Comments for New Power

Comment on Drax battery deal at West Burton C gives it ‘asset light’ capacity by James Hewitt

James Hewitt — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 08:08:27 +0000

Although modest in scale, diversification such as this would seem prudent. It reduces reliance on the subsidies which, understandably, the company is finding it increasingly difficut to justify for burning imported wood pellets at Drax power station.

Comment on Warm Homes Plan: the industry responds by Steve Cardis

Steve Cardis — Fri, 30 Jan 2026 18:32:24 +0000

In all the discussion about the Warm Homes Plan and other initiatives to lower fuel bills there is little or no attention given to consumer behaviour. One response to lower costs and better insulation is to turn up the heating. Thereby reducing or eliminating the energy savings. How will consumers be encouraged and advised to use energy efficiently . This is a key issue not being addressed it seems.

Comment on NESO aims to tap into wind farms to replace gas plants for generation shortfalls by David Dundas

David Dundas — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 08:34:12 +0000

Gas fired power stations can run 24/7 so rather trying to back them up with variable wind power, a more reliable energy source is generation IV small modular (nuclear) reactors (SMRs) that can be mass produced in a factory and shipped to site by road transport. Because these reactors operate at low coolant pressure using molten salt or metal rather than the conventional high pressure water at 350C (PWR) they do not require very heavy safety containment buildings. Battery storage is important in the mix to smooth the peaks of electricity demand.

Comment on CCC Seventh Carbon Budget: the industry responds by James Hewitt

James Hewitt — Fri, 28 Feb 2025 11:08:04 +0000

The Top Story of this morning’s edition refers to the UK’ Seventh Carbon Budget. One of the quotes it refers to, from the REA, is vulnerable to critique.
1) As local farmers remember all too well, the UK’s largest biomass-fired power station has already tested and then rejected the use of agricultural crops / residues – other than as a (very) small percentage of its fuel.
2) The “need” for large scale BECCS assumes that it will work at the capture rate proposed and – crucially – will be disposed of permanently and at a cost and energy penalty which can be readily accommodated.
3) Negative emissions from BECCS based on fuel whose feedstock grew outside the UK would of course be credited to the supplying country, not UK.
4) Wood pellets burned in large power stations derive from clear cut forest tracts which are unlikely to recover the loss of sequestered CO2 and ecosystem services which the clearcutting causes by 2050 (if ever). As such it is wrong to describe that biomass as sustainable – and to subsidise burning it.

Comment on ESNZ Committee opens inquiry into energy bills by John Daglish

John Daglish — Fri, 28 Feb 2025 08:52:10 +0000

“Suppose that regulation was changed. Instead of all producers, whether of gas or electricity, being paid the price of the highest cost supplier in their market they were instead paid their own fair marginal cost of production, including a reasonable profit margin.

Then presume that the energy regulator priced the onward supply of wholesale gas and electricity to the energy distribution companies on the basis of the actual cost to produce (including fair profit) of the gas and electricity actually sold into the market each day.

I stress, that for much of the renewables sector and for nuclear this will not be hard to do because of the nature of the government price guarantees that are already in place.

For gas, simply mix internationally priced gas with UK-produced gas at its fair price of production. That’s all that is required.

This would, though, require a change in the law. There would be yelling, screaming and shouting from some energy companies, despite what I have noted, and legal threats galore. These will need to be ignored for one straightforward reason. This is that the state should not support a market rigged by its own regulation.”

Its time to change uk energy pricing – Funding the Future
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/02/25/its-time-to-change-uk-energy-pricing/

Comment on Public Accounts Committee raises concern over lack of targets and public benefits in ‘unproven’ CCS programme by Jack Spruill

Jack Spruill — Fri, 21 Feb 2025 08:50:30 +0000

Thank you, Mr Hewitt, for you in-depth, but concise analysis of this complex matter.

Comment on Public Accounts Committee raises concern over lack of targets and public benefits in ‘unproven’ CCS programme by James Hewitt

James Hewitt — Fri, 14 Feb 2025 08:55:23 +0000

To help reduce reliance on imported sources of energy, the level of subsidy which the owners of Drax and Lynemouth power stations currently enjoy is to reduce by roughly half with effect from 01 April 2027.
Amongst other things, this reflects that
1) the cost of converting those power stations to burn wood pellets instead of coal will presumably have been fully depreciated by 31 March 2027 when their current RO and/or CfD subsidies expire; and
2) recognition of the carbon debt which the supply and burning of those pellets causes.
The CfD subsidy would not oblige Drax and Lynemouth to generate electricity during an energy crisis such as that of 2022/2023 when the strike price is below the market reference price – clearly exacerbating energy insecurity.
Financial close for prospective carbon capture facilities is unlikely before the initial / anchor projects of Track 1 clusters are proven to dispose of captured CO2 in geological formations at a rate anywhere near the 90% proposed (and required to meet legally binding UK Net Zero by 2050).
That capture rate (which proponents do not guarantee) would have to be achieved consistently during routine operation for a substantial period. Given the imperative of permanent disposal (not temporary capture) it would be prudent for that period to be at least a few years. The term of the new subsidy for Drax and Lynemouth may have expired before that period ends. At least one of those power stations may have closed by then anyway.

Comment on Government publishes Clean Energy 2030 plan by Bonnie Monteleone

Bonnie Monteleone — Fri, 10 Jan 2025 23:11:29 +0000

As we continue to lose mature trees from massive fires, hurricanes, and development (one of our greatest protections and habitats for our already stressed ecosystem) why would cutting down 10s of 1000s of trees to ship to another country for energy be a good idea for this country? It only lines the pockets of those corporations involved at the expense of all life. It is time to stop this maleficent operation that is also funded by tax payers dollars in subsidies.

Comment on Government publishes Clean Energy 2030 plan by Andy Wood

Andy Wood — Tue, 07 Jan 2025 19:30:19 +0000

From the New Power article, “Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is to set out a detailed plan for achieving the target of clean power by 2030.”
With all due respect, the UK cannot claim to achieve “clean power” while burning American trees to generate electricity because that energy scheme is a fool’s errand, economically, ecologically, and climatologically. The biomass industry continues a long line of resource exploitation endeavors that, in the 18th and 19th centuries included boiling whales for oil, and felling some 90 million acres of North America’s once grand expanse of longleaf pine to furnish Great Britain with naval stores and timber, and, in the early 21st century, removing entire mountaintops to extract and burn a fleeting bit of coal.
Millions of years of evolutionary development, at habitat and species scales, are being squandered by corporate industrialists, under the guise of unprovable sustainability—unprovable because we cannot fully predict future conditions. No doubt yesterday’s whaling industry thought boiling whales was a sustainable biomass-to-energy strategy—just as coal industries thought mountaintop removal was sustainable. Today the global timber industry is hyping their business plan to burn 100-year-old American trees to generate minutes of electricity in Europe and Asia.
Our recent ancestors tried to kill the last whale to light a lamp, and history indicates we’ll use the same logic to burn the last tree to recharge our smartphones. As a prerequisite, Mr. Miliband needs to shun green-washing, willful ignorance, and foolishness when crafting meaningful global energy policy and strategies, .

Comment on Government publishes Clean Energy 2030 plan by Dr. Robert Parr

Dr. Robert Parr — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 13:13:31 +0000

As long as the UK’s clean power plan continues to rely on large-scale biomass power plants, fueled through the destruction of mature American Southern forests, the goal of providing a secure, affordable and truly de-carbonized energy system will remain elusive for any date into the future. The overwhelming public health, environmental and economic failures of the present system are well documented in many places but a good place to start for interested readers follows:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-biomass-energy-invs/