Introduction

Cubico have launched the second stage of their consultation and you can find out more here:

https://scoutmoor2.co.uk/

This will include a series of consultation events:

• Tuesday, 1st April – Bacup Cricket Club: 1:30pm – 7pm
• Wednesday, 2nd April – Norden Methodist Church: 1:00pm – 6:30pm
• Thursday, 3rd April – The Ashcroft, Whitworth – 1:30pm – 7pm
• Wednesday, 23rd April – Cowpe Community Hall: 1:30pm – 7pm
• Thursday, 24th April – Edenfield Community Centre: 1:30pm – 7pm

We encourage you to attend, ask questions and make your views known.

To help out we have studied their glossy claims and made a series of observations which you might want to talk to them about. These are in the format of a specific claim that they make on their website and our response. In general we are sceptical about all their claims – but you won’t be surprised to hear that!

Please help us by sharing this post with family, friends and colleagues.

CLAIM: Meeting the UK’s Clean Energy Targets

The UK Government has set out its renewable energy ambitions in its Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, aiming to increase onshore wind capacity from 14GW in 2023 to 27 GW by 2030. This means doubling the amount of onshore wind projects like Scout Moor II in just seven years. To hit this target, new projects must be developed quickly and efficiently.

Our response

For “quickly and efficiently” read “getting planning approval as fast as humanly possible despite overwhelming local opposition so that we can start generating massive profits as a result of renewable energy subsidies”.

UK government policy targets are arbitrary and uncosted. They will not change the global temperature as was recently found out from a question asked in parliament and as a specific question we asked Ed Miliband’s department via MP Elsie Blundell. Therefore, we don’t know what the costs of decarbonisation will be (other than enormous) and have no idea if there will be any benefit to the climate.

Meanwhile, global energy demand continues to increase, with fossil fuels taking the biggest share of this growth as reported by the IEA (54% fossil fuel, 38% renewables and 8% nuclear). I.e. fossil fuel is still growing faster than renewables.

In 2023, electricity accounted for approximately 15.8% of the United Kingdom’s total primary energy consumption. This means that if UK energy demand follows the global trend, then either:

1. The increase in onshore wind will have to be matched by a similar increase in fossil fuels – if for no other reason than to provide backup for when the wind isn’t blowing. Have you heard the government explaining this anywhere?
2. We simply won’t have enough energy to keep growing the economy, though as it appears we aren’t doing much of that! Perhaps that is the plan? And don’t forget the government is also trying to move us to EVs, heat pumps and AI as a growth area – all of which would significantly increase the demand for electricity.

The other not so small issue is that Cubico cannot with any degree of certainty argue that their development would reduce CO2 emissions overall, let alone impact temperature. This is because the so called Carbon Balance Assessments have historically been undertaken using the Scottish Government’s Carbon Calculator. This calculator has been found to be unreliable, particular in upland peat environments such as ours, and is being subjected to a formal review.

Summarising, Cubico is naturally enthusiastic to help deliver arbitrary government targets which won’t improve the climate, will not prevent increases in fossil fuel usage and, on recent evidence, will simply lead to further increases in our energy bills.

CLAIM: A Cheaper Source of Electricity for Households & Businesses

Onshore wind is one of the most cost-effective ways to generate electricity. It is cheaper than fossil fuels and more affordable than offshore wind, requiring less infrastructure and shorter development times. By increasing onshore wind capacity, we can keep electricity prices lower and more stable for consumers.

Our response

Given that energy bills have only been going up and are set to rise again shortly, one could be forgiven for being sceptical about this claim. For example, on Tuesday, 1 April, the Energy Price Cap will be hiked an average 6.4% (so for each £100 paid now, it’ll typically cost £106.40). This is the third consecutive hike, meaning those on Price Capped tariffs will be paying 18% more for energy than they were last summer (Money Savings Expert).

When we asked Cubico to provide evidence they suggested that modelling is available which shows that energy costs could reduce as renewables are increased in conjunction with the roll-out of battery storage. The latter is a nonsense claim since there is no possibility of grid scale battery storage becoming available any time soon, and certainly not without obscene costs, environmental damage and health & safety risks. However, when we asked Cubico to share the modelling, they refused, citing commercial confidentiality. This does not seem to be the action of a company being open and transparent.

As an aside, there is no mention in this consultation document of the associated Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) application that Cubico are also hoping to build next to Edenfield Road near Turn Village.

We currently have some of the most expensive energy costs in the world and the most expensive industrial energy, which is why we will shortly have no homegrown steel or aluminium production. This is not only an assault on jobs, but it also undermines our independence and security in an increasingly dangerous world.

Even the OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility) are forecasting increasing environmental levies:

This table does not include the costs of Feed in Tarrifs, so represents an underestimate of total costs. However, we see current costs of £9.9bn, rising to £14.8bn in only 6 years time and where will they go from there? We welcome Cubico’s explanation for how renewable energy will be cheaper against these figures!

And this table does not include the cost of a huge Carbon Capture and Storage project, coming in at £22bn! Yes, you read that right. And this is for unproven technology to bury liquified CO2 underground that probably won’t work – one project! We know the government has concerns about this project because the Chancellor’s Spring Statement includes a contingency of £8bn “in case” the technology fails. And we also know governments always underestimate costs, so this one project alone is likely to cost well over £30bn. As Paul Homewood quotes from MSN article Miliband forced to set aside £8bn over risky net zero plan:

However, the industry fears CO2 could leak from the pipelines or from underground storage sites. Such an escape on land could be not only disastrously expensive but also dangerous. Plugging a leak in a repository deep under the sea would meanwhile be both difficult and expensive.

Indeed!

CLAIM: Enhancing Energy Security & Grid Resilience

With growing electricity demand from homes, businesses and electric vehicles, the UK needs a stable and reliable energy grid. Many onshore wind farms, including Scout Moor II if approved, will connect directly to local energy networks, reducing strain on the national grid and cutting the need for costly infrastructure upgrades.

Our response

As we found out on the 8th January this year, it will be increasingly difficult to keep the lights on as renewables are rolled out further. It’s a basic fact of power engineering that the grid needs to operate within a small operating envelope of frequencies around 50Hz, and intermittent energy sources put more strain on maintaining grid frequency. They are also very difficult to bring on line after a shutdown since their more variable output frequency needs to be matched to the grid.

It is also the case that renewables have a nasty habit of dropping off suddenly or there being too much. This present severe problems in terms of balancing the grid and also leads to eye watering prices. Where normal wholesale prices might be around £50/MWh, emergency pricing has recently been as high as £5,500/MWh!

The best thing that can be said about this claim is that it is possible that Scout Moor 2 will not make the situation worse, but we doubt it. Balancing the grid is a complex task and the simplistic presentation of all the generation being consumed locally is simply not possible. And don’t just take our word for it. In their latest report Energy Bills Support, the Committee of Public Accounts highlighted this as a major issue, stating:

The Department [of Energy Security and NetZero] has more to do to convince Parliament that it has a robust plan for ensuring security of energy supply to meet increasing demand.

CLAIM: A Key Partner in a Diverse Renewable Energy Mix

Onshore wind works alongside offshore wind, solar and battery storage to create a more resilient energy system. This reduces pressure on the grid, prevents power shortages and helps keep electricity affordable and secure.

Our response

Along with many independent energy commentators we believe that the opposite is true. In the old days balancing the grid was relatively straightforward. Demand forecasts were produced and power stations notified of what they would need to supply in order to meet that demand forecast. As actual demand varied against the forecast and operational issues arose, backup power generation could be brought online. Simples.

Contrast that with the situation today. We still require demand forecasts, but we now have to factor in the potential availability of intermittent energy sources, particularly at night when we have no solar. i.e. the weather becomes a critical consideration. This makes the balancing problem very much more complex. Couple this with the closure of coal fired powers stations and we are left with increasing reliance on the few gas and nuclear plants that we still have, along with foreign imports.

What Cubico’s claim does not mention is the importance of the quality of the energy in this diverse energy mix, i.e. how efficient it is and how easy it is to turn on and off. Of course it’s a good idea to have a mix, but when the proportion of intermittent energy rises, the quality goes down and the challenge of keeping the lights on rises significantly.

CLAIM: Reducing our Dependence on Imported Gas

The UK currently relies on imported fossil fuels, which exposes us to global energy price fluctuations. The 2022 energy price crisis demonstrated the risks of this dependence, with soaring gas prices pushing up household energy bills. During the crisis, the UK spent an extra £75 billion on gas—costs that could have been significantly reduced by boosting energy efficiency and expanding domestic clean energy production.

Our response

The 2022 energy crisis could have been tackled by increasing home-grown fossil fuel or nuclear energy supplies. In fact if we had taken a long term strategic approach to energy supply, there would have been no crisis! The capital costs of fossil fuel and nuclear are higher but they can provide reliable, base-load energy 24 hours a day. In the case of fossil fuels, at much lower operating costs for the quality and quantity of energy produced. A gas fired power station would, in a free market, require no public funding. Nuclear is more expensive but has the benefit of producing no CO2.

Fossil fuel and nuclear power require much more man-power in construction and operation which would be a major gain for the economy. Compare this with Scout Moor I, owned by Munich Re, and operated remotely from Germany.

CLAIM: Faster & Easier to Deploy Than Other Renewables

Compared to offshore wind farms, onshore wind projects can be built and connected to the grid more quickly – often within just a few years. This makes them a critical solution for delivering more clean energy in the near term, helping to balance supply and demand.

Our response

The title is misleading as the claim does not compare onshore wind to other forms of renewable energy, such as solar, hydro or biomass. Small gas fired power stations can be delivered relatively quickly as would SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) once the design was finalised and the first units had been deployed.

CLAIM: Community Wealth Fund

Raising the guaranteed minimum contribution to £6,000 per MW per year to provide a stronger foundation for community investment and delivering £24 million over the project’s lifetime.

Our response

Context is all important here. Over a 40 year project this amount to £600k / annum (though they say this will be index linked). As we discussed previously, Andrew Montford found that the total cost of renewable energy schemes to the average household is £2,120. The direct levies on consumer bills are only £348 (and rising) – though few consumers realise this because the figure is not itemised. The other extra costs are generated by a variety of renewable programmes, grid reinforcement costs, inefficient gas power and higher gas prices (due to carbon levies and emergency pricing).

There are about 250,000 households in Rochdale and Rossendale so the annual costs to households locally is £2,200 x 250,000, i.e. around £530m. Even if we ignored the indirect costs, the extra energy cost alone would be £348 x 250,000, i.e. around £87m.

Therefore, Cubico are offering us £600k / annum whilst renewable support is costing us at least £87m and probably as high as £530m! per household this is £2.40 per household for a cost of between £348 to £2,200 per household. Perhaps not such a good deal after all!

The other bit of context you need to be aware of is how much profit wind farms can make. Just looking at SCOUT MOOR WIND FARM LIMITED on Companies House, we have examined the accounts for 2023 and discovered these figures:

	2022	2023
Turnover	£20.9M	£36.4M
Profit before Tax	£14.3M	£26.5M
% Turnover	68%	73%

What is incredible here is not just the size of these profits and their value as a percentage of turnover, but how they increased significantly in 2023 with no obvious change in capital or operating costs (other than cost of sales which somehow went up by £3.2M without which the profits would have been even higher). Notes to the accounts confirm that the profit is wholly due to UK energy supply. These increases must be the result of increasing costs of energy, driven we argue in large part by the plethora of renewable energy schemes. These include Contracts for Difference (guaranteed pricing), Constraint Payments (payments to turn off) and Capacity Payments (emergency supply payments).

Summary

Please don’t take our arguments at face value. Attend the open sessions with Cubico and challenge them with our analysis. We will be very interested in getting your feedback.

Further Reading

We have written extensively on the impact of renewables such as wind on grid stability and energy costs, for example: The Costs of Net Zero and Cubico response to questions concerning costs and security of renewables. More links to useful resources on this application can be found here.