Government Admits Fossil Fuel Use is Cheaper than Net Zero Technology
The UK Government has quietly admitted to MPs that low-carbon technologies essential to hitting Net Zero are more expensive than using fossil fuels – despite Ed Miliband repeatedly insisting Net Zero will bring energy bills down. City AM has the story.
Labour Ministers are expected to double down on expanding the use of green technologies to lower costs as the Treasury and Department for Business and Trade are set to unveil the UK’s industrial strategy next week.
The blueprint for growing the economy will outline plans to lower energy costs. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) saw its budget increase by 16% at the Spending Review, with more funding set to go towards nuclear power and clean energy in a bid to remove nearly all fossil fuels from UK electricity production by 2030.
But officials working under Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told the Committee of Public Accounts, which scrutinises expenditure by different government bodies, that higher electricity prices made “low carbon technologies” more expensive despite the Government linking the development of green technology to more affordable energy bills.
The admission came in the minutes for a PAC report, which is publicly available online, detailing the Government’s responses to recommendations made on energy policy.
The statement explains that high residential electricity prices in the UK do not reflect the “cheaper wholesale price of clean energy” and can stem from the costs of some Net Zero policies.
“Low carbon technologies can be more expensive to run than fossil-fuel powered alternatives,” the Government’s response read.
“The price disparity between electricity and gas needs to be addressed to make it more attractive for consumers to install clean technologies like heat pumps.”
It follows a similar admission earlier this year that Net Zero policies would push up energy bills in the “short to medium term” according to a page on the Government’s website, as first reported in the Telegraph.
Data published in March showed standard electricity bills reaching £1,067 last year compared to £814 for gas, meaning average energy bills were £1,881 in 2024.
Manufacturers paid just under twice as much for electricity as they did for either gas or other fuels last year, with UK industrial electricity bills nearly 50% higher than those seen in France and Germany and roughly four times higher than in the US.
Worth reading in full.
The admission comes as it’s reported that Ed Miliband has opened the door to North Sea drilling by rewriting the rules on Britain’s CO2 emissions that were used by a court last year to block Equinor’s Rosebank oil field and Shell’s Jackdaw gas field. The Telegraph reports that both companies have immediately announced plans to seek new licences for the projects. Yet another U-turn from a Government that keeps being smacked in the face by reality.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Gosh darn it, reality always seems to hit.
Like a sledgehammer in the face.
If you go up against the laws of physics, you are going to lose. Bigly.
It wouldn’t surprise me for Milibrain to call for the government to “repeal the laws of physics”.
Don’t give him ideas…
The laws of Physics are racist and colonialist, probably misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic and will definitely make those that don’t understand it feel excluded and threatened. Therefore, what were you suggesting?
A few seasons ago, in an apres-ski bar (Andorra), a guy with his arm in plaster and a sling wore a sweatshirt emblazoned with the message—‘I fought The Law and The Law won.’
In Net Zeroland there are no laws of physics or economics just fairies waving magic wands.
You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time… but it takes a politician to try and convince the important people all of the time.
“The UK Government has quietly admitted to MPs that low-carbon technologies essential to hitting Net Zero are more expensive than using fossil fuels”
I knew this a while back and I only went to Secondary Modern school. Perhaps the problem is the quality of the ‘best’ education and who decides what the measure of ‘best’ is? Hans Rosling wrote his excellent book ‘Factfullness’ because he observed that the more educated people were the worse their knowledge of facts. In fact the countries with the ‘best’ education showed the highest ignorance.
Hans Rosling’s book is awful and misnamed. He explains how Ebola grows exponentially because he failed basic Maths.
Charles Darwin, On the origin of species, ridiculing people like Hans.
So that other Swede Greta is correct then?
The only people I have come across that don’t like Hans Rosling tend to be those that are catastrophists, and are therefore adherents to the Climate Emergency, probably Lockdowns, Extinction Rebellion and the like. I would imagine Hans Rosling’s optimistic outlook is a real inconvenience and indeed I have come across an academic that considered Hans a major threat. There isn’t a single trade or practical profession that would consider a positive outlook a problem.
Low carbon technologies can be more expensive to run than fossil-fuel powered alternatives,”
There is no ‘can’ about it – they are more expensive and with the added bonus of being able to collapse the grid.
They – so-called low carbon – are more expensive because they need a parallel fossil fuel, particularly gas, generating capacity on constant standby to compensate for intermittency. That means gas generators are burning gas with turbines running at fast idle ready to spool up to join the grid to replace wind and solar drop out, and also to add inertia to stabilise grid frequency.
For those who think a grid can operate with all-low carbon generators…. Exhibit A: Spain.
Paying for two systems is always going to be more expensive than having just one. And since wind and solar cannot match supply with demand, cannot operate continuously, they are economically unviable unless supported by subsidies and guaranteed prices above natural market levels.
The more “low carbon” introduced, the more subsidies, higher guaranteed prices, more money to compensate gas generation and thus ever high electricity prices.
The brilliant idea that gas prices should be raised to make electricity prices more attractive, automatically will increase all energy costs to exorbitant levels.
Its hard to decide whether these people are complete nitwits or just evil.
All they will do is reduce taxes on electricity and load them onto gas …. and then claim that the occasionally useful windmills and even less occasionally useful solar panels are cheaper.
None of this craven fool’s delusions survive contact with reality. Hopefully he’ll toddle off soon to spend more time with his fantasies.