Ed Miliband keeps telling us that the UK is so important that it needs to lead the world towards net zero (apparently he believes we’re so important that the rest of the world will follow us over that cliff, despite all the evidence to the contrary). He also tells us that more renewable energy equates to greater energy security and to lower prices. In Programming the Public I noted that one of the co-presenters of BBC Radio 4’s Rare Earth, Helen Czerski, enthusiastically told the audience earlier this year that “there was this brilliant moment [my emphasis] last week where…87% of our electricity in the UK was coming at that moment from renewables.”
Strange, then, how the statistics over the last few days – warm and still summer, remember, so a time of low demand and optimum conditions for renewables – tell a very different story.
This morning at 7.30am gas was supplying 26.8% of the UK’s electricity. Solar came in with 6.8% and wind 21.9%. Nuclear generated 12% and biomass 5.9%. Significantly, the interconnectors were supplying a net 25.2% and the price was £99.24 per MWh. Forty minutes later renewables were doing a bit better, gas was being ramped down, yet the interconnectors’ contribution had increased to a net 28.2%.
I don’t wish to “do a BBC” and quote one favourable set of data while ignoring others that don’t suit the narrative. So I checked in with the electricity generation data again late this morning – a morning when things should be about as good as they get for renewables: demand low, sun bright and high in the sky, wind picking up as the forecast low pressure moves in from the Atlantic. Sure enough, gas was down to 7.7% of the electricity mix, while solar was up to 37.4% and wind was supplying 22.2% of the UK’s electricity needs. Nuclear was providing 10% and biomass was at 6%, but the interconnectors were still supplying a net 17.7%. So much for energy security. The price was £78.56, a marked improvement from earlier in the day, but still not particularly cheap. Expecting gas-fired generators to ramp up and down according to the vagaries of the wind and solar offering doesn’t help in this regard, of course.
Some more electricity supply statistics follow in respect of the last few days:
At 8.03 pm yesterday gas was supplying 38.1% of the UK’s electricity, while wind was supplying 8.8% and (as night approached) solar was supplying a measly 0.3%. Nuclear was supplying 13.5% and biomass (subsidised as “green”, even though emitting more greenhouse gases than coal) was supplying 13.1%. A net 23.4% was being supplied via the interconnectors. Half an hour later and solar was generating no electricity at all, while the price was £98.88 per MWh.
Yesterday at 9.01am gas was supplying 30.5%; solar 7.5%; wind 5.7%; nuclear 13.4%; biomass 12.5%; and we were dependent on the interconnectors for a net 29%.
On Friday 22nd August at 8.32am, gas was supplying 39.5% of the UK’s electricity, while solar contributed nothing and wind just 7.6%. Nuclear supplied 11.7% and biomass 12.9%, while yet again we were heavily dependent on the interconnectors, to the extent of a net 26% of our electricity needs.
My thanks to contributors at the Scotland Against Spin Facebook page for updating the figures and supplying screenshots as evidence of this energy policy shambles. Those screenshots seem to be taken from the excellent iamkate website. It supplies details of the price of electricity both in the moment and historically. From this source I note that the historic average price of UK electricity is £68.47 per MWh, but that over the past year it has been £82.95 per MWh and over the past week it has been £83.38. As we increase the proportion of renewable capacity (with all the consequent back-up and constraints costs) the performance of renewables seems to deteriorate:
Renewable electricity generation dropped 4.9 percentage points to 46.3 per cent of total generation in the first quarter of 2025, as near record low wind speeds for the quarter led to a 13 per cent drop in wind generation.
However, the price keeps going up. For those who understand these things, that shouldn’t come as a surprise – Jit has provided a useful analysis here. It’s also worth noting that averages can distort reality. The price of electricity seems to be highest around breakfast time and in the evening, i.e. when demand is highest and most electricity is being used, and therefore most of the electricity used by the system is more costly than the average. Not surprising, really, given the laws of supply and demand, but it’s worth noting that solar generates least when it’s most needed – in winter; early in the morning; and in the evening.
Expensive electricity is also devastating what’s left of UK manufacturing. As a result, we seem to import more and more of our every day needs of manufactured products. As massive solar farms take over more and more prime agricultural land, no doubt we’ll also become more reliant on food imports. And while Mr Miliband stands out against any new licences for North Sea oil and gas or fracking, Britain becomes – according to the government’s own statistics – more dependent on imports of oil and gas.
Against this depressing backdrop, we await the AR7 results in respect of the contracts for difference regime later this week. We already know that the government has committed to provide “price certainty” (also known as subsidies) under AR7 for 20 years rather than the previous 15 year contracts. If they are to achieve the necessary buy-in from renewables companies to stand any chance at all of “decarbonising” the grid by 2030, I suspect the prices on offer will have to keep rising, possibly substantially. Mr Miliband seems to have given up on his promise of a £300 per annum reduction in UK households’ electricity bills – not surprisingly, really, since on his watch they are going upremorselessly, not coming down. Instead he now talks vaguely about guaranteeing lower bills “in the long-term”. How longer subsidy periods and higher subsidies can bring this about is beyond me. He also falls back on the claim that he is delivering energy security, yet we seem to be importing ever larger proportions of our electricity through the interconnectors (while rarely exporting it). This is another claim that seems to fly in the face of reality.
Let’s see what happens on Wednesday, when I understand the AR7 results will be announced. Watch this space. In the meantime, the UK is indeed a nation of great import – just not in the sense that Mr Miliband would have us believe.
Climate Scepticism 
I too have been noticing how much the interconnectors have been supplying recently — and as you say, never much going the other way. I am not quite clear who determines the proportions allocated, I have read about the trading desks that are constantly responding to supply and demand but does NESO determine where to acquire the flows? Or is it also determined by price offer? In which case, is there a surplus on the continent, say from French nuclear stations, that is being keenly priced to ensure it is taken up and sent to the UK?
LikeLike
heriotjohn,
I wish I knew the answer to your question. Whilst it is far from a good idea to be dependent on foreigners for our electricity, there might be some small consolation if the fact of our doing so means that it’s helping to keep prices down.
The evidence – rising prices – would suggest, however, that this isn’t the case. I seem to remember an analysis by David Turver some time ago which showed very clearly that we tend to import electricity much more expensively than we export it.
Being somewhat cynical, I also suspect that if imports were cheap, Miliband would be banging on about it, albeit I recognise that he might not be too keen to draw attention to this undermining of his claims about energy security. The fact that this information isn’t readily accessible, I suggest tells us everything we need to know about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is it just me or has anybody else noticed how “electricitycentric” this whole debate has become? It most certainly is not a debate about “renewable energy” but (alleged) “renewable electricity”. Think about the absurdity of nearly all washing machines and dishwashers now being cold water fill only (in the past most models had a hot water filling option, EBAC still do) So even if you have solar thermal panels supplying hot water you still end up electrically heating the water for clothes or dish washing! Or how about having an electrically powered heat pump to then use an immersion heater to raise the water temperature
Roof mounted solar PV panels are very low in conversion efficiency of solar insolation into electrical energy – real world is under 15%. Contrast that with an evacuated tube solar thermal panel with a conservative 75% conversion rate, at least 5 times better. The problem here is how much hot water can normally be used in a typical home at time of supply? Here is the thing though, it is far easier to store heat than electricity and there are numerous ways of doing that in a compact manner. One way is to use thermochemical storage where there is a reversible process of A + B ⇌ C + Heat.
Thus take product C, heat it up (Summer) and it breaks down to separate products A & B to store. When heat is needed (winter) recombine products A & B (in a “reactor/”boiler) creates C and returns the heat stored. The process can be repeated hundreds of times. The real world examples use anhydrous salts (A) and water (B) with this latter not stored as it is readily available on demand. Only 2 products require some form of storing in liquid forms i.e A & C.
This is not new technology, has a high energy density (3GJ/m3) and would be a potential means of storing, on site, excess summer heat for winter hot water and central heating. An evacuated tube solar thermal panel can easily achieve 120°C (yes they can actually boil water if set up to do so – and with no energy take off over 200°C is possible!). Annual solar insolation is typically 1000 kWh/m2. A modest south facing (sloping) roof of 6m x 5m has a theoretical 30,000 kWh solar radiation hitting it. Typical annual gas consumption for hot water and heating is in the region of 12,000kWh.
There is in reality a long way to go in development to make this sort of system a commercial reality and this is the nub of the problem. When ignorant/corrupt politicians sanction one type of technology (electricitycentrically) by pumping in £billions of others money into it, there is no intelligent innovation or development of much more practical options.
Lecture over!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correction/clarification: Although Wednesday is the closing day for AR7, the results of the round aren’t expected to be released until late 2025 or early 2026. My thanks to a private correspondent for pointing that out.
LikeLike
Ray Sanders,
This government’s bizarre obsession with “decarbonising” the grid by 2030 is wholly unrealistic. However, that fact pales into insignificance when one considers that we currently rely on electricity for one-fifth (or less) of our energy needs. All the low-hanging fruit has been picked long since. Net zero is an absurd pipe dream.
LikeLike
In the interests of balance, solar is currently supplying 35.3% and wind 37.6% of the UK’s electricity needs. Gas is on 8.4% and the interconnectors are down to 3.9%. The price is just £37.73 per MWh. It’s just such a shame that this rare event is when demand is at its lowest. Even now we are still importing electricity.
LikeLike
That was as good as it got. Already, gas is back up to 18.2%, while solar is down to 22.1% and wind is up to 43.6%. Price is back up to £65.87 per MWh, but we are – for once – exporting a net 0.6%.
LikeLike
Today’s (or, rather, the last 24 hours’) iamkate graph is very interesting. It commences with the price of electricity at around £100 per MWh, falling to around £80 at about 4am, rising to almost £120 at about 6.30am, easing down to about £85, then falling off a cliff at around 10am – presumably as the sun rose high in the sky, at the very time that demand fell. It bottomed out at around £7 at around 1.30pm, before rising rapidly again, just in time for the high demand of evening. Right now it’s £102.77 per MWh. This doesn’t strike me as a sensible way to run the grid.
LikeLike
Yesterday afternoon and evening it was almost as if the powers that be responded to my criticism. For a few hours we were (for the first time that I have noticed in a long time) exporting electricity via the interconnectors. The level of exports may have gone above 5%, but if it did, I didn’t notice it.
Never mind, here in the morning high demand period, normal service has been resumed. The price is currently, £113.18 per MWh, and the interconnectors are supplying a net 20% of our needs. Wind is doing the heavy lifting (41.2%), but solar hasn’t kicked in yet (1.1%) and gas is at 18.2%.
LikeLike
It’s been all imports again today, so far as I am aware, though not on the same scale as earlier in the month. Just now we are receiving a net 5.6% via the interconnectors, solar is supplying just 6.7%, while wind provides us with 27.5%. Meanwhile we are again dependent on gas for 39.8%.
Oh yes, one more thing – the price is £124.38 per MWh.
LikeLike
Given how much electricity the UK imports through the interconnectors, with particular reference to Norway, this is interesting:
“Norway’s electricity crisis is about to hit Britain”
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/norway-electricity-crisis-hit-britain-063000888.html
Stop someone on the street in London and ask them about interconnectors and chances are they will look at you blankly. But in Oslo, energy trading through these massive undersea cables has become a major issue. And one with huge implications for Britain.
There is a real chance that Norway will run out of water this winter, meaning it will not be able to maintain electricity supplies to Great Britain. Norway could be forced to restrict exports under new powers which allow them to be restricted if there is a prospect of hydrological shortages. And not just once the shortages manifest....
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – thanks for the link, well worth a read. Ominous how that article ends –
“With parliamentary elections in just over a week’s time, and a real prospect of electricity rationing this winter, it’s time that Norwegian politicians put Norwegians first and stop pandering to European neighbours who have chosen to under-invest in their own generation capacity.
And British policymakers should take note – even if Norway does not make a political decision to suspend exports, a lack of water will have the same result. Whether by politics or by physics, Britain cannot rely on Norwegian hydro this winter. Indeed Norway might have to import two gas power stations worth of baseload generation from Britain this coming winter, essentially doubling the adverse impact on our grid.
Policymakers must face that reality now, not when the lights flicker.”
LikeLike
Mark, dfh,
There’s a further implication of Norway’s likely reduction in exports which is a bit between the lines in the the article but has been highlighted several times by commenter It Doesn’t Add Up.
Norway also exports to Denmark and Holland that are regular suppliers to the UK. That’s a further 2.4 GW that may not be available on top of our direct import of 1.4 GW. We can’t expect those countries to continue supplying us if the loss of imports from Norway leaves them tight on capacity. So we could be short 3.8GW…..
LikeLiked by 3 people
Energy Voice has an interesting article on the prospects for Norway’s power exports (and for its oil & gas industry) depending on the result of the election on Sept 8:
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/norway/579671/norway-election-energy-policy-power-exports-coalition/
This little para caught my eye: “Norway’s top export to the UK is gas, reaching £12.3 billion for 2024-25. Oil is second, at £9.2bn, electricity at £832mn and refined oil at £741mn.”
The scale of the oil and gas imports rather surprised me and it gives an indication of the potential economic benefits of expanding our own production – or at least slowing the decline – that we have lost.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MikeH – thanks as usual for an interesting & informative article link. Many quotes I could lift but will settle for the end quote –
“Crossroads – Norwegian election highlights a paradox. The country needs to balance its domestic needs with international demands. The country’s role as supplier has been taken for granted, but this is a mistake. The result of its domestic political pressures will play out beyond its borders in the decade to come.
European energy planners will be watching voting on 8 September closely, along with the seemingly inevitable coalition construction process. What voters are considering in Norway will have an impact on the rest of Europe during a crucial period.”
Makes me think of great British comedy – the Norwegian Blue, Monty Python parrot sketch, for some reason.
LikeLike
Very interesting article in the Telegraph by Kathryn Porter:
“Norway’s uneasy energy stalemate is a threat to Britain
A hung election has emboldened parties that want to curb Oslo’s power exports”
It can be accessed here:
https://archive.ph/ooESn#selection-2253.4-2257.81
The concluding paragraphs, following Norway’s recent election:
...The upshot is an uneasy stalemate. No party in Norway is willing to approve new cables, but there is also no majority to cancel existing ones.
Labour says Statnett may apply to renew Skagerrak 1 and 2 but is “not minded” to grant approval. The Conservatives have adopted neutrality, while the Centre Party demands outright cancellation. The Progress Party promises renegotiation. The Greens argue for more integration, but their support is not decisive.
Meanwhile, reservoir levels remain close to 20-year lows. If the rains fail, Norway may be forced into rationing generation or limiting exports. Britain, which built interconnectors to secure imports in times of low wind and sun, may find they depend on rain in southern Norway.
One way or another, keeping the lights on depends on the weather – not what most people would associate with energy security.
LikeLike