Justin Rowlatt’s Renewables Disinformation
By Paul Homewood
h/t Paul Kolk
Justin Rowlatt caught misleading the public again!
.
That’s what Reform UK claims, and says it’s why it plans to scrap all subsidies for renewable energy projects.
The calculation isn’t as straightforward as you might think, though.
The cost of a unit of power from a new solar or wind project is lower than the cost from a new gas generator, according to government figures
.
But there are other factors that need to be taken into account.
Renewable power is intermittent. The electricity system needs a source of backup power for when the sun isn’t shining, or the wind isn’t blowing – gas power stations or batteries, for example.
Calculating how much that will cost will depend on all sorts of factors including the future price of gas and the cost of electricity storage facilities.
That’s not all. We all experienced how energy prices spiked after Russia invaded Ukraine. That represents a serious cost to the economy too, says the Office of Budget Responsibility
.
Renewables prices are more predictable and therefore would make the country more resilient against price shocks.
So, while renewables are relatively cheap and getting cheaper it is hard to say for certain whether an electricity system with a high level of renewables will lead to higher or lower bills than one that relies more on gas.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-69122757/page/2
I have two comments:
1) Why is the Climate Editor discussing energy issues, rather then the Energy Editor?
2) This disinformation about Reform’s policies is clear election interference.
.
Rowlatt claims:
The cost of a unit of power from a new solar or wind project is lower than the cost from a new gas generator, according to government figures
But the government figures he quotes are not only out of date, but were fundamentally flawed in the first place, as a proper energy expert would have told him. These were the govt projections; they are at 2021 prices:
.
However last year’s CfD auction failed to attract any bidders for offshore at a price of £44/MWh at 2012 prices – (equivalent to £60/MWh now). This was because the price on offer did not cover their costs.
As a result the government was forced to increase the Strike Price to £73/MWh for offshore wind at 2012 prices (£100/MWh now); also onshore wind and solar were drastically raised to £88/MWh and £84/MWh respectively, both at today’s prices.
By contrast, CCGT costs only £54/MWh, if we ignore “Carbon Costs”, which are not real costs at all. (I’ll do a further post on this later today).
Current market prices this financial year are around £56/MWh, which bears out the above projection for CCGT. The BEIS analysis assumes a gas wholesale price of 53p/therm, slightly lower than the average of about 70p this year. This would increase fuel prices for CCGT from £43 to £56/MWh. This total costs might be around £67/MWh, still well below renewable sources.
Another complaint will be winging its way to the BBC!
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“gas power stations or batteries, for example.”
How much battery backup does the National Grid have ? in MWh
It’s typically one hour’s worth per MW – not sur about the capacity though!
It’s a head fake, anyway, suggesting that ‘batteries’ could somehow be helpful. They cost money and produce nothing. The scale of the grid is vastly beyond the potential of batteries. And battery owners aren’t going to support the grid, anyway. It’s all so dumb.
Anyone mentioning batteries at grid level is trying to trick you.
er… didn’t gas prices start shooting up 6 months BEFORE the Russia/Ukraine conflict?
Indeed, this post event ‘lying’ drives me nuts. After ‘covid’ the far eastern countries were far faster to contract for gas than the western European ones. The prices escalated because of sudden increase in demand after the ‘lockdowns’ on the economies. The western countries including UK were left with having to pay the increased market prices.
Months later the Ukraine conflict kicked off for real, and the western European countries with ‘sage advice’ from their masters in DC decided to place an embargo on Russian piped NG, eventually with one of the NS pipes being blown.
So now some countries in eastern Europe continue to get relatively cheap piped NG from Russia, Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia and Austria, through both the Ukrainian and Turkey pipelines. Whilst western Europe ‘enjoys’ LNG at about 3 times the price of piped NG.
But our glorious media, and any politicians when asked, just parrot ‘Putin’s energy war’. We are lied to continually about just about everything.
Yes, which is why ALL the “energy companies” (ie middle men) went bankrupt prior to the invasion, beginning the previous June.
Secondly, it was the Conservative Environment Network (CEN) that proudly claimed it created the narrative of Ukraine war being the cause of gas price increases ie conflating long term with temporary market spike.
CEN is another green billionaire funded political interference outfit. They captured my MP Desmond Swayne with their propaganda as well as about 150 other Conservative back benchers.
List and dates. Russia invaded Ukraine 24 February 2022:
Date Company Customers
09-Aug-21 Hub Energy 6,000
07-Sep-21 PFP Energy 80,000
07-Sep-21 MoneyPlus Energy Limited 9,000
14-Sep-21 Utility Point 220,000
14-Sep-21 People’s Energy 350,000
22-Sep-21 Avro Energy 580,000
22-Sep-21 green.energy 255,000
29-Sep-21 Igloo Energy 179,000
29-Sep-21 Symbio Energy 48,000
29-Sep-21 ENSTROGA 6,000
13-Oct-21 Pure Planet 235,000
13-Oct-21 Colorado Energy 15,000
14-Oct-21 Daligas 9000
18-Oct-21 goto.energy 22,000
01-Nov-21 bluegreen 5,900
02-Nov-21 Zebra Power 14,800
02-Nov-21 Omni Energy Ltd 6,000
02-Nov-21 Ampoweruk Ltd 600
02-Nov-21 MA Energy 300
03-Nov-21 CNG Energy 41000
16-Nov-21 Neon Energy 30,000
16-Nov-21 Social Energy 5,500
24-Nov-21 Bulb Energy 1,700,000
25-Nov-21 Orbit Energy 65,000
25-Nov-21 Entice Energy 5,400
01-Dec-21 Zog Energy 11,700
18-Jan-22 Together Energy 176,000
18-Jan-22 Bristol Energy see above
18-Feb-22 Xcel Power Limited 274
18-Feb-22 Whoop Energy 50
List of Conservative MPs and Ministers from CEN can be found at:
Parliamentarians | Conservative Environment Network (cen.uk.com)
Get it while its still there!
Which is why so many Conservative MPs and the government to date are infected by Net Zero propaganda
Thank you TS. There are plenty of recent snapshots at Archive.org (was about to create a snapshot for posterity). It will be interesting to see how many of them survive: it is critical that the next opposition starts going after Net Zero right from the off, so the fewer, the better.
Yes, due to a shortage of natural gas and arguably a wind drought during the 2021 Spring/summer. Regardless of that the mainstream press (vs dedicated energy) knew about the price hike by the 6th August 2021.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2021/08/energy-bills-set-to-rocket-for-11-million-as-price-cap-is-hiked-/
Yes, and the UK only got 3% of its gas from Russia anyway – it’s a deceit they peddle out
Yes.
Spring 2021 had an extended cold run, more gas than average consumed in heating
Summer 2021 saw extended wind droughts, more gas than expected consumed by power stations.
Autumn 2021 all the small leveraged companies went to market, there was no excess supply, the bids went vertical and they went bust.
and how much battery backup is available to the National Grid in MWh?
Here you go – a list of every type.
https://openinframap.org/stats/area/United%20Kingdom
You can look up individual plant lists and an excellent global infrastructure mapping system.
Hi Ray
Thanks for that list.
Their entry for solar (9,095 MW) is highly suspect.
Sheffield Solar gives 16,446MW
https://api.solar.sheffield.ac.uk/pvlive/capacity
Elexon’s “Installed Generation Capacity Aggregated (B1410)” gave solar at 15,896MW at the start of this year, but that helpful page seems to have ‘disappeared’.
None of it being ‘metered’ or ‘seen’ by National Grid’s grid balancers.
Hi Joe the openinfra data for solar does not include domestic rooftop solar and only lists solar farms as such that are distributable power (albeit only over the low voltage network.)
If you click on the solar it lists all the sites it records as it also does with all the battery sites which it lists by power rating. Totting up the battery list it does seem to come to the higher figure. Perhaps the government figure is off as REUK came up with a similar higher figure.
Sorry dave that list only give power rating not energy storage. At best double the power output capability for storage capacity in MWh. Still bugger all in the overall scheme of things.
Still a useful website though!
Cheers Ray – neat list. But as you say MW rather than MWh, and bugger all. Can someone point this out to the politicians?
If you told them this, they’d ignore you – they’re either clueless, or benefitting
davew, I have tried asking the Tory and the Labour candidates in my constituency [that’s ‘Chris and Ben’ the No-Power Plot Men]. The Tory sent Copy and Paste stuff from the Civil Servants in the DESNZ [have I got that right, it’s changed so often?]; the Labour doesn’t reply at all.
Sum result – they’ve been told.
They haven’t listened, and the result – will – be blackouts.
Earlier with the Labour – Nut Zero if five and a half years; the Tories will take a little longer to destroy our nation.
The more I see, therefore, the more it looks as if: –
1 The Tories know a bust is coming, are DETERMINED to lose this election [regardless];
2 The Labour really don’t care either – POWER is their aim – better to be a smug beetle on the top of a dung-heap, carefully avoiding calling for a cull of the First-born, than a responsible politician admitting that there is much to be done, and it will mean some pain;
3 The rest are an irrelevance [even Reform, despite the hype];
4 Hence, I weep for my country.
Auto
If you click through to the open map page for each site, then you can see the MWh. At least for the few I looked at. Bit tedious to open each one though.
Battery Energy Storage Systems.
According to this 19 April 2024 HoC Research Briefing “Battery energy storage systems” paper, the “Number and capacity of operational BESSs and BESSs under/awaiting construction” Table on page 12 states the power of operational batteries is 2GW. Far below the “3,320 MW” mentioned in that OpenInfraMap document.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7621/CBP-7621.pdf
Joe et al, you can see a list here. Archived version as the original is offline. Thanks to whichever forward-think saved it.
This is a case where the best line of attack is via the editorial corrections route available here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55077304
newssiteerrors@bbc.co.uk
They do act much faster than the Complaints Procedure when you can show they are wrong.
Hi IDAU, thanks for that link.
It’s shortcoming though is “If your complaint requires a response, please submit it via BBC Complaints.”
Complaints made that require a response (usually) mean they can’t simply do a stealth-edit and hope no one remembers their original faux-pas. 😉
Get Wayback machine to do a page snapshot. Then it’s preserved for posterity.
No matter how you cut the cake, between the CCC, Civil Servants & Department for Energy Insecurity, they have put together a costing system so wrapped up in technical jargon with a myriad of undeclared subsidies that given half a chance, they would “prove beyond a shadow of doubt” that the new 2024 Bentley Bentayga A Hybrid @£179k was cheaper to run that a 2024 Skoda Octavia SE petrol or diesel.
All cost comparisons should be transparent, if gas, oil, coal, tidal, nuclear, hydro, biomass are receiving a cost per unit subsidy it should be shown, if gas, oil, coal, tidal, nuclear, hydro, biomass are being charged a Green Energy tax per tax it should be shown- then the duplicity of those that claim that X is cheaper than Y can be clearly understood.
We are heading for a massive Energy shock, it will no longer be a choice of Heat or Eat, it will simply be ZERO, no power as Wind and Solar are intermittent, the existing Gas, Oil and Coal will have been closed by 2030 or 2035 depending on who gets the keys- at that point, people will discover why the Third World is so desperate to have a fossil fuel based Energy production capacity- nothing will work- NO light, heating, cooking, water, sewerage and that is just the start- once the transmission stations have shut down due to the automated energy balancing protocol, it is not just a matter on flicking a switch- the National Grid have admitted that a nation wide shutdown would take several weeks to switch back on- but hold on, in that very statement NG have made an assumption that power will be constant rather than intermittent, the very intermittent power that caused the shutdown- put simply, once off there is no guarantee that due to intermittent sourcing, it can be restored in full.
Net Zero means Nothing Will Work, and the sad truth is, they are aware of this sobering fact.
Worry not, reality is accelerating towards the deceit
Net Zero Watch have audited accounts and calculated the cost of power that way. The gov’t figures are pure hopium.
It doesn’t improve. Last night Dale Vince was on Newsnight with Victoria Derbyshire. He had this to say:
“If you look at economics behind Net Zero there is no rationale, no logic in saying its expensive and we can’t afford it because for every £1 we spend on renewable energy we get 2.5 times more jobs and twice the GDP growth that we get if we spend that same £1 on fossil fuels – THAT’S A FACT” (15:30)
He even has an answer to fuelling the existing gas boilers – “we can make the gas we need from grass and we have an abundance of grass in this country – we have enough grass to make all the gas we need.”
This is the man who has made a fortune out of renewable subsidies and said on the Iain Dale Cross Question show on LBC last September, regarding the dangers of Putin getting weapons from Kim Jong Un, responded with – “bacon will kill you first is my answer – it won’t be Kim Jong Un’s missiles that kill us or harm us; it will be bacon – bacon will kill you first.”
Why does the BBC not challenge this crackpot? He’d be slaughtered by some of the posters on here. I’d love to see him discuss renewable “FACTS” with Paul.
Dale Vince has also been significant Labour Party donor I think
And JSO
£5m according to the Grauniad.
The idea we can get more jobs AND more growth is just utterly false. Growth is by definition, doing more with less. That includes labour. Switching from scythes to combine harvesters is growth but it REDUCES jobs, at least in harvesting wheat. The growth frees up labour to make other stuff via new jobs but Vince is not claiming that. He is claiming having more people produce the same amount is growth – it is simply not.
But he is increasing jobs. The abundance of grass has to be collected from some difficult terrain unsuitable for combine harvesters which is where the scythes (and jobs) come in. I’m hanging on to my grass clippings because there is a shortage of gas heading our way if you follow this:https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/surging-power-demand-raises-questions-about-cost/
I think we’re PUCTed.
Vince has received £110Mn of taxpayer cash for his windmills over the last few years – it’s in his interests to peddle the lies
I would love to see how Vince supports his lie about jobs and GDP. Sounds as plausible as Sir Kneelers idea that there are 650,000 skilled people just sitting around waiting to do his green jobs.
You have Rowlatt the equivalent of Sir David Attenborough being the face of the Oil & Gas industry. Impartiality isn’t required if you’re reporting on the “climate”. [Note]That looks like a spelling mistake but in fact “climate crisis” is the wrong spelling.
Dale Vince might be ridiculous but the £millions he makes from “renewables” means the laugh is on us and others happily paying the higher than needed energy bills. Net Zero has become a religious cult to many.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -Blaise Pascal, philosopher and mathematician (19 Jun 1623-1662)
They are STILL not adding in the cost of an energy storage system, which would double construction and maintenance costs for renewables. They cannot say a system is cheap, when it is totally reliant on gas power as a backup.
Also, what is a CO2 cost? In reality, every farmer should be paying the gas-electric generators 5% of their income, for providing them with plant food. Agricultural production has increased 20%, due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. That £60 billion cost for gas-power, should be a £60 billion income.
So redo these calculations, with double the construction costs for renewables, and a £120 billion reversal of costs for gas-generation.
R
The CO2 increase isn’t all human/industrial. Warming waters absorbing less of it play a significant role in its atmospheric content.
But in any case, part-time renewables can never be the answer to electricity generation, whatever the costs are, and whatever expensive non-thermal backups are proposed.
Indeed.
I reckon that half the CO2 increase is due to warmer waters.
R
In a world developed by the laws of Physics, pseudo science will never overcome the forces of reality
Ralf, it is far worse than that.
Take a good look at the link to the governement figures. Starting with Table 1 for On Shore Wind, 5 MW turbines to have 45% Capacity factor. In what world do they think that, the current on shore wind has a 2023 CF of 24.5% which is only 54% of their estimate.
Table 2 Onshore turbine life 25 years.
Table 4. Offshore Wind Turbines to be 14MW when they have stalled at 12MW at Dogger Bank, but are supposed to have a CF of 61%. Actual 2023 CF is 40%, so only 65% of estimate.
Table 5. Offshore Turbine life 30 years, which is totally unrealistic. when onshore is only 25 years considering how tough life at sea is.
So, no GRID expansion costs included for wind or Solar.
No real decomissioning costs, when there are acres of Solar Panels and thousands of Turbine blades to dispose of.
No mention of subsidies, constriant payments or balancing costs for intermittancy.
They are twisting the truth to make their case for Net Zero.
I forgot that in table 10 they also show Carbon costs for Gas as 60 £/MWh against fuel costs of 43 £/MWh.
Lying
Yes.
In my costings of £4.4 trillion to go Net Zero, I used 40% capacity factor for offshore wind and a 25 year life-span.
Thus you have to double the costs for wind, in comparison to a nuclear power station that will run for 60 years.
R
And apparently relying on gas as the primary source risks higher prices but relying on it as back-up does not!
And gas for backup produces no CO2 at all – honest….
R
That is a very good point.
I can’t find this article it seems to have dropped off the list
It is still there.
Thanks I’ve found it and submitted a complaint now
Rowlatt is just one more word weasel promoting the cause. Like other ideologies, lying is condoned and even applauded when in the service of the “cause”.
BBC declared discussion over in 2018, anything said by BBC on this topic (or most topics to be frank) since then can safely be ignored.
The BBC declared that the science was settled. But this not science. Unfortunately the BBC decided that questioning the politics/economics was also forbidden.
Another reason I cancelled the telly tax
Very few people support causes for free. Who in the upper echelons of the B(LM)BC trouser a brown paper envelope or has the leftie mind virous injection complete to the point they are all just useful idiots?
Indeed, salary & perks depend upon it
I’m amazed that National Grid continues to go along with this nonsense.
Note that Rowlatt writes :
“So, while renewables are relatively cheap and getting cheaper it is hard to say for certain whether an electricity system with a high level of renewables will lead to higher or lower bills than one that relies more on gas.“
Even though he erroneously believes renewables are “getting cheaper” at least he no longer is saying that renewables are 9 times cheaper than gas. Mr. Rowlatt should be asked why renewables continue to need subsidies when they are now “relatively cheap”. The renewable industry should be asked for their CfD price not for intermittent electricity but dispatchable electricity as suggested by Sir Dieter Helm in his 2017 Cost of Energy review.
Indeed, being allowed to only supply the grid on a guaranteed dispatchable basis would shine the light of truth on the lies surrounding renewable costs.
He is a liar. It is perfectly easy to say which is cheaper – simply state your assumptions. At present gas prices, ignoring the arbitrary carbon tax and including all back-up, balancing and connection costs and including subsidies, renewables are far more expensive. There must be a gas price at which that changes. So work out what it is Rowlatt.
And he also lies about renewables getting cheaper. And “relatively cheap”? Relative to what?
If it needs subsidies, it has no economic reality or business case
And do the costs using US gas prices! Half what ours are, so if we could successfully frack we might assume fuel costs fall by 30%, so £30 instead of £43. Or are we only allowed to assume has prices go up?
Rowlatt is incompetent in both climate and energy – I’d love to see him in a debate with Dr Judith Curry and Dr John Clauser
I have just sent the following to newssiteerrors@bbc.co.uk
Story URL https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-69122757/page/2
This analysis is wildly inaccurate, and should be replaced with something closer to the truth.
Firstly, the question posed is
Are renewables really more expensive than fossil fuels?
The subsidies we are currently paying are for the renewables that are currently in operation. The cost of generation from those renewables financed by CFDs can be calculated precisely from data provided by the Low Carbon Contracts Company by calculating weighted average strike prices using actual production data, available here:
https://dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk/dataset/actual-cfd-generation-and-avoided-ghg-emissions/resource/fa730219-fbd2-41b5-9510-ba2b0ff2c1ba
That produces the following chart, with the Day Ahead Market being the Intermittent Market Reference Price used to calculate CFD payments, commonly said to be driven mainly by the cost of gas CCGT generation.
The chart shows we are currently paying about £150/MWh on average for CFD financed renewables at the grid connection point, which is substantially above current Day Ahead Market prices (the first half of June averaged £67/MWh).
We can expand the analysis to cover renewables financed by ROC subsidies, using data on historic ROC values from OFGEM together with an estimate of the current recycle value of ROCs for last financial year and this, and data on the issue of ROCs by technology published by DESNZ in order to calculate the actual weighted average ROC subsidy by technology. I have done this for wind, together with an overlay of the CFD costs. Adding on the Day Ahead Market prices (wind tends to be sold on that basis because it is the basis for CFDs, and because reliable output forecasts can only be made when the weather forecast is known reasonably accurately to avoid penalties in the Balancing Mechanism for under- or over- estimating output) we can make a direct comparison with CFD costs, and calculate an overall average cost paid by consumers for electricity supplied at the grid connection point. The average ROC cost is essentially the same as the CFD cost, as the chart shows the overall average at just above £150/MWh.
This is however not the total cost paid by consumers: we should add on the costs of curtailment subsidies, and also the extra costs of providing extra grid links to transport power from renewables generators to customers, and the added facilities required on the grid to stabilise renewables output such as grid batteries, synchronous condensers, STATCOMs etc. These costs are very substantial, and growing rapidly, as the National Grid investment programme attests, and will form a much higher element of bills in future. Here they admit annual spending of £18.4bn will be needed every year until 2035 – a total of ~£200bn:
https://www.nationalgrid.com/national-grid-sets-out-urgent-reform-energy-transition
Such costs do not apply to fossil fuel generation sites that are typically close to centres of demand. At current levels of demand of around 275TWh per year, £18.4bn is worth an average £67/MWh in additional cost.
If we turn to future additions to supply we know that the AR5 CFD auction failed to procure any offshore wind, and we now have the following administrative strike prices for AR6 (indexed by 1.42 for CPI to 2024 prices):
2012 £/MWh 2024 £/MWh
ACT 210 298
Anaerobic Digestion (>5MW) 144 204
Dedicated Biomass with CHP 179 254
Energy from Waste with CHP 181 257
Floating Offshore Wind 176 250
Geothermal 157 223
Hydro (>5MW and <50MW) 102 145
Landfill Gas 69 98
Offshore Wind 73 104
Onshore Wind (>5MW) 64 91
Remote Island Wind (>5MW) 64 91
Sewage Gas 162 230
Solar PV (>5MW) 61 87
Tidal stream 261 371
Wave 257 365
Baroness Brown, a director of Ørsted as well as a member of the Climate Change Committee, was recently quoted as saying that she thought that AR6 prices are still too low to procure the capacity we need. See
https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/offshore-wind-needs-bigger-subsidies-warns-government-adviser-p3d823xjv
We will of course have to wait until September to see how right she is when the auction results become public. But in any event it seems entirely clear whichever way you cut it that the claim
The cost of a unit of power from a new solar or wind project is lower than the cost from a new gas generator, according to government figures.
is false – and that’s according to government figures.
+1
A brilliant piece of analysis, it should be headline news all over the media in light of the current general election.
Thank you IDAU. If only they actually gave a damn about accuracy. The BBC said this when dismissing Reform’s claims that scrapping Net Zero would amount to a saving:
Most economists have never attempted to estimate either the costs of net zero, or the benefits of failing to achieve it.
One of the few who has done the work properly is Bjorn Lomborg, who concludes that adaptation is a superior strategy even when the resulting climate change is assumed to be quite large.
Most of the economists working for the net zero complex pepper their work with omissions and extremely rosy assumptions about costs and performance and weather, just as we see here in Rowlatt’s piece. Meanwhile they are fed with apocalyptic visions of supposed climate change that they lack expertise to evaluate, even if they can attempt to cost the effects of e.g. a 2 metre rise in sea levels. Their conclusions are propaganda, not serious work
It’s all Chinese Whispers. Once the (untrue) message that “green is an economic opportunity” is put out, it gets spread and spread, but never validated with real costs and benefits. It’s pure assumption, with no debate allowed (again). In the coming GE, if any candidate will not discuss realistic net zero costs, but just hand-waves the mantra, I would suggest not voting for them.
The BBC Midnight News last night spent almost the first 15 minutes trying to rubbish and demean Reform policies and a meeting set up by Reform with Nigel Farage.
Justin Rowlatt came in at the end and included the comment that Net Zero not only was a legal requirement but was approved by a “huge majority in 2019”. I thought that there was no debate and no vote, and no consultation with the electorate, as it was approved “On the Nod” ….?
If I am right after checking the facts I will send a complaint to the BBC.
Secondary legislation is put forward as either affirmative – considered approved – or negative – requiring approval. I presume the regulations to make the target 100% were affirmative.
Using US Energy Information Administration comparative cost data the current UK fleet of Renewables and not fracking cost the UK ~130 US$billion in capital costs and ~350 US$ billion long term
The Cost to Europe with the UK of not fracking are ~820 US$ in capital and about ~2,100 US$ billion long term.
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/the-myth-of-cheap-uk-wind-power/
Wut? If you pay high prices all the time, a price shock won’t hurt, cos you are already paying high prices?
Petitio principii.
Both rely on gas.
Rowlatt’s ‘principle absurdum’. He really can’t see past the end of his nose, where his rhetoric is pasted.