Move over wind farms: why some argue cutting costs is the best way to cut carbon
Gavin Tait, a 69-year-old resident of Glasgow, proudly identifies as an early adopter of innovative technologies. Years ago, upon receiving a substantial retirement payment, he invested in renewable energy solutions: solar panels, a home battery, and a heat pump. “It seemed like a no-brainer,” he recalls. “I could save money and support the environment—why wouldn’t I?” Initially, the setup worked well. His energy bills dropped, and the well-insulated home remained comfortably warm. However, recent winters have disrupted this balance.
This winter, he and his wife decided to revert to their gas boiler, a backup they had retained. “I noticed my electricity bills were skyrocketing,” he explains. The heat pump, while efficient, produces three to four units of heat per unit of power. But gas, which delivers nearly one unit of heat per unit of energy, costs less than 6p per kilowatt-hour—compared to 27p for electricity. “It’s simple,” he says. “Economically, it just doesn’t stack up.”
A common dilemma
His experience mirrors that of many others. A summer survey by Censuswide, commissioned by Ecotricity, revealed that two-thirds of heat pump owners found their heating expenses increased. Critics argue these stories highlight a broader issue: the UK’s progress in replacing gas boilers and petrol vehicles is falling short of targets. They claim ministers are fixated on cleaning up electricity generation, which accounts for only about 10% of total emissions, while neglecting the larger challenges in heating and transport, which together make up over 40%.
With Middle East conflicts driving up oil and gas prices, the urgency of this debate has grown. High energy costs now threaten to persist, raising concerns about affordability. Yet the government maintains its focus on renewables, insisting it will enhance energy security by reducing dependence on imported gas, cutting emissions, and—eventually—lowering bills. Are they correct, or have they misplaced their priorities?
The hidden costs of green energy
Sir Dieter Helm, an economic policy professor at Oxford University, offers a nuanced perspective. “It all depends on what you choose to measure,” he notes. While generating renewable electricity can be cost-effective, the overall system is not. Electricity must be available constantly, not just when the wind blows or the sun shines. This necessitates backup power sources, increased capacity, and a more expansive grid.
Using a simplified example, Sir Dieter highlights that the UK’s peak electricity demand is roughly 45 gigawatts (GW). Previously, this could be met with about 60GW of coal, gas, and nuclear capacity. Now, with a shift toward renewables, the required capacity has risen to nearly 120GW. The grid must also expand to transport offshore wind energy to areas of demand. These changes add to costs, including network charges and balancing payments to wind farms that are asked to reduce output when the system is full.
The subsidy scheme, which once accounted for around 10% of average household bills, has also contributed to rising expenses. Despite solar power’s significant cost reductions, the UK’s frequent cloudy winters limit its effectiveness. Offshore wind, though abundant, remains a pricier option. As the system evolves, these hidden costs are increasingly visible in energy bills, prompting questions about whether the government’s current strategy is sustainable.
