Net Zero electricity taxes and levies are set to cost British consumers almost £100 billion over the next six years, according to the latest official figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). The ‘environmental levies’ total includes a variety of green rackets from paying suppliers to produce uneconomic energy to persuading consumers to install inferior technologies. As the insane dash towards Net Zero continues in elite political circles, the costs have started to spiral out of control.
Almost all green technologies seem to require huge amounts of public subsidy with no end in sight to constant demands for cash. Recently, offshore wind generators refused to take further Government licences in the North Sea unless the U.K. Government complied with their demands for higher guaranteed prices. In real terms the Government is now prepared to pay over £100 per megawatt hour, a price more than the current estimated cost of gas-powered electricity.
The investigative climate journalist Paul Homewood has been digging into the figures for years, and notes the offshore wind business is already being subsided to the annual tune of £4.8 billion. This despite the fact that we have been promised ‘rapidly falling’ wind power costs that would bring our bills tumbling down. “Now we know that was always a lie,” observes Homewood. Looking at the financial accounts, Homewood concludes that there is “no prospect” that costs will decline in future. On the contrary, he continues, they are likely to continue increasing as supply chain and manufacturing problems mount.
“We are therefore now locked into permanently high electricity prices, with contract prices guaranteed for 15 years,” he notes.
Homewood has produced the table below from the latest figures from the OBR. In total it shows how all the ‘environmental levies’ surrounding the production of electricity are set to provide hard-pressed U.K. consumers with an entirely unnecessary collective bill for £95 billion over the next six years. As Homewood notes, the figures below show the cost added to energy bills by the various assortment of renewable subsidies, capacity market payments and the climate change levy.
Homewood has added in three relevant costs to the OBR table. The feed-in tariffs scheme was recently excluded, but in Homewood’s view it is wrongly left out since it increases energy bills. The Climate Change Levy on productive business is noted elsewhere in the OBR report, but Homewood has “taken the liberty” of adding it to his table. It need hardly be added that this does not involve all the cost of runaway Net Zero fiscal madness. Homewood notes, for instance, that there is no mention of the costs of electricity grid upgrades, system balancing cost and constraint payments – all the direct result of increased renewable generation. And, of course, one can take it out even wider to include the cost of keeping vast amounts of gas capacity idle, waiting to fire up when the wind stops blowing, often for days at a time.
But it might be asked, what is £100 billion when an almost complete dismantling of modern economic society is being planned? A mere down payment on wealth destruction on an unimaginable scale. At a time when the political will to control immigration has withered, massive deindustrialisation is being planned in Europe, with unimaginable effects on the less affluent members of society. On the basis of an unproven hypothesis that human-produced carbon dioxide controls a climate headed for disaster – now deemed ‘settled’ and beyond debate – small, well-funded elite groups in society are planning to remove 85% of the world energy supply within less than 30 years. How far they will get in this madcap, nightmarish scheme before being repelled by gathering rational and democratic forces, only time will tell.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
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.
Net zero could kill 100s of thousand of ppl if we have a wind/solar grid/nuclear grid. Were an anti cyclone to park itself over Britain in December for 3 weeks the grid would immediately collapse and ppl dependent upon electricity for heating would begin to die in droves. I asked the department for energy to run this grid stress test having written to my MP, of course they refused as they already knew the answer. Go away pleb was pretty much the written response received. I of course will never bother to question the state again as I won’t waste my breath.
When that happens, I would not want to be a government minister or MP. Ireland’s recent ‘troubles’ are a warning to them.
Yes, the problem is they are only the puppets in all of this. You get rid of one establishment party and the sheep vote in another establishment party in its place. This in no way absolves these low life politicos of their deceits, they know exactly what they are doing. They are bereft of any honesty, decency and integrity and they deserve personal ruin. We cannot hold the unelected puppet masters to account but we can do our bit to destroy the elected establishment puppets.
I used to do some work with offshore windfarmers. They are pirates (especially the Danish companies) taking the pee out of government and running rings around (expecially) senior civil servants who won’t push back. This is a green con trick.
We are managed by midwits, I am afraid, and it is getting worse as more and more people who do not really have the intellect are ‘university educated’ and then take up civil service and other public sector jobs.
Net Zero – Green Fascism, no science, no reason, no logic. Trillions of £ to chase and a society of slaves to create and reduce.
Homewood notes, for instance, that there is no mention of the costs of electricity grid upgrades, system balancing cost and constraint payments – all the direct result of increased renewable generation
So the £100 billion is more likely £200 billion….and the sheeple ponder why oh why are my HLP costs so high….ah yes. Blame Vlad the biolab invader. Where do we get our next sheeple shots they brightly ask? Can you give me one for Net Zero?
Correct! It always is and always has been about the money not the planet!
I’ve come to accept that the ‘tipping point’ with Nett Zero, the point where even the people pushing it come to that realisation that it is manifestly stupid, will never come.
It matters little if 51%, 60%, 70% of the citizens have reached this point, the disciples of this fantasy policy will continue on until there is not one of them left standing.
” Homewood notes, for instance, that there is no mention of the costs of electricity grid upgrades,”
Well they have recently published figures on that one;
https://www.power-technology.com/news/national-grid-upgrade-network/?cf-view
£54 Billion, who cares we can just plunder the magic money tree can’t we??????????????
Possibly not, the UK seems to be in bond trouble
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/30/bank-of-england-bond-losses-to-cost-government-20b-more-than-expected.html#:~:text=Europe%20Economy-,The%20Bank%20of%20England%20is%20facing%20major%20losses%20on%20its,set%20to%20get%20much%20worse&text=The%20Bank%20of%20England's%20losses,%2C%E2%80%9D%20according%20to%20Deutsche%20Bank.
This whole thing looks set (or should that be great re-set) to be part of a big financial mess.
When is this “cheap” wind powered electricity going to reduce bills. The parrots on the environmental band-wagon keep telling us that it is cheaper than gas but there is no evidence of that, just promises of jam tomorrow.
Wind cannot be cheaper than gas. —-They don’t do the same thing. An apple is not a chicken and saying apples are cheaper than chickens is silly and so is saying wind is cheaper than gas. ——Gas is full time concentrated energy that will provide energy 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Wind is part time diffuse energy that can only provide energy when the wind feels like blowing. Using wind is like having to fork out for two cars because one of them only works 3 days a week and you never know in advance what days.
People gave up on wind power in the 16 century! They turned to water power which they knew was way more reliable,but you needed a water source so, along came steam! You could use that anywhere, and it’s 24 hour power!
Moving on to the 21st century and, where back to wind!!! Beggars belief
Wind power generation as an alternative to gas may well be beneficial in the long term, but with gas as an alternative when there isn’t enough wind, we’re bound to pay extra, with all the capital outlay for two systems with one being available in standby mode.
What they don’t talk about much is tidal power, which is predicable to a large extent. However, there are plenty of critics on the wildfowl side that don’t like it. Projects like the proposed Severn Barrage (https://www.greatwesternpowerbarrage.com/ ), or the little neighbours like the Swansea lagoon, or the Cardiff equivalent are on ice for the time being. Imagine having the Bristol Channel tidal flow along with Hinkley Point C as a base load supply, and maybe a few more Hinkley C like stations around the country – then the need for gas might reduce a bit.
Tidal and wave power is around 3x more costly than wind and solar as shown in Table 1 of Paul Homewood’s report on CfD prices: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/11/25/cfd-indexation/#more-69104
The table only includes tidal stream, which is a lot more expensive than a simple Barrage like the Severn Barrage.
In any case, the table is of contract for difference prices, which are entirely artificial prices set in a rigged market.
Tidal can provide more energy than wind and sun, but like those it suffers because it cannot be synchronised with demand. Niche technologies can only be useful if energy can be stored, which it currently cannot be. ——-You need to also remember that the reason for using all of these “renewable” energy sources is because there is global warming (allegedly). But global warming insofar as it exists is a global problem. Hundreds of countries have no coastline, so tidal will be of even less use to them than it is to us eg.
The countries in Europe with the highest electricity prices are the ones with the most wind turbines. ———–The UK, Denmark and Germany. —-Fancy that.– It must be just a remarkable coincidence and the bookies would have given you 500/1 if you had put a bet on that. ——Actually no they wouldn’t because bookies aren’t daft. They knew just as most people commenting on this website have known for years that FREE WIND isn’t FREE. Infact FREE WIND is very very expensive, as a quick look over your electricity bills will reveal.———— So why do we need to take away reliable affordable energy and fob us all off in the wealthy west with unreliable unaffordable energy? ———The answer to that is crucial. ———I mean the real answer, not the answer according to manufactured science. The real answer is not to be found in science. It is to be found in POLITICS. The Politics of the UN and Sustainable Development. The UN IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a political one and its conclusions are all entirely political. ————They have manufactured a climate crisis and it is that phony crisis and the supposed solutions to avert it that is the real answer as to why we must now all pay an arm and a leg for unreliable energy, that will deliberately lower living standards and life expectancy. So far the costs have been kept not so much hidden but camouflaged. The war in Ukraine, the “greedy energy company” excuse. Problems in the middle east, the “we all need to insulate our house” excuse etc etc. But eventually these excuses are simply not going to wash anymore, and people will see their prosperity plummet. When that happens prepare for MAD MAX 111.
So, effectively, further impoverishment and death in a bid to ‘save the planet’ then. The human race – Homo Sapiens – is wrongly named at this juncture. There is nothing wise about the choices being made especially in this Net Zero fiasco. The trouble is it’s like Pandora’s Box and once opened the curse of Net Zero cannot be contained, it proliferates despite every effort and there are no wise people in positions of power or ability to alter the narrative to counter the curse. Every time you counter the argument for Net Zero which, let’s be honest, isn’t difficult, the beast twists and turns like a slippery snake. At every grandstanding event, the liars, murderers and thieves appear smartly besuited, coiffured and manicured, as if just appearing smart is enough to convince ordinary people that you are sincere and honest and have their best interests at heart. I am reminded of Genesis and the serpent that appeared whereby the apple from the tree of knowledge was offered to Adam (forget Eve, that was just to denigrate women) and he took it. The same serpentine lies are being told on many big stages around the world, filmed and broadcast, and we are meant to bow to this as if it means something good for us all. It doesn’t. We’ll just have to fight harder for the truth to come out.
Well said.. Eve was only a rib anyway
Thanks, Dings!
And what are British consumers going to do about it?
Oh, I know. Vote Labour.
Oh shyte! No, please no!
Then they deserve their impoverishment and servitude but I don’t.
Office for Budget Responsibility
(Their not in the office,wfh, they don’t know how to budget, and they are definitely not responsible!)
Ahrr one hundred billion smillion, its not our money mate, we just spend it!
“…massive deindustrialisation is being planned in Europe, with unimaginable effects on the less affluent members of society. On the basis of an unproven hypothesis that human-produced carbon dioxide controls a climate headed for disaster …”
While the above statement is partly correct it is wrong to state that “small, well-funded elite groups in society are planning to remove 85% of the world energy supply within less than 30 years” on the basis “of an unproven hypothesis.”
Those pushing the AGW storyline know full well that humanity is not responsible for the climate of the world and certainly know that carbon dioxide has no effect on climate. However, the myth must be perpetuated in order to achieve the real goals – depopulation and total control of the survivors.
The carbon dioxide scam was formulated by the Club of Rome in 1972.
I try to avoid statements like “CO2 has no effect on climate”. It is a statement of certainty and if I make a statement of certainty I would then be asked for proof. I ofcourse won’t be able to provide that proof and this then gives the climate alarmist the sense of having won. ——–I tend to phrase it like this “There is no evidence that CO2 is causing or will cause dangerous changes to climate”——–This puts the ball back over the net and forces them to play the next shot and they will almost certainly not return the ball. Because they have no evidence.
Whilst that may be the basis of proper reasoned arguement, it will never work with these people. We have proof that CO2 does not control the temperature, and that the opposite is really true. During Covid we know that worldwide energy consumption fell about 25%, and we know that there is no measurable difference in the rate of increase in CO2 on Muna-Loa, the actual point where CO2 is measured continuously. This is a FACT, but it is ignored by the greens. Asked to account for this they say that the temperature still increased due to the high level of CO2. You will note that that the measurment they wish to use is temperature, not CO2 levels, and they cannot account for the increase in CO2 when fossil fuels were not being burnt.
Looking back into the past (history) we see that CO2 level changes follow temperatures by about 600 years, and that levels of CO2 have varied very widely between about 150 and 6,000 PPM. Our 400 ish number is very mediocre but aparently we are at a “tipping point” where thermal runaway will occur. Asked why it didn’t happen before there is a lot of hand waving and “computer models” is the claim. Actual real Science says that if the computer model doesn’t represent reality, the model is wrong, yet they claim that the climate is wrong and the model correct.
There is no point in discussing further, the delusion is complete and their case is simply a new superstition based religion. Somehow anyone explaining this is also considered a heretic, trying to destroy the religion. Of course it will end badly, “following the science” must always be wrong when the Science is not followed! Take Covid as the example, the science was never followed, just a stupid religion that airbourne disease could be controlled by staying still!
And we are all individual CO2 generators since we inhale the 0.04% CO2 in the air and exhale 4-5% CO2 (having converted some of the air’s 21% oxygen) – a hundredfold increase!
So any true supporter of net zero should hold their breath … for a long time!
Yes you made a good comment. ————-I still prefer not to say things like “there is no global warming” or “Humans are not changing the climate”. In the physical sciences there are no “proofs”, and if I made those kind of statements I would then be asked for proof. But you cannot prove a negative. I adopt this way of speaking about the issue for tactical reasons. ——But you will notice that climate alarmists always expect us to disprove what they cannot prove in the first place.
For what it’s worth, he has also left out the cost of emissions permits.