Brits Belted: UK’s Subsidised Wind Power Obsession Leaves 3,000,000 Households Suffering Energy Poverty

Millions of British households face another bitter winter, unable to meet their rocketing power bills. An obsession with chaotically intermittent wind power (both off and onshore) has sent power prices spiralling. And, adding to the misery, the annual cost of renewable energy subsidies, Feed in Tariffs, fixed contract prices for wind and solar etc to British households will soon reach £12,000,000,000. The current cost is already nudging £10,000,000,000.

While their parliamentarians squabble about the terms on which Britain will sever its ties with Europe, ordinary Brits are fretting about how they might light and heat their homes as temperatures plummet. Heading into winter, some 3,000,000 households are already in “energy debt” and collectively owe nearly £417,000,000 to their suppliers.

Here’s a roundup on the consequences of Britain throwing all to the wind.

Current Costs of British Renewables Subsidies per Household
Global Warming Policy Forum
John Constable
14 October 2019

The total annual renewables subsidy impact on UK household cost of living is £9 billion — which comes to £340 per year per household.

The low and much-publicised offshore wind bids for Feed-in Tariffs with Contracts for Difference (FiTs CfDs) continue to confuse many analysts, even those from whom one might expect clear-eyed caution. A writer for CapX (“What is the point of Corbyn’s nationalised wind farms?”), to select an example almost at random, quite correctly takes issue with the Labour Party’s reckless plans for major public investment in further offshore wind, but does so on the mistaken ground that “offshore wind is a big success story […] delivering ever more clean energy, at ever lower prices, for a fraction of the price of Labour’s plan”.

However, and as a matter of fact, none of the low-bidding wind farms have actually been built, and the 8.5 GW of operational offshore wind capacity which is “delivering” is without exception very heavily subsidised. Indeed, the most recently commissioned offshore wind farm, the giant 588 MW Beatrice of the North East coast of Scotland, which only became fully operational in the summer of 2019, has a CfD strike price of £140/MWh now worth £158.73/MWh, roughly three times the wholesale price, and indeed about three times the almost certainly unrealistic strike prices bid in the most recent CfD auctions. It is obviously premature to say that the observed fall in CfD prices bid is a “success story”. The CfD contracts are very far from firmly binding, and the penalty for abrogration is trivial. It seems likely, bordering on certain, that they are a sly and low risk publicity gambit, intended to secure a market position, and inhibit competition, in the hope of obtaining a better price by whatever means at a later date.

And of course the cost of electricity from existing offshore wind power has most certainly not fallen; it continues to be very high, like all the other renewable generators in the UK fleet. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves just how much that subsidy currently amounts to and how much it is costing British households.

Apart from the Contracts for Difference (CfD), there are two other systems of subsidy, the Renewables Obligation (RO), including the Feed-in Tariff (FiT). The costs of these are recorded in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the most recent issue of which was published March 2019 (a new release is due shortly). reports the current and projected costs of these subsidies amongst other Environmental Levies, a screenshot of which is reproduced below:

Figure 1: Actual (2017–18) and forecast (2018–2024) consumer cost of environmental levies. Source: Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), Economic and fiscal outlook – March 2019, see “Economic and fiscal outlook – supplementary fiscal tables: receipts and other”, Table 2.7.

Note that the Outturn column on the left is incomplete and has to be filled in by reference to Footnote 1, where we learn that the cost of the Feed-in Tariff in 2017–18 was £1.4 billion, which when added to the cost of the RO (£5.4 billion) and the CfD (£0.6 billion) gives a total of £7.4 billion. Adding the FiT the RO and the CfD projections we can calculate the forecast renewable subsidy costs for the following years as follows:

2018–19: £8.6 billion

2019–20: £9.2 billion

2020–21: £10.2 billion

2021–22: £10.8 billion

2022–23: £11.2 billion

2023–24: £11.6 billion

The current annual subsidy will be about £9 billion, and the grand total for the years 2017 to 2024 will come to nearly £70 billion.

These costs are recovered from the prices per unit of electrical energy (kWh) sold and thus the bills paid by all types of consumer, domestic, industrial, commercial and public sector. Consequently, about 30 to 40% of the total cost is recovered directly from consumer bills, because household consumption typically comprises 30% to 40% of total consumption in a year. In truth, the impact is likely to be slightly higher than the proportions suggest, firstly because industrial and commercial consumers can buy closer to the underlying wholesale price, and secondly because some intensive energy users have partial exemption from these costs, meaning that the burden is transferred to other consumers including households. It is worth noting also that VAT is charged on these subsidy costs and domestic consumers cannot recover that cost. However, for the purpose of a general estimate we can ignore these details.

In 2017 domestic consumers accounted for about 38% of GB electricity consumption, and we can assume that this is approximately correct today. Thus, the direct impact on British household electricity bills is 0.38 x £9 billion = £3.4 billion.

There are about 26.5 million households in Great Britain thus the mean annual renewables subsidy impact on a GB household electricity bill is £3.4 billion / 26.5 million = £129 per year per household.

However, this is not the end of the story. While the other 62% of the renewables subsidies are paid for in the first instance by industrial, commercial, and public sector consumers, these costs are obviously passed through to households in the costs of goods, services and general taxation. If a supermarket is compelled by policy to pay more for electricity to refrigerate milk it must recover that additional cost at the checkout. Of course, those companies with overseas customers could in theory pass on some part of that extra electricity cost to their consumers abroad, but given the intensity of international competition that is unlikely to be a strong effect.

Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the vast bulk of these costs are recovered domestically, in Britain, meaning that we can calculate a total “cost of living” impact of the renewables subsidies by simply dividing total subsidies by number of households.

Thus, the total annual renewables subsidy impact on household cost of living is £9 billion / 26.5 million households = £340 per year per household, of which about £129 a year is recovered directly from electricity bills and the remainder, over £200 a year, from increased costs of goods and services.

Given the scale and regressive nature of these impacts it is high time that the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) resumed publication of its formal estimates of the total impacts of policies, of which the direct subsidies to renewables are only part, on both gas and electricity prices. These figures were last published in 2014 (Estimated Impacts) and discontinued, many of us suspect, because they were so embarrassing.

At that time the department calculated that in their central scenario for 2020 domestic household electricity prices (NB, prices per unit, not bills) would be some 37% higher than they would have been in the absence of policies, and that prices for a medium sized business would be some 62% higher. Future projections out to 2030 were equally disconcerting, and it is thus imperative to know whether government attempts to contain the costs of energy and climate policies are having any significant effect. Judging from the OBR forecasts the answer is clearly no. The public needs and has a right to see the details.
Global Warming Policy Forum

Three million households already in energy debt ahead of winter
Energy Live News
Jonny Bairstow
16 October 2019

Three million households are already in energy debt ahead of the winter.

Auto-switching service Migrate has revealed these fuel-poor households collectively owe nearly £417 million to their suppliers, with the year’s coldest weather soon to arrive.

Around 12% of people are currently in debt to their energy supplier, with customers owing an average of £124 each – this is likely to worsen as energy demand ramps up to keep homes warm during winter.

George Chalmers, CEO of Migrate said: “We’re barely into autumn and the coldest weather is yet to come, so it’s alarming to see such a large number of people already in debt to their supplier.

“The biggest concern is that those who are in debt will ration their energy usage in an effort to reduce their bills but cold, damp homes can have an impact on not just physical but mental wellbeing as well.”
Energy Live News

On your utility bill, the soaring price of green gesture politics
Conservative Woman
Andrew Montford
15 October 2019

IN the murkiest depths of an official release of financial data lurks some fascinating information about just how much the political class’s obsession with renewable energy is costing us. In a blog published yesterday by the Global Warming Policy Forum, my colleague John Constable outlines the contents of Supplementary Table 2.7 of the Office of Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook for March 2019.

The table shows that the cost of the main bungs to the renewables industry – the Renewables Obligation, Feed-in Tariffs, Contracts for Difference and so on – has now reached £9.6billion a year, or £340 per household. Some of this goes directly on to bills, but a large share is passed on to industrial users, who then claw it back from consumers via higher prices. Either way, you pay.

Constable’s figures are only part of the picture. Vast expenditure is required on upgrades to the electricity grid to accommodate renewables, and a whole lot more needs to be spent on dealing with their intermittency. Not the least of these interventions are so-called ‘constraints payments’, when wind farms (typically in Scotland) are paid to switch off because the grid can’t get the electricity to where it is needed (England). In these circumstances, you pay three times over: once to get the wind farm to switch off, again for the electricity it didn’t produce, and then a third payment is required to get somebody to generate electricity where it is required. It’s fair to say that this is not a cheap intervention. One estimate reckons costs will soon be another billion pounds per year.

And it’s going to get worse. Reading between the lines of the OBR figures, Constable projects that £9.8billion figure rising to £12billion a year by 2023. With grid costs rising too, the figure could easily reach £500 per household.

It’s worth remembering why we are doing this. It’s certainly not going to make any difference to the Earth’s temperature: our carbon dioxide emissions are a tiny fraction of the global total, and smaller than annual increases in China and India. No, we are doing this as a gesture: a way to show our leadership on climate change, setting an example to the rest of the world.

I hope that the sense of national leadership makes you feel better when the time comes to pay the bill.
Conservative Woman

Pointless virtue signalling has a staggering price.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. I have been following the European wind figures for a short time and these give the daily wind output fo the U.K. Dividing this by a guessed 64 million population gives the per capita wind energy . So far it seems that this around 2 to 3 kilowattHrs.
    Dividing this into the recent increases of the energy bill would give a good idea on how expensive these Wind Turbines are.
    OK very rough figures indeed but perhaps one can get the drift?

  2. The responsibility for constraint payments is often laid at the door of the renewables, but really it arises from Scotland still having four ageing nuclear reactors that can’t be switched off when not needed, unlike proper dispatchable power stations like gas. Since the nuclear can’t be switched off at any price, the renewables volunteer to take the bullet and do so, but need to be compensated for their loss of earnings for switching off for the nuclear. Fortunately Hunterston is on its last legs, but Torness is licensed to continue its prima donna priority dispatch role for another decade.

    As to the estimate (by whom?) of £1bn per year, that is just fantasy, as can be seen from the progression of annual amounts since 2011: £13m, £6m, £33m, £53m, £91m, £82m, £108m, £124m. Any extrapolation of these figures should be reduced to account for Hunterston bowing out in the next four years.

  3. These renewables subsidies are large amounts, but need to be put into historical context. (All monies in pounds of the day.)

    The 2018-19 total of £8.6bn was for 100TWh in the year, ie £86/MWh.

    The 2023-24 total of £11.6bn will be for 125TWh in the year, ie £93/MWh (much the same as 2018-19 in real cost).

    In 2025-26, after the CfD3 sites start generating, at below wholesale prices contributing money to the subsidies pot rather than taking from it, the total of perhaps £11.3bn will be for 150TWh in the year, ie £75/MWh.

    In 2025-26, Hinkley Point C is due to start generating 28TWh/yr at a subsidy of £2.1bn, ie £75/MWh as well.

    In 2030-31, after another two CfD auctions for 6GW of renewables at less than wholesale prices, let’s conservatively overestimate £11.0bn will be required for 200TWh in the year, ie £55/MWh – but HPC’s subsidy rate will then be £82/MWh.

    This yawning divergence only increases with time as ever more renewables get built, but will narrow only slightly if Sizewell C is built.

  4. Energy poverty wasn’t a thing 15 years ago. Even 6 years ago when I brought it up in a meeting I was still looked at as if horns were growing out of my head. Let’s be frank here – it was an issue back then already but nobody noticed. There are always people that cannot afford life and they need to be dealt with but when the phenomenon goes mainstream and affects a sizeable portion of the electorate, politicians cannot ignore it anymore. They will muddle through and throw plenty of placebos at it but when it does not go away, at some point someone takes it up and runs with it and some drastic solution. That’s not always a good thing but as we cant stem the tides of fate, sometimes we can only stand by a watch in horror.

    • Please watch what happened in Ukraine. The link to the Oliver Stone documentary is below.
      Watch how the energy prices caused peaceful public protest and how things went wildly out of control.

  5. Is there any connection to our industrial wind turbine incursions, high energy prices and the level of instability occurring in our countries, with what occurred in Ukraine?
    In the Oliver Stone documentary, ‘Ukraine on Fire, The Real Story’, at about the 25 minute mark, you’ll see an explanation for what all caused the deep civil unrest. I was shocked to see industrial wind turbines in one of the next scenes, as high energy prices, IMF demanded conditions and the working poor were listed as key factors.
    I found this while I was researching what Joe Biden and his son were really doing in Ukraine and what the connection is between industrial wind turbines and natural gas.

  6. Richard Mann says:

    Please ask anyone who denies health harm of Industrial Wind Turbines to watch this presentation. University of Waterloo, Waterloo Ontario Canada.

    Title: “Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise: Physics & Cells, History & Health”
    Speaker: Dr Mariana Alves-Pereira
    Location: University of Waterloo
    Date: September 12, 2019

    Video archive of presentation:

    Dr. Alves-Pereira’s research profile is at

    Note; there is approx 2 mins of dead air at the beginning. The talk is ~50 minutes, followed by a long Q&A.

  7. Reblogged this on Climate-

  8. Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: