By Paul Homewood
You will remember this lie from Justin Rowlatt a few weeks ago:
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
That’s what Reform UK claims, and says it’s why it plans to scrap all subsidies for renewable energy projects.
The calculation isn’t as straightforward as you might think, though.
The cost of a unit of power from a new solar or wind project is lower than the cost from a new gas generator, according to government figures
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/06/18/justin-rowlatts-renewables-disinformation/
I complained to the BBC, pointing out that the new CfD prices for wind and solar are much higher than the cost of gas power. I have now had this response:
Thanks for getting in touch about a BBC news website live reporting feature with regard to Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt’s analysis item at 16.37 on June 17, with the heading ‘Are renewables really more expensive than fossil fuels?’
Firstly, I’m sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I know people appreciate a prompt response and unfortunately we’ve taken longer to reply than usual, please accept our apologies.
We’re grateful to you for making use of our services and we are sorry to learn of your concerns.
The BBC is transparent about the sources from which it draws information for reports. In this article, Justin Rowlatt assesses and analyses Reform’s proposal to scrap subsidies for renewable energy projects.
The paragraphs:
The calculation isn’t as straightforward as you might think, though.
The cost of a unit of power from a new solar or wind project is lower than the cost from a new gas generator, according to government figures.
Links to the Government’s figures.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6556027d046ed400148b99fe/electricity-generation-costs-2023.pdf
(The BBC is not responsible for the content of non-BBC websites)
This document, Electricity Generation Costs 2023, is the most recent version of this document. It was published in August 23 and updated in November 23.
Justin Rowlatt’s analysis also links to the Office of Budget Responsibility document, Fiscal risks and sustainability, later in the piece when it is discussing the impact of the Ukraine war on prices.
"We all experienced how energy prices spiked after Russia invaded Ukraine. That represents a serious cost to the economy too, says the Office of Budget Responsibility."
https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/Fiscal_risks_and_sustainability_report_July_2023.pdf
(The BBC is not responsible for the content of non-BBC websites)
The article is transparent in the sources of the factual evidence that Justin Rowlatt is considering in writing his analysis and the Government document on electricity generation is the latest available.
It is consistent with the BBC’s editorial guidelines for senior journalists to make “professional judgements” rooted in evidence.
In this case, we consider Justin Rowlatt’s article is an example of this provision in the editorial guidelines.
.
I have now upped the complaint to the next stage, with this reply:
Your reply does not address my complaint and is frankly laughable.
So, to recap:
Your report claimed “The cost of a unit of power from a new solar or wind project is lower than the cost from a new gas generator, according to government figures"
You justify this by quoting an out of date govt report. Since that report, the CfD auction last year failed to get any bids from offshore wind, as the prices on offer, which were based on those costings, were not viable; as a consequence the govt has had to increase the Administrative Strike Prices for this year’s auction to £100.27/MWh for offshore wind, £87.91/MWh for onshore wind and £83.79/MWh for solar power.
These new prices clearly replace the previous govt costings, which were obviously never realistic in the first place. As my complaint pointed out, the cost of gas power is £54/MWh, so clearly renewables are much dearer.
Data about the new Strike Prices is widely available on the govt website, and was well publicised at the time. It is frankly unbelievable that Justin Rowlatt was not aware of them. Which begs the question – why did he deliberately mislead the public by not disclosing them?
To make matters worse, as this was a “supposed” fact check on the Reform Party’s manifesto, such misleading amounts to election interference. Therefore I trust you will treat this matter seriously.