The government behave in a very cynical way, although it isn't entirely ideological.
About 5 years ago I worked in wind development. It was common knowledge that the supply of good sites for larger scale (>5MW) production was becoming very limited. I think the government pretended to crack down when the opportunity was drying up naturally.
To build a wind farm you need good wind resource, a grid connection and a site that can get planning permission (not in an AONB etc). Most of the "low hanging fruit" already have planning permission for a scheme and just need to be built. The industry was running out of new sites at exactly the same time that the Government started to cut the subsidy. Without a big change to planning law the number of new sites would have dried up anyway.
This trend is also happening with solar farms. We are simply running out of suitable rural substations that can handle the demand. The government are shifting focus to more industrial sites that tend to have on-site substations with plenty of capacity. They may pretend that it is ideological but I doubt it somehow.
The energy industry is incredibly complex, and it is hard to understand the economics. The Government may actually want energy to be more expensive so that Hinkley C appears better value. The problem with having large amounts of cheap energy (onshore wind) is that it reduces the price of energy! It becomes even more complex when you consider the requirement for peaking generation.
The government are more directly involved in offshore wind.
* The Government own the sea bed (via Crown Estates) and are effectively the landlord of the wind farm.
* The secretary of state has the final say on planning permission and can "act in the national interest". They can also reject the scheme based on politics or ideology.
* The subsidy for new schemes is based on a shadowy auction process (CfD) where the Government choose which schemes get money.
In a practical sense the Government are aggressively pushing offshore wind.
The economic effect is to restrict subsidy payments to very large producers and cut out smaller suppliers who could produce energy more cheaply. Of course offshore wind will be more predictable and much less contentious. It also has the potential to fund development of support services and port facilities.
About 5 years ago I worked in wind development. It was common knowledge that the supply of good sites for larger scale (>5MW) production was becoming very limited. I think the government pretended to crack down when the opportunity was drying up naturally.
To build a wind farm you need good wind resource, a grid connection and a site that can get planning permission (not in an AONB etc). Most of the "low hanging fruit" already have planning permission for a scheme and just need to be built. The industry was running out of new sites at exactly the same time that the Government started to cut the subsidy. Without a big change to planning law the number of new sites would have dried up anyway.
This trend is also happening with solar farms. We are simply running out of suitable rural substations that can handle the demand. The government are shifting focus to more industrial sites that tend to have on-site substations with plenty of capacity. They may pretend that it is ideological but I doubt it somehow.
The energy industry is incredibly complex, and it is hard to understand the economics. The Government may actually want energy to be more expensive so that Hinkley C appears better value. The problem with having large amounts of cheap energy (onshore wind) is that it reduces the price of energy! It becomes even more complex when you consider the requirement for peaking generation.