Renewable Subsidies Have Cost £78 Billion In Last 10 Years
According to Boris Johnson: “Overall, if you look at what we have done with renewables it has helped to reduce bills over the last few years and will continue to do so. That’s why one of the things I want to do is use this moment to really drive towards more offshore wind turbines.”
Perhaps he should read what the Office for Budget Responsibility have to say. According to their annual Medium Term Forecasts, subsidies for renewable energy have cost the public £78 billion in the last ten years. This equates to about £3000 per household.
Nearly all of this has been added to energy bills, although a small part, the RHI scheme, is funded out of general taxation. As domestic users only consume about a third of total electricity generation, their bills reflect about a third of this cost.
However, the public end up paying for the other two thirds one way or another, whether through higher prices and fares, higher taxation and lower public spending.
The split of this subsidy is :
| Type | £bn |
| RO | 46.0 |
| CfD | 5.6 |
| CRC | 4.2 |
| CM | 4.1 |
| FIT | 12.7 |
| RHI | 5.4 |
Note that the OBR no longer include the cost of FITs, even they still exist. I have therefore included estimated costs of £1.6bn a year for the last four years.
I am firing off a FOI to the government, asking for details of their claimed “reduced bills”!
The annual tables are below:
Editor’s note: the charts for 2017-2012 could not be saved from the source article.
See more here: notalotofpeopleknowthat
Header image: Science News For Students
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alcheminister
| #
I don’t mean to be an ass, but have you seen fossil fuel subsidies, tax breaks and such?
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
And in terms of a different sort of “energy”, all the worst (homogenized GMO, pesticide and herbicide-laden) crops are also massively subsidized, all of them associated with obesity, diabetes, brain issues, endocrine disruption in general…because it’s an agenda to cause sickness.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Oil isnt a fossil fuel, that term itself is false, all of our oil is sucked from below the lowest level of any long dead fossil, it is all abiogenic. Oil was naturally produced by the Earth and rises up from below. It is the 2nd most common liquid on the planet after water.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
You don’t have to call it fossil fuels. Everything to me is related to energy from the sun.
It seems to me it’s probably pressure differential related, as there are cycles of things growing and receding and much of the carbon seems to be fairly close to the surface…as if it’s that’s typically where life utilizes it and then deposits back, and maybe gradually reforms oil after enough pressure effects.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Alchminister:
There’s no free lunch and government produces nothing. Only redistributing the wealth (while causing misallocation in the market, paying off their cronies and feeding the bureaucracy) of the productive element of society. If the governments would get out of the way there would be plenty of energy and food for everyone.
The free market system does nothing for the elite parasites that want society to work for them. However “be ye not dismayed.” Boris has a plan for all the British livestock wether they be Anglo-Saxon or Somalis. If it were not so he would have told you. The U.N. Sustainable Development Initiative provides for a nutritious and delicious vegan (diet of the poor and malnourished) diet with mandatory vaccination for all useless eaters on the plantation. It’s like Orwell said: On the animal farm, all the animals were equal but some were more equal than others.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Here in America, we have a wind farm off of Block Island, which was sold to us as capable of producing 6-megawatt per windmill. What the grifters didn’t tell us is that is only when the wind blows 25 knots.
In reality the wind blows between 5-15 knots here. Thus power generation is about 100-800 kilowatt.
The diesel engines on environmental warrior, Michael Bloomberg’s motor yacht are far more powerful.
Bono from U2 also has a very large motor yacht, bigger than Bloomberg’s. His engines are 5,000 kW, and burn over 200 gallons of diesel per hour each.
Does anyone see the absurdity here…
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Kevin:
The “Green Energy” fantasy racing the world’s population to poverty and destitution is only for the “useless eaters” at the bottom, not for the super rich Zionist elite such as Gates with his fleet of jets, helicopters and palatial mansions. These super hypocrites burn more energy in a month with their diesel guzzling yachts than the average person will use in a lifetime. Same with jets that burn massive amounts of kerosene. Jewmerica has over 500 jets just to fly generals and admirals around their 900 bases used in the fake wars to keep the “defense” money rolling in and the goyim in fear.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/vs020gTKuvCF/
Reply
Mervyn
| #
So taxpayers effectively paid for the subsidies all for the privilege of paying high electricity prices in the belief that they’re helping save the planet. Are people stupid?
How about his. The climate change zealots have pushed the mantra that CO2 emitted from human activities is causing catastrophic global warming and is the key driver of climate change. I challenge anyone to go through every assessment report issued by the IPCC and find just one citation to a peer reviewed study that supports the mantra. You won’t find one because there is no such study.
Most people do not even realise that the glob warming scam is actually based on those flawed temperature-CO2 trends derived from GIGO computer models.
It seems far easier to deceive the masses with the greatest scientific deception ever perpetrated on mankind then it is to get them to believe a simple truth that the IPCC mantra is not supported by science or by reality. There is no discernible global warming except in the manipulated historical temperature data being churned out to make people believe there is a global warming trend.
Reply