No, Mr Marlow – Renewable Energy Is Not “The Way Out Of This”
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
A remarkable naive article by Ben Marlow:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/26/renewable-energy-way-mess/
I won’t bore you with the details, as it is the same old guff we get from AEP every month.
Basically:
- Wind and solar are dirt cheap
- Fossil fuels are expensive
- We should abandon fracking because of NIMBYs
- Green levies are tiny
Let’s start with this nugget:
Marlow calls himself a financial journalist, but a competent one would actually go away and check the Annual Accounts of offshore wind companies, which consistently show that construction costs have not come down in the way he claims. Indeed they show that the real costs are around £100/MWh. And, of course, this does not start to reflect all of the indirect costs.
Is he even aware that the auctions are not legally binding supply contracts, and that the new wind farms which have come on stream in the last year have not taken up their CfDs, but instead are merrily selling at market prices?
And he clearly does not understand that wind power is hopelessly intermittent. He says:
Only this January we saw just how volatile even offshore wind power can be:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/03/17/how-volatile-is-offshore-wind/
What on earth does he think will happen in a few winters time, when we are totally reliant on renewables?
He then goes on to dismiss the arguments against solar power:
I have no idea where he gets his preposterous claim that solar farms tend to be built on land that isn’t fit for farming. The opposite is in fact true.
But much more pertinent is what happens to solar power in winter, when demand for power peaks. During December 2021, for instance, all of the UK’s solar farms worked at just 1.8% of capacity – clue, Mr Marlow, it’s called winter for a reason!
And even this assumes that we have sufficient battery storage to smooth out supply during each day and night.
The government’s target is to have 36 GW of solar power by 2030, but in winter this will only supply a tiny 0.6 GW on average. Maybe Mr Marlow does not appreciate that by then will be needing 60 GW or more of power?
Of course, solar power businesses would be queuing up to build new solar farms if they were so economical as he says. Except they are not.
Since subsidies were withdrawn in 2017, new investment has dried up:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/solar-photovoltaics-deployment
Ah, what about the Sahara, he says:
Well, if somebody wants to risk their capital and build it, fine. But personally I would not want to put our whole energy infrastructure and economy at the mercy of jihadists in North Africa, who could could blow up the cable at a stroke.
And green levies?
It is telling that he has outsourced his journalism to Carbon Brief, who shill for the renewable lobby.
Perhaps he should have consulted the OBR instead:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/01/14/environmental-levies-3/
Green levies will cost us £14 billion this year, more than £500 per household, and the cost is projected to carry on rising.
The current spike in natural gas prices, which has precipitated electricity prices rises, has nothing to do with the intrinsic cost of extracting the gas. It is purely a function of supply and demand; increase supply and prices will return to normal, which means cheaper than renewables.
The whole of the western world has a part to play, just as it has been responsible for discouraging investment in recent years. And the UK has an important role in this, by maximising North Sea resources as well as fracking. Yet Mr Marlow claims:
According to Cuadrilla, who are prepared to put their money where their mouth is, the Bowland Shale alone could supply 50 years of current UK demand for gas.
I don’t call that a sideshow.
Isn’t it time the Telegraph started employing proper financial journalists?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“I have no idea where he gets his preposterous claim that solar farms tend to be built on land that isn’t fit for farming. The opposite is in fact true.”
Indeed. Over time, this slow but increasing loss of good agricultural land to solar (as well as losses to biofuel ethanol “farms”) will add up and food will become a big problem even if population growth slows down. Another of those unintended consequences in this game of “climate change”.
I am a regular visitor to France. The supermarket chain Leclerc has put solar panels over the car parks of at least two newbuilds that I know of, Moutiers (Savoie) and Mios (Gironde). If we have to have solar farms, where better to have them? Plenty of acreage available when you consider the number of supermarkets in the UK.
Rather than restricting access to good agricultural land, why not use them in – and probably their only – useful way? Keeping shoppers dry!
A supermarket carpark produces tiny amounts of leccy
It’s for show
It’s not economic
Solar power is unreliable , [ the Sun does not always shine , ] and very expensive .
In the ” Energy Return On Investment formula”, solar has the lowest return on energy for cost .
The Ivanpah solar plant , the biggest , most efficient in the world , has never , and almost certainly will never , produced enough energy to pay for its costs .
And that one is built in a desert
And wind generation is not much better , being below the level of return where it could ever pay for itself .
Which is why they both have to be subsidised to exist .
Of course , another alternative is green taxes on other generation which hides the massive excess cost of unreliable generation .
Paul that is a fantastic criticism of Ben Marlow’s rubbish. As I cancelled my telegraph subscription I cannot comment directly, If this guy is Chief City Commentator then they should bring back Boris as an expert!
The Times is just as bad. The Telegraph and Times have sunk to the low level of the Grauniad.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/52663d02-23e1-11ed-83fa-560ae4fda953?shareToken=f1afcf33db30b231f88b12221fecedb9
I cancelled my subscription to the The Times when they ran two stories within a week that I knew to be completely false. So did many others, and pointed it out BTL, with links. Their response? The deleted the comments showing they were wrong.
Not a paper to be trusted with facts, the DT is a bit better.
World’s most evil man, Bill Gates, is obviously having an effect with his funding. As for Boris being an expert – only at holding parties and screwing women other than his wives.
Seen this cartoon all over the place recently, so true.
Try again.
https://preview.redd.it/cgdhul2k0nh91.jpg?auto=webp&s=e26b52841798406335870eb947ddf150ce39b4e6
First time I’ve seen it. Thanks for the link.
Fight!! Fight!! Love it! Well done Paul. The DT is fast losing it – and its readers.
For starters . . . There is no such thing as ‘Clean or Green Energy’ !
ALL Energy Production of ALL kinds . . . Pollutes Planet Earth . . . Somewhere, Somehow . . .
Do Not be fooled . . . Wind Turbines . . . Solar Panels . . . Bio-Fuels . . . Electric Cars . . . ALL BAD!
They ALL have a Huge Carbon Footprint Hidden behind Propaganda . . .
Why Have we NOT been Told . . . Where is Government? Where is the Media?
Read . . . Clean Green Energy . . . Fairytales on Steroids . . .
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/270-energy/today/multiple-energy-types/world/3208-clean-green-energy-net-zero-fairy-tales-on-steroids?highlight=WyJqaW0iLCJsZSIsIm1haXN0cmUiLCJqaW0gbGUiLCJqaW0gbGUgbWFpc3RyZSIsImxlIG1haXN0cmUiXQ==
The government has also said that solar farms will only be built where the local community supports them. But despite massive local opposition, every large solar farm application in Devon has been approved by the local planning authority or by the planning inspectorate. So much for government promises.
The more this kind of c**p and the outpourings of AEP and many others goes on, the closer I – and, I suspect, many many more are getting to cancelling DT subscriptions…
Just been reading the comments in the article. Seems like a green love-in with not a brain-cell between them.
The theme seems to be that we need to spend more now in investment to secure a renewable future that works. Wistful and ignorant thinking.
The ‘Sahara Solution’ has an expensive, exposed cable stretching a very long way!
A very soft target for any discontented military.
(While the article is beyond parody, 99% of the posts disagree with it, and many express disbelief at its naivety.)
And that’s without even starting on the loss rate (or whatever its proper name is) over that distance!
Magic Money Trees and Unicorn Farts are childs play compared to some of the ideas these clowns come up with!
According to my schoolboy geography, isn’t Morocco near the equator, and doesn’t this mean that it get roughly 12 hour daylight year-round? And isn’t it on a similar longitude to the UK so that peak solar will be at similar time of day in both countries? So how in earth does he claim that Morocco will be exporting solar power for 20 hours a day?
Will,
If you stand behind a bull (not too closely) you will see an occasional export.
Never mind Morocco – name anywhere that averages more than 12 hours of daylight per 24 hours on an annual basis.
Morocco is roughly between latitudes 27 deg & 36 deg, so nowhere near the Equator.
You can get nearly 20 hours of sunlight in Anchorage, Alaska. On one day of the year, anyway. Maybe it should be there?
Maybe it will take a long while to get here.
” it promises power for 20 hours per day ”
Interesting! The facility he mentions appears to be at about 28.5°N. Latitude.
The longest days are about 14 hours, the shortest about 10 1/2. They will need a very big battery to stretch that out to 20 hours.
He took an absolute pasting BTL. Time and again he was comprehensively put straight. Readers are very wise to Greens sleight of hand, probably due to the contribution of blogs like this one!
‘consider one basic, unavoidable fact, which is that the costs of renewable energy continue to plummet’
[quantitative analysis needed]
It has been ‘plummeting’ for so long, you would expect them to PAY US for using it.
‘Ultimately, capital markets will decide the energy system of tomorrow. As the regulatory environment for fossil fuels becomes ever more hostile, the private sector will speed up investment in renewables, bringing down the costs even further.’
Nah. Capital will go to Mexico.
‘Critics are quick to point to the intermittency of renewables as a fatal flaw. In the case of wind, that is less of a problem offshore, but the sheer size and hi-tech nature of the latest turbines means they are much more efficient and reliable than the previous generation anyway.’
SFW? This is the old, “The cure for becalmed turbines is MORE turbines.”
‘What’s more, it promises power for 20 hours a day.’
Demand is TWENTY FOUR hours a day, dumbass.
‘A slew of similarly ambitious trans-continental mega schemes will follow, and further balance can be brought to the system by other low-carbon sources such as hydrogen, carbon capture and nuclear, in the form of small modular reactors if the Government can’t get its act together and build a new nuclear fleet.’
This is an assertion that it can all work. It is a lie.
‘The Conservatives used to be the party of economics, but in obsessing about confected culture wars, they have forgotten to play to their strengths. This is a crucial moment for them to rediscover their soul and defend the renewable revolution against reactionary forces.’
He actually loves Conservatives, and wants them to do better. That’s why he is giving them this advice.
There will be a few electrical engineers on here.
What kind of transmission losses will there be on cables from Morocco to the UK? Obviously depends on how many cables and how big.
Last time I queried this, some GangGreen twerp said I shouldn’t worry because now they have Superconductivity. When I pointed out that this would mean keeping the cable close to absolute zero, he suddenly remembered he had something urgent to do.
Of course, I’m sure Superconductivity has come on by leaps and bounds in the last 15 years. But perhaps someone can update us.
Anyway, I think on balance, relying on Morocco would be much dafter than relying on Gazprom and burning gas.
The Telegraph will be suggesting we ask Iran for nuclear power, next.
It could be done but why?
Not all is lost at the Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/26/how-governments-cult-net-zero-wrecked-energy-market/?WT.mc_id=e_DM27907&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FAM_New_ES_Sat&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_FAM_New_ES_Sat20220827&utm_campaign=DM27907
I’ve just been reading that. Juliet Samuels wades in gloriously, handbag swinging.
There’s no doubt we’re seeing a huge Net Zero media blame game unfolding. Watch out for the green revisionism, which we know will come.
Much of the supposedly local opposition to fracking was bused-in rent-a-mob from elsewhere, likely funded by Putin.
The planning objections and pile-on antics onto local councillors were mostly from out of area.
I’ve taken to carrying a 5L tin of surplus green emulsion paint in the car boot – on the off chance that I see some protesters.
“Wind and solar are dirt cheap”
As Paul correctly pointed out, wind power costs at least £100/MWhr as evidenced by company reports. Furthermore these costs do not include the £54bn National Grid are needing to spend on grid infrastructure and the costs of intermittency currently borne by fossil fuels.
The reason why fossil fuel companies are bidding uneconomically low wind CfD prices is because building a wind farm raises their ESG rating and hence access to capital.
ESG is another scam.
scum is too kind ?
Just proves that being an ignorant idiot is no bar to being a journalist these days – and sadly that applies to lots of other jobs and stupidity abounds. Checkout that Surrey County Council are proposing a 20mph speed limit on RURAL ROADS!!! The idiots put a 30mph in outside my house which seemed to have little effect on the speeding car that crashed afterwards taking out a telegraph pole and our post box. And not that the 40mph limit was ever enforced.
Look at Bath ( and the somewhat nominatively determined BANES council) who saw a rise in accidents with their 20 mph speed schemes – so it was canned – but the signage stayed as it was deemed too expensive to remove the signs and road markings.
They moved on to impose a LEZ that can’t effectively be avoided by through / around traffic – ker-ching! – fines a-go-go for tradesmen who can’t afford a Euro 6 van.
A friend mentioned a ‘new’ idea of using excess energy to raise a weight and dropping it when the stored energy is required. I remembered thinking about this years ago and dismissed it when I did the sums. Using the online calculator using a 20 tonne weight and dropping it 50 metres produces just under 3 kwh so I guess that’s a no no. Pity help us this winter with us pensioners not being able to keep warm on the rare occasions the grid will be producing power.
https://aresnorthamerica.com/
Seems like slow progress though, no updates since 2020!
Kerosene space heaters will keep you alive. Crude, smelly . . . but better than dying. Cheapest heat I know of, after you have burned all your trees.