Skip to content

The six ways renewables increase electricity bills

September 28, 2023

By Paul Homewood

 

 

London, 28 September – A new paper from the Net Zero Watch demonstrates conclusively renewables increase electricity bills — indeed, it is almost impossible that adding a new windfarm to the grid would ever reduce consumer prices.


The author of the paper, Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford, outlines a series of effects that a new windfarm will have on bills, showing that in each case households will take a financial hit. As Mr Montford explains:


"In order to reduce bills, a new generator generally has to force an old one to leave the electricity market — otherwise there are two sets of costs to cover. But with wind power, you can’t let anything leave the market, because one day there might be no wind."
But as well as adding excess capacity to the grid, renewables also have a series of other effects, each of which will push bills up further. Mr Montford says:
"Renewables need subsidies, they cause inefficiency, they require new grid balancing services that need to be paid for; the list of all the different effects is surprisingly long. There is only one way a windfarm will push your power bills, and that’s upwards."


The paper is entitled The Six Ways Renewables Increase Electricity Bills. It is available in plain text below, or can be downloaded as a PDF by clicking on the cover image.

12 Comments
  1. September 28, 2023 12:17 pm

    Only six. I am sure there are more ways.

  2. Andy McGregor permalink
    September 28, 2023 12:47 pm

    The conclusion I come to after I read the paper is that there needs to be a radical rethink of the pricing mechanism. Not that we shouldn’t be building wind farms.
    Someone ( maybe George Mombiot)
    said the current system was a bit like wanting to buy 12 bottles of proseco from off licence at £10 a bottle: but they only had 11, so you had to get 1 bottle of champaign at £30 to meet the demand. However you had to pay £30 for each bottle! £360 rather than £140.

    Like everything it is more complicated than it seems.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      September 29, 2023 2:39 am

      That’s not a good analogy for how it works at all. However, it is a common misconception.

      However, when you look at the suggestions for a different basis of market under REMA you realise that they are likely to be capricious and unpredictable, which will cost consumers and lead to bad investment decisions.

  3. It doesn't add up... permalink
    September 29, 2023 4:05 am

    That’s a good write-up by Andrew Montford. I would add that his final table of costs only reflects approximately the current situation. As we go further towards renewables some of those costs are going to escalate alarmingly – particularly constraint payments/curtailment, followed by grid costs for extra transmission and stabilisation. By the time we get to about 50GW of wind capacity we can expect that curtailment will account for about half the output of the marginal wind farm, doubling the cost of its useful output. Plough on to 90GW and it will be more like 80-85% of the output would be wasted, pushing up the marginal cost 5-7x. And still we would need gas backup for perhaps 25% of total supply, and close to 100% of peak demand.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      September 29, 2023 12:24 pm

      IDAU, I read – and was impressed with – your extensive comment elsewhere on curtailment costs etc as more and more wind is added to the grid. Do you know if it has gained traction with any of our so-called decision-makers?

      • 186no permalink
        September 29, 2023 12:53 pm

        HP, referring to the reply from my MP you commented on via another topic on this subject, I suspect very strongly that the answer is either “No” or “Not with anyone in a position to make ANY meaningfully cogent decision”….

    • In The Real World permalink
      September 29, 2023 12:47 pm

      Yes , adding more renewables increases the cost by many times over just the percentage of the increase .
      And it also increases the risk of more blackouts as more non synchronous generation make it a lot more difficult to keep the grid balanced .
      Which is why they have been very reluctant to admit the cost of the whole thing .Recent figures released show an extra cost for consumers of over £6000 per year .

      “Brits face £6,000 annual bill to reach net zero by 2050”

  4. Micky R permalink
    September 29, 2023 1:11 pm

    There’s probably enough expertise (not me!) on this board to build a model to estimate the cost of electricity supplied by a UK grid that generally relies upon thermal power stations.

    I would select baseload generation from nuclear (twin-PWR reactor sites based on the Sizewell B PWR design) and coal. Gas for peak lopping, although modern coal can peak lop, but perhaps not as quickly as OCGT

    • Matt Dalby permalink
      September 30, 2023 10:46 pm

      I would go for nuclear for most baseload and gas, from fracking, for a bit of baseload and to meet changes in demand as we have enough gas fired power stations but most of the coal fired ones have been demolished. Also if most of the coal came from deep mines it’s likely to be more expensive than fracked gas. If the government issued fracking licences on condition all the gas was sold domestically and set a realistic maximum price it could be sold for, rising each year in line with inflation, it would shield us from most of the fluctuations in global prices. Caudrilla were happy to start fracking 5 or more years ago when international gas prices were half what they are now meaning they think it’s possible to recoup initial investment and turn a profit selling the gas at low prices.

  5. John Brown permalink
    September 29, 2023 6:41 pm

    Excellent report which should and would have been written by Ofgem if it had stuck to its original remit (or the one we were told it had) instead of transforming itself into the exact opposite and became the deliverer and enforcer of Net Zero.

  6. ralfellis permalink
    September 30, 2023 10:54 am

    This is a good analysis, but is based upon the current electrical grid.

    It needs expanding to encompass the 2035 grid, where all gas power generation has gone. And then to 2050, when all liquid fuels have gone, and we are reduced to electricity and hydrogen.

    This changes the dynamics completely, as the largest extra cost (not mentioned here), will be stored backup energy. Stored backup will likely double the costs of renewables.

    R

    • September 30, 2023 9:22 pm

      Section 3A of the Electricity Act 1989 puts a duty on the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to assure the need to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are met and to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy supply.

      We then have the common law definition of negligence & duty of care see Donoghue v Stevenson so before we even think of the cost what we should be asking is it technically feasible and where is the full size prototype as we haven’t even got a micro-grid where this is close to have being proved to be technically feasible.

      see the scheme in Tasmania & El Hierro

      http://euanmearns.com/ – see links on righthand side

      https://joannenova.com.au/2017/11/abc-renewables-fantasy-island-farewells-diesel-except-for-40-of-its-power/

      Is it going to take politicians and civil servants going to prison for misconduct in a public office/negligence before rationality returns?

Comments are closed.