Skip to main content

Fast action on climate change - or ditch green energy?

 As wild fires spread around continental Europe, and also hit the UK, an unusual consensus seemed to emerge in UK press - climate change is real and we need to act urgently on clean energy. You would  expect the Guardian to say things like that, but the Telegraph ran an opinion piece saying that ‘the right needs to get serious about climate change’ and another saying that party leader Kemi Badenoch ‘must reverse course on net zero before she destroys the Tories’. 

She did come back with a response, but it was mainly left to others to maintain the contrarian view, with, for example, John Constable, one time editor of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, saying ‘Climate change is real, but it is an unfortunate fact that renewables are useless.’ And in a Prosperity Institute paper, ‘Good Money After Bad- The Spiralling Costs of British Green Energy Initiatives and What We Can Do About It’, David Turver developed the contrarian view in more depth – with endorsements from Reform’s Richard Tice and from the GWPF offshoot Net Zero Watch. 

Turver, a retired engineer, now an energy consultant, who, he noted, could occasional be found on GB News, said that green energy subsidy and grid integration costs ‘have grown six-fold since 2010/11 to £19.8bn in 2024/25 and are forecast to exceed £40bn annually by 2030/31. This will be equivalent to more than £1,400 per household’. To avoid that he said we must repeal or amend the Climate Change Act, end or curtail renewables subsidies, including setting the Renewables Obligation (RO) to zero and renegotiating existing CfD contracts. We must also scale back grid expansion plans and reduce reliance on long-term Capacity Market contracts for battery storage in favour of firm capacity, renegotiate or cancel contracts for Carbon Capture, green hydrogen, and related schemes, with compensation limited to verified sunk costs up to a clear cut-off date. Aggressive stuff. 

It is true that the RO has been very costly, but it is being phased out in preference for CfDs. Turver however looks to much more than that - in effect a major cut back for renewables. But, apart from calling for a ‘reorientation toward affordability and security of supply,’ he doesn’t say what should be done instead, but he does say that a new Prosperity Institute report will cover that soon: presumably coal, gas and nuclear will be favoured. Hopefully it will look at the potentially very high costs of that big shift. 

Labour’s new Energy secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, has yet to join in this debate, but whereas Turver claimed that ‘the cost of gas pales into insignificance compared to the total cost of generating electricity from renewables’, her predecessor, Ed Miliband, has been adamant  that it was gas prices that were the main reason for consumer price rises. The debate goes on!

Though it is getting a bit urgent. It’s not just gas and oil prices, along with wildfires, heatwaves, and flooding, that are a worry for the UK and the rest of Europe. China has just launched its new 5 year energy plan with a target of installing 3.5TW of renewables by 2030, around a 50% increase, with some firm capacity ratings being set, to be enabled via storage/smart/flexible grids, to reduce the need for using coal plants for balancing.  The overall aim is for clean energy sources to account for 50% of total power generation by 2030, led by wind and solar.

China must find the UKs tortuous policy debate on green power very strange. It may not be doing everything right, but China is clearly pushing ahead very fast - and it is also selling hardware overseas successfully.  Carbon Brief notes that ‘Chinese exports of clean-energy technologies have been surging, especially since the closure of the strait of Hormuz. At the same time, Chinese investment in clean-energy projects in Belt and Road Initiative member states totalled $20bn in the first half of 2026.’ 

China is aiming to be a major global player. And the UK?  Does it actually have anything to sell? To be fair, it already gets about 50% of its power from renewables, but the technology is nearly all imported and much of it is foreign owned. However, the UK does still allow free and open debate! And that’s not something we can take for granted these days, even in the West, with, in the USA, Trump in denial and seeking to block green initiatives-  and even climate discussions!  Perhaps it’s not surprising then that the Guardian carried a militant call for action: ‘To safeguard its political and economic future, Europe needs to accept that the US’s environmental war must be met with an economic response – coordinated with other actors, including China’. Tough stuff…as Ed Miliband takes on his new global role. And the flaming hot summer is still not over…

 A short post this week.  And, as I noted in my last post, I’m taking a break now- to hopefully cool off. Back soon.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av...

Fusion- next steps for the UK

Nuclear fusion is being talked up as the next big energy thing- although it remains some way off and there are many technical and economic question marks. But Boris Johnson is evidently a fan. The UK government, keen to maintain headway in this field after the UK’s exit from Euratom, has set aside £222m for the development of new fusion technology.  It has also asked local authorities to nominate potential sites for a prototype fusion plant, based on the MAST Tokamak developed at Culham in Oxfordshire. The Atomic Energy Authority will assess the sites before making recommendation to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Candidate sites for the ‘Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production’ ( STEP ) project include Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, Nottinghamshire and Aberthaw Power Station, near Barry, in Wales. With there being concerns about local job as coal plants close, new projects like this are obviously attractive, but the STEP programme is fairly ...

New energy policy for Burnham?

 The soon to be UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is being portrayed as a ‘new broom’ that could, or might, adopt better polices in all areas. Well, what about the energy sector?   It’s in a mess, economically, driven by high fossil gas prices, with retail electricity prices at an all-time high, despite renewable energy doing well (65 GW so far) with its wholesale price mostly being low. It’s in a mess technologically, at risk of undermining the crucial next stage of its important renewables programme by diverting cash to support major high-cost nuclear and fossil carbon capture and storage projects.  Both of these programme involve multi-billion funding. The much delayed Hinkley Point nuclear plant may end up costing £40-50bn, inflation adjusted, when it finally gets completed, probably in 2030. Its follow-on project, Sizewell C, may not do much better, despite promises about learning from Hinkley, and despite the investment risks being met by a consumer levy.  ...