Rewiring The UK–Mike Travers

PAUL HOMEWOOD

Following OFGEM’s publishing of plans for a monstrously expensive upgrade of local and regional power distribution networks for Net Zero, it is worth looking again Mike Travers GWPF paper five years ago, which analysed the costs and implications:

New paper reveals hidden cost of Net Zero decarbonisation

London, 16 July: The UK faces a £200 billion bill to rewire the country if the government follows through on plans to electrify the country’s homes and transport systems. That’s because installation of electric car chargers and heat pumps will push up demand for power beyond the capacity of the existing wiring.

The findings are set out in a new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is published today. According to author Mike Travers, this will mean that most streets in the UK will need to be dug up (with diesel-driven machinery):

“At present new home car chargers and heat pumps are using up all the spare capacity. But we will soon reach the point where the network will not be able to handle the extra demand. So in towns and cities, the underground cables which carry the power will be inadequate. That means that we are going to have to dig up almost every urban street and many rural ones too. The whole distribution grid is going to need to be replaced.”

And the cables that carry power into the homes will need to be dug up too.

According to Travers:

“The power cables taking electricity into your home probably run underneath your front drive. So if you want a car charger and a heat pump you are going to have to pay to dig it up. If you have an expensive monoblocked drive, that will not be cheap. Distribution boards, main fuses and smart meters in homes are going to have to be upgraded too.”

Travers has estimated the cost of all this work at around £200 billion, even before considering the cost caused by the disruption. “Many homeowners will be paying thousands”, he says.

Notes for journalists

Mike Travers CEng, MIMechE, FIET is an electrical engineer, whose career spanned periods in the Royal Engineers, in the hydroelectric sector, and industry. He previously sat on the the IET Wiring Regulations Committee and was the industry representative on the committee that rewrote the Grid Codes for Scotland.

His paper is entitled The Hidden Cost of Net Zero: Rewiring the UK and can be downloaded here (pdf)

Five years on that £200 billion is probably nearer £300 billion, particularly given the global shortage of copper and other raw materials.

The work will of course be funded by the distribution network operators (DNOs), but they will paid back via higher charges on electricity bills.

It is true of course that extra demand for power will generate higher revenues for DNOs anyway, but the existing network is so old that it has effectively been fully depreciated long ago. The cost of a installing what is effectively a new network will introduce costs of an entirely different magnitude.

OFGEM seem to regard a return of around 10% as the norm, meaning annual bills could increase by £30 billion. Even if electricity consumption doubles, this would still add 15% to bills.

According to OFGEM, the average customer currently pays about £100 a year for distribution. This could increase to £430.

SOURCE: Not a Lot of People Know That

Net Zero Subsidies Now Cost £26 Billion A Year–New Report Claims

PAUL HOMEWOOD

A new report by the Renewable Energy Foundation claims that green energy subsidies are now costing the public £25.8 billion a year.

The Telegraph report:

Britain’s green energy subsidies have added an estimated £280 to households’ energy bills, research has found.

Levies used to encourage construction of wind farms, solar parks and other renewables have added £25.8bn a year to energy bills paid by both households and industry, according to a study from the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF).The charity said the cost of the subsidies were a key factor in the UK’s sky-high electricity prices and blamed them for accelerating the decline of British industry.

John Constable, REF’s director, said: “Renewables subsidies are now costing £25.8 bn per year – or over £900 per household annually – about one third of which, £280, will hit the average domestic electricity bill directly.

Full story here.

REF’s report can be seen here.

Their numbers are largely the same as I have been reporting on for a while, including the official costings from the OBR of environmental levies, which are indisputable.

REF also include REGOs (Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin certificates), which are increasingly profitable for renewable generators and, of course, end up being paid for by us.

They also includes the costs on fossil generators imposed by the UK Emissions Trading Scheme and Climate Change Levy. These not only increase our bills but also have the effect of increasing revenue for renewable generators.

John Constable has a full interview on GB News below:

Unsurprisingly DESNZ responded with a pack of lies and distortions, as the Telegraph reported:

A Government spokesman disagreed with the REF figures used in the report and said it “ignores the benefits of clean power and significantly misleads on the cost of renewables”.

A spokesman said: “As shown by the National Energy System Operator’s independent report, clean power by 2030 is achievable and will deliver a more secure energy system, which could see a lower cost of electricity and lower bills.”

How REF can be “significantly misleading on the cost of renewables” is a mystery, given that REF’s numbers all come from official data.

And as we already know, NESO’s claim of lower bills was totally fake. Their calculations were based on a massive rise in carbon taxes, which would artificially increase gas generation costs. Only by this legerdemain were they able to claim that more renewables would therefore be cheaper.

Either way, whatever our bills are in 2030 is utterly irrelevant to the fact that we are already paying £26 billion a year more than we should be. Shaving a billion or two off this in a few years time is neither here nor there.

••••

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.