Let the lesson be learned: security of energy supply is paramount

A commission has been set up to deliver definitive answers about why it happened. Inevitably, many fingers have been pointed at Spain’s reliance on renewable energy, particularly solar power, which may or may not prove to be the culprit. At one level, it doesn’t really matter.

The most important outcome is to remind governments that one of their non-negotiable duties is to keep the lights on. While public opinion might just about tolerate the novelty of a national power cut, it certainly will not expect it to happen again. No matter how many companies or regulators are involved, the buck stops with politicians.

There is no imminent threat, as far as we know, of anything similar happening here. Rightly, security of supply is given precedence over everything else. So we pay whatever the market dictates at any given minute of the day to ensure that supply stays ahead of demand, though sometimes it is a close-run thing. That’s one of the reasons we pay so much for electricity.

Read more by Brian Wilson

• Can Great British Energy overcome the resistance of vested interests?
• The surest way to address fuel poverty is to get bills down
• Forbes needs to stop grandstanding on energy and answer hard questions

In all the talk about energy transitions, security of supply is rarely mentioned, particularly by our righteous Greens. For them, that is someone else’s problem.  Yet the scale of what is happening to our generation mix is taking us into new territory in which ideology is of little help. We need to take power from wherever it is available to keep the lights on.

It is always instructive to look at where our electricity is coming from at any given moment. As I write, I am really surprised to find that the biggest single source of the country’s power is solar panels, with 35.7 per cent. In contrast, wind is contributing a miserable 3.2 per cent. On a different kind of day, these figures can reverse or maybe they’ll both be at 3.2 per cent. So what then?

The answer is, of course, that we are still hugely reliant for baseload on the two most vilified sources of power – fossil fuels and nuclear, without which we would be in the same state as Spain, only for much, much longer.  In my snapshot, gas is pitching in 23.1 per cent while the remnants of nuclear, after decades of irrational hostility, still contributes a defiant 11.1 per cent. 

A vast – and wildly expensive - programme of grid upgrades is under way in every part of Britain to accommodate the growth of renewables.  The scale of that challenge will escalate as offshore wind farms proliferate. Indeed, the biggest obstacle to “decarbonising the grid” by 2030 comes from delays in this rewiring of Britain which will hit opposition every time a new pylon is proposed.

Projections suggest that if all the pieces in that jigsaw fall into place, which seems unlikely, we could be down to five per cent of electricity being generated from gas by 2030. But the problem will still remain. What happens when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine?

We’ll still need back-up to ensure the system does not fail and the Office for Budget Responsibility reckons, in that scenario, we’ll be paying gas power stations £4 billion a year by 2029-30 just to be on standby.  All these costs mount up and, in my view, the prospects of renewables bringing lower bills any time soon are net zero.

What happens to our electricity supply when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine? (Image: PA)

The danger for government is that at some point, affordability rears its head as a problem. Until now, there have been other reasons to point to for high energy bills. In the long term, I am prepared to believe renewables will be a cheaper option. For the next couple of decades, however, energy transition is likely to be a cost rather than a saving, unless we have the good sense to maintain a balanced energy policy.

The polarisation between “renewables good” and “everything else bad” is full of pitfalls and contradictions. Take, for instance, the ten per cent coming yesterday from “biomass”; almost all of it from the Drax power station in Yorkshire.

I remember when biomass was classified as a renewable for subsidy pursposes, the image was of coppice willow being planted to fuel an environmentally-friendly rural industry. We certainly didn’t envisage an energy giant importing vast quantities of wood from Mississipi in order to harvest subsidy on an industrial scale - £6.5 billion over the past three years.

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee said last week that biomass companies were left to “mark their own homework” when it comes to proving their fuel meets sustainability standards. Meanwhile in Mississipi, Drax is being dragged through the courts as a serial polluter and there is incredulity that it is subsidised in the UK as a “green” energy producer.

To be fair, that scandal developed under the Tories and Labour Ministers have now taken steps to cap Drax’s profits. But it illustrates the point that attaching a green label does not guarantee virtue. Throw in the new ban on solar panels made by slave labour in China and the ethical presumptions of the green lobby start to ring a bit hollow.

For 20 years at least, we are going to need gas (preferably from the North Sea),  nuclear (hopefully for a while longer in Scotland), lots of pump storage hydro (for which we are uniquely  placed) and everything else that contributes to these three imperatives of energy policy.  Get them out of balance and, before you can say olé,  problems are guaranteed to follow – for security of supply and also for governments.

Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003