Britain’s reliance on foreign energy is a national tragedy
By Paul Homewood
.
h/t Philip Bratby
.
Excited by reports of a late June heatwave to make up for the achingly familiar blustery showers that are expected to dominate the first couple of weeks of summer? Don’t be.
For one, the party-poopers at the Met Office were brutally quick to dismiss the likelihood of a prolonged hot spell later this month – so you can put away the Bermuda shorts and pack up the beach towels for the time being.
Still, as if the scepticism of the country’s best forecasters wasn’t enough to dampen our spirits, with near-comedic timing the doomsters at National Grid have weighed in to warn of the bleakest of winters.
The Grid’s “winter readiness” report, which every year evaluates how prepared the country is for the coming colder months, must be among its grimmest yet. In simple terms, the experts at its Electricity System Operator arm are warning that we are going to be more reliant than ever on imported power to keep the lights on during cold snaps.
In any civilised country this should be regarded as something of a national tragedy. The idea that Britain requires foreign imports to keep the lights on ought to be a source of great shame, although it seems nothing embarrasses our incompetent political masters anymore.
The North Sea might be in a state of terminal decline but it still contains abundant oil and gas resources. We have perfectly functioning coal power plants too, and Britain’s coastline and deep waters makes it one of the best places in the entire world for wind power.
By the same token, it seems remiss that we have yet to foster the astonishing strength of our tides in any meaningful way. Meanwhile, there have been significant inroads in solar, and there are five operational nuclear plants dotted around the country.
Yet we remain more reliant on the kindness of strangers than ever. It’s a genuine puzzler for the ages that every year the UK finds itself in the same position: at risk of blackouts if it wasn’t for costly imports from France, Norway, and increasingly Denmark via a giant network of high-voltage cables and interconnectors on the sea bed. The cables prevented 12 potential blackouts in the winter months of 2023 alone.
That our reliance on imports has become more acute, not less – despite the devastating energy crunch that swept across Europe after Putin declared war on Ukraine – is unforgivable.
The Kremlin’s aggression and subsequent weaponisation of oil and gas exports was supposed to be the Continent’s wake-up call to become more self-sufficient. As voters watched with horror at their energy bills entering previously unimaginable levels, they were promised that energy security was now the number one priority.
It was either a terrible lie or the incapability of those in charge is even greater than all our worst nightmares put together. In 2022, the European Union imported 62.5pc of the energy it consumed – the highest level of dependency since at least 1990 – and although Russian imports have fallen dramatically, Europe has merely swapped the Kremlin’s tainted energy for supplies from other places such as the US and Norway.
Though there is reassurance to be found in relying on firm allies rather than sworn enemies, energy independence remains a delusion for the West.
Though the UK is less dependent on imports than countries such as Germany, it still bought 37pc of its energy abroad in 2022 – a drop from nearly 50pc in the early 2010s, but higher than in the late 1990s, when the UK was a net exporter. Yet because of soaring prices, our energy bill has never been higher – topping more than £100bn for the first time ever in 2022.
Much of this is accounted for by oil and gas imports. The situation is less serious when it comes to electricity but is being made worse by the Government’s failed energy policy.
Britain’s ability to generate electricity has been severely strained by the closure of coal-fired power stations such as West Burton A in Nottinghamshire last year and Hinkley Point B nuclear plant. The imminent shutdown of the giant Ratcliffe on Soar power station means we will go into winter without any backup coal-fired generation for the first time ever.
In 2023, a record 13pc of our net electricity supply came from countries such as France, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands. At one point in April the figure was as high as 15pc.
The idea that this is somehow a good thing because much of it is derived from renewable sources such as French nuclear-power stations or Norwegian hydroelectric plants is absurd. Lower greenhouse gas emissions are to be welcomed but in this instance they come at a heavy price.
Britain spent £3.5bn last year alone on electricity imports. That is money straight out of the pockets of hard-working families into the coffers of foreign energy giants like EDF – best known in Britain for its risible attempts to build new nuclear plants on time and within budget.
They are a nice little money-spinner for the National Grid too. As the owner of many of the interconnectors, they take a cut, meaning they have every incentive to build more.
A general election is unlikely to bring more certainty. Labour says it has the solution but its grand plan has more holes in it than the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Not only does Great British Energy sound underfunded, much of the money it expects to raise will be spent on unproven technologies such as such green hydrogen and tidal power.
Shutting down the North Sea prematurely would be a mistake – but nor is it the basis for a long-term energy strategy, as the Tories seem to think. However, it’s not unthinkable that a Reform-backed Conservative Party seizes power next time around and reverses Labour’s green embrace, catapulting us back to square one.
Having failed to put any proper thought into it, the truth is neither side has the answers.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/06/britains-reliance-foreign-energ-national-tragedy/
As usual, Ben Marlow ignores the elephant in the room – Net Zero.
Increasing reliance on electricity imports is the direct result of closing coal plants and making gas power plants economically unviable, while at the same time building ever more intermittent renewable capacity.
If he really wants to solve this problem, he should demand the repeal of Net Zero, set out a plan to maximise whatever oil and gas we have under the North Sea, call for the ban on fracking to be lifted, and above all to demand an urgent programme to build new gas and coal plants.
As he won’t do this, why should anybody take him seriously?
FOOTNOTE
As if to highlight how confused he is, Marlow writes:
it seems remiss that we have yet to foster the astonishing strength of our tides in any meaningful way
But then comments on Labour’s plans:
much of the money it expects to raise will be spent on unproven technologies such as such tidal power.
Well, which is it Ben?
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
We’ve been on permanent import from France since early January. Rarely less than 2GW. The others have been doing their bit total is normally around 7GW. Ireland has been on import from UK most of the year too.
Even on relatively windy days, I’ve no idea of the relative costs but I would guess imports are cheaper than wind
Since 2021, Govt has given over £2Bn of taxpayer / consumer money in constraint payments alone to wind plant operators – UK politicians are either dense, naively ignorant, or benefitting
All three is my guess
Much of it has been the result of insufficient grid capacity to supply it across the UK. Some has been to allow sufficient inertia producing generation to operate (particularly when demand is low overnight). That is almost the same as being purely surplus, given “must run” nuclear, which also occurs on sunny weekends from solar. At times exports have been at negative prices driven by these surpluses.
This is only going to get a lot worse as wind and solar capacity are increased. The size of surpluses will grow, and they will start happening at higher levels of demand. Yet the extra capacity will not solve the problems of Dunkelflaute.
As usual for him – he’s the journalistic equivalent of our (sadly) next PM. Go where the wind blows, don’t upset too many people – and above all, ignore the ever-approaching reality of the cloud cuckoo land which is the UK’s “Energy Policy”.
It’s time we stopped playing politics with our energy security.
Clive Moffat suggests we get rid of Ofgem and appoint some independent experts to oversee our national interests. I agree.
May2023CliveMoffatt-speakingnotes.pdf (ecappg.org.uk)
Replace the central planners with new, better central planners.
Exactly! Our central planners will be better because thry are experts! A handful of people are far more likely to get it right than tens of thousands trying different things via markets. Because…stuff.
I could nominate some experts who would do a better job. He is right that OFGEM needs complete demolition and replacement. Along with ONR, CCC, NGESO (who control Future Energy Scenarios) and DESNZ. Add in the EA for good measure.
NO! Not replacement! Elimination!
Public have been ‘ greenwashed ‘ 🤬🤬
“We have perfectly functioning coal power plants too” How thick is this guy. The UK has just one (no plurals) knackered old coal plant (Ratcliffe on Soar) and that is scheduled to be blown up very soon.
Why does the Telegraph employ such an idiot?
Yes, Unipers and the UK’s remaining coal power plant will demise in Sept – of course Drax could go back to coal, but why would it when it gets £billions in ‘green’ subsidies for destroying overseas forests
Ratcliffe has mothballed one unit recently but the other three are available and have regularly been run upto their max output of 480MW on numerous occasions this year. Not bad for a 60 year old asset that’s been well looked after by its staff. Its main issue for use now is its virtually out of coal but they’ve railed in some more recently thats was stockpiled down at Immingham.
Are you sure the coal is inbound?
September I think. There have been a few interviews on East Midlands TV with employees who’ve worked their entire life. The “nasty pollution” from the cooling towers dark against the morning sky used to be a feature of my commute in more recent years an indication of how the wind farms were doing.
Not only that but he doesn’t ealise that the Reform party would not catapult us back, as they do not believe in Net Zero at all.
Pretty much everything he writes is fallacious. He is an idiot.
Tidal power is even more expensive and unreliable than the alternative ‘green’ technologies.
Perhaps the next UK Govt should include Clintel, GWPF and Prof Valentina Zharkova in their DESNZ advisory list? The nation has been run by casino like fools for decades – the self serving, energy incompetent, hubris filled bunch have run Britain into the rocks and won’t stop doing so until reality deals them a bloody nose – the whole rotten net zero scam, built on the AGW hoax, will seriously regress modern Britains and indeed all western masses – it’s yet another Govt induced scandal waiting to implode and it will
Our Rolls-Royce of a Civil Service [the ‘finest minds of their generation’, apparently!] has no interest in outsiders – certainly not knowledgeable, competent outsiders – taking over their turf.
Our present Government has no guts – or perhaps desire – to do anything about that – fighting on one front too many?
The Beige Knight, assuming he wins Westminster power next month, may be in a position to actually improve the Civil Service. It is most unclear to me that he would seek to do anything about their ineptitude [at the least, at the kindest].
And I certainly do not value his skills at actually achieving anything that means we taxpayers [and pay and pay] get better bang for our megabucks.
None of the main parties have mentioned improving public service to increase efficiency [better advice, better decisions, better execution]. Just put up taxes [but a bit less than the other lot].
And they wonder why folk are pretty turned off!
Auto
There was an interesting comment by Alice Perkins on the POL Inquiry yesterday. Something along the lines of “it’s very difficult to get civil servants to cooperate when there’s no perceived benefit to their department”
A major problem for the UK.
He will keep them inept. He needs scapegoats for bad policy.
Perhaps people could stop trying to have a handful of people run incredibly complex, complicated systems that cannot be forecasted and which cannot be planned? A simple test – plan lunch for London next week. Plan how much of everything will be needed, when and where. And here’s the kicker – do it without the knowledge and information markers provide. Do it from scratch. Yet markets get it right every day.
Tidal power is Intermittent.
It is also difficult to harness at scale – the machines needed are subject to a salt-water environment, which is not good for bearings and seals, let alone almost anything made of corrodable metals. Imagine trying to maintain an underwater turbine – 20 metres down, three miles offshore in the Pentland Firth; possible, but expensive.
Plus, of course, tidal power – if it could be economically harnessed – would need transmitting from its watery location to the areas of demand – mostly the Southern part of England. More pylons.
Or, alternatively, more offshore cables, that a certain Russian president could, conceivably, target in times of tension. The French, remember, are our allies, so would not do that.
Auto
Just to clarify all this nonsense about tidal power plants.
Firstly they are very intermittent. From Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon’s promotional literature – “it will provide power for up to 14 hours per day” In other words it will generate ZERO for a minimum of 10 hours per day each and every day of the year.
The limited hours of generation are not of our choosing – if its high tide at 3a.m. Sunday morning that’s when you get power, not when you need it.
Tidal is also hugely variable over the lunar cycle from spring to neap tides. The claim that the varying time of high tides will balance out around the UK is poppycock as it’s neap tide when it’s neap whether you have lots of plants or none. Additionally just think of all the yet more pylons needed to get this power to where it is needed – not a lot of demand around the Pentland Firth.
Finally they are colossally expensive.
There are lots of reasons why there are virtually no significant tidal power plants anywhere in the world.
Ray, The lagoon idea also suffers with silting, requiring more maintenance and dredging.
“Up to” is very notional. One of the best of many studies into tidal power I have encountered was a PhD by a student at Sheffield looking at the Severn Barrage back in the days when computers were programmed in FORTRAN. This chart comes from his data:
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/D0N7k/2/
“Optimised” here is ebb only generation for maximum energy per year, so there are just 2 periods of generation per day. During neap tides the fizzle of output lasts 2:38 in a 12:25 tidal cycle.
Ebb generation produces more because the banks of the estuary slope, reducing the water area at low tide, and generation is a function of the area. Hence why it drops off sharply in the latter stages of a generation cycle, finally ended by the head difference between sea and basin dropping below the minimum needed to operate the turbines.
we know
I realise that writing for the Telegraph means you have introduce Russophobia into every article. But I am getting heartily sick of reading ‘Putin’ turned off gas and oil to Europe. Factually of course its still supplying gas through pipelines through Ukraine (ho ho) and Turkey, and would through the Polish line or the remaining Nordstream pipe if Poland and Germany respectively opened their ends of the pipes.
Some week in the middle of winter , when French nukes have a blip, and the wind stops blowing all over northern Europe, the UK will plunge into a long blackout, the grid will collapse and there will be nothing left to reenergise the system.
Gazprom cut the flow via Poland and later on Nordstream 1. Both were shut down by the time of the attack on the Nordstream lines. Gazprom has substantially reduced flows via Ukraine, cutting them altogether into Romania, and running at only 25% into Baumgarten (contractual minimum, contract expires next winter). Flows via Turkey are also limited. They also cut supply to Finland.
The Gernans refused to grant a licence to Nordstream 2, even though one pipeline is supposedly undamaged by the attack that holed its twin. Russian LNG continues to land in France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal. No ships appear to be tackling the Arctic route to Asia currently. Some Chinese vessels are transshipping via the Cape rather than Suez, extending voyage times in the interest of safety.
And bizarrely Biden has stopped LNG exports, bit nobody mentions that.
I noticed a while ago that we were taking quite a lot of electricity from the continent even when there was plenty of gas generation capacity available here. I posted about it here. Someone on this website pointed out that electricity from France is relatively cheap presumably because of their nuclear capacity and that if they had a spare it made sense for them to export it and us to import.
On most days electricity is cheaper from Europe as they aren’t as burdened as we are with all the overhead costs and in summer they have vast amounts of solar. The other problem the UK has is the idiots promoting renewables have allowed too much wind to be built in Scotland without forcing them to reinforce the transmission system to move the power South. They dont need to worry as they know they will still be paid when they are constrained off and there expensive kit sits there doing nothing and isn’t wearing out. Nice work if you can get it.
An increasing number of French residential electricity users are on the Tempo tariff ( STOD). On ‘rouge’ or ‘blanc’ days in winter they pay more and are encouraged to reduce demand. They therefore pay for the supply with increased prices. The marginal supply therefore has more or less nil cost to EdF who then export to UK ( and anyone else who pays more). Eventually enough people in France will realise they are getting ripped off for the benefit of EdF and thus the State. When that happens expect the UK to either pay a lot more or receive far less from France. This is unsubstainable.
French wholesale prices have been below most of the rest of the Continent for some time. There have been complaints from the Belgians about it. Allegedly France has been restricting exports on some routes. Spain has also seen low prices on the back of rains increasing hydro availability.
I don’t follow any of that. Exports are surplus generation. It’s not at marginal cost. Costs are higher when there’s more demand than supply and vice-versa. French electricity costs are lower than those of the UK. Provided France generates surplus electricity, it will always seek to export it.
they were promised that energy security was now the number one priority
“Security” is commiespeak for government control.
Actually it is commiespeak for “diversity”, so you are not reliant on reliable single or double sources. Just keeping adding more unreliable and more expensive sources and you get more security in their really twisted take on reality.
Only a total failure of the Grid will show the incompetence of OFGEM, DESNZ and National Grid, a 5 day black start procedure would certainly kill thousands and cause wide scale looting.
The last few mild winters have enabled the grid to just about survive, we only had a few brown outs (voltage reductions). The coal plants were running flat out at peak times.
Most large scale grid failures are caused by lack of reactive power, or a major source (such as the French interconnector) tripping out, causing a rapid frequency change, which is detected at local levels, causing substations to trip out and reduce the load. However national grid have had to make the system less sensitive due to the lack of kinetic energy in the generating equipment.(little spinning mass of steam turbines and generators, now it as all semiconductor thyristors, that have no overload capability, they have to trip out at the slightest overload, other wise they would literally be destroyed).
So as always I am praying for a really severe Winter across Europe, it is the only way to bring down the Net Zero and shut the eco loons up for ever.
P.S Make sure you can self generate at least 1kW, it will keep the boiler and freezer going, make sure that switch ons are staggered, most cheap generators cannot handle cold load inrush and they do not like reactive power.
According to Zharkova, we are now currently in the start of the next solar GSM, with global cooling incoming upto 2060ish – we need calm, logical, empirical science led heads running our nations, the current crop of socialist WEF enablers are out of their depth and competency
Geoff, there is no science behind this just an interesting run of figures. 1947 was a very severe winter (before my time but my father often spoke about it). Fast forward 15/16 years you get the awful 1962/3 winter ( I remember it very well) Fast forward 15/16 years to 1978/9 (where I was living in Kent we had supplies dropped in by helicopter as the county was largely cut off) Fast forward 15/16 years and 1995/6 was another very severe winter that is often forgotten
https://community.netweather.tv/topic/34001-the-winter-of-1995-96/
Another 15/16 years brings us to 2010/11 and another extremely severe winter when UK electricity demand went over 61.5GW (in France it topped the 100GW mark) Neither country could manage that now.
So if this sequence continues …..we are due a really bad winter 24/5 or 25/6. Things could get very interesting if it does happen.
I’ve got the LPG generator ready, a supply of gas cylinders, stocks of logs and half a tonne of emergency coal. I suspect though that there will be bloody carnage in urban areas.
I agree with JW above, it is just typical of The Telegraph’s Ben Marlo to blame Russia when he says :-
” The Kremlin’s aggression and subsequent weaponisation of oil and gas exports …..”
Apart from our crazy NetZero agenda, has he conveniently forgotten that it was the West that imposed sanctions on Russia and stopped the supply and that NATO destroyed the pipeline?
We can hardly blame the Kremlin for our failings in energy security.
Russia has long used energy as an instrument of foreign policy. It was how they tied the COMECON bloc together, with the core oil and gas landlines reaching throughout Eastern Europe. Expansion to export to the West proper was initially an insurance policy, designed to avoid threat to a country weakened by the collapse of the USSR, and also to secure counterbalance against China. The EU push for expansion backed by the US changed Russian perceptions. They wanted to achieve enough dependence to control the expansionism. They engaged with China as a counterweight with new exports for coal, oil and gas. They started to threaten reduced supply into Europe, at which point Western sanctions were an after the fact “counter “.
We can’t indeed blame the Kremlin for the outcome (except perhaps their efforts at financing greens), but the story is more nuanced.
I agree with JW above, it is just typical of The Telegraph’s Ben Marlo to blame Russia when he says :-
” The Kremlin’s aggression and subsequent weaponisation of oil and gas exports …..”
Apart from our crazy NetZero agenda, has he conveniently forgotten that it was the West that imposed sanctions on Russia and stopped the supply and that NATO destroyed the pipeline?
We can hardly blame the Kremlin for our failings in energy security.
Anyone else notice the common strategically fatal aspects of outsourcing not only our source of energy but also food which the anti fertilizer/ rewilding activism is being weaponized to force upon us?
Clearly the oblivious population has no knowledge about WW1 and WW2. Why would they when our education system sees the teaching of history as being only about whining about distorted views of slavery.
Is this just a coincidence? I do not believe in coincidences
No, it’s no coincidence, it’s all a scripted globalist socialist construct to regress the living standards of the masses
Don’t be silly. Until we had the ability to access North Sea reserves,we had to import virtually all our oil. We have no uranium or copper reserves, nor any rare earths. We have no bauxite for aluminium. We do not manufacture many of the drugs we use, nor many of the other day to day things we require, from chemicals to clothes. Because specialisation makes us wealthy.
Phoenix 44 Seems you forgot about coal which was the BASIS for the industrial revolution. Oil and gas played on a minor role until the mid to late 1930’s.
You clearly missed my point The country was almost brought to its knees during both WW1 and WW2 by being cut off from external sources not of energy but of food. A belligerent force can cut those interconnectors and prevent the import of food in double quick time. If those two things happen the last thing we will be worrying about are raw materials. That these lessons are being actively ignored and we are being set up to be more dependent on imports is my point when the basis of survival of any society in history has been self sufficiency, particularly in food.
It they take energy from the tides this will cause the Moon to recede from Earth faster than it is now.
Our grand children will never see a total solar eclipse.
Surely the Moon will move closer to ensure its power stats the same? I look forward to the Moon bei b twice as big in the sky, as it was when mammals first evolved!
I’m not sure Marlow reads what he writes.
I can’t take anybody seriously who writes about exports in this absurd way. If it’s money out, then simply print it and give it to us to pay EDF. Simple. But of course its not how it works. The money only has value if you can buy something with it, and that has to be either our exports or investment in the UK. Because “money: isn’t wealth, its consumption that matters.
Can anyone explain please why wind and CCGT data from Gridwatch Templar has been stuck and not recording since 01/06?
The purpose of the UK’s unilateral Net Zero has nothing to do with CAGW and increasing our 1% contribution to atmospheric CO2 but simply to stop the use of hydrocarbons even though this will lead to expensive, chaotically intermittent energy, de-indstrialisation and thus impoverishment and third world status.
The most optimistic view is that electrification of everything will enable almost total control of our lives. The more pessimistic view is that total electrification will in addition ensure we have energy grid which will be a major target for every hacker in the world and will be depending for its power upon undefendable wind and solar estates spread out over hundreds of square kilometres of the North Sea and beyond.
The really pessimistic view is that if the whole world goes totally electric/elecronic as planned by the UN et al and a Carrington event occurs which will send us all back to the Stone Age. Putting all our energy eggs into the one Net Zero electrification basket is potentially suicide for humanity. All to save the planet…
Try this site instead
https://grid.iamkate.com/
Kate Morley is a coder not an engineer as such but her version includes more elements than Leo Smith’s version including a more realistic accounting of total wind generation (metered + embedded).
Ray Sanders :
Thank you. I did know of this site. But the feature I really liked from Gridwatch Templar was the possibility to be able to download the data into an Excel file. Is this possible from this site or any other site please? I often use this data and did run an Excel file last year to model Labour’s proposed renewables plan.
Thanks
The information we are privileged to receive on this Forum, if correct, is so serious that our National Security is completely compromised. Are we suggesting that in the entire Energy Industry there are not any responsible professionals at the top, who understand the risks as put forward here? Why do they not march on Number 10 and demand Policy change immediately?
are you advocating for energy autarky?