As we move towards the end of a long hot, dry summer, with several heatwaves across some (but not all) parts of the UK and wildfires which, though mostly started by accidents or by arsonists, are inevitably blamed on climate change, it feels strange to see vindication hurtling towards we net zero and climate sceptics.

The BBC and the Guardian and all the rest of them are doubling down on the doom narrative, but reality has an awkward way of making its effects felt. This is the third time I have recorded that pennies are starting to drop. More than eighteen months ago I reported on a slot on BBC Radio 4’s PM programme that allowed the problems of winter dunkelflautes to be explored. A few days later I reported on another slot on PM that gave airspace to the reality that net zero and renewable energy are causing UK electricity bills to rise to dangerous levels that are endangering the viability of British businesses. We’ve had to wait a little over eighteen months for a really big penny to drop, but it seems to have just done so.

The cynic in me wonders if, now that we have a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the focus is shifting from Net Zero towards Energy Security. Perhaps, thinking cynically again, the government has started briefing the media about a pivot back towards gas and the need to ensure that we maintain gas supplies. I assume that there has been a lot of chatter between ministers and journalists regarding the government paper “Gas System in Transition: Security of Supply – Interim Response” published yesterday (“the Report”). Having spent years deliberately making gas more expensive (so as to make expensive electricity seem relatively less expensive), suddenly (albeit very belatedly) there seems to be an understanding in high places that we are still going to need gas for a long time to come and that there is a danger that it might not be there when we need it. The fact that this is the direct result of policy decisions made to support the Net Zero agenda means that politicians with red faces need to find a solution that doesn’t explicity acknowledge the cause of the problem. Sadly, as so often seems to be the case, it seems that the solution may be to throw money (lots of taxpayers’ money) at the problem to try to make it go away (and to make sure the gas doesn’t go away).

So much for the generalities and my cynical take on them. The reality is that yesterday, Nils Pratley, writing in the Guardian produced an article with the heading “Ministers are waking up to Britain’s gas supply risks. It’s time for decisions” and a sub-heading “Despite declining consumption, the country will still need lots of gas in coming years but solutions aren’t forthcoming”.

He went on to use my own language, his opening paragraph being as follows:

The penny is dropping in government. Britain, even in rapid energy transition mode, will still need a lot of gas in the years ahead – and needs to know how the gas will arrive.

He pointed out that 24 million UK households have a gas connection, mostly for heating, and that “the pace of heat pumps adoption is miserable”. He then produces the remarkable (but true) statistic that gas still provides one-third of the UK’s energy needs – a fact that is conveniently overlooked by net zero enthusiasts who seem to think that the proportion of electricity generated by renewables is the important statistic. How often have we heard and seen energy being conflated with electricity? As Mr Pratley goes on to point out “[t]hough annual consumption is in decline, the days of peak use during a bleak midwinter can still be as high as ever.”

This is borne out by the most recent Government data I have been able to find, namely the UK Energy Trends data for January to March 2026, which was released on 30th June 2026. This tells us that:

Gas demand decreased by 5.1 per cent in Quarter 1 2026 compared to Quarter 1 2025, driven by a 17 per cent decrease in gas used for electricity generation, due in part to record levels of wind generation displacing gas. Gas demand by final consumers was stable in Quarter 1 2026 compared to Quarter 1 2025. Consumption by the industrial and services sectors (which includes commercial and public administration) decreased by 7.1 and 5.3 per cent respectively. Demand by domestic (household) users, which makes up the largest proportion of final consumption, increased by 2.5 per cent despite warmer temperatures this year compared with last.

I will be interested to see what the data for the second and third quarters look like in due course, because I have noticed that during this spring and summer gas seems to have been riding to the rescue quite a lot in terms of keeping the lights on when wind and solar generation have faltered.

But back to Mr Pratley and the Guardian. If his analysis is correct it offers a damning indictment of politicians and indeed of officials at DESNZ:

The difficulty has been getting ministers to focus on the combination of declining North Sea volumes (about 40% of supply), skimpy levels of gas storage and limited capacity for importing the stuff via tanker. Until now, the default position under successive governments has been that the market will provide.

But how and why would the market provide? Gas producers are being clobbered with penal rates of “windfall” tax, and increasing levels of artifical carbon costs are being loaded on to the price of gas. Politicians have interfered with the market to the point where it is close to collapse. BP has recentlyannounced a decision to pull out of the North Sea as a result, to name just one consequence of these dangerous and foolish policies.

And now it seems that “the government thinks it will probably have to intervene to ensure sufficient gas capacity and infrastructure is in place. That could mean contracts to underpin more storage, more import terminals or something else.”

Mr Pratley makes three main observations regarding the Report. First, he recognises the sense of urgency that is required and urges ministers to get on with sorting this out. He notes that Michael Shanks, the Energy Minister whose name appears on the Report, didn’t set out a timetable for the next steps. Whatever the solution to potential gas shortages, the situation is urgent. “Get on with it”, he says.

Second, we are faced with particular urgency in the form of the winter that will soon be upon us. Worryingly, the Report doesn’t mention the challenge that this represents. For instance, Centrica isn’t busy filling the Rough storage facility, and continental European storage, which the UK might seek to fall back on to help us out, is projected to be lower than average.

Third, Mr Pratley seems to suggest that the government should get on and authorise the Jackdaw gas field exploitation to commence:

It would, after all, be bizarre to outline a potential supply crunch that has been caused, in large part, by growing reliance on imports, and then disallow a field that will make the problem slightly smaller. Jackdaw will account for about 6% of domestic North Sea gas volumes and could be up and running in time for winter.

Mr Pratley’s whole article is a welcome breath of fresh air compared to the usual drivel with which the Guardian bombards us. Things must be getting pretty desperate if even Guardian journalists (albeit Mr Pratley is certainly one the Guardian’s better contributors) can see the looming danger.

The Telegraph article today goes one step further. Where Mr Pratley urges Ministers to “get on with it”, the Telegraph seems to think that they have already decided to do so. The heading to its article is “Labour plans multi-billion-pound gas subsidies to keep lights on – Taxpayers face double whammy of funding renewables and fossil fuel backup after energy firms threaten to scale back capacity.”

Whether the firmness of this headline is justified at this stage remains to be seen, although I note that page of the Report contains this:

…government recognises that changes are needed to help build a commercial landscape that provides sufficient incentives for existing gas supply infrastructure to continue to meet exceptional peaks in demand. A long-term commercial model in the form of financial or revenue support may be required.

Certainly, the author of the Telegraph article noticed this too and highlights it in their piece. They also spotted the paragraph at the foot of page 8:

It was also evident that the costs of bringing a strategic gas storage reserve or an FSRU would likely be in the billions of pounds across a 25-year timeline. Government is therefore keen to understand what role it could play to help industry bring such an asset to market, or whether there is a case that can be made for government to bring these to market directly. As above, further analysis and work with the sector is required before providing an initial position on these options in the full consultation response.

All this is an absolute gift to Reform UK. As I regularly opine, I am no supporter of that political party (far from it), but on this issue I am sure it has the right of it. The Telegraph quotes Richard Tice thus:

[He] said the plans showed that “the Government has lost the plot” in its pursuit of net zero targets.

He said: “First they subsidise renewables heavily. Then they realise the wind does not always blow nor the sun always shine and we have huge blackout risk.

“So now they subsidise gas to billions of pounds to act as backup. The result is households being fleeced by vast subsidies to investors who cannot believe their luck.”

Quite. He might have added that many, if not most, of those investors, are foreign, whose depradations are yet another factor – to add to Net Zero – with regard to the UK’s adverse balance of payments figures. Something needs to change, and urgently. Only when the final (as opposed to the interim) Report is published will we know whether the change of senior personnel within the government will see the necessary changes being implemented.

Meanwhile, I expect we will continue to wait for many years indeed before we see the promised annual reduction of £300 in our energy bills.

19 Comments

  1. Just a silly point of order on the intro. Rainfall in London for June was actually around 84mm which is almost double that month’s average of 43mm. July was effectively zero but August is now turning wet again. Mean July of 46mm was almost covered by June’s excess so if the rest of August comes near the 53mm average, it may end up as a perfectly “normal” summer in rainfall terms!

    Like

  2. Thanks for the correction, Ray. I guess I’m as susceptible to the relentless propaganda as anyone else! You wouldn’t be aware of that if you just rely on MSM for your perception.

    Like

  3. Last week’s lunar eclipse of the sun prompted me to start monitoring the fuel mix feeding the electricity grid and go on to analyse what might happen in future severe Dunkelflaute conditions, all contained in this Net Zero rant (most liked comment) under a David Turver post. Maybe I should stop piggy-backing quite so much on David’s excellent posts, but at least I’m one of his paid subscribers and he’s thanked me for my comments! My Dunkelflaute risk of blackouts analysis is here:

    Digging out trustworthy statistics on UK peak electricity supply (not just nameplate capacity) by fuel type is not easy. For simplicity I’ve resorted to eyeballing Leo Smith’s Gridwatch graphs to get the following peak approximations: gas (20GW), nuclear (5GW), biomass (3.5GW) and hydro & PS (1GW), total including other dispatchable supplies around 30GW.

    Based on NESO statistics (max demand 46GW on 9 January 2025, 17:00–17:30), UK peak electricity demand for winter 2026-27 could be around 47GW. Thus if gas, nuclear, biomass and hydro remain at the same eyeballed Gridwatch supplies (unknown) and if they could all peak simultaneously at the same previous values (unknown), there would seem to be a possible shortfall of about 17GW in the absence of any wind, solar and interconnector supply due to Dunkelflaute conditions which also encompass our European neighbours in cold dark midwinter when power is needed most. Have I got this all wrong, or has NESO?!

    It’s no wonder that the authorities have recently pushed through regulations to make it easy for NESO to impose rolling power cuts to coercively reduce national electricity demand to match their inadequate supply. As Paul Homewood says, “We are rapidly turning into a third world country where our electricity grid is concerned”: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2026/08/11/millions-of-households-could-face-threat-of-emergency-blackouts/.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Doug Brodie,

    A few of us here have also been keeping an eye on the constituent parts of UK electricity generation recently. I find it deeply worrying that £100+ per MWh pricing increasingly seems to be baked in (to use terminology loved by climate alarmists) and that solar and wind have been very disappointing this summer in terms of their output, even as their capacity on the system grows. We are also increasingly often hugely dependent on the interconnectors, which regularly seem to be supplying (net) between 20% and 30% of our electricity. I cannot understand how the renewables/net zero enthusiasts can spin this as energy security.

    Like

  5. Having just praised NIls Pratley at the Guardian, Larry Elliott had to go and spoil it there – which is a shame, not least because I have in the past also regarded him as one of that paper’s better and brighter commentators.

    “Reform says we need to choose between climate and economy. It’s wrong

    The party’s deputy leader Richard Tice says we should stop worrying about extreme heat and enjoy it. This dangerous nonsense will wreck our finances and the planet”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/19/reform-says-we-need-to-choose-between-climate-and-economy-its-wrong

    …At one level, the emphasis on putting cash in people’s pockets makes sense. Traditionally, interest in the environment waxes during periods of strong economic growth and wanes when times are tough. Climate breakdown slips down the list of priorities for voters when they are worried about losing their jobs or struggling to pay their bills. Peaks in concern have tended to come at the end of long booms, such as the early 1970s or the late 1980s….

    Indeed. So far, so good. But then:

    …To be sure, Britain is responsible for only a small fraction of the world’s CO2 emissions, and there is a legitimate debate about how to achieve net zero. But the warning signs are flashing red. Now is not the time to go slow on tackling climate breakdown. The longer that action – global as well as domestic – is delayed, the greater the risk that the climate crisis will eventually wreck the economy….

    The problem here is the lack of logic. Quite apart from the elephant in the room (will slashing ongoing global greenhouse gas emissions really change the climate, or preventing it changing more?), there is the absolutely fundamental point that if the rest of the world doesn’t act, nothing the UK can do can have any effect. And the rest of the world isn’t acting – that should be obvious by now. Every year the UK cuts its territorial emissions (but much less so its consumption emissions) and every year global emissions go up and every year we are told the “climate crisis” (sic) is getting worse.

    Mr Elliott goes on to say:

    …A failure to invest in basic infrastructure needs to be remedied fast. People faced with hosepipe bans have the right to ask why Britain has not built a reservoir in 30 years….None of this comes cheap. The state will have to invest in new infrastructure as well as making changes to the planning laws….

    Yes, indeed, which is why spending money on practical adaptation makes more sense than spending vast amounts of it on futile territorial greenhouse gas emissions reduction, while barely changing consumption emissions in the UK. Every billion pounds spent on net zero is a billion pounds that is unavailable to spend on adaptation. It isn’t rocket science. He then goes on to make a claim which I would suggest comprises misinformation:

    …Subsidies will be required to provide incentives for consumers to go green. No question, there are costs involved in the net zero transition, but they are outweighed by the benefits. These include cheaper running costs for electric vehicles and lower energy bills for homes where gas boilers are replaced by heat pumps….

    EV running costs are cheaper for those with the benefit of cheap overnight charging tariffs, but are not cheaper for those who have to pay for public chargers at much higher rates, with 20% VAT on top. And EVS are only cheaper to run (in some cases, they certainly aren’t for those without access to home charging) because EVs have to date avoided the punitive duty slapped on petrol and diesel. Level the playing field and those putative savings disappear in a puff of smoke. The claim that energy bills are lower where gas boilers are replaced by heat pumps is also highly dubious. And again, if artificial carbon costs were removed from gas pricing, the claim would become risible. FInally, he says this:

    Governments can always find the money when the occasion dictates. When the security of the nation is at risk, ways to finance extra spending are found. To take one example, ministers have committed to raising defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 because of the perceived threat from Russia.

    But which is the greater threat? Is it Russia, bogged down in Ukraine after more than four years of attritional fighting, or is it the climate crisis? The answer should be obvious.

    I think we all know the answer to that, but it’s not the answer Mr Elliott would have us believe.

    Like

  6. Mark, it has long been concerning that contributors to the Guardian deploy self-refuting arguments – “EVs are better than normal cars, that’s why we must subsidise them” – and either lack the wit to understand it, or (worse) they are merely propagandising.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. The latest DUKES is also out. Table 1.1.1 shows energy supply for the UK by percentage, as well as “fossil fuel dependency” – which I have mentioned here before, somewhere. Anyway, for 2025, the figures are:

    Coal…………………………………………………….0.8%

    Petroleum………………………………………38.8%

    Natural gas…………………………………….35.5%

    Nuclear electricity……………………………4.8%

    Wind, solar and hydro electricity….5.9%

    Net electricity imports…………………….1.6%

    Bioenergy and waste……………………..12.6%

    Giving a fossil fuel dependency of 75.1%!

    [The net imports are classed as fossil-free.]

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Regarding energy security (or lack thereof) that nice Mr Putin has recently warned Britain that there will be consequences for sending our drones to Ukraine. So we can perhaps anticipate that there will be some ‘accidental’ damage to undersea infrastructure (upon which we are so highly dependent) in the depths of the coming winter. Regards, John C.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Jit: thanks for your link to the DUKES data. I’m finding it difficult to navigate it – where can I find Table 1.1.1.?

    Like

  13. Jit on Dukes: There is a discrepancy I don’t understand between the UK fossil fuel dependency ratio given by the Energy Institute (formerly BP) and Dukes. The EI gives 79% versus your 75.1% for Dukes. I always quote the EI figure because it is “worse”, although by any rational consideration either ought to be a showstopper for going-nowhere Net Zero.

    Apparently the EI changed their calculation methodology fairly recently, obliquely explained in this comment. This change is exposed in a post I did in 2020 based on the BP figures which showed that UK dependency on fossil fuels for its primary energy supply was the same 79% back in 2019.

    Like

  14. After watching the Moggs video on NALOPKT my first reaction was why has it taken him so long to do it, then, will enough people actually watch it to make a difference, does his position in society have enough clout to make a difference. I have regularly read the articles in Net Zero Watch so someone like JRM has been a long time coming, he should have been supporting the people at NZW ages ago. How long will we have to wait till a real champion of the cause for reality appears, will it be JRM or maybe Farage or a hero yet to appear, please hurry up !!!

    Like

  16. “British Gas boss warns of winter fuel shortage

    Chief executive criticises Government for relying too much on energy imports”

    https://archive.ph/g8wXD#selection-2607.4-2611.80

    The boss of British Gas’s owner has warned the UK is facing the risk of gas shortages this winter as stockpiles fall.

    Chris O’Shea, the chief executive of Centrica, said Britain had “almost no gas in storage in the UK for the coming winter”.

    Mr O’Shea said low gas reserves in the UK were a “huge concern” and that the country had “for too long” relied on other countries for energy imports while underinvesting in storage and power plants.

    Britain’s gas facilities were around 30pc full this week, down from 46pc at the same time last year. They were more than 90pc full in the two years before that.

    Gas levels are currently at the lowest level for August since records began, according to Bloomberg data….

    …Mr O’Shea urged the Government to clear a pathway for a proposed £2bn redevelopment of its 40-year-old Rough Field offshore gas storage facility.

    He wants ministers to introduce a so-called “cap-and-floor” financing mechanism that would effectively mean guaranteed funding underwritten by a levy on consumer bills.

    Rough represents half of Britain’s gas storage capacity, but Centrica is losing £10m a month maintaining the facility.

    Mr O’Shea said: “For too long we in the UK have relied on other countries to provide our energy security, underinvesting in gas-fired power generation and gas storage.

    “The time is now upon us where we need to fix this. We stand ready to invest £2bn of our shareholders’ money to redevelop the Rough gas storage facility with the right regulatory support framework, but time is rapidly running out.”

    Mr O’Shea’s warning comes after Norway’s energy minister suggested Britain and Europe might no longer be able to rely on the Nordic country to keep a lid on energy prices.

    Norway has previously presented itself as “the green battery” of Europe, exporting surplus renewable energy most years via cross-border power ‌cables from an extensive network of hydroelectric plants.

    It is also Europe’s largest supplier of natural gas, meeting around 30pc of gas demand of both the EU and Britain.

    However, Terje Aasland, Norway’s energy minister, this week urged European countries to strengthen their own power supplies, which have been weakened by a lack of investment in new gas-fired generation.

    Kathryn Porter, an energy analyst, said Norway’s integration with Europe’s power networks had left it “more vulnerable to continental price swings”….

    Special pleading, no doubt, but there is still an extremely serious point being made here.

    Like

  17. I would say that was not “Special pleading”. I would hope someone would take note.

    But as “The boss of British Gas” is not regarded as an expert on these matters, I’m sure we need not worry.

    Like

  18. “‘Winter panic’: EU gas stores at their lowest level in 13 years

    As one of Europe’s biggest consumers of gas the UK may be particularly exposed to heightened price volatility”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/aug/29/european-gas-stores-lowest-13-years-eu-price

    Europe is on course to enter the cooler months with gas stores at their lowest level in 13 years, which has triggered “winter panic” among energy traders, experts have warned.

    The EU’s gas stocks were 63% full in the last week of August, well below the 80% average for late August over recent years and among the lowest levels ever recorded for this time of year.

    At the current sluggish rate of gas storage injections, the EU is likely to enter the winter heating season with gas stocks about a fifth below the five-year average, and at their lowest level since 2013, according to Greg Molnar, a gas analyst and professor.

    “Low storage levels are naturally increasing the risk of heightened winter price volatility,” he said, which could be made worse by “cold spells or slow wind patterns” increasing gas usage over the winter.

    The UK may be particularly exposed to market volatility, because it is one of the biggest gas consumers in Europe but has some of the lowest levels of domestic gas storage capacity.

    Typically, the UK relies on imports of gas via pipeline from Europe or tankers from the US and the Middle East. Chris O’Shea, chief executive of the British Gas owner Centrica, said this week the UK had “almost no gas in storage” for the coming winter…..

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Mark – thanks for the link, which links to – UK risks running out of gas by 2030s, ministers told | Gas | The Guardian

    Found the opening paragraph interesting & oddly worded –

    “Great Britain risks running out of gas in the 2030s despite its growing clean energy sources, unless ministers take “unprecedented” action to guard against a future supply shock, according to an official assessment.”

    Then –

    “The UK relied on gas for more than a third of its energy consumption last year, according to government figures. While the UK’s gas use is expected to plummet by just over three-quarters by 2050 under the guidance of the Climate Change Committee, its domestic supplies are likely to fall faster.”

    Talk about the blind leading the blind.

    Like

Leave a comment