Introduction

Periodically, the Government produce their Energy Trends data for renewables which shows the capacity, generation and load factors for wind, solar and other technologies. Data for the whole of 2024 was recently released and apparently shows steadily rising renewables capacity (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 - Cumulative Wind and Solar Installed Capacity (MW)

However, looking at this data in isolation, gives a false picture of renewables delivery when compared to Ed Miliband’s Clean Power 2030 (CP2030) plan and the Seventh Carbon Budget from the Climate Change Committee.

Installed Capacity Versus CP2030

According to NESO, to deliver the CP2030 plan, we need 50.7GW of offshore wind, 29GW of onshore wind and 48.4GW of solar installed capacity by 2030. Offshore wind is supposed to generate 187TWh of the total 289TWh of electricity due to come from wind and solar power, so the plan is highly sensitive to shortfalls in offshore wind delivery. If we compare the long-term trend of offshore wind delivery to the requirements of CP2030 as in Figure 2, we can see a significant shortfall is already appearing.

Figure 2 - Offshore Wind Installed Capacity and Trend vs CP2030 Plan (MW)

The offshore installed capacity in 2024 was just 1.61GW, meaning that 2024 was more than 3.7GW short of the 19.9GW required to be on track for 2030. Subsequent years will have to deliver an extra 0.6GW per year to catch up this shortfall. If the trend established from 2009 to 2024 continues to 2030, there will be a “Reality Gap” of some 29.6GW between the trend and CP2030. The gap is more than half the 50.7GW the total CP2030 requirement. This might explain why Ed Miliband is chucking the kitchen sink at renewables Allocation Round 7, by considering extending the subsidy term from 15 years to 20 years and even offering contracts to projects without planning permission.

As Figure 3 shows, onshore wind and solar show a similar picture.

Figure 3 - Onshore Wind and Solar Installed Capacity and Trend vs CP2030 (MW)

The actual installations of onshore wind and solar are both well behind the target for 2024. Solar is some 3GW short and onshore wind 1.1GW short. This is quite remarkable given the CP2030 plan was published in November 2024, so it should have been obvious that actual capacity would be well below what the plan was calling for. The recent rate of delivery has been below trend and well below the rate of delivery required to meet CP2030. Extrapolating the trend for solar shows a shortfall of 21.9GW in 2030 compared to the 48.5GW requirement. If you have concerns about the amount of prime farmland being carpeted in solar panels now, just think what 2030 will be like if they deliver this mad plan.

Onshore wind is closest to meeting the Clean Power 2030 plan. Extrapolating the trend since 2009 shows a reality gap of just 6.3GW compared to the CP2030 plan. However, this may paint too optimistic a picture because recent delivery has been below trend.

Load Factor Shortfall

The load factor of a particular technology measures the actual output compared to the theoretical maximum suggested by the nameplate capacity. Sadly, the performance of offshore wind compared to the CP2030 plan gets even worse when load factors are considered. Figure 4 shows the historic load factors for onshore wind, offshore wind and solar power.

Figure 4 - Wind and Solar Load Factors 2009-2024 (%)

Even though offshore wind capacity increased by nearly 1.4GW in 2024, the total output fell by 733GWh. As a result, the offshore wind load factor fell to 36.3%, the lowest since 2016. It now looks like a downtrend in offshore wind load factor has been established since 2020. The offshore wind load factor fell in 2024 even though the load factor for onshore wind went up slightly from 24.6% to 25.3%. This suggests that curtailment – when wind farms are turned off because either the grid cannot take their output or because demand is not high enough – is becoming a bigger problem.

This matters because the various plans such as CP2030, the Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) Seventh Carbon Budget and the Government’s Generation Cost estimates all rely on generally higher load factors than have been achieved of late, see Figure 5.

Figure 5 - Offshore Wind Load Factor Actual and Planned (%)

NESO’s estimate is in fact closest to actual achievement. However, the load factor they assume for offshore wind in 2030 is 42%. This is a higher load factor than has been achieved by the UK offshore wind fleet in every year except 2020. Not only that, NESO’s load factor is targeted despite a massive increase in curtailment, to a total of 22TWh in 2030, or about 7.5% of total wind and solar generation.

The Climate Change Committee is even worse, assuming the load factor will be 44.7% in 2030, rising to 46.5% in 2050 which is higher than has ever been achieved. The real outlier is the Government Generation Cost report from 2023 that assumed new offshore wind load factors would rise to 61% in 2025 then to 69% by 2035.

The load factor targets for onshore wind and solar are closer to reality, but this matters less because they make up a much lower proportion of the electricity generated.

This is important because to deliver the required amount of electricity to meet their plan, then even more capacity will need to be installed if the load factor is lower than target. This puts the achievement of CP2030 even further out of reach and increases the already substantial £260-290bn costs. Moreover, this chart shows another reason why the CCC have departed far from reality and the Government’s Gen Cost report is clearly stark raving mad as we discussed here.

Conclusions

When we first analysed CP2030, we noted that Ed Miliband needed to believe six impossible things before breakfast if he thought the plan could be achieved. One of the points discussed was that the rate of delivery for onshore wind, offshore wind and solar had to increase massively compared to what had been delivered in the prior five years. That analysis assumed that they had got the installed capacity for 2024 about right. But as we have seen, 2024 capacities have fallen well short of the CP2030 assumptions. Now it is even tougher to hit the 2030 targets because in reality the start point is way behind the plan. Offshore wind capacity is even further behind what will be required to generate the required amount of electricity.

Less than six months have elapsed since CP2030 was published and it is already behind schedule and the underlying assumptions are optimistic at best. It is time to put this project out of its misery before more damage is done.

This Substack now has well over 3,900 subscribers and is growing fast. This growth has meant the Substack is gaining recognition in other media. These appearances are collected in the Multi-Media section if you want to see them. If you enjoyed this article, please share it with your family, friends and colleagues and sign up to receive more content.

This article (Renewables Falling Short of CP2030 Targets) was created and published by David Turver and is republished here under “Fair Use”

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.