Miliband shuns £25bn UK-Morocco renewable energy project Xlinks
The government is snubbing a £25bn renewable energy project which promised to import enough solar and wind power from Morocco to meet nearly a tenth of the UK's electricity demand.
Sky News has learnt that Ed Miliband, the energy security and net zero secretary, has decided not to proceed to formal negotiations with Xlinks, a privately owned company, about a 25-year price guarantee agreement.
A ministerial statement is expected to be made confirming the decision later on Thursday.
The government's move to snub Xlinks after protracted talks with the company will come as a surprise to energy industry executives given the company's pledge to deliver large quantities of power at a price roughly half of that to be generated by new nuclear power stations.
Xlinks, which is chaired by the former Tesco chief executive Sir Dave Lewis, had been seeking to agree a 25-year contract for difference with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which would have guaranteed a price for the power generated by the project.
One Whitehall insider said its decision was partly motivated by a desire to focus on "homegrown" energy supplies - an assertion queried by industry sources.
Sir Dave told The Sunday Telegraph earlier this year that Xlinks would switch its focus to another country if the UK government did not agree to support the project.
The company is now expected to explore other commercial opportunities.
Xlinks had not been seeking taxpayer funding for it, and claimed it could help solve the 'intermittency problem' of variable supply to UK households and businesses.
Reducing manufacturers' energy costs was the centrepiece of the government's industrial strategy launched earlier this week.
Sources said that market-testing of the financing for Xlinks construction of a 4000-kilometre cable between Morocco and the Devon coast had been significantly oversubscribed.
Xlinks' investors include Total, the French energy giant, with the company having raised about £100m in development funding so far.
The company has said it would be able to deliver energy at £48-per-megawatt hour, significantly lower than that of new nuclear power stations such as the one at Sizewell C in Suffolk to which the government allocated more than £14bn of taxpayers' money earlier this month.
It was unclear whether the growing risk of undersea cable sabotage was one of the factors behind the government's decision not to engage further with Xlinks.
In an interview with Sky News in 2022, Sir Dave said Xlinks enjoyed low geopolitical risk because of Britain's centuries-old trading relationship with Morocco and the north African country's ambitions of growing the energy sector as a share of its exports.
"The Moroccan government has recognised that exporting green [energy] is a very important part of their economic plan going forward, so they have an export strategy," he t said at the time.
"The Sahara desert is probably one of the best places in the world to generate renewable energy from... so you have a very long period of generation.
"And if you're capturing that energy and adding some battery storage, you can generate energy to cover a little bit more than 20 hours a day, which makes it a fantastic partner for the UK."
The former Tesco chief added that the quality of modern high-voltage cables meant that energy could now be transported "over very long distances with very, very few losses".
Sir Dave said the technology risks associated with the project were relatively small, citing examples of much longer cable links being planned elsewhere in the world.
"The benefit here is that it's proven technology with a very committed reliable partner with a cost profile...that we will never [be able to] match in the UK," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Ministers race to save major fuel factory from closure
Ministers are racing to save Britain's largest bioethanol plant after the owner warned it would be forced to close the site without state intervention. On Thursday, Associated British Foods (ABF) said it had entered into last-ditch talks with the Government about securing support for its Vivergo Fuels business in Hull, which is losing £3m a month. Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, also confirmed he was engaging 'in good faith' with the company and could commit taxpayer money to a rescue package. If the negotiations fail, ABF's bosses have threatened to close the factory by Sept 13. The company has accused ministers of rendering its business unprofitable by awarding subsidies to rival American producers. Bosses had previously warned they would decide this week whether to close the plant, which makes bioethanol for blending into petrol and employs around 150 people. But ABF said it had entered 'formal negotiations' about whether the site could be kept going. It is understood that the decision follows an intervention by Mr Reynolds. The Government's offer to the company remains unclear. But ABF is demanding 'short-term funding of Vivergo's losses' as well as a longer-term deal to put its plant on a profitable footing again. In a move that piled further pressure on ministers, the company warned: 'Given the outcome of the negotiations is uncertain, Vivergo is simultaneously beginning consultation with employees to effect an orderly wind-down.' The plant, which can produce 420,000m litres of bioethanol per year, had already stopped ordering wheat feedstock, it added. Losing the facility would leave the UK more reliant on foreign imports and dent ambitions for domestic production of sustainable aviation fuel. The chemicals sector is described as one of several 'foundation industries' in the industrial strategy published by ministers on Monday. A spokesman for the Government said ABF's latest ultimatum was 'disappointing to see', while Mr Reynolds described it as 'premature'. Mr Reynolds told journalists: 'We have secured a mandate across government to negotiate with them. 'That means we're willing to engage with them and potentially put government money into a restructure to make sure they've got a strong future. 'We have met them many times. We've engaged the consultants and we're well into the process. 'Frankly, I really do regret the Vivergo's decision to start consultations to let the workforce go and close the plant.' Only two plants in the UK make bioethanol, which is most commonly blended with petrol to make greener fuels such as E5 and E10. The vast majority of production uses primary feedstocks such as sugar crops or wheat that are processed to yield fermentable sugars that are then converted into ethanol. Because the fuel is made from plants, it is regarded as renewable. But the Department for Transport has been accused of undermining domestic bioethanol producers by awarding green energy subsidies to American producers that make the chemical from waste, which is seen as more eco-friendly. ABF and domestic competitor Ensus say ministers then compounded the problem by striking a trade deal with the US that grants American bioethanol producers tariff-free access to the UK market. The trade deal has not yet taken effect but ABF says its plant in Hull is already unprofitable and cannot be sustained. It has already written £700m off its value. Ensus, which runs the country's only other bioethanol plant, has similarly warned that its facility in Teesside is at risk. Previous talks between the companies and the Government had not made serious progress. But it is understood that Mr Reynolds and Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, met company bosses on Tuesday and that the Government has brought in consultants to examine ABF's proposed rescue package. ABF is asking for an end to the green energy certificates being awarded to American producers.
Daily Record
23 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Reliable UK mobile networks for shoppers, including EE and Lyca after Three issues
If you've been affected by the Three downtime and are considering looking elsewhere, these two networks have branded one of the most reliable With Three experiencing a serious outage on Wednesday, thousands of customers were left unable to make or receive calls, or send messages. The service has now been restored to "near-normal levels" according to a statement from Three, but that's still left a lot of angry customers. If the downtime has left you thinking about switching, you might be wondering which is the most reliable mobile phone network in the UK? According to Rootmetrics, an independent mobile analytics firm, EE is the most reliable network in the UK. The data comes from the second half of 2024, but sees EE as the best network overall, leading in Rootmetric's scoring. That scoring assesses reliability, accessibility, speed, data, calls, text and video, with EE sitting in the top spot and Vodafone coming in second in UK-wide performance. For those Three customers wondering how their network came out, the Rootmetrics data sees Three's scores declining slightly from the first half of 2024 in terms of overall performance, with the company in third place from the big four networks. EE summer sale EE is currently offering a range of summer deals, including unlimited data SIMs from £24 a month, the iPhone 16 from £43 a month or the Pixel 9 Pro from under £40 a month, both with 5GB data on a 24-month contract. Note that in these deals there's £30 upfront and the phone payments are spread across 36 months, separate from the SIM tariff. If those prices sound a little high, then there's another way to access EE's service through a virtual network. Lyca Mobile runs on the EE network, where you can get a 30GB data, unlimited UK calls and texts and 100 international minutes, for £9 a month on a 12-month contract. Switching is now incredibly easy, all shoppers have to do is send the word "PAC" to 65075 and the switching process will be started. Once you receive the PAC code, you'll pass that over to your new network and that's it. If you're planning to stick with Three, the company is undergoing transformation as the newly merged Vodafone Three network. That's going to bring together Three and Vodafone and should result in customers getting better network access. When Vodafone Three was announced recently, the company said that millions of customers would get a 4G speed boost "within just two weeks", but it seems that instead those customers were faced with no connectivity instead. In the longer term, Three customers will benefit from Vodafone's existing network with plans to invest £11bn in infrastructure and in the next couple of months, Three customers will be able to use Vodafone's network to boost their own connection. Currently, it hasn't been confirmed what caused the Three network problems on 25 June.
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Son born from mother's secret affair could lose share of £14.5m family fortune as his half-brother bids to cut him out of late toy tycoon's will
The son of a millionaire toy maker has re-launched his bid to boot his illegitimate half-brother out of the £14.5m family fortune. Stuart Marcus built a multi-million pound games empire after beginning selling dolls' houses from a room above a small east London toy shop in the 1960s. Shortly before he died, he put £14.5m worth of company shares into trust for his 'children': brothers Edward, 47, and Jonathan, 43. But the family was thrown into turmoil amidst the revelation that Edward was not Stuart's son, but instead the product of an affair between his mother, Patricia Marcus, and lawyer Sydney Glossop. Last year, a judge ruled that Stuart was not Edward's father, but said that the older half-sibling could still benefit from the £14.5m fortune on the basis that both brothers were meant to share it. Both sons had worked in the company, even as Edward knew that he was not Stuart's son - a secret he was told by his mother, and that he kept from his half-brother from more than a decade. Stuart - dubbed 'a modest man with a big dream and a big heart' by business colleagues - founded Kitfix Hobbies in 1962 and carved out a major niche in toys, board games and craft kits. The disputed trust he set up holds shares valued at £14.5m in the family companies, in which both brothers worked as the brand grew and diversified into other fields, with Jonathan heading up successful commercial operations in Germany. But since 2016, relations between the two brothers soured, climaxing in the High Court clash, in which Jonathan claimed Edward should be excluded from benefiting under the trust. Jonathan claimed Edward was the product of a one-night stand his mum Patricia Marcus, 82, had with a lawyer named Sydney Glossop while his dad was away on business. That claim was based on Jonathan's discovery in 2023 of the 'monumental' news that Patricia had confided in Edward that he wasn't Stuart's son during a confidential chat 14 years ago. Although Edward kept his secret for more than a decade, when Jonathan learned the news it triggered a court fight as he tried to have Edward removed as a beneficiary of the multimillion-pound family trust established before Stuart's death, aged 86, in 2020. Jonathan commissioned DNA evidence to back his claim, while his mum told the court herself that she had no doubt that Edward's real dad was Sydney, with whom she had a brief encounter over 40 years ago. After three days in court last year, a judge, Master Matthew Marsh, found that the evidence confirmed that Edward is not Stuart's son. 'A reasonable person in knowledge of the relevant facts would readily conclude that, when using 'children,' Stuart intended this word to be understood as meaning Edward and Jonathan; and not Edward and Jonathan provided they are in fact my biological sons,' he concluded. He highlighted the 'cogent and reliable' DNA test evidence, as well as compelling testimony from the two half-siblings' own mother. But he went on to find that the family trust does not exclude Edward, as in the context of the trust settlement, the word 'children' meant both boys. Jonathan has since launched an appeal against the ruling that his half-brother was entitled to a share of the trust, which was heard at court this week with judgement to come at a later date. This week, representing Jonathan in an appeal at the High Court, barrister Thomas Braithwaite argued that Master Marsh had got it wrong and that Edward should not benefit. He insisted that the word 'children' in the trust document meant 'biological children' and so could not include Edward as he was not sired by Stuart. Stuart's trust described the beneficiaries as his 'children,' which Mr Braithwaite insisted could only be taken in its ordinary meaning, 'biological children.' 'The word 'children' simply cannot be a placeholder for two specific people,' he told High Court judge, Sir Anthony Mann. He added that there had been a 'common mistaken assumption' when the document was created that the boys were both Stuart's children. 'Everything else in the background needs to be seen through the prism of that mistaken assumption that Edward was Stuart's biological son,' he said. 'What does children mean? It means biological children, of course. 'Stuart intended to benefit Edward, but he believed Edward was his biological child. 'The fact Edward was brought up in the family and the fact the purpose of this settlement was to benefit the people Stuart thought to be his children simply goes to establish that the interpretation of the word 'children' that should be adopted is the ordinary one. 'A reasonable person with all the background, including the mistaken assumption that Edward was Stuart's biological child, is going to say it refers to biological children.' But barrister Matthew Mills, for Edward, argued that it was obvious that Stuart had intended to benefit Edward and urged the judge to dismiss Jonathan's appeal. 'Jonathan is doing this to try to take away from Edward any rights in this multi-million pound family business,' he told the High Court judge. 'It is entirely appropriate, on the facts of this case, to define the class of beneficiaries as Edward and Jonathan - as the master did. 'Stuart intended to benefit Edward, who he designated and thought to be his child. Realistically, the reasonable person would think that Edward is a beneficiary of this settlement.' Following last year's trial, Edward, now an in-house solicitor for a housing company, was left having to pay £150,000 towards his brother's legal bills after Master Marsh criticised him for bringing the paternity fight to court. He said that, once the DNA evidence was known, it was 'as clear as could be' that he was not going to be able to prove he was Stuart's biological son. Following a half-day in court, Sir Anthony reserved his judgment on Jonathan's bid to exclude his brother from the family fortune until a later date.
