Gas Only Explains A Small Part Of Electricity Price Rise

By Paul Homewood

 

chart(4)

We still keep being told that our sky high power prices are due to reliance on gas.

Silly Jilly wrote this in the Guardian a month ago:

One of Labour’s key election promises was to cut energy bills by £300 a year by 2030 while making Britain a “clean energy superpower”.

The job is already halfway complete: renewable energy made up more than half the UK’s electricity for the first time last year. So why does Britain continue to have one of the most expensive electricity markets in the world? Industrial users complain those costs are driving companies out of business and discouraging investment in the UK.

The reason behind Britain’s sky-high wholesale energy costs is simple, according to experts. It is down to Britain’s reliance on gas – the price of which was sent soaring by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – in power plants and home heating.

“Great Britain’s dependency on gas imports has been the most important factor behind higher gas and power prices in the market,” Kate Mulvany, the principal consultant at the energy advisory company Cornwall Insight, said.

Prof Michael Grubb of the UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources said in a recent research paper that, although fossil fuels used to be cheaper than renewable energy sources, “that has turned on its head as gas prices shot up and the cost to produce renewables such as wind and solar power has plummeted”.

He said: “If we actually paid the average price of what our electricity now costs to produce, our bills would be substantially cheaper.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/20/why-the-uks-electricity-costs-are-so-high-and-what-can-be-done-about-it 

It was accompanied by a deliberately deceptive graph, purportedly showing how wholesale price trends of electricity closely matched those of gas. The choice of the y-axis means that you could show anything you wanted. And, of course, wholesale prices only make up a minor part of retail prices.

There have been many attempts to unravel these Guardian lies, but here I present a very simple, unambiguous and undeniable analysis which totally shreds such claims.

  1. According to official data, in 2024 the UK used 179 TWh of natural gas for power generation.
  2. At the end of December 2024, the wholesale price of gas was 117 p/therm, or £39.93/MWh.
  3. The value of that gas was therefore £7147 million.
  4. Total electricity supply in 2024 was 303 TWh.
  5. The OFGEM price cap for April to June 2025 was 25.74 p/kWh, excl VAT, giving a retail value of £77992 million.
  6. In addition standing charges add approximately an extra £5 billion for domestic users, plus other users.

We can therefore see that the cost of natural gas only makes up about 8% of the total retail value of electricity.

We can analyse these same numbers using 2019 prices.

  1. The wholesale price of natural gas was typically around 50 p/therm, so the value of gas used in generation was about £3 billion a year; the rise in the price of gas since has therefore added about £4 billion to the cost of electricity.
  2. The OFGEM price cap in 2019 was 17 p/kWh, giving an annual value of £51 billion
  3. In addition, standing charges were approximately £2 billion in 2019, compared to the current £5 billion.
  4. The total retail value of the electricity market would therefore be about £56 billion at 2019 prices.

To summarise, the retail value of electricity has increased from £56 billion to £83 billion. Of this £27 billion increase, only £4 billion is due to gas.

The rest, in one way or another, can be described as “policy costs”. These include renewable subsidies, various system balancing costs, standby capacity and grid upgrades.

But they also include the structure of the marginal pricing mechanism employed, whereby all generators benefit from higher wholesale prices, on the back of higher gas prices.

The answer to all these problems lie with government.

What is certain is that the answer is not building more renewables.

    via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

    https://ift.tt/3pglXZe

    June 1, 2025 at 08:12AM

    Trump Administration Expedites Approval for New Uranium Mine in Utah

    From Legal Insurrection

    The reopening of this mine aligns with Trump administration push to expedite the development of U.S. nuclear energy capacity.

    Posted by Leslie Eastman 

    I recently wrote about the numerous positive developments related to the mining and processing of critical minerals, such as rare earths, outside of China, which were supported by two key executive orders from President Donald Trump.

    I can now report even more success in domestic mine expansion. The Trump administration recently approved the reopening of the Velvet-Wood uranium and vanadium mine in southeastern Utah, marking the first mining project to be permitted under a new, dramatically accelerated environmental review process.

    The decision, executed by the Department of the Interior, was made in just 14 days…a stark contrast to the months or years such reviews typically require.

    “This approval marks a turning point in how we secure America’s mineral future,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum in a statement. “By streamlining the review process for critical mineral projects like Velvet-Wood, we’re reducing dependence on foreign adversaries and ensuring our military, medical and energy sectors have the resources they need to thrive. This is mineral security in action.”

    The Velvet-Wood mine, near Utah’s Lisbon Valley, will produce both uranium and vanadium. The former can be processed into fuel for nuclear reactors, while the latter is commonly used in steel alloys.

    The announcement comes 11 days after the Interior Department ordered the Bureau of Land Management to review the mine’s environmental impacts within 14 days, as opposed to the prior timeline of months or years.

    The fast-tracking follows a January executive order from President Donald Trump declaring a “national energy emergency.”

    The mine is set to be reopened by Canadian company Anfield Energy. Anfield Energy’s main business is the development of energy metals, with a particular emphasis on uranium and vanadium resources. The company aims to become a top-tier supplier of energy-related fuels, positioning itself as a key player in the emerging nuclear energy sector in North America.

    The company’s website heralds the astonishing potential of the Utah mine.

    Acquired alongside the Shootaring Canyon Mill in 2015, this project holds significant historical mineral resources. With measured and indicated categories containing 4.6 million pounds of U3O8 ([uranium oxide] 0.285% grade) and inferred categories holding 552,000 pounds of U3O8 (0.320% grade) and7.3Mlbs of V2O5 ([Vanadium Oxide] 0.404% grade), Velvet-Wood demonstrates its potential.

    From 1979 to 1984, the project yielded significant results, recovering around 4 million pounds of U3O8and 5 million pounds of V2O5 from mining approximately 400,000 tons of ore with grades of 0.46% U3O8 and 0.64% V2O5. The Velvet mine retains underground infrastructure, including a 3,500 ft long,12′ x 9′ decline to the ore body. As Anfield Energy’s most advanced uranium asset, Velvet-Wood signifies a potential near-term path to uranium and vanadium production.

    Of course, environmental activists are unhappy with this decision and pulling out the usual assortment of complaints….especially those associated with uranium. As an additional bonus, some “social justice” complaints are being tossed into the mix for variety.

    “There’s a reason environmental reviews usually take time,” said Nancy Blackwell, policy director at the Western Public Lands Alliance. “Rushing through this process under the banner of ‘national security’ opens the door to costly mistakes and overlooked harms—especially when uranium, with its toxic legacy, is involved.”

    Critics also question the need for domestic uranium and vanadium production at this scale, pointing to the global oversupply of uranium and the long lead time required to bring nuclear facilities online. They argue that the real driver behind the project may be political symbolism rather than genuine energy urgency.

    Meanwhile, the Grand Canyon Trust and other advocacy organizations have called for a halt to mining near culturally and ecologically sensitive areas, citing concerns about contamination from past uranium operations still affecting Native communities.

    If they’re unhappy, I am happy.

    The reopening of this mine pairs well with the Trump administration’s push to expedite the development of our nuclear energy capacity. I am looking forward to writing about the construction of projects and facilities listed in the four executive orders related to the rapid deployment of next-generation nuclear technologies in this country, which Trump also has signed.


    Discover more from Watts Up With That?

    Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

    via Watts Up With That?

    https://ift.tt/qHYVrwv

    June 1, 2025 at 08:01AM

    60 Years Of Progress in London

    I took this picture in London in June 1968.

    Compare with the same spot now

    About Tony Heller

    Just having fun

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

    via Real Climate Science

    https://ift.tt/gPJ8EDR

    June 1, 2025 at 08:00AM

    Open Thread


    Discover more from Watts Up With That?

    Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

    via Watts Up With That?

    https://ift.tt/ivQzoOY

    June 1, 2025 at 04:06AM