Overnight, the Low Carbon Capture Company (LCCC) released the full data for renewables subsidies for December 2023. This is a short article that analyses the level of subsidies going to wind and other renewables.
Figure 1 shows the monthly subsidies for onshore (grey bars) and offshore (blue bars) wind since 2017. The orange area is offshore generation and the yellow area in onshore generation each month.
December saw the highest subsidies on record at over £255m. The next highest month was February 2020 at £188m. The months for highest generation tend to be December to February or March, so we might expect subsidies to continue at similar levels for some months to come.
The subsidies are paid to top-up the revenue of wind farm operators to the value of their Contract for Difference (CfD) when the market reference price is below the strike price of the CfD. Typically, the market reference price is set by gas-fired generation, so when the blue/grey bars are positive wind power is more expensive than gas. When the bars are negative, wind is cheaper than gas.
For some months in late-2021 and during 2022, gas was more expensive, so the operators had to pay back some of what they received so they did not get more than their strike price. However, gas prices have fallen since 2022 and CfD strike prices are index-linked and rise each year in line with inflation. So, even though gas prices are at the high end of their pre-crisis range, the gap between strike prices and gas prices has been rising again so subsidies have gone up.
However, as more wind farms have come online and taken up their CfD contracts, the amount of generation has also risen, so the average subsidy per MWh in 2023 was lower than that in 2020. If gas prices stay around their current level, we can expect another jump in subsidies from April 2024 as CfD strike prices index upwards again.
Figure 2 shows total CfD subsidies by year across all technologies.
The CfD subsidies for technologies other than wind are tiny in comparison. Overall subsidies for 2023 were the third highest on record at £1.45bn, just under the £1.5bn recorded in 2019. The subsidies for 2023 rose steadily each quarter, with the fourth quarter of 2023 coming in at £604m, close to the peak of £658m in the fourth quarter of 2020. It is therefore entirely possible that 2024 will run 2020 close to become the record year for subsidies.
Looking at 2022, the £346m paid back during that year is trivial in comparison to the overall £7.2bn paid in subsidies since 2017.
My conclusion from this is that renewables are not and never have been cheap. There was of course the anomaly of the gas supply crisis in 2022, exacerbated by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Gas prices are still elevated even though the crisis has abated, but subsidies are back to high levels and look set to increase. Do not let anyone tell you that renewables are cheap.
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.
No kidding. It is even worse than this report states. None of these reports look at the dead from LDs, the destroyed businesses, the financial implosions, the divorces, the impact on mental health, the children who were/are bombarded daily by end of the world this-and-that, or if they are white how racist they are since the Rona attacked non-Whites with more deadly effect, the dead and injured from the quackcines, the infertility, the drop in sperm count, babies and young men dying of myocarditis – a condition none of us, repeat none of us had every heard of before Dec 2020 and the stabbinations, agggressive cancers etc. How about the money – billions – lost, stolen, paid in bribes, graft, paid for every Rona event, paid to comply?
LDs were the fascist pilot project for the coming climate thingy LD or Mutant Virus X LD. The fact that every country implemented an LD within the G20, even Sweden had restrictions albeit somewhat lighter, tells you all you need to know about planning and coordination. I doubt these fascists are done, with it. I doubt very much it was a cockup.
I am absolutely sure they’ll all have learned their lesson and will never again do such a thing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7mL2ZRpMlN0
The Telegraph might be publishing this stuff now but they where was their scepticism when they sacked Bob Moran, published articles by the ridiculous Paul Nuki & took back handers from Gates.
All an honest mistake, with the best of intentions, Nick.
They also suppressed ‘comments’ under articles, op-eds, and editorials if the comments were non-positive about lockdown or vaccine policy, making the comments visible only to the persons who had written them. I cancelled my DT subscription on this account,
Absolutely. It’s why I no longer subscribe.
Where was any of our mainstream media? None of them with the courage to tell the truth that many of us knew about lockdowns. The Telegraph was party to shutting down those who were anti-lockdown. Where is their front page editorial for apologising for this? If they ever want to recover our trust in their reporting, it needs to be there now.
Am I missing something here?
”Across Europe, countries which embarked on lockdowns saw 6,000 fewer deaths than if they had embarked on a less draconian approach…”
So Sweden was just an outlying anomaly then? Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought Sweden came out on top for having the *least* excess mortality.
Not only is it not true that “countries which embarked on lockdowns saw 6,000 fewer deaths”, it’s also a ridiculous, nonsensical statement.
Yes I think I’ve confused myself with that statement, either that or it’s because it is still early and I don’t have my lenses in yet! LOL < said the carpenter blaming her tools…>
S’alright, and I took you at your word!
EDIT – that is actually what is written in the Telegraph’s article
I think we both need a cuppa.
It’s difficult keeping track of all TheScience™ from the last three years, isn’t it?!
Indeed, and it still gives JUST enough grist to those die-hard zealots who say with a straight face, “if it saves ONE life, it’s worth it”.
“Am I missing something here?”
”Across Europe, countries which embarked on lockdowns saw 6,000 fewer deaths than if they had embarked on a less draconian approach…”
I don’t even understand this statement, it is wholly contradictory – so lockdowns did work then? Another modelled assumption.
Obviously I am missing something too.
The point is that lockdowns reduced deaths by so little compared to the number of deaths and other damage caused by lockdowns in the long run.
And a more specific point of logic, it’s impossible to say that Possible Outcome X didn’t happen because of Performed Action Y.
Indeed. Lockdowns clearly fail any honest cost-benefit analysis, even by the coldest utilitarian standards.
Indeed, Sweden did perform better in the long run in terms of cumulative excess deaths.
Perhaps the study only looked at the first wave?
From researchers’ comment piece:
Our systematic meta-analysis of Covid restrictions has found lockdowns saved what translates to an estimated 1,700 to 6,000 lives in England and Wales.
Sounds like a massive overestimate to me.
It’s clear to me that even in the narrow terms of covid – by suppressing and retarding the immune system; by preventing people getting fresh air and exercise and vitamin D; by cooping people up together – the lockdowns actually made things appreciably worse.
But anyone with more than about six operating brain cells realised this by May 2020.
Yes ‘confirmation bias’ blah blah, but I think they saved no-one. I didn’t click on the article but what I find ironic is that ever since the death jab roll-out you’ve had excess mortality in the UK. So are they basically concluding that lockdowns did in fact save a few but they ended up just dying at a later date anyway? It’s a nonsense.
Indeed, it is probably because they looked only at the first wave.
The sheer lack of professionalism within the cabinet, No 10, was astonishing.
Only one person, Jesse Norman, asked to see a cost/benefit study for lockdown.
It is clear now that the whole country would have been much better run with no government at all.
But for most people, freedom is a truly terrifying prospect, having been trained from their most formative years that:
1. Truth come from authority
2. Intelligence is the ability to remember and repeat
3. Accurate memory and repetition are rewarded
4. Non-compliance is punished
5. You must conform – intellectually and socially.
No! Be leaderless! Be anarchic! Be ungovernable. And have your finances in order.
That assumes it was all “a cock-up” – which lets evil people off with murder, quite literally.
We must not let them get away with it.
Lockdowns didn’t save a single life, primarily because it was never about saving lifes
And as for those who continue to use the word “hindsight” in regards to lockdown you need to stop, one didn’t need to own hindsight to see the damage to society that Lockdowns would create just an iota of common sense.
Although I’m glad the study came to the realistic and unavoidable conclusion that lockdowns were an abject failure, I think it’s all rather a moot point now, given that countries are seeing consistent excess mortality since the deployment of the clot shots. Therefore how is it relevant to anything going forward to talk about *any* lives being saved by lockdowns? This information doesn’t serve us on iota.
I seem to be repeating myself on a daily basis but I will say this again – every single NPI was introduced with the aim of harming and even killing people.
Every Single One.
Where is your evidence for that extraordinary claim?
Could you counter my statement by advising the DS readership which Non Pharmaceutical Interventions saved lives?
Totally agree with you, HP. The onus of proof clearly lies with those introducing or supporting NPIs, not with those questioning them.
Thanks Michael.
Totally, hux. Are people seriously disputing the fact, after the Everest sized amount of evidence ( scientific or real world ) seen on this site alone, that any NPI forced upon us was not done with the deliberate intention to harm, psychologically or physically? Strewth!
And I’ll include the curfews and vax passes that we had to endure over here too. Fecking monstrous abuse of human rights and civil liberties. I know you’re probably up on this already but here’s a great piece on fifth generation warfare, which is totally what’s happening, and most are oblivious. It’s what the masking and anti-social distancing etc was all about.
”In fact, we’re going to use a decidedly non-academic definition of fifth-generation warfare from an Al Jazeera article as our starting point: “The basic idea behind this term [fifth-generation warfare] is that in the modern era, wars are not fought by armies or guerrillas, but in the minds of common citizens.”
I will expand the definition somewhat to include the fact that this war is being waged at all levels, not just the mental. The gist of it is this: Fifth-generation warfare is an all-out war that is being waged against all of us by our governments and the international organizations to which they belong. It is being waged against each and every one of us right now, and it is a battle for full-spectrum dominance over every single aspect of your life: your movements and interactions, your transactions, even your innermost thoughts and feelings and desires. Governments the world over are working with corporations to leverage technology to control you down to the genomic level, and they will not stop until each and every person who resists them is subdued or eliminated.”
https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/your-guide-to-fifth-generation-warfare
Thanks for the link Mogs. Basically this is what Patrick Woods is constantly warning us about over at Technocracy News. I know about this as do you but an awful lot of people are still asleep.
My principal worry is that by the time some wake up the prison gates will be well and truly banged shut. I suppose we must keep pushing the message.
The bit I disagree with, and see no evidence for, is the “with the aim of” bit.
“…every single NPI was introduced with the aim of harming and even killing people…”.
There is absolutely no evidence for that wild claim.
Indeed, lockdowns likely killed more people than they saved on balance.
“But nobody knew anything at the time,” people say. And that’s crap, because even I predicted bad outcomes for lockdowns as soon as they were announced, on the grounds of basic epidemiology and well-known research on the effects of reduced economic activity.
Still, it’s nice to see the Telegraph trying to redeem itself. It won’t succeed in that, but it may wake up some of the people to the stupidity and malice of our rulers.
“it may wake up some of the people to the stupidity and malice of our rulers”
It is important to distinguish between “stupidity” (the cock-up theory) and “malice” (deliberate plan). Being guilty of incompetence (“I tried my best in difficult circumstances”) is much less damning than being guilty of implementing an evil plan to damage, kill and maim.
And here we are about to cede power over health policy to one of the arch villains of the piece, the WHO!
They didn’t “prevent 1,700 deaths” in the UK. They just delayed them.
In order to achieve that they wrecked the economy; ruined the lives of millions; killed thousands through suicide, murder and other illnesses – ie untreated cancer. And goodness knows how many more have and will die early because of the gene therapies they coerced on millions of people who didn’t need them.
And it was all entirely foreseeable. In fact it WAS foreseen by many but they were howled down and silenced by a complicit MSM.
I will never forgive the b@stards.
Yes they seem to have forgotten that the average age of deaths ‘with’ Covid was greater than the average age of death. It was culling the already vulnerable, very sad if it was your grandad or aunty but to destroy the lives of the young in the way they did was criminal negligence.
They had the audacity to call us callous ‘granny killers’ when in actual fact it was them that selfishly sacrificed the young to ‘protect’ the decrepit. And they didn’t even do a good job at that!
“I will never forgive the b@stards.”
Never Forget. Never Forgive.
Where does the 1700 figure come from? Ferguson’s abacus?
Isn’t it just an example of established media adopting a self defensive tactic? If they were any good, they wouldn’t have fallen into it in the first place.
Did they include a notional cost for lost enjoyment of life for 2+ years by billions of people? If not then their calculations are fatally flawed and the cost benefit ratio changes from 1 million to 1 to maybe 1 trillion to 1.
Seconded.
Seriously, NEVER AGAIN.
By the date of publication of Report 9 by Ferguson et al (16 March 2020) the rate of increase in deaths in the UK population was slowing. To be clear: the rate of deaths was still increasing but the rate at which the rate was increasing was slowing; extrapolating this trend pointed to an early April peak in deaths (ie the point at which the rate of increase became zero). The death rate actually peaked on 8 April. The fact that by 16 March 2020 the trend already showed the death rate would peak in early April means that the infections leading to that event had already happened. The date of peak infections was already in the past by 16 March 2020. This also means that lockdown did not cause the infections to decline from their peak – they were already declining before the lockdown.
The Coronavirus Bill 2000 was introduced to Parliament on 19 March 2020 and passed both the Commons and the Lords without division and was given Royal Assent and enacted on 25 March 2020. All of this happened after the peak of infections had already passed.
His (Ferguson’s) ‘research’ was not research; it was not based on any measurements of the real world. It was computer modelling. It was not based on available data at the time of publication. It was demonstrably wrong at the date of publication.
Top class.
All of this ex post factum digging through statistics is a waste of time for two reasons:
1) Nobody knows what would have happened if lockdown hadn’t been enacted and there’s no way to determine that.
2) All COVID data is test-driven garbage: People were said to have died of COVID if they died after a positive test (initially, at any particular time, ie, public health authorities where assuming an IFR of 100%, later reduced to 28 days). People who tested positive on hospital admission were said to be people hospitalized because of COVID. People who otherwise tested positive were said to be COVID cases.
What we know for the UK is that all COVID measures, including mass vaccination, were eventually abandoned because they had an enormous cost and no quantifiable real-world benefit. Since then, we all keep getting infected and reinfected, keep getting sick and recovering again etc, just as before 2020. And nobody except a few weirdos[*] believes something noteworthy is happening.
[*] I still have the strong urge to approach a masktard, tear the rag from his face and then keep slapping him with it while shouting repeatedly Will you finally accept reality, you f***ing retard?
If you’d like someone else to help you with slapping the retards please let me know
Hello, can someone please provide a link to the actual study? When I search for the supposed quote “The science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.” the only search results are links to the Telegraph article. The actual study does not appear to be on the internet search engines yet.
https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/
Thanks Mogwai, but that link is just the abstract and summary. The full paper and the quote ““The science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.” does not appear in your link.
Did you not download the full thing? ”Download” is above the ‘Abstract’ subheading. I think it’s a pretty hefty document though so I didn’t download it tbh.
The ‘download’ button does not download anything. It simply points back to the article page itself.
I also notice that the article you linked to does not mention any DOI (Digital Object Identifier). I thought all published scientific papers have a doi. It is suspicious that this one doesn’t.
Toby Young should clarify this ASAP. We may all be being fed some misinformation here. It is irresponsible to simply report what another media organisation reports. Young should exercise due diligence and verify the claims himself before publishing to the Daily Sceptic.
Ah I see. Well that’s a mystery. I found that link on Mike Yeadon’s Telegram channel, or I wouldn’t have come across it myself. But there must be a way of accessing the whole document… I would email the DS team and see what they say. For sure they should be ideally providing a link to the original report, not just the Telegraph article, though they do seem overly fond of that particular paper.
https://off-guardian.org/2023/06/05/offgs-quick-take-lockdown-was-not-a-policy-mistake-it-was-murder/
And here is the correct interpretation.
Lockdowns were a success because they achieved what they set out to achieve – death, misery, depression, medical failures, business failures, suicides and on and on.
Some people subscribe to the stupidity/cock up theory and others to the malicious plan. However, there is another factor at play, which is the “useful idiot” – the bourgeoisie who will take advantage of any given situation to assert control to implement the narrative by all means possible, including, without limitation, persecution and ultimately eradication of the non-compliant. History shows how useful these people always are to the power brokers.
One thing we already knew was that Ferguson and Imperial College were and are incompetent and should never again be used to influence government policy. If they ever want to regain any trust for anything, they need a change of staff and attitude. Most people should realise that our government and others are again basing decisions about climate on these totally failed models and once more crippling our economy for the wrong reasons. The crazy Net-zero agenda is far more dangerous and costly than the government’s stupidity over covid. Kier Starmer is claiming to apply it even stronger than the current load of idiots. When are we able to get some intelligent politicians, the prospects don’t look hopeful.
‘Wrong’ conclusion so this study will be ignored by most of the media.