The Alternative Green Energy Thread

1961Nick

Cardew said:

michaels said:

Cardew said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

QrizB said:

I'm sure the various council tax payers will be happy to see their representatives chasing this, rather than delivering services.

The solar farms against which, the formerly Tory run, Lincolnshire County Council Lincolnshire County had been fighting hard, are a major issue for many people as as is the proposal to run new pylons the length of Lincolnshire. The fact that the government was pushing these proposals through against the will of the local people has only aggravated the situation. Reform and Tory won two thirds of the votes cast so, I believe there will be a lot of taxpayers who will actually be very happy with Mr Tice’s statement of policy. 

But ultimately it will be lots of local taxpayer money spent with precisely zero benefit, local govt has never been able to overturn national planning decisions.

For the appellant it is a time consuming and expensive process to appeal a decision of a Council Planning Committee who take very seriously the possibility of damage to the habitat of the Natterjack Toad or Broad-bordered bee hawk-moth(Hemaris fuciformis)!! 

 Whilst not being in any way a supporter of Farage, surely the point Reform are making is that these projects are from commercial firms who will have to spend considerable sums to overcome even frivolous council decisions.   

I thought the govt has/will be changing the law precisely to prevent local councils overturning 'nationally important' infrastructure precisely to get through things like power transmission lines and power generation (and of course more houses everywhere, especially in non-labour supporting areas)

Agreed, albeit I believe the emphasis was more on housing and grey belt land. see A Simple Guide to Labour's New Planning Laws: What’s Changed and How Can I Benefit? - Plan It

However if Reform carry out their threat to use 'every lever' to oppose commercially backed projects, I doubt the Government, as opposed to the commercial company, will pick up all the legal costs involved in fighting the council. 

Reform only have to use those 'levers' for 4 years judging by the polls. That's probably enough to frighten away a considerable amount of private finance.

The residents of Lincolnshire grudgingly accept smaller solar developments - a few acres here & there - but the plans are for industrial sized solar farms that will desecrate the landscape. 

michaels

Cardew said:

michaels said:

Cardew said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

QrizB said:

I'm sure the various council tax payers will be happy to see their representatives chasing this, rather than delivering services.

The solar farms against which, the formerly Tory run, Lincolnshire County Council Lincolnshire County had been fighting hard, are a major issue for many people as as is the proposal to run new pylons the length of Lincolnshire. The fact that the government was pushing these proposals through against the will of the local people has only aggravated the situation. Reform and Tory won two thirds of the votes cast so, I believe there will be a lot of taxpayers who will actually be very happy with Mr Tice’s statement of policy. 

But ultimately it will be lots of local taxpayer money spent with precisely zero benefit, local govt has never been able to overturn national planning decisions.

For the appellant it is a time consuming and expensive process to appeal a decision of a Council Planning Committee who take very seriously the possibility of damage to the habitat of the Natterjack Toad or Broad-bordered bee hawk-moth(Hemaris fuciformis)!! 

 Whilst not being in any way a supporter of Farage, surely the point Reform are making is that these projects are from commercial firms who will have to spend considerable sums to overcome even frivolous council decisions.   

I thought the govt has/will be changing the law precisely to prevent local councils overturning 'nationally important' infrastructure precisely to get through things like power transmission lines and power generation (and of course more houses everywhere, especially in non-labour supporting areas)

Agreed, albeit I believe the emphasis was more on housing and grey belt land. see A Simple Guide to Labour's New Planning Laws: What’s Changed and How Can I Benefit? - Plan It

However if Reform carry out their threat to use 'every lever' to oppose commercially backed projects, I doubt the Government, as opposed to the commercial company, will pick up all the legal costs involved in fighting the council. 

We have had a rail freight terminal foistered on to us despite the best legal efforts of local action committee and the council so if the money is right it is clearly possible.

JKenH

Danish firm shelves huge UK windfarm project over rising costs

The world’s biggest wind power developer has cancelled plans for one of the UK’s largest offshore windfarms, in a significant blow to the government’s green energy targets.

The Danish wind power company Ørsted said the Hornsea 4 project no longer made economic sense because of soaring costs in the industry’s global supply chain, after it won a government contract last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/07/danish-firm-shelves-huge-uk-windfarm-project-over-rising-costs

This is quite a surprise as this contract was awarded under AR6 at an inflation adjusted price of around £84/MWh. As this commentator pointed out this price is already more than the average cost of dispatchable gas generation. Of course on top of this, because wind is intermittent, it requires storage and/or gas back up and inevitably we still end up paying for curtailed wind. This is before we factor in grid upgrades to get the wind generation to where it is needed. I think DESNZ need to put ideology to one side and take a step back and look pragmatically at the economics of their plans. 

I had thought it was a bit of a coincidence that Ørsted announced this today just after the new terms for AR7 were announced yesterday. I anticipated that Ørsted would be resubmitting this project under AR7 in the hope of securing better terms. However another commentator suggests this may not be the case. 

Orsted Cancels Hornsea Four and Kills CP2030

I have seen speculation on social media that Hornsea Project Four will simply be re-bid in AR7 to obtain better terms. However, I was sent a transcript of today’s Orsted earnings call and they repeated several times that the project will not be rebid in AR7 or AR8. This effectively means it cannot contribute to Miliband’s CP2030 plan. 

https://davidturver.substack.com/p/orsted-cancels-hornsea-four-and-kills

michaels

The relative economics of wind and gas have changed considerably in both directions over the last 4 years from cheap gas and cheapish wind to super cheap wind and super expensive gas and now cheapish gas and expensive wind.  I guess all you can use is your 'best guess' forecast for the medium-long term (which is after all how long such projects generate for) when appraising different power sources.

It would look pretty silly to stop wind now if gas returned to post Ukraine invasion prices and stayed there.  Point being that the govt can not set long term policy based on current spot prices.

JKenH

Major hydro power plant expansion put on hold

The operator of an underground power station at Scotland's "Hollow Mountain" has put on hold its plans for a major expansion of the site.

Renewables developer Drax had proposed building a new hydro-electric facility next to its existing complex inside Ben Cruachan, near Dalmally in Argyll.

But it said the costs of the project had risen and it would not be bidding for UK government support at this time.

The company said the expansion could potentially go-ahead in the future, "subject to an appropriate balance of risk and return".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yly4x3gedo

How many more renewable energy projects are going to be put on hold until the government comes up with some more money? The industry seems to be well aware of the importance of CP30 to the Secretary of State for ESNZ and is intent on taking maximum advantage. 

thevilla

I suspect the decision to delay pumped hydro is related to the rapid fall in battery prices.  Batteries are more versatile and geographically easier to distribute.  My guess anyway.

Orsted's decision is being criticised since they only won the cfd bid a few months ago.  A new ceo apparently.

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/how-orsteds-hornsea-halt-blew-a-hole-in-uk-wind-plans/2-1-1817738

Mr Miliband ( a little respect ) has taken new powers to see bids for cfd in advance in order to avoid the spectre of zero winning bids as happened a couple of years ago.

JKenH

thevilla said:

I suspect the decision to delay pumped hydro is related to the rapid fall in battery prices.  Batteries are more versatile and geographically easier to distribute.  My guess anyway.

Orsted's decision is being criticised since they only won the cfd bid a few months ago.  A new ceo apparently.

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/how-orsteds-hornsea-halt-blew-a-hole-in-uk-wind-plans/2-1-1817738

Mr Miliband ( a little respect ) has taken new powers to see bids for cfd in advance in order to avoid the spectre of zero winning bids as happened a couple of years ago.

If no auction price limits are set then effectively this implies the DESNZ is prepared to write a blank cheque to the wind industry to achieve its objectives - not a good negotiating ploy. 

There is an article in the Telegraph today. 

Miliband plots surge in wind farm subsidies to rescue net zero

To accelerate wind farm construction, Mr Miliband wants to scrap limits on the total subsidy on offer to offshore developers in Whitehall auctions.

Instead a target would be set for the amount of electricity to be generated, with the cost to households only worked out afterwards.

The scheme was revealed in a paper from Mr Miliband’s Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). “In place of a budget, the Government would publish a capacity ambition,” it said.

Mr Miliband’s own officials also warned of potentially surging energy bills from his latest move.

An impact statement said: “This proposal may increase the subsidy (levy) cost of the Contracts for Difference scheme as it may facilitate buying increased capacity.

“Additionally, it is possible that the proposal may increase the subsidy cost of the CfD scheme if it leads to developers increasing their bid prices.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/05/10/miliband-plots-surge-in-wind-farm-subsidies-rescue-net-zero/

thevilla

Unlike the Telegraph to quote a bunch of maybe and possibles to attack net zero.  Risk assessments are just that.

Edit.....Another thought.  if only we had opted out of paying the huge hike in gas prices in 2022  we'd all be fine and dandy now

ed110220

thevilla said:

Unlike the Telegraph to quote a bunch of maybe and possibles to attack net zero.  Risk assessments are just that.

Edit.....Another thought.  if only we had opted out of paying the huge hike in gas prices in 2022  we'd all be fine and dandy now

Indeed! Ed Milliband is always "plotting" something to do with net zero, alongside a sinister, almost vampiric photo of him. The Telegraph used to be a serious paper even if it tended towards the reactionary but this seems little better than tabloid stuff. 

JKenH

ed110220 said:

thevilla said:

Unlike the Telegraph to quote a bunch of maybe and possibles to attack net zero.  Risk assessments are just that.

Edit.....Another thought.  if only we had opted out of paying the huge hike in gas prices in 2022  we'd all be fine and dandy now

Indeed! Ed Milliband is always "plotting" something to do with net zero, alongside a sinister, almost vampiric photo of him. The Telegraph used to be a serious paper even if it tended towards the reactionary but this seems little better than tabloid stuff. 

It’s called journalism. At least the Telegraph keeps us informed on these matters which other media outlets (one in particular comes to mind) may prefer  weren’t made public. Was there anything in particular about the report that you considered to be inaccurate?