THE TRILLIONS. THE SPIN. THE BILL HANDED TO YOU.
By Shane Oxer | Hope to Save Our Countryside
The green blob’s most effective product is its language. Industrial developments become “farms”. Steel, glass, cables and electronics acquire a “green” halo. Vast spending programmes are sold as opportunities. Future savings become the headline; the cost of delivering them is scattered across bills, taxes and public budgets.
I use “the green blob” to describe the political, campaigning and commercial interests pressing for this transformation. My criticism is about their aligned incentives: politicians want delivery, campaigners want stronger commitments, and businesses want the contracts that follow. The public needs something more demanding: proof that the complete programme is affordable, reliable and worth its cost.
FOLLOW THE TRILLIONS
The International Energy Agency expects around $2.2 trillion worldwide to flow into renewables, nuclear, grids, storage, efficiency, electrification and low-emissions fuels in 2026. That is a global investment figure, covering a broad range of technologies. It shows the enormous commercial stakes.
Britain’s Government assessment associated with the Seventh Carbon Budget puts investment over 25 years at around £880 billion, according to Parliament’s research office.
Calling this “investment” tells us money will be spent. It does not establish that every project is necessary, that the chosen programme is the cheapest, or that households will recover the cost through lower bills.
Private investors expect revenue and a return. Contractors expect payment. Lenders expect interest. “Private finance” changes who puts up the money first; it does not make the infrastructure free.
LOOK WHO IS SELLING THE STORY
The Government’s December 2024 clean-power launch assembled endorsements from energy companies, developers, manufacturers, trade bodies and green campaign organisations. The promise of lower bills came alongside the promise of a huge investment programme.
Those endorsements should be read with each organisation’s interests in view. Some want the policy adopted. Others sell the equipment, build the networks or develop the generating assets the policy requires.
A company’s opportunity to win contracts is not proof of value for the customer. Counting spending and announcing jobs cannot substitute for an independent comparison of the full cost, the alternatives and the effects on the rest of the economy.
“FARM”: A COMFORTING WORD FOR AN INDUSTRIAL USE
A solar development contains generating equipment, mounting structures, inverters, fencing and electrical connections. Wind developments require turbines and supporting infrastructure. Their principal purpose is industrial electricity production.
The word “farm” gives that use a familiar rural sound. It does none of the work needed to establish whether a particular site is suitable.
Food production, landscape, habitat, drainage, access, grid connection and eventual restoration still have to be assessed. Planting around the perimeter or grazing between equipment cannot answer every one of those questions.
An agricultural word should never become a substitute for an honest description of what is being built.
GREEN FIELDS. GREY HARDWARE.
“Green” is an environmental claim attached to energy infrastructure. It does not remove the steel, glass, concrete, electronics, mineral extraction or manufacturing involved. Nor does it erase the site’s effect on its surroundings.
Renewability describes the energy resource. The panels, turbines, batteries and cables remain manufactured assets with maintenance, replacement and disposal requirements. Every assessment should show those requirements and their costs.
The same scrutiny applies to planning labels. “Grey belt” can include undeveloped Green Belt land. The designation does not establish that a field has no agricultural, landscape or ecological value.
The colour of the sales pitch cannot settle the value of the land.
“CHEAPER POWER”: SHOW THE COMPLETE BILL
The relevant price is the cost of reliable electricity delivered where and when it is needed. A generating-cost headline cannot answer that question on its own.
Include the networks, storage, balancing, backup capacity and financing. Show what happens when output is high, when it is low, and when a connection arrives years after the generating equipment.
The NAO reports £70 billion of transmission investment is required between 2025 and 2031.
It records an estimated £60 increase in annual household network charges by 2030 to fund that investment.
More damningly, the NAO finds that, without an integrated plan or whole-system appraisal, Government has not demonstrated that the selected upgrades are the best way to achieve its objectives.
That is a serious challenge to the promise of cheaper power. Before committing the public to the programme, demonstrate the full case and test it against credible alternatives.
PAYING FOR THE MISMATCH
The NAO records £1.9 billion in constraint costs in 2025–26. These arise when the system pays generators to change output because the network cannot carry electricity where it is needed.
It warns that costs could reach £7.8 billion by 2030 without concerted action.
That includes the familiar problem of paying wind generation to turn down while paying gas generation to turn up elsewhere. Consumers ultimately fund the system’s response.
The bill for poor coordination does not become smaller because the original project was described as green.
“BATTERY STORAGE”: HOW LONG BEFORE IT IS EMPTY?
A battery must be charged from an energy source. It returns part of that stored energy later, with losses in the process. Installing a battery does not create an additional primary energy supply.
A battery sized for two hours at full output cannot supply that output for two days without being recharged. A large advertised power rating does not tell you how long the installation can sustain it.
Ask how much usable energy it holds, how it will be charged during a prolonged shortage, what its full lifetime cost is, and what dependable supply remains when it is empty.
NESO itself identifies the challenge of storing energy for weeks or months. Public claims about energy security must confront that duration problem.
A container full of batteries cannot make missing generation appear.
FEAR IS A POWERFUL SALES TOOL
“Emergency”, “crisis” and “last chance” create pressure to act. They establish no evidence that a particular energy project is affordable, that its connection will arrive on time, or that its benefits outweigh its costs.
When urgency is used to shut down those questions, it becomes a scare tactic. Serious risks demand serious assessment. They cannot serve as a permanent exemption from scrutiny.
There is also a revealing sequence in the policy itself. A House of Lords scrutiny report records that Government did not need to agree the detailed policy package when setting the Seventh Carbon Budget. It notes that the Sixth Carbon Budget delivery plan arrived four years after the budget was agreed.
The target can therefore become binding before the detailed delivery package is settled. That puts pressure on every later decision to serve the commitment already made.
A deadline is not a business case. A legal target is not a delivery plan.
OFF THE BILL DOES NOT MEAN OFF THE PUBLIC
Since April 2026, Government has funded 75% of domestic Renewables Obligation costs through the Treasury, moving that share off household electricity bills.
That changes who finances the scheme and how the cost is collected. It does not demonstrate that the supported electricity became cheaper to produce.
The cost remains public spending, financed alongside other commitments through taxation or borrowing. Households may see a lower electricity charge while the public still carries the expense elsewhere.
Energy costs also enter the prices of goods and services. Businesses facing higher costs may pass them on, absorb them in reduced profits, or cut investment and employment. The economic consequences extend well beyond the meter.
Moving a cost between bills and budgets is no substitute for reducing it.
HOW THE NARRATIVE MOVES
Compare the Government’s promise of lasting lower bills with the later evidence: new charges to fund grid investment, forecasts that depend on delivery, and part of a legacy subsidy moved into public spending. These are different claims. They must not be bundled together as proof that electricity itself has become cheaper.
The language moves easily between investment, savings and affordability. The customer needs a consistent test: the total cost of reliable supply, paid through every route. In my view, this flexibility in the sales pitch is the blob’s greatest protection. It allows an announcement to sound like a result.
MAKE THEM SHOW THE EVIDENCE
The public deserves a complete account: what it costs, what is included, what is missing, who pays, and what happens if the timetable fails.
Publish the infrastructure required. Publish the operating and replacement costs. Test prolonged shortages. Compare credible alternatives against the same demand and reliability requirements. Show which claimed benefits reduce an actual bill, which accrue elsewhere, and which depend on forecasts.
The green blob’s preferred vocabulary makes a vast industrial and financial programme sound reassuring. Its supporters should be required to defend the programme in plain language, with the complete evidence.
“Green” must never mean a blank cheque.
Sign the petition calling for Climate Change Act targets to be suspended while Parliament considers a full national impact assessment:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/780321
EVIDENCE NOTE
Investment is not the same as net economic cost, corporate profit or a household bill. The global dollar figure and the UK pound figure cover different scopes. The £70 billion transmission programme must not simply be added to the £880 billion assessment: their coverage can overlap.
The Government assessment also projects £1.62 trillion of benefits, including £445 billion in avoided fossil-fuel imports. Those are modelled benefits over time; the article challenges the assumptions, delivery and distribution of the claimed gains.
The NAO reports an estimated £30 overall household saving against a scenario with higher constraint costs if upgrades are not accelerated. That comparison does not establish a £30 reduction from today’s bill.
The Treasury transfer covers 75% of the domestic share of Renewables Obligation costs, for 2026–27 to 2028–29. It changes the distribution of costs; an individual’s tax change need not match their electricity-bill reduction.
Batteries can provide valuable balancing and stability services. Duration depends on usable energy, discharge rate and recharging. The criticism concerns treating short-duration storage as sufficient cover for prolonged shortages.
In formal planning policy, “green infrastructure” means networks of green and blue spaces and natural features. The article criticises the promotional use of “green” for energy installations. Formal definition
Leave a Reply