Press release: Labour energy policy divorced from reality
By Paul Homewood
London: 31 May 2024
Labour’s energy claims are ‘divorced from reality’
The Labour Party is saying that its energy policies – a rapid decarbonisation of the electricity system – will save consumers money. The claim is apparently based on an October 2023 report by Ember,[1] which says that a decarbonised electricity system can reduce bills by £300 per household.
However, the report also says[2] that the authors are assuming that windfarms in the future will secure ‘the same price as [Contracts for Difference] auction round 4’. The prices achieved in Round 4 (£37.50) are around half the price (£73/MWh) currently on offer to offshore windfarms in Round 6 [3]. And industry insiders are suggesting that even the latter figure may be inadequate.[4]
In other words, Labour’s claimed savings rely on assuming that wind power costs half of what it actually does.
A second problem Labour’s putative savings figure is that Ember’s report compares bills in their hypothetical decarbonised electricity system against bills in the third quarter of 2023, which were still inflated by the Ukraine war.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
Labour’s claim of a reduction in household bills is based on figures that are entirely divorced from today’s reality.
And Mr Montford continued by calling for a new reality-based debate on Net Zero.
When it comes to energy policy, the political establishment is operating in a fact-free void. For the sake of the country, they need to start asking very hard questions about what they are being told by civil servants and environmental activists like Ember.
Notes for editors
2. Page 20.
3. All values are in 2012 prices, as is standard practice when discussing CfDs. In current prices, AR4 is worth £47/MWh, and AR6 is offering around £102/MWh.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Every major party’s energy policy is divorced from reality. Only Reform UK has a sensible policy, which is firstly to get rid of Net Zero.
I wish they would drop their silly plan for nationalisation, which would cost a fortune and achieve nothing. They need to put the boot in to the regulators – OFGEM, CCC, ONR and NGESO who write the Future Energy Scenarios that Ed Miliband has quoted extensively as Labour policy, and entail anything requiring lots more grid. Restore proper competition and end the doling out of subsidies and the industry has incentive to lower costs.
So? Reality is not on the ballot.
Voters are educated in government schools, then receive continuing education from BBC. Hence, Labour’s absurd ideas seem at least plausible, which is all that is necessary.
General elections are personality contests, not about issues. Yet, when Labour wins, they will declare they have a mandate for their issues. Cirrusly, they are running on, “We are not Tories,” but will claim the people really, really want their energy system f*&^ed over.
The reconstruction of the grid, and all the storage costs, could be £500,000 per family. But don’t worry, you’ll save £300 a year on electricity.
Except you won’t.
I give liebour two years before the electorate are storming westmonster with pitch forks.
come on Reform and show up all these head in the cloud energy numpties for what they really are -DELUDED FOOLS.
The Celtic Sea project will cost even more having secured £87.30 per MWh in AR4, at 2012 prices. That of course doesn’t include the transmission infrastructure costs, such as carving up the North Devon AONB at Saunton. Politicians lie, it’s that simple.
Fish and chips used to be 1d and a halfpenny, will they be using these as a yardstick next? If it involves Miliband maybe. Madness.
Its 32MW so can be plugged into the local distribution network. Anyhow its not going to make one iota of difference to getting to this illusory goal of no fossil fuels by 2030. Actually floating wind looks unlikely to get beyond a couple of trials anywhere this side of 2030.
It has a really weird design. I hope they tested it in a wind tunnel at least: I think interference between adjoining rotors will wreck it in short order.
https://www.twinhub.co.uk/
It already has a connection to shore which was built as part of the attempts to devise wave energy projects. It’s a way to cut the loss on that investment, since those failed.
The current price is £121.48/MWh
I wonder if any of the [good] folk promoting offshore bat-busters has ever had to maintain anything at sea – salt air, moisture, varying temperature – before.
If not, they will swiftly find that the sea chews through un-‘marinized’ kit at a rate of knots; one ship I was on had an early roll-recording device. Fixed to the ship’s rail it was a heap of iron oxide within three months.
That will undoubtedly tend to reduce the service lives of these obstructions to the seaways. Probably dramatically – ’25 years’ is from the pen of M. Verne, Frenchman and Futurologist.
Auto
It is not enough to just understand that net zero won’t work.
The person presenting the data needs first of all an opportunity to make their case and second they need a good presentation/understanding of the issues and last they need to be articulate.
Wow, you completely missed it, AC.
The Labour announcement is they will save consumers money.
“No they won’t!” . . . is a useless argument. Labour is running on “they care about the people,” and the Tories don’t.
Labour is also going to save the people from the horrors of climate change. That there is no climate change isn’t a useful argument.
Long term, the UK is screwed, for the people like and want fascism, i.e., strong, autocratic central control of a private economy. They want a government powerful enough to fix things they perceive as wrong. Labour feigning they care appeals to the popular desire for an activist government.
“Labour loves you and will make everything alright.”
To be countered with “net zero won’t work.”
The reality is the election will be won on “Who cares about the people?” When, in a proper government, that shouldn’t even be a consideration. In a fascist state, it is everything.
Don’t be cruel. They are going in the right direction. At the beginning of last year renewables were 9X cheaper than fossil fuels (Starmer Davos 2023)
Still being quoted in the Labour election energy policy document. I think it’s how they work out their claim of saving households £93bn.
“General elections are personality contests, not about issues.”
Labour must hope you’re wrong. For all his faults Rishi at least has a personality; “Sir” Kneel Starmer seems to be entirely devoid of one.
I think it was Richard Feynman who said: For a scientist the value of a proposition lies in its truth content, for a politician, the number of people who can be persuaded to believe it.
There will be no reality as long as Ed Millibrain is in the frame. He is Labour’s Weakest Link. Why on Earth are the Tories not aiming their attack at him?
The Labour Party is Socialist, Socialists are divorced from reality, if they weren’t they wouldn’t be Socialists.
Miliband has a plan but so do I! Energy costs can come down for everyone very easily if we’re charged what the going rate for gas was back in 1970.
I know, I know; it’s a simply genius plan of immense deft and cunning, but for the greater good I’m prepared to share it with you all. Can someone tell the government? You may thank me later.
I shall vote for Reform, even though that will lead to Labour. That is because Reform are the only choice with a sensible energy policy.
The founder of Ember, author of this nonsense, is Blair-apppointed peer Baroness Bryony Worthington, who was also Ed Miliband’s Lord’s spokesperson in the Lord’s and the self-proclaimed architect of the 2008 Climate Change Act. She covered her lobbying tracks by becoming a cross-bencher in 2017. Miliband now making policy her bogus think-tank output is a typical example of British political chumocracy and the green “circular economy”.
The only way energy costs will be coming down is when there’s none available to buy.