of the projects have been announced before. At least £39.6bn or 61.9% of the investment has been announced before as shown in Figure 2.
For instance, one of the largest project re-announcements is Blackstone’s £10bn data centre investment in Blyth was agreed in April 2024, under the last Government (see Figure 3).
Similarly, Ørsted’s £8 billion offshore wind investments were announced as part of the AR6 auction results last month and the AR6 process was initiated under the Tory administration, as was Greenvolt’s £2.5 billion floating offshore wind farm. Moreover, the £8 billion of carbon capture projects were announced by the then Tory Energy Minister, Claire Coutinho in October 2023.
Amazon’s £8 billion data centre investment was announced last month, seemingly totally unrelated to the investment summit. It also appears that not all the £8 billion will be “investment” because the press release says the money will be spent on “building, operating and maintaining” the data centres. The operating costs of large data centres are considerable because of the amount of electricity they consume. The claim of supporting 14,000 jobs also appears dubious because it seems to include tech jobs at clients that might utilise Amazon’s cloud services.
Planning permission for the £1.1 billion investment in expanding Stansted was granted in October last year, and Stansted is owned by Manchester Airports Group which is in turn owned by a consortium of Manchester local authorities so should not count as international investment. Finally, the Holtec SMR factory was announced in May 2024, it’s just the final site selection that was announced last month.
That leaves us with the remaining £24.4 billion of investment that might be termed new, but £2 billion of that is from U.K. business Octopus Energy. A further £1 billion is from a new property company set up by publicly owned Network Rail and London and Continental Railways; again, hardly international investment. It is also likely that many of these transactions would have happened without the lavish summit.
Impact of Energy Investments
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves made a speech at the summit and claimed that the “Government’s number one mission is to grow the economy by being the most pro-business this country has ever seen”. It is interesting that she chose the words “pro-business” and not “pro-market”. We can perhaps see why if we dig into the announcements related to energy (see Figure 4).
The offshore wind projects were announced last month as part of the AR6 renewables auction results. As I covered then, the strike price for fixed offshore wind was in the range £76-£82/MWh (in 2024 prices), both of which are above the average reference price so far this financial year of around £61/MWh, largely set by gas. The generators are guaranteed subsidies that will be paid by consumers. The capital expenditure for the Ørsted projects is £8 billion to deliver 3.48GW of generating capacity, or £2.3 billion per GW. Moreover, the Greenvolt floating offshore wind project has a strike price of £195/MWh, more than three times the recent reference price. The capital expenditure for this project is £2.5 billion for a 400MW generator or £6.25 billion per GW. Both projects are spending far more than £1.4 billion per GW the Government estimated for offshore wind deliverable in 2030. These staggering costs will be paid by consumers through their bills.
The investment in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCUS) is estimated at £8 billion. However, in return for the £8 billion investment, the Government has confirmed that £21.7 billion of funding has been made available over 25 years for these projects. This means that consumers or taxpayers will be on the hook to pay back nearly three times the initial investment in subsidies to make these projects work.
Of course, the billions to be spent on storage will not generate a single extra MWh of electricity. Indeed, after taking account of losses during charging and discharging, the batteries will consume energy. Adding extra expenditure to the system without increasing output can only increase system costs and thus push up our bills even further. The £8 billion to be spent on transmission and distribution will also have to be paid back through higher network charges on our bills.
Data Centre Challenges
The second biggest investment category is in data centres. However, there are significant challenges ahead for these projects.
First, there is the problem of obtaining grid connections, with the system already operating at capacity across many areas of the country, including the area with most datacentres – the “Slough Availability Zone”. Second, even if connections can be delivered there has to be significant doubt that we are capable of generating sufficient electricity to power the hyper-scale 1 GW or higher behemoths that are under consideration to support the AI revolution. Third, as previously discussed, we are not cost competitive because the U.K. has the highest industrial electricity prices among the 28 developed countries covered by the IEA.
There must be grave doubts, despite the investment summit fanfare, whether these projects will be delivered on time or ever.
Conclusions
Overall, the investment summit was a damp squib, mostly re-announcing projects that were already in existence. Not only that, the energy projects that were declared will only increase our already extortionate electricity costs, making the country less competitive and act as a drag on growth.
However, it is revealing that the Chancellor declared her Government to be “pro-business”. We can see this means distorting the market to give corporations guaranteed returns at the expense of the consumer and taxpayer. It is astonishing that the Labour Party, supposedly the party of working people, is actively encouraging corporatism. Labour has become a kind of reverse Robin Hood, robbing the poor to give even more to the already rich.
David Turver writes the Eigen Values Substack, 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.
Does that mean I can take my mask off now and leave the house.
Not if you are transphobic, or a denier of the Climate thingy. Stay home. Stay diapered. Stay safe.
Just in time for his election campaign, a cynic might observe.
Derrrr, what an effing plonker!
Surely, it would better for the $5 Billion earmarked for COVID-19 vaccines to be returned to the US taxpayer instead.
End of the $camdemic? The $tabbing. The Lockdown$. The Diaper$. The Fear porn. Locked borders for the un$tabbed, but not for the invading armies heading across the Rio Grande?
Surely the $cience will concoct another US DoD-CIA event?
Estimated that 500 K died from the $tabs. Rona death rate same as the flu or 150 K or so dead….obviously an emergency…
Excellent stuff!
Apropos nada: was at local hospital today. Hardly a mask in sight in corridors or in the burn/lop/poison areas (clinical). The front desk of (very kind) volunteers didn’t quite know what the masking policy is. I think they are hoping it will just wither on the Jeremy.
Wither on the Jeremy, I will be borrowing that.
Oh I just posted a similar fresh comment above! I finally went in to the belly of the beast Sunday night.
Why not move on to that other great money spinner, the War on Terror?
The War on Terror is hereby terminated.
The DOD is hereby terminated.
etc.
Why quit now?
The military and the DoD are where this all started.
Read Paula Jones’s 5 part article at The Conservative Woman:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/anatomy-of-the-sinister-covid-project/
it’s very interesting.
For Jones, please substitute Jardine, this tired old brain misfired.
I spent 6 hours in A&E Sunday night.
Just under half of the patients in the waiting room when I arrived were masked, by the time I left it was 98% unmasked. I like to think I helped turn the tide as a few took theirs off after looking around.
No comments from any staff, who were the usual mix of uncovered nosers and frequent adjusters/touchers.
Cue the music, Maestro! HALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH, HALLELUJAH, HALL….wait a minute. This emergency should have been declared over LONG ago, the moment it was determined not to be an existential threat. Better late than never, I guess.
There never was an emergency for one to be declared.
According to Katherine Watt, it is not as it seems.
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/biden-rescinding-trump-biden-proclamation?utm_medium=email
‘…the PHE powers are not terminated on May 11.
There are at least three interlocking frameworks for the consolidation of power in executive hands during declared emergencies: the 1976 National Emergencies Act, the 1988 Stafford Act, and the 1944 Public Health Service Act as amended in 1983 to add the Public Health Emergencies (PHE) program.
Congress and Biden have rescinded the emergency proclamation issued under the 1976 National Emergencies Act, but the Public Health Emergency declaration issued by then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar on Jan. 31, 2020, effective Jan. 27, 2020, remains in force, along with the Stafford Act determination Trump issued on March 13, 2020.’
See the above link for more information.
( I confess, a lot of the article went over my head.)
Now that is very interesting, from the 4th part of Paula Jardine’s article (who I mistakenly referred to as Paula Jones in a senior moment):
“The HHS Secretary Alex Azar, to whom ASPR’s Kadlec reported, was the senior legal counsel at HHS when the PREP Act was passed in 2005. Azar co-operatively declared a public health emergency on January 30, 2020, backdating it to January 27.
He then made a PREP Act declaration on February 4, enhancing liability protection for any person or firm involved in developing countermeasures, including Innovio and Moderna.
The announcement said: ‘The world is facing an unprecedented pandemic. To effectively respond, there must be a more consistent pathway for Covered Persons to manufacture, distribute, administer or use Covered Countermeasures across the nation and the world.’
HHS Secretary determinations are unreviewable by the US courts.”
So the quite new position of HHS Secretary, who appears to be above at least a good part of the law, was involved in this whole suspension of normality.
Intriguing.
Did he use crayon?
“Does this mean unvaccinated people like me can finally travel to the United States?”. You wonder why that wasn’t explicitly stated in the bill. If there’s no more emergency, there’s no more reason for *any* measures or restrictions, including this one.