Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

As temperatures collapsed below zero across Texas this week, so too did the state's renewable power generation. Wind, solar and batteries supplied just 7% of electricity as the storm hit. Solar output dropped first, cut by heavy cloud cover and low winter sun angles. Wind generation followed as the...

Electroversenet's profile picture

Electroverse

47,055 subscribers

70,365 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & PolitikaBilim & Teknoloji
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Solar and wind are sold as cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear using a number called LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy). But LCOE is a junk metric. It pretends that one-megawatt-hour of intermittent power is the same as one-megawatt-hour of reliable power. It isn't. When the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, you still need electricity. So backup plants (coal, gas or nuclear) must run in the background, ready to fire instantly. LCOE fails to count that cost. It also ignores the miles of transmission lines for remote wind farms, the giant storage systems to cover lulls, the stabilizers to keep frequency steady, and the massive overbuild needed just to survive bad weather weeks.These hidden costs explode as wind and solar take over more of the grid. On paper, LCOE makes these renewables look cheap. In reality, they drive up costs system-wide. That's why nations with the most wind and solar have the highest electricity prices. LCOE isn't just misleading, it's a lie.
1:00

Solar and wind are sold as cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear using a number called LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy). But LCOE is a junk metric. It pretends that one-megawatt-hour of intermittent power is the same as one-megawatt-hour of reliable power. It isn't. When the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, you still need electricity. So backup plants (coal, gas or nuclear) must run in the background, ready to fire instantly. LCOE fails to count that cost. It also ignores the miles of transmission lines for remote wind farms, the giant storage systems to cover lulls, the stabilizers to keep frequency steady, and the massive overbuild needed just to survive bad weather weeks.These hidden costs explode as wind and solar take over more of the grid. On paper, LCOE makes these renewables look cheap. In reality, they drive up costs system-wide. That's why nations with the most wind and solar have the highest electricity prices. LCOE isn't just misleading, it's a lie.

Electroverse

13,445 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

"There is no such thing as renewable energy," says geologist and energy expert Scott Tinker. Sunlight and wind are continuously replenished. Solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries are not - they require mining, vast quantities of materials, manufacturing, land, backup power, and eventual replacement. Tinker is not anti-wind or anti-solar. His point is that low-density intermittent energy cannot simply replace the dense, dispatchable power modern civilization depends on. When the sun sets or the wind drops, electricity still has to come from storage, gas, nuclear, or some other firm source. And despite decades of "energy transition" (and the trillions spent), fossil fuels still provide 86% of global primary energy. The real transition, Tinker argues, will come through increasingly dense, reliable, and cleaner energy: top of the list being natural gas and nuclear. Affordable energy creates prosperity. Policy should follow physics.
0:53

"There is no such thing as renewable energy," says geologist and energy expert Scott Tinker. Sunlight and wind are continuously replenished. Solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries are not - they require mining, vast quantities of materials, manufacturing, land, backup power, and eventual replacement. Tinker is not anti-wind or anti-solar. His point is that low-density intermittent energy cannot simply replace the dense, dispatchable power modern civilization depends on. When the sun sets or the wind drops, electricity still has to come from storage, gas, nuclear, or some other firm source. And despite decades of "energy transition" (and the trillions spent), fossil fuels still provide 86% of global primary energy. The real transition, Tinker argues, will come through increasingly dense, reliable, and cleaner energy: top of the list being natural gas and nuclear. Affordable energy creates prosperity. Policy should follow physics.

Electroverse

12,416 görüntüleme • 12 gün önce

California has built one of the largest solar fleets in the world. Panels are strewn across deserts, rooftops and valleys, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. It was promised as the power of the future. Then the duck curve hit. Solar floods the grid during the height of the day, far more than California can use, so operators are forced to dump gigawatts of power. Then the sun sets and solar output collapses to zero, just as evening demand spikes. California then scrambles to fire up gas plants to keep the lights on,with billions more spent on this backup generation. The world's solar capital ends every day running on fossil fuels. A 24-7 gas grid would cost far less to construct and maintain than solar, and it would actually work 24-7.
0:41

California has built one of the largest solar fleets in the world. Panels are strewn across deserts, rooftops and valleys, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. It was promised as the power of the future. Then the duck curve hit. Solar floods the grid during the height of the day, far more than California can use, so operators are forced to dump gigawatts of power. Then the sun sets and solar output collapses to zero, just as evening demand spikes. California then scrambles to fire up gas plants to keep the lights on,with billions more spent on this backup generation. The world's solar capital ends every day running on fossil fuels. A 24-7 gas grid would cost far less to construct and maintain than solar, and it would actually work 24-7.

Electroverse

167,952 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Wind and solar have a built-in economic problem: the more of them you build, the less their electricity is worth. On sunny afternoons, solar panels all produce at the same time. Supply surges and wholesale prices collapse as a result. Then the sun sets, supply vanishes, and so prices rise. But the panels are no longer producing electricity to sell at those higher prices. Wind does the same thing. When it blows, turbines generate together and crush the price they receive. Then whenever the wind drops, supply tightens and prices rise. Renewables 'cannibalize' their own revenues. High output equals low prices. High prices means low output. The economics depend on subsidies, guaranteed contracts, curtailment payments, and backup generation. The more weather-dependent power you add, the bigger this system flaw becomes.
0:44

Wind and solar have a built-in economic problem: the more of them you build, the less their electricity is worth. On sunny afternoons, solar panels all produce at the same time. Supply surges and wholesale prices collapse as a result. Then the sun sets, supply vanishes, and so prices rise. But the panels are no longer producing electricity to sell at those higher prices. Wind does the same thing. When it blows, turbines generate together and crush the price they receive. Then whenever the wind drops, supply tightens and prices rise. Renewables 'cannibalize' their own revenues. High output equals low prices. High prices means low output. The economics depend on subsidies, guaranteed contracts, curtailment payments, and backup generation. The more weather-dependent power you add, the bigger this system flaw becomes.

Electroverse

15,494 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce

Since 2020, Germany has added 14 gigawatts of wind capacity, but annual electricity output has stayed around 106 terawatt-hours. More turbines, no more electricity. Die Welt says the system is hitting reality: weak winds, grid bottlenecks, and poor inland sites, with some turbines actually shading (or blocking) others. Then solar joins the mess. On sunny days, solar floods the grid, so wind gets curtailed. At peak output, solar gets curtailed, too. Too much power at the wrong time. Then evening arrives, or thick cloud rolls in, and solar collapses. So gas and coal step back in to save the lights from going out. Fossil fuels come to Germany's rescue every evening. Billions of dollars spent on more hardware. But output has remained flat.
0:41

Since 2020, Germany has added 14 gigawatts of wind capacity, but annual electricity output has stayed around 106 terawatt-hours. More turbines, no more electricity. Die Welt says the system is hitting reality: weak winds, grid bottlenecks, and poor inland sites, with some turbines actually shading (or blocking) others. Then solar joins the mess. On sunny days, solar floods the grid, so wind gets curtailed. At peak output, solar gets curtailed, too. Too much power at the wrong time. Then evening arrives, or thick cloud rolls in, and solar collapses. So gas and coal step back in to save the lights from going out. Fossil fuels come to Germany's rescue every evening. Billions of dollars spent on more hardware. But output has remained flat.

Electroverse

11,587 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Britain has paid billions in subsidies to build thousands of turbines across its countryside. But when high pressure systems move in, wind collapses. During these calm spells, wind generation can fall to almost nothing, as low as 0.2% of the grid. When that happens, the grid scrambles. Coal is restarted, gas plants carry the bulk of the load and supply warnings are issued. This is the reality few in elected office seem to grasp. When the weather calms, which it regularly does, wind power disappears from the grid. Britain only stays online thanks to dispatchable energy systems picking up the slack. The country would be better off, both financially and in terms of energy security, if it simply ran off dispatchable power in the first place.
0:40

Britain has paid billions in subsidies to build thousands of turbines across its countryside. But when high pressure systems move in, wind collapses. During these calm spells, wind generation can fall to almost nothing, as low as 0.2% of the grid. When that happens, the grid scrambles. Coal is restarted, gas plants carry the bulk of the load and supply warnings are issued. This is the reality few in elected office seem to grasp. When the weather calms, which it regularly does, wind power disappears from the grid. Britain only stays online thanks to dispatchable energy systems picking up the slack. The country would be better off, both financially and in terms of energy security, if it simply ran off dispatchable power in the first place.

Electroverse

11,382 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

There is no energy transition. Oil, coal and gas still supply 87% of the world's energy, roughly the same share as 20 years ago. Despite trillions in subsidies, solar and wind barely register on the global chart, accounting for just 6.5% of the primary energy supply. Fossil fuel use keeps rising, particularly in China and India. The renewable revolution can still only power a small fraction of the planet, and only when the sun shines or the wind blows. This is the data the headlines leave out. The transition isn't happening, it's a slogan.
0:30

There is no energy transition. Oil, coal and gas still supply 87% of the world's energy, roughly the same share as 20 years ago. Despite trillions in subsidies, solar and wind barely register on the global chart, accounting for just 6.5% of the primary energy supply. Fossil fuel use keeps rising, particularly in China and India. The renewable revolution can still only power a small fraction of the planet, and only when the sun shines or the wind blows. This is the data the headlines leave out. The transition isn't happening, it's a slogan.

Electroverse

15,776 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce

If emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear would already dominate. First off, it is the safest energy source per unit of power produced. Secondly, it has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions, lower than coal, gas and even wind and solar. Thirdly, nuclear runs 93% of the time. Wind and solar don't come anywhere near that, just 33% and 23% respectively. And on top of all that, a one gigawatt nuclear plant fits on about one square mile and powers 750,000 homes. Wind and solar require vastly more land, materials and backup batteries for the same power. If climate alarmism were serious, the answer would be nuclear.
0:38

If emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear would already dominate. First off, it is the safest energy source per unit of power produced. Secondly, it has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions, lower than coal, gas and even wind and solar. Thirdly, nuclear runs 93% of the time. Wind and solar don't come anywhere near that, just 33% and 23% respectively. And on top of all that, a one gigawatt nuclear plant fits on about one square mile and powers 750,000 homes. Wind and solar require vastly more land, materials and backup batteries for the same power. If climate alarmism were serious, the answer would be nuclear.

Electroverse

12,082 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

There is no energy transition. Oil, coal and gas still supply 87% of the world's energy - roughly the same share as 20 years ago. Despite trillions in subsidies, solar and wind barely register on the global chart, accounting for just 6.5% of the primary energy supply. Fossil fuel use keeps rising, particularly in China and India. The renewable revolution can still only power a small fraction of the planet, and only when the sun shines or the wind blows. This is the data the headlines leave out. The transition isn't happening. It's a slogan.
0:30

There is no energy transition. Oil, coal and gas still supply 87% of the world's energy - roughly the same share as 20 years ago. Despite trillions in subsidies, solar and wind barely register on the global chart, accounting for just 6.5% of the primary energy supply. Fossil fuel use keeps rising, particularly in China and India. The renewable revolution can still only power a small fraction of the planet, and only when the sun shines or the wind blows. This is the data the headlines leave out. The transition isn't happening. It's a slogan.

Electroverse

21,028 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

If emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear would already dominate. First off, it is the safest energy source per unit of power produced. Secondly, it has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions. Lower than coal, gas and even wind and solar. Thirdly, nuclear runs 93% of the time. Wind and solar don't come anywhere near that, just 33% and 23% respectively. And on top of all that, a one-gigawatt nuclear plant fits on about one square mile and powers 750,000 homes. Wind and solar require vastly more land, materials and backup batteries for the same power. If climate alarmism were serious, the answer would be nuclear. The rest is just theater.
0:38

If emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear would already dominate. First off, it is the safest energy source per unit of power produced. Secondly, it has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions. Lower than coal, gas and even wind and solar. Thirdly, nuclear runs 93% of the time. Wind and solar don't come anywhere near that, just 33% and 23% respectively. And on top of all that, a one-gigawatt nuclear plant fits on about one square mile and powers 750,000 homes. Wind and solar require vastly more land, materials and backup batteries for the same power. If climate alarmism were serious, the answer would be nuclear. The rest is just theater.

Electroverse

16,013 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

The UK has 32 GW of installed wind capacity, but that is the brochure figure. Over the weekend, output fell to just 0.6 GW (less than 2%). And it happened overnight, when solar was at zero. So Britain had a renewable fleet on paper, but functionally nothing arriving on the grid. For hours, wind stayed below 10% of capacity. Batteries do not fix that. They smooth short gaps. They cannot carry a country through long wind droughts. So the real system still needs gas. Ready, paid for, and able to run immediately at 100% capacity whenever weather-based power drops out. That is the hidden cost. Build the renewables, then build the backup, then pretend the first system replaced the second.
0:39

The UK has 32 GW of installed wind capacity, but that is the brochure figure. Over the weekend, output fell to just 0.6 GW (less than 2%). And it happened overnight, when solar was at zero. So Britain had a renewable fleet on paper, but functionally nothing arriving on the grid. For hours, wind stayed below 10% of capacity. Batteries do not fix that. They smooth short gaps. They cannot carry a country through long wind droughts. So the real system still needs gas. Ready, paid for, and able to run immediately at 100% capacity whenever weather-based power drops out. That is the hidden cost. Build the renewables, then build the backup, then pretend the first system replaced the second.

Electroverse

11,627 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

A cold winter is exposing Germany's energy choices. Natural gas storage levels are dropping fast. In Bavaria, one major site is just 6% full While nationally, storage has slipped below 38%, a level officially classified as "critical". Household supply is protected, for now, but Germany's industry is not. Energy-intensive factories, particularly in southern regions, face shutdown risk. Renewables are not covering the gap. Low wind and solar output has pushed fossil fuels back to supplying the majority of Germany's electricity, with retired coal plants called back into action to save the country from freezing to a halt. This is what happens when ideology replaces energy security.
0:39

A cold winter is exposing Germany's energy choices. Natural gas storage levels are dropping fast. In Bavaria, one major site is just 6% full While nationally, storage has slipped below 38%, a level officially classified as "critical". Household supply is protected, for now, but Germany's industry is not. Energy-intensive factories, particularly in southern regions, face shutdown risk. Renewables are not covering the gap. Low wind and solar output has pushed fossil fuels back to supplying the majority of Germany's electricity, with retired coal plants called back into action to save the country from freezing to a halt. This is what happens when ideology replaces energy security.

Electroverse

38,041 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

In 2016, South Australia learned what happens when a grid leans too hard on the wind. The Aussie state led the world in renewable dependence, with about 40% of its electricity coming from wind. Then a strong storm hit, and no less than nine wind farms cut their output, removing more than 450 megawatts in a matter of seconds. That cumulative loss tripped the Heywood interconnector, and the entire state went dark - about 1.7 million people without power. An official AEMO report found the sudden reduction in wind output was the key driver of the system collapse. South Australia had to restart the grid using diesel black-start generators and gas power plants. A weather-dependent grid died in seconds, and only fossil fuels brought it back.
0:41

In 2016, South Australia learned what happens when a grid leans too hard on the wind. The Aussie state led the world in renewable dependence, with about 40% of its electricity coming from wind. Then a strong storm hit, and no less than nine wind farms cut their output, removing more than 450 megawatts in a matter of seconds. That cumulative loss tripped the Heywood interconnector, and the entire state went dark - about 1.7 million people without power. An official AEMO report found the sudden reduction in wind output was the key driver of the system collapse. South Australia had to restart the grid using diesel black-start generators and gas power plants. A weather-dependent grid died in seconds, and only fossil fuels brought it back.

Electroverse

20,401 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

In Australia, under proposed national standards, new data centres must bring their own 100% renewable energy supply, firmed by batteries or gas. Crucially, this means new, additional renewable generation, not simply claiming certificates against generation already on the grid. And the scale is enormous. AEMO is already tracking 225 data centres in development, with data-centre electricity demand forecast to rise from around 3% of NEM consumption today to 13% by 2036, potentially around 34 TWh a year. Climate Change & Energy Minister Chris Bowen puts the challenge bluntly: “Data centres are huge consumers of electricity. They are whales.” In 2024, US data centres consumed as much electricity as the entire country of Sweden. Australia wants to get ahead of this. Australia isn't alone. Similar policy moves are underway in China, Germany and Ireland, but Australia's proposed framework is among the most aggressive: 100% renewable energy, tied to new additional generation and backed by firming, with the new rules intended to begin from 2027. Instead of allowing this enormous new load to compete with households and businesses for existing generation, Australia wants it to help finance the new supply needed to meet it. AI growth → electricity demand → renewable PPAs → new solar & wind → more batteries & transmission → stronger grid. This has always been part of my thesis: AI will become a major new demand engine for Australia's solar, wind and battery buildout, rather than a brake on the energy transition, potentially creating a blueprint the rest of the world can replicate. AI and renewables don't have to compete. Done right, each can accelerate the other. #SWB #Bettrification
2:12

In Australia, under proposed national standards, new data centres must bring their own 100% renewable energy supply, firmed by batteries or gas. Crucially, this means new, additional renewable generation, not simply claiming certificates against generation already on the grid. And the scale is enormous. AEMO is already tracking 225 data centres in development, with data-centre electricity demand forecast to rise from around 3% of NEM consumption today to 13% by 2036, potentially around 34 TWh a year. Climate Change & Energy Minister Chris Bowen puts the challenge bluntly: “Data centres are huge consumers of electricity. They are whales.” In 2024, US data centres consumed as much electricity as the entire country of Sweden. Australia wants to get ahead of this. Australia isn't alone. Similar policy moves are underway in China, Germany and Ireland, but Australia's proposed framework is among the most aggressive: 100% renewable energy, tied to new additional generation and backed by firming, with the new rules intended to begin from 2027. Instead of allowing this enormous new load to compete with households and businesses for existing generation, Australia wants it to help finance the new supply needed to meet it. AI growth → electricity demand → renewable PPAs → new solar & wind → more batteries & transmission → stronger grid. This has always been part of my thesis: AI will become a major new demand engine for Australia's solar, wind and battery buildout, rather than a brake on the energy transition, potentially creating a blueprint the rest of the world can replicate. AI and renewables don't have to compete. Done right, each can accelerate the other. #SWB #Bettrification

Chris Meder

54,026 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce

Batteries can now meet 75 percent of average grid demand and 44 percent of peak demand for 4 hours every day in the world's 4th-largest economy at a cost less than 1 percent the price of electricity California’s main grid now has over 17 GW of batteries, along with over 23 GW of solar and 12 GW of wind. Average demand is less than 23 GW. The growth of solar, wind, and batteries has helped eliminate 62 percent of all fossil gas use on the grid in 2026 versus 2023. Strikingly, those batteries can now meet three-quarters of average demand and 44 percent of peak demand for four hours every day. What is more, wind-water-solar renewables have met more than 100 percent of grid demand for 100 of the last 101 days and for 87 percent of all days in 2026, for an average of 5.4 hours per day. Given the low cost of batteries, solar, and wind relative to the price of electricity, it is abundantly clear that no major barrier remains to eliminating fossil gas for electricity entirely in California, but also ultimately throughout the world. Nameplate capacities of batteries and renewables in California Renewable trend in California Video
1:19

Batteries can now meet 75 percent of average grid demand and 44 percent of peak demand for 4 hours every day in the world's 4th-largest economy at a cost less than 1 percent the price of electricity California’s main grid now has over 17 GW of batteries, along with over 23 GW of solar and 12 GW of wind. Average demand is less than 23 GW. The growth of solar, wind, and batteries has helped eliminate 62 percent of all fossil gas use on the grid in 2026 versus 2023. Strikingly, those batteries can now meet three-quarters of average demand and 44 percent of peak demand for four hours every day. What is more, wind-water-solar renewables have met more than 100 percent of grid demand for 100 of the last 101 days and for 87 percent of all days in 2026, for an average of 5.4 hours per day. Given the low cost of batteries, solar, and wind relative to the price of electricity, it is abundantly clear that no major barrier remains to eliminating fossil gas for electricity entirely in California, but also ultimately throughout the world. Nameplate capacities of batteries and renewables in California Renewable trend in California Video

Mark Z. Jacobson

17,347 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Wind and solar look cheap on paper, but only because their true costs are hidden. Power grids must balance supply and demand every second. Wind and solar cannot do that. Their output follows the weather, which is variable. So every megawatt of wind or solar requires a matching megawatt of reliable backup. A 100 MW wind farm does not replace a 100 MW gas plant. The gas plant still has to be built, staffed, fueled and kept ready at all times. Consumers are effectively paying for two systems, but only one is accounted for. Think of it like hiring a worker who only shows up 30% of the time. The hourly wage looks cheap, but you still need a fully trained backup worker available 24-7 to fill in for the other 70%. That backup is required and still costs money even when sitting idle. But the extra cost is ignored. This accounting trick explains why renewables look inexpensive in charts, while electricity prices soar in grids that rely heavily on them. Globally, the renewable failure is clear. In 2024, solar supplied just 1.4% of global primary energy. Wind supplied about 1.5%. Fossil fuels still provided around 87%. This is not a global energy transition. It is a costly experiment played by a handful of Western economies.
1:12

Wind and solar look cheap on paper, but only because their true costs are hidden. Power grids must balance supply and demand every second. Wind and solar cannot do that. Their output follows the weather, which is variable. So every megawatt of wind or solar requires a matching megawatt of reliable backup. A 100 MW wind farm does not replace a 100 MW gas plant. The gas plant still has to be built, staffed, fueled and kept ready at all times. Consumers are effectively paying for two systems, but only one is accounted for. Think of it like hiring a worker who only shows up 30% of the time. The hourly wage looks cheap, but you still need a fully trained backup worker available 24-7 to fill in for the other 70%. That backup is required and still costs money even when sitting idle. But the extra cost is ignored. This accounting trick explains why renewables look inexpensive in charts, while electricity prices soar in grids that rely heavily on them. Globally, the renewable failure is clear. In 2024, solar supplied just 1.4% of global primary energy. Wind supplied about 1.5%. Fossil fuels still provided around 87%. This is not a global energy transition. It is a costly experiment played by a handful of Western economies.

Electroverse

20,738 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

2026 Conservative Claire Coutinho claims the UK's pursuit of Net Zero is driven by ideology, and that using less wind and solar could save the equivalent of around £500 per household a year 2023: Conservative Claire Coutinho, "Nothing will distract us from achieving Net Zero or driving forward with renewables" The claim that less wind and solar would save every household £500 a year is deeply misleading. Coutinho is effectively taking the result of a model that changes almost the entire future electricity system—less wind and solar, much more nuclear and gas, different grid requirements and, crucially, no carbon price—and presenting the resulting £500-plus difference as though it were the cost of renewables. The research simply doesn't establish that. The figure does not come from evidence that renewables currently add £500 to household bills. It comes from a Conservative-backed modelling exercise comparing two hypothetical energy systems and turning £320 billion of estimated economy-wide savings between 2030 and 2050 into an annual equivalent per household. Crucially, the supposedly cheaper alternative doesn't simply build less wind and solar. It assumes far more nuclear power, substantially more unabated gas, lower spending on networks and balancing, and the removal of carbon pricing from electricity generation. Of the £320 billion headline saving, £137bn comes from assumed lower network costs, £67bn from balancing and ancillary services, £22bn from subsidies and capacity costs, and £94bn from lower wholesale prices. That £94 billion is particularly important because much of that supposed saving is created by changing the rules of the comparison. The existing-policy scenario assumes generators continue paying a carbon price which rises substantially towards 2050; the alternative effectively abolishes that carbon price from 2031. Unsurprisingly, a model in which gas-fired electricity no longer carries that cost produces cheaper wholesale electricity. But that isn't evidence that wind and solar made electricity £94bn more expensive. It is principally the consequence of assuming a major carbon-pricing policy is abolished. Nor is removing carbon pricing simply £94bn of free money. Carbon pricing is deliberately intended to make polluters account for their emissions, discourage fossil-fuel generation and encourage cleaner alternatives, while carbon allowances also generate government revenue. Removing it means accepting considerably greater emissions and losing those revenues and incentives. The alternative model consequently produces hundreds of millions of tonnes of additional CO₂. The model also assumes Britain can successfully build around 20GW of nuclear capacity, while retaining much greater dependence on gas. Whether nuclear can be delivered at the assumed cost and timetable is far from guaranteed, while greater reliance on gas leaves households more vulnerable to international gas-price shocks—the same exposure that played such a large role in Britain's recent energy-price crisis. There is a legitimate argument about the costs associated with large amounts of wind and solar. An electricity system dependent on intermittent generation requires substantial investment in transmission, balancing, storage, interconnectors and backup capacity, and those costs shouldn't be ignored. But that is very different from demonstrating that wind and solar cost every household £500 a year. Nearly £100bn of the supposed saving comes from the decision to remove carbon pricing, not from discovering that wind and solar are £100bn more expensive. Coutinho has taken a £500-plus headline generated by a Conservative-backed model containing a whole package of assumptions—less wind and solar, much more nuclear, more gas, less grid investment and the abolition of carbon pricing—and presented it to the public as evidence that Britain's reliance on wind and solar is costing households hundreds of pounds. That's misleading because the model doesn't establish that. It establishes that, if you change the entire future energy system and the taxes imposed upon it, its authors calculate a lower overall system cost. Turning that into “less wind and solar will save your household £500” strips away the assumptions that actually produce the number.
1:23

2026 Conservative Claire Coutinho claims the UK's pursuit of Net Zero is driven by ideology, and that using less wind and solar could save the equivalent of around £500 per household a year 2023: Conservative Claire Coutinho, "Nothing will distract us from achieving Net Zero or driving forward with renewables" The claim that less wind and solar would save every household £500 a year is deeply misleading. Coutinho is effectively taking the result of a model that changes almost the entire future electricity system—less wind and solar, much more nuclear and gas, different grid requirements and, crucially, no carbon price—and presenting the resulting £500-plus difference as though it were the cost of renewables. The research simply doesn't establish that. The figure does not come from evidence that renewables currently add £500 to household bills. It comes from a Conservative-backed modelling exercise comparing two hypothetical energy systems and turning £320 billion of estimated economy-wide savings between 2030 and 2050 into an annual equivalent per household. Crucially, the supposedly cheaper alternative doesn't simply build less wind and solar. It assumes far more nuclear power, substantially more unabated gas, lower spending on networks and balancing, and the removal of carbon pricing from electricity generation. Of the £320 billion headline saving, £137bn comes from assumed lower network costs, £67bn from balancing and ancillary services, £22bn from subsidies and capacity costs, and £94bn from lower wholesale prices. That £94 billion is particularly important because much of that supposed saving is created by changing the rules of the comparison. The existing-policy scenario assumes generators continue paying a carbon price which rises substantially towards 2050; the alternative effectively abolishes that carbon price from 2031. Unsurprisingly, a model in which gas-fired electricity no longer carries that cost produces cheaper wholesale electricity. But that isn't evidence that wind and solar made electricity £94bn more expensive. It is principally the consequence of assuming a major carbon-pricing policy is abolished. Nor is removing carbon pricing simply £94bn of free money. Carbon pricing is deliberately intended to make polluters account for their emissions, discourage fossil-fuel generation and encourage cleaner alternatives, while carbon allowances also generate government revenue. Removing it means accepting considerably greater emissions and losing those revenues and incentives. The alternative model consequently produces hundreds of millions of tonnes of additional CO₂. The model also assumes Britain can successfully build around 20GW of nuclear capacity, while retaining much greater dependence on gas. Whether nuclear can be delivered at the assumed cost and timetable is far from guaranteed, while greater reliance on gas leaves households more vulnerable to international gas-price shocks—the same exposure that played such a large role in Britain's recent energy-price crisis. There is a legitimate argument about the costs associated with large amounts of wind and solar. An electricity system dependent on intermittent generation requires substantial investment in transmission, balancing, storage, interconnectors and backup capacity, and those costs shouldn't be ignored. But that is very different from demonstrating that wind and solar cost every household £500 a year. Nearly £100bn of the supposed saving comes from the decision to remove carbon pricing, not from discovering that wind and solar are £100bn more expensive. Coutinho has taken a £500-plus headline generated by a Conservative-backed model containing a whole package of assumptions—less wind and solar, much more nuclear, more gas, less grid investment and the abolition of carbon pricing—and presented it to the public as evidence that Britain's reliance on wind and solar is costing households hundreds of pounds. That's misleading because the model doesn't establish that. It establishes that, if you change the entire future energy system and the taxes imposed upon it, its authors calculate a lower overall system cost. Turning that into “less wind and solar will save your household £500” strips away the assumptions that actually produce the number.

Farrukh

14,159 görüntüleme • 13 gün önce