The Net Zero Agenda’s Continued Collapse Into Chaos

 

BEN PILE

Last week, Ofgem announced that the Energy Price Cap would be lowered. From July, average bill payers will see “a decrease of 7% compared to the cap set between April 1st to June 30th, 2025”. The likes of Ed Miliband were quick to capture the good news by reaffirming the Government’s commitment to the 2050 Net Zero and 2030 Clean Power agendas. But a closer look at the detail of the price cut and other news shows just how fragile those agendas really are.

The news that there would be a price cut was not unexpected. Energy price caps are announced quarterly. As reported here, the Spring (April-June) price cap rise was announced in February – the third since the Labour Government was elected in July last year on the promise of “lower bills”. “Energy bills are set to rise again due to a spike in global gas markets,” claimed Ed Miliband ahead of Ofgem’s February rise. But there is no such thing as “global gas markets”. And that “spike” had already passed.

A post-pandemic low price of gas on UK markets had occurred in February 2024 at around 56p per therm (29.3 kWh). But over the next year, this price increased to 142p, peaking on February 11th. On February 25th, Ofgem announced a 6.4% price cap increase for the second quarter of this year. But by the time of Ofgem’s announcement, a mere fortnight later, the price had fallen to 106p – a fall of 25%. Into the second quarter, the price fell further, reaching a low of 69p – or less than half of February’s spike price – on April 7th. The price then stabilised at around 83p (around 42% of the peak price).

“It’s great news the energy price cap is going down, but we have more to do”, tweeted Ed Milband in response to last week’s announcement from Ofgem – as if he and his policies had caused the price drop. “Our clean power mission is the route to long-term energy security and lower bills,” he added. Odd, isn’t it, that a 6.4% increase in the cap was blamed on (non-existent) “global gas markets”, but that a 7% drop in the cap, following a 42% reduction in UK gas prices, is not blamed on the same outside forces, but is instead given as cause to double down on the green agenda.

The clues are there for those whose capacity for simple maths is not hindered by green ideology… a 42% reduction in UK gas prices yielded only a 7% drop in the energy price cap. But doesn’t Miliband tell us that “global gas prices” are the cause of all our problems?

And not just Milband. In the Times, the Green Blob’s favourite du jour talking point is reproduced uncritically by the newspaper’s Energy Editor, Emily Gosden. “Unlinking electricity prices from gas ‘would cut energy bills’,” claims the headline. According to this meme, remastered by energy market consultant Adam Bell, formerly Head of Energy Strategy at BEIS and Senior Policy Advisor at DECC, the “link” between gas prices and electricity prices could be “cut”. According to the article, “Britain’s wholesale market operates on a system of ‘marginal pricing’ whereby the most expensive plant needed to keep the lights on determines the price all generators are paid”.

This meme is now the go-to claim for anyone trying to counter Net Zero-critical commentary and analysis. On X, fancy-dress energy tycoon Dale Vince claimed “We need to ‘Break the link’ between gas and electricity prices now”. The problems, though, are obvious…

Perhaps they are not obvious to Times journalists. But the likes of Vince and Bell are not disinterested parties. Vince’s interests in pushing gas out of the market are obvious. Bell, for his part, worked in government departments that manifestly caused this crisis in the first place, and so ought to be the last person to consult on fixing it. Moreover, prior to his energy policy roles in DECC and BEIS, Bell worked for green energy sector lobbyists RenewableUK and Westminster pressure group, the Green Alliance. The latter’s interventions, though not necessarily anything to do with Bell, ought nonetheless to orient journalists’ understanding. As the energy price crisis began to make itself known in late Summer 2021, the Green Alliance launched a campaign demanding the Government increase the VAT on domestic gas from 5% to the standard 20% rate – the equivalent of demanding MORE HYPOTHERMIA NOW!

That is to say that greens, be they wonks, lobbyists, ideologues or MPs, are callous and not in the least bit concerned with rising prices for any other reason than it being bad PR. And the sleight-of-hand that such Blobbers use to pull the wool over the eyes of journalists – who need little persuasion to abandon their own critical faculties – is to speak glibly about the wholesale market.

The problem is that domestic consumers do not pay wholesale prices for energy. Fancy-pants accounts of how “gas sets the price of electricity”, and how “breaking the link” would help, are misdirection. Gas is last in the merit order that determines wholesale electricity prices because policy requires that renewable energy generators have priority access to the grid. In a normal world, that “merit order” would be based on price. But the price that wind and solar farms get paid for the power they produce is not the same as the prices that appear on the wholesale market – the subsidies are tacked on, at some point between the wholesale and retail markets.

The lie can be exposed more clearly in a chart comparing wholesale and retail prices, thanks to Ofgem’s price cap since it came into effect on January 1st, 2019. This includes caps for the individual prices of electricity and gas. These are shown in the following chart, as is the “system average price” (SAP) of gas – i.e. the wholesale price of gas on the UK’s gas markets.

From April, electricity (shown in purple) was capped at 27p per kWh, and gas (red) capped at 7p per kWh. Underneath, the wholesale price of gas (in blue) can be seen falling from its February 2025 recent peak to just over half of that. Yet even the gas price cap fell just 9%, and the electricity cap less than 5%. Moreover, the electricity cap is four times higher than the gas cap. And even more moreover, the most recent price of gas, at about 2.8p per kWh, is barely more than a tenth of the current electricity price cap. If gas is more expensive than renewable energy, how can we be paying close to 1,000% of the wholesale price of gas for the equivalent electricity?

The conversion of gas into electricity is about 50% efficient (though the most advanced generators are 60% efficient). This means that the fuel costs of gas-fired power stations were just 5.6p/kWh during April – or just under a fifth of the electricity price cap. At the most recent auction for electricity supply contracts, solar farms won bids to supply electricity at 7.1p/kWh and offshore wind at 8.4p. And these prices do not take into account the cost of backup when there is no sun and no wind, or the cost of compensating operators when there is too much solar power or wind, or the other costs of balancing the grid and the hugely expensive network upgrades that are required to connect so many trickles of power to the grid.

Whinges from green tycoons and eco-wonks, reproduced by the supplicant press, that gas is “setting the price of electricity” are clearly simply lies, therefore. And it gets worse. Doubt was cast over the seemingly low prices that were achieved at the most recent auction when Danish wind developer giant Orsted cancelled its involvement in the Hornsea 4 wind farm project, as I discussed in my recent article. The green sector has deteriorated further since then. Last week, the Guardian reported that SSE had cut its “five-year investment plans by £3 billion blaming policy and planning delays”. Outgoing executive, Alistair Phillips-Davies, said the Guardian “called for stable market conditions and low risk to support its ambitions”.

I bet he did. But a quarter of a century of almost completely unopposed government policy has sought to create these “stable market conditions” for renewable developers and investors. Indeed, the point of the CfD subsidy scheme was to eliminate all market volatility and guarantee prices at above the average price of power from gas to developers. We have been bent over backwards by such policies and had our domestic finances raided to ensure stability for them. No stability for us.

Ed Miliband’s cat is out of the bag. The crazed Secretary of State with the energy brief has signalled to all that nothing will sway him or the Government from the Clean Power 2030 agenda. Consequently, they can now hold their own projects to ransom: if they don’t get more “support” then they won’t be able to service the Government’s policy agenda. Even one-time Net Zero evangelist BP is at it, according to the Telegraph. The formerly guilt-ridden oil and gas company shed its emotional chief executive Bernard Looney in 2023 and now looks set to cancel his green commitments, including to a £2 billion hydrogen plant in the North East. Now, says the newspaper, BP “is currently in talks with the Government about whether greater state support can be provided”. Such green growth!

The lies and gaslighting will continue, of course, in the desperate attempt to deny reality to millions and millions of bill payers. But at some point, the arithmetic of ever-increasing demands from green energy will exhaust those bill payers’ capacity to pay. Perhaps the hope is that, by pushing gas out of the market now, the reality of high gas prices will be made, as laws of supply and demand would dictate. But it seems just as likely that green greed will keep pace with gas price rises, to feed off a bizarre government’s zealotry and intransigence. Enjoy the slightly lower energy prices. They’re not here to stay.


This article (The Net Zero Agenda’s Continued Collapse Into Chaos) was created and published by Daily Sceptic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Ben Pile

See Related Article Below

AI Data Centre Blitz Threatens Labour’s Net Zero Hopes

Sir Keir Starmer’s effort to drive economic growth with a surge of AI data centre developments risks torpedoing Labour’s Net Zero goals. The Telegraph has the story.

Just one £10 billion data centre project in the North East will emit as much carbon dioxide as one of Britain’s busiest airports, highlighting the difficult trade-offs facing the Prime Minister as he seeks to both improve growth and reduce emissions.

complex of 10 facilities near Blyth, Northumberland, will generate more greenhouse gas emissions than Birmingham Airport, which carries 12 million passengers per year, planning documents show.

The project, which will cover 133 acres, is being helmed by Blackstone-backed QTS and was touted by the Prime Minister last September as a “huge vote of confidence in the UK”. Work is expected to start on the site later this year. …

Data centres are crucial to artificial intelligence (AI) and Sir Keir has made establishing them a key priority as he seeks to harness the new technology. Data centres were designated as critical national infrastructure last September and the Prime Minister has identified certain areas as “AI growth zones”, making it is easier to build there.

The projects require huge amounts of power. In a report this week, Alex de Vries-Gao, founder of the Digiconomist website, calculated AI data centres would need 23GW of power worldwide by the end of 2025. The UK’s average national power demand is around 30GW. …

The “hyperscale” data centre in Blyth, which received the green light earlier this month, will emit 184,160 tonnes of CO2 per year once operational. Northumberland County Council, which approved the scheme, said the facility would double its overall industrial emissions and represent 12% of the county’s overall emissions by 2030. …

The data facility’s expected emissions assume the UK remains on track with its plans to decarbonise the grid. In an environmental report submitted by QTS, the operator said it had received feedback that the council was concerned the project could “throw off” the local authority’s own green target of carbon neutrality by 2030. Councillors agreed to proceed with the scheme regardless.

Worth reading in full.

Via The Daily Sceptic

••••

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.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*