No, is probably the answer. The other issue is what the cost implications for consumers will be as the UK moves towards a de-carbonised system. So I’ve been doing some reading on this in the last few days and I am not optimistic.
This excellent article on Substack from analyst and writer David Turver lays out the pricing trends for different types of power and shows that prices have diverged from the forecasts made by government, often in its own 2023 Generation Costs Report which “made some extraordinary claims that are proving to be untrue” says Turver.
“First, as discussed here, existing intermittent renewables are much more expensive than the reliable gas-fired electricity which must be displaced if we are to achieve a zero carbon grid by 2030. Although new renewables are cheaper than the existing fleet, they are still much more expensive than gas-fired power…”.
He looks at the different types of power - he is particularly negative about offshore wind for reasons of cost and reliability – and comes to the conclusion that renewables are not a cheap form of power and are becoming less so year by year, as can be seen by recent contracts agreed between the National Grid and the power generators.
“AR5 awarded contracts for 2026/27 delivery at £73/MWh and AR6 is offering new contracts for 2027/28 delivery at £89/MWh, more than double the Government projections for 2025 and 2030 and above recent gas-fired electricity prices. Again, there is no way that adding more expensive onshore wind capacity will bring down bills”.
In terms of the feasibility of the 2030 target, a formal letter from the new government’s Energy Minister, David Miliband, to Fintan Slye, Director of the ESO (electricity system operator), asking for advice on the route to 2030, has caused much comment.
“This advice should consist of a range of pathways that enable a decarbonised power system for Great Britain by 2030 and an enduring contribution to economy-wide decarbonisation beyond 2030”, says Miliband.
He asks Slye to lay out how the target can be achieved, asking for a lot of detail. There are six bullet points describing what is required – this is just one. “High-level assessment of costs and benefits, opportunities and challenges, and risks”. That sounds like a 500-page report in itself!
Now some critics (included David Turver again) have responded by saying this goes to show that Miliband and his “head of mission control” (!) David Stark don’t actually have a clue as to how they will achieve the target. I suspect however it is at least in part that they need a formal set of options from the guy in charge before they can announce a preferred route. One would certainly hope that Miliband and Stark actually know most of this stuff and that some serious work has already been done.
But when you see the questions laid out like this, it looks like quite a task lies ahead. Cost comes into it again, as well – if we end up having to build expensive new infrastructure AND still import huge quantities of gas into the UK, that will increase consumer costs even if it helps towards the 2030 target. And apparently we have not had a proper cost-benefit analysis of this programme previously, so there is certainly some substantial work to be done quickly by the ESO.
Rather oddly, there is no time given in the letter for this work to be delivered. That is odd. Lack of a deadline in the public sector often means the activity is actually just being kicked into the long grass. But in an accompanying message on X (Twitter), Stark says “we will receive their advice in the Autumn”. Still somewhat vague – is that next week or December 15th?
Actually, I will be amazed if anything is provided by Slye until after Christmas, and it may well be that the assumptions which underpin achievement of the target will show that 2030 is virtually impossible. Milliband also wants “Key requirements for the transmission network (including interconnection, where appropriate) generation and demand, and for secure system operation”. Work needed on the transmission network is probably even more demanding than building the wind turbines, nuclear power plants and solar farms needed.
Let’s finish with Turver again. “The big question is whether NG (National Grid) ESO can maintain the pretence that a Net Zero grid by 2030 is achievable and economically viable and lose whatever remaining credibility it has, or will it be the first to point out that Mad Emperor Ed has no clothes”?
I wouldn’t necessarily go that far, but we will see.