Whatever happens Scott believes a credible plan has to be established for there to be even the smallest chance of achieving 2050 goals and he believes ‘unsticking’ private investment will at least require guarantees to be provided by the Government. It was decisive government action and cash, and not the market, that produced the USA moonshot in the 1960’s. Only the government, in some form with a carefully developed plan, can shoulder the risks involved in solving the trilemma and decarbonising the electricity grid by 2050.
Electricity was supplied by private companies until 1926. By 1938 the National Grid (a government body) was established to control, but not own, the supply of electricity. Cost reductions and greater reliability resulted; electricity prices had reached their lowest level by 1989. The supply was nationalised in 1947 becoming the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) and then privatised in 1990.
Privatisation removed the central system planning authority (CEGB) with its highly competent team of engineers - in the belief that the market would make a better job of the future planning and design of one of the most complex and dynamic systems on the planet.
After WW2 the US granted the UK a line of credit with the current value of £880 billion, which was 17 times the UK’s then GDP. The greater part of this was spent on nationalising the electricity industry and then investing in electricity production and supply; a vast sum.
Vast levels of investment are required once again. What is happening?
Some wag has described the current system as ‘a large orchestra composed of individual players concerned with personal reward, led by a conductor who does not understand the music.’ The conductor has set targets for 2030 and 2050 which Charles Scott of IES in the conclusions to his paper, “Electricity in Great Britain 1919 to 2023,” published by IES does not believe there is a remote chance of being achieved [Ref. 1] He describes a trilemma of security of supply, low price and low emissions. Some engineers believe the trilemma, the transition to Green Energy, is the biggest challenge the UK has faced since WW2. Private company Boards, whose primary responsibility is to their shareholders and not for the provision of ‘Public Good’ have not, and will not, respond; the uncertainties are too great.
Gung-ho statements are made by politicians from all parties about the provision of sustainable energy and ‘green jobs.’ Renewable energy is currently mainly supplied by electricity. It is estimated that by 2050 we will require more than twice the current level of electricity generation, and this must be produced with low emissions.
It is alarming how little investment in offshore wind energy has come from UK companies, UK asset managers etc. Ownership of our energy companies is almost entirely by foreign countries, foreign banks and foreign asset management companies. [Ref. 1] Not surprisingly, a tiny fraction of the promised ‘green jobs’ have been produced. The UK currently has no significant companies involved in manufacture of equipment for wind, solar and nuclear energy.
The problem is the ‘Conductor’ (previously the CEGB with its team of engineers) does not have a plan that might provide sufficient confidence for the private sector to invest. The levels of hydrogen, carbon capture, nuclear, solar, storage, wind, interconnections, etc are not known. And it is known that, even if large amounts of one of these was possible, the grid lacks the capacity to carry it. We risk the energy supply becoming both unreliable and expensive with all the economic and social problems that will result.
Actually there is not one ‘Conductor’. The National Grid as Systems Operator should provide the evidence of what is required in the national interest. Instead vested interests (the individual players in the orchestra) are either deciding on the development of wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen etc. or simply waiting for the clarity of a complete plan.
Some may baulk at nationalizing the electricity sector of the National Grid Company but the cost is estimated to be much less than the government expenditure spent compensating both the consumers [to help pay their energy bills] and the 25 retail energy suppliers [who went bust in 2022] who had been encouraged by the government to give the impression that there was a market in energy.
The public are silent. There is as yet no serious alarm. They have been duped by politicians into believing that large slugs of wind and solar power are providing the solution. They simply will not without correspondingly immense ‘slugs’ of electricity storage capacity for which there is as yet no established technology of the required scale and cost, and no guarantee that there will be before 2050. The actual generation of energy from wind and solar has become cheaper as politicians claim but this is only half the story; the probable high cost of energy storage (for when there is no wind and no sun) must be factored in.
There is no detailed plan on how the Government will meet its own net zero target for the Electricity Sector. The present electricity generating mix will not meet the target and emissions are likely to increase. Scotland in particular is at risk of increasing emissions after 2028 when the Torness nuclear plant is closed. This could result in the need for more than 40% of the power in Scotland coming from gas generation plants in England on a regular basis by 2030– it is currently regularly around 33%, but more electricity will be required for cars, transport and heating, etc. by this date.
Whatever happens Scott believes a credible plan has to be established for there to be even the smallest chance of achieving 2050 goals and he believes ‘unsticking’ private investment will at least require guarantees to be provided by the Government. It was decisive government action and cash, and not the market, that produced the USA moonshot in the 1960’s. Only the government, in some form with a carefully developed plan, can shoulder the risks involved in solving the trilemma and decarbonising the electricity grid by 2050.
Ref. 1 : “Electricity Supply in Great Britain : 1919 to 2023” IES publication July 2023