Move over wind farms: why some argue cutting costs is the best way to cut carbon
Move over wind farms: why some argue cutting costs is the best way to cut carbon
Retirement brought a financial windfall for Gavin Tait, a 69-year-old from Glasgow. With a sense of pride, he recalls investing in renewable energy—a solar setup, a home battery, and a heat pump. “It felt like an obvious choice,” he says. “I could save money and protect the planet. Why not?” Initially, the switch worked well. His home, well-insulated, stayed warm, and energy expenses dropped. However, recent winters saw a shift. “My electricity bills skyrocketed,” he explains. This year, he and his wife turned off the renewable system, reverting to their gas boiler, which they’d kept as a backup.
“It’s straightforward,” Gavin adds. “Economically, it doesn’t make sense anymore.”
His situation isn’t isolated. A survey of 1,000 heat pump owners conducted by Censuswide for Ecotricity last summer revealed that two-thirds reported higher heating costs than before. Critics argue this highlights a flaw in government strategy. Heating and transport account for over 40% of UK emissions, yet progress on replacing gas boilers and petrol vehicles has fallen short of targets. They claim ministers are fixated on making electricity cleaner, even though it contributes only about 10% of total emissions. This focus, they argue, inflates electricity prices, making the transition to heat pumps or electric cars less appealing for households.
A Shift in Strategy
The debate has intensified with rising oil and gas prices due to Middle Eastern conflicts. Concerns now center on whether high energy costs could linger, threatening progress on emissions reduction. The government maintains that prioritizing renewables will boost energy security by reducing dependence on imported gas, slashing emissions, and eventually cutting bills. But are they pursuing the right goals?
The System’s Hidden Costs
While generating renewable energy can be economical, the broader system isn’t. Sir Dieter Helm, an Oxford University professor of economic policy, offers a clear perspective. “It depends on what you’re measuring,” he says. Focusing solely on generation costs overlooks the full picture, including the expenses of maintaining a reliable grid. Electricity must be available consistently, not just when winds blow or sunlight shines. That requires backup generators, extra capacity, and a more intricate network.
“The key is not just producing clean energy,” Helm notes. “It’s ensuring the system can handle it all the time.”
For example, the UK’s peak demand is roughly 45 gigawatts. Previously, coal, gas, and nuclear plants provided about 60 gigawatts of capacity. Now, with the shift to renewables, the demand has nearly doubled—reaching 120 gigawatts. Expanding the grid to transport offshore wind energy further adds to costs, as does compensating wind farms for curtailment when demand can’t absorb excess power. Subsidy schemes, which once took up 10% of average household bills, now appear even more burdensome.
Offshore wind, though costly, remains a vital resource. However, Britain’s often cloudy winters limit its potential. As Helm puts it, “The system is growing, becoming more complex, and ultimately more expensive.” The question remains: is this expansion justified, or are we chasing the wrong targets?
