The UK has some of the highest energy prices in the developed world. Despite the Labour government’s pledges to lower our energy bills, energy secretary Ed Miliband has continued to double down on failing policies. The cost of Net Zero – in subsidies, on energy bills and, ultimately, economic devastation – is now abundantly clear to all but the fiercest of green ideologues. Kathryn Porter, an independent energy consultant and founder of Watt-Logic, sat down with spiked’s Fraser Myers to discuss the UK’s self-inflicted energy disaster. What follows is an edited version of that conversation.

Fraser Myers: The current government, particularly with Ed Miliband in charge of energy, seems dead set on Net Zero. It is especially committed to wind power, claiming it will reduce our bills. What do you make of that?

Kathryn Porter: When environmentalists tell you that wind energy is cheap, clean and ‘practically free’, they’re taking on a very ignorant position. Of course wind is free. But the machines that you need to convert that wind into electricity aren’t. They cost billions of pounds to build. This is evidenced by the fact that we started subsidising wind in 1990. Thirty-five years later, Ed Miliband wants to offer 20-year subsidies for new wind farms in Britain. That means at least 55 years of subsidies. To begin with, we were sold these subsidies on the basis that this is an immature technology. ‘If you don’t support it in the early days, it’ll never get anywhere’. Well, I’m sorry, but after 35 years, we should be past the early days. If you can’t make your economic model stand on its own feet after that long, there’s something pretty fundamentally wrong with it.

Last year, the subsidy price for offshore wind was £83 per megawatt hour, while the wholesale price of electricity was £73. So offshore wind was 13 per cent more expensive than gas. That’s why Ørsted cancelled its flagship Hornsea 4 project – it simply wasn’t economic.

Now, subsidies will run for 20 years instead of 15, giving developers extra security. But prices are still likely to be higher than last year’s. Wholesale electricity has also risen, driven partly by higher carbon prices. When Keir Starmer announced plans to align the UK’s carbon trading scheme with Europe’s, where prices are much higher, UK carbon prices jumped 30 per cent overnight, and we’re likely to see another similar increase as full harmonisation happens.

Enjoying spiked?

Why not make an instant, one-off donation?

We are funded by you. Thank you!

£2
£5
£20
£50

Choose an amount

Donate now

Please wait…

Another factor is the weather. Despite more turbines, wind output has actually fallen by six per cent. Imports are down 10 per cent because Europe too has seen low wind and low hydro. As a result, gas use is up 17 per cent, often from older, less efficient plants built in the 1990s. That pushes up costs further.

And it’s not just the subsidies. Wind only produces about 35 per cent of its theoretical capacity – meaning turbines don’t work two-thirds of the time. So you need gas plants on standby, which is expensive. You also have to pay for grid connections in remote areas, and because infrastructure isn’t keeping up, turbines are often switched off – costing billions each year. On top of that, the system has to manage real-time fluctuations from every gust and lull, which adds further billions. So the end cost of renewables to the consumer is significantly higher than the cost of generating electricity using gas.

Myers: Do you think fracking might be the way to go?

Porter: The geologists I speak to are split on fracking. Some insist we have oodles of frackable gas and would be foolish not to use it. Others argue we don’t. The reality is we simply don’t know because the appraisal work hasn’t been done. That’s why I think we should do it.

At present, seismic restrictions are set absurdly low – about 0.5 on the Richter scale, which is barely more than dropping a pen on the floor. That even hampers geothermal drilling, not just fracking. Raising the limit to around three, or three-and-a-half, would be reasonable. At that level, you might see a cup rattle on its saucer, but nothing more.

We’d also need sensible rules around water use, since the UK doesn’t have endless clean water to spare. But with those caveats, I’d let the market decide: allow companies to invest their own money, establish whether we really have viable frackable resources, and, if we do, let them get on with it.

Myers: What would a sensible energy policy fit for the 21st century look like?

Porter: I imagine it would look like the complete opposite of what Ed Miliband is doing now. And controversially, I think we may have no real choice but to consider a return to coal. That’s not something I say lightly.

Right now, we rely heavily on our gas fleet, but a third of it was built in the 1990s and is nearing the end of its life. Within five years, a large chunk of our gas plants could retire – at the same time as most of our nuclear reactors. That would leave us unable to meet demand. We’d face rationing, with huge economic and social consequences.

The obvious answer is to build more gas power stations. But right now the lead time to buy a gas turbine is eight years. By contrast, you can get a coal turbine in about three years. So, unpalatable as it is, we may be forced back to coal if we want to keep the lights on. Modern coal is far cleaner than in the past, though still dirtier than gas and, of course, nuclear.

All things being equal, I’d like to build as much nuclear as possible, with gas as the bridge. But all things are not equal. The reality is we’re facing severe supply-chain constraints, and you have to play the hand you’re dealt. Above all, we need to prioritise energy security – and we need to start planning now, before our ageing gas fleet retires.

Myers: So an energy crisis is on the cards if the government doesn’t change its course?

Porter: Yes, and it’s not just about electricity generation. Our grid infrastructure is also ageing badly. Power lines last a long time, but transformers don’t. Most of ours date back to a huge wave of investment in the 1970s, and we’ve had no proper replacement plan since. We’re already seeing more transformer fires reported – the Heathrow failure, for example, involved equipment installed in the 1960s. These assets won’t last forever, and when they fail, the consequences can be huge.

Right now, investment priorities are skewed towards connecting renewables rather than maintaining the infrastructure we already rely on. That’s dangerous. If major assets fail, large parts of the grid could go down. When Heathrow’s transformer blew, it cut power to 60,000 homes and businesses. Next time, it could be worse.

We’ve taken our eye off the ball. We need to think about ‘boring’ things like looking after our legacy infrastructure and generation, because they’re reliable. Even if you want to move to renewables, you can’t risk blackouts. Everyone knows the wind doesn’t blow all the time. Without a secure baseload, you end up with not only expensive energy but insecure energy.

And insecure energy is deadly. In Iberia, blackouts cost 11 lives – and that was in Goldilocks weather conditions. A winter blackout in Britain could mean 10 times that many deaths, if not more.

Kathryn Porter was talking to Fraser Myers. Watch the full conversation below:

Help us hit our 1% target

spiked is funded by you. It’s your generosity that keeps us going and growing.

Only 0.1% of our regular readers currently donate to spiked. If you are one of the 99.9% who appreciates what we do, but hasn’t given just yet, please consider making a donation today.

If just 1% of our loyal readers donated regularly, it would be transformative for us, allowing us to vastly expand our team and coverage.

Plus, if you donate £5 a month or £50 a year, you can join