‘Cheap renewables’ lie exposed by UK (and Australia’s) soaring energy costs

BJORN Lomborg, one of the leading sceptics of the climate crisis narrative, has described the claim that the so-called green energy transition will make cheap electricity for everyone as a myth and “one of the most dangerous self-delusions of the global elite”.

Writing in The Telegraph (UK) Lomborg, who is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and a Visiting Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, says that despite two decades of policy attempts, fossil fuels in 2022 still meet 81 per cent of global energy needs, down from 81.2 per cent in 2000, while on the most optimistic trend, fossil fuels will still supply two-thirds of all energy in 2100.

“Yet, Western governments that have most enthusiastically pursued these expensive policies have received plaudits from multilateral organisations, climate activists and the media, who all mistake spending money with achieving results,” he wrote. “After decades of nearly unrestrained green efforts, electricity costs in the UK, Europe and progressive US states like California have soared.”

Lomborg can add Australia to that list of places with soaring electricity prices as Albanese, the Greens, Teals and state Labor governments, zealously pursue the “transition”, that media paints as some sort of inevitable fact of life.

When asked to table evidence of climate change by Senator Gerard Rennick, the best that Queensland Labor Senator Murray Watt could do was say “there’s a raft of evidence” and “it’s not good to be a climate change sceptic” and that Rennick “just does not believe the evidence” prompting Rennick to remind Watt that science is not a religion or a matter of belief.

And then there’s Peter Dutton and the federal Liberals who want to have a bet both ways, by staying in the Paris Accord but spending multiple billions replacing coal-fired power stations with nuclear so they can boast achieving their net zero target.

But Australia should learn a lesson from the UK, whose Starmer Labor Party has gone in boots and all for net zero madness.

“The United Kingdom is paying a heavy price for leading the world on the climate agenda: its inflation-adjusted electricity price, weighted across households and industry, has tripled from 2003 to 2023, mostly because of climate policies,” writes Lomborg. “It need not have been so: the US electricity price has remained almost unchanged over the same period.”

After decades of nearly unrestrained green efforts, electricity costs in the UK, Europe and progressive US states like California have soared.

Lomborg says the total annual UK electricity bill is now £90 billion, or £59 billion more than if prices in real terms had stayed unchanged since 2003. That is equivalent to wasting 2.1 per cent of GDP each year. This unnecessary increase is so costly that it is twice the entire cost of UK primary education.

Lomborg continued: Had prices stayed at 2003 levels, an average family of four would be spending £1,882 on electricity – which includes indirect industry costs. Instead, it now pays £5,425 per year. There is a strong, clear correlation between more solar and wind, and much higher average energy prices.

Indeed, no country in the entire world has combined significant solar and wind energy with low electricity costs. Data from the International Energy Agency shows the average electricity cost in a country with little or no solar and wind power is about 10p per kWh. For every 10 percentage points of additional solar and wind, the cost increases by more than 4p.

The unsurprising result is that the UK and Europe are struggling to compete. European businesses pay triple US electricity costs, and nearly two-thirds of European companies say energy prices are a major impediment to investment. More than 30 million Europeans are energy poor.

We are failing to transition away from fossil fuels because of green energy intermittency and unreliability. They require almost one-to-one backup power systems to ensure grid stability, and that typically comes from fossil fuel-based generation. Taxpayers end up paying for two power systems.

It’s logical to ask why we don’t solve this problem with batteries. To make an impact, batteries would need to supply energy not only through the night when there is no sun, but in winter when there is higher usage, less sun and long periods of low wind.

Currently, the UK’s batteries would power less than 13 minutes of its consumption. A Royal Society study found that to meet all electricity needs with solar and wind, storage would need to be at least 10,000 times bigger.

With batteries, this would cost £15 trillion, or about five times the current UK GDP. Factoring in the need to replace batteries every 15 years, the cost would be one-third of UK GDP each and every year.

Fossil fuels remain indispensable for fertilizers, steel, cement and plastics and for energy-intensive sectors like aviation, shipping and heavy industry. Global energy consumption is increasing by 2 to 3 per cent each year, with innovations such as fracking driving down the cost and increasing the availability of fossil fuels.

Under President Trump, the US – already the world’s leading oil producer – is set to abandon costly green policies and expand fossil fuel production further, while the growing economies of the Global South will continue to increase demand.

At the same time, emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, electric transportation and large-scale data centres require even more energy.

Policymakers need to invest more in research and development to overcome the major flaws in today’s green energy. It is time to reckon with the reality that green energy is not yet ready in the UK or elsewhere.

The delusion that we are on the verge of a green revolution is both manifestly untrue and incredibly costly, as it perpetuates misguided policies that ignore the need for real innovation and undermine global competitiveness.