National Grid Resorts to Propaganda

The National Grid is paying for shameless propaganda in the Guardian.

Introduction

Ten days ago, the Guardian ran an article paid for by the National Grid that purports to debunk the “myths swirling around clean energy and upgrading the grid” (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 - National Grid Paid for Propaganda in the Guardian

However, the claims made in the article do not stand up to scrutiny.

About the Author

Before delving into the detail of the article, it is worth spending a little time on the author, Chas Newkey-Burden. His Wikipedia entry says Chas has written 29 books including books about Arsenal football club, celebrity biographies including Taylor Swift and Simon Cowell and a Compendium of Modern Hypocrisy, which he co-wrote with Julie Birchill. He has also written articles for the Telegraph about running shoes, fire pits and the best beard trimmers of 2024. Conspicuous by their absence, are any articles or books about energy policy, so his credentials are perhaps somewhat lacking in credibility.

The article covers alleged myths that are swirling around clean energy and upgrading the grid.

Clean Energy is Too Expensive

The first “myth” is that “clean energy is too expensive” which is also encapsulated in the caption to the lead image which claims, “solar and wind energy are now the most affordable sources of energy.” 

The Guardian article uses a report from the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), produced in conjunction with the Bezos Earth Fund to claim that “solar and wind energy are now the most affordable sources of new electricity in 82% of the world” and uses the Government’s Generation Costs report to claim that new solar projects will cost only £41/MWh. It compares this to the claimed cost of gas-fired power stations at £114/MWh.

There are several problems with Newkey-Burden’s approach. First, even if the RMI report is true, which is doubtful, it does not focus on the UK. Energy costs in the rest of the world are only of secondary importance. Second, the Government’s Generation Costs Report has been discredited by the strike prices offered by the Government in its own Allocation Round 6 (AR6) renewables auction as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - Change in Renewable Generation Costs from 2023 Gen Costs Report to AR6 Expectations (£ per MWh)

The offered price for large scale solar at £84/MWh is more than twice that quoted by Newkey-Burden in the National Grid sponsored article. In fact, the prices offered to all renewable technologies are more than twice those in the Generation Cost report. Third, the £114/MWh price quoted for gas includes an assumed £60/MWh in carbon taxes, meaning the real cost of gas fired electricity is only around £54/MWh. Finally, these levelised costs of energy estimates do not include any allowance for the cost of backing up intermittent renewables, nor the extra costs to expand the grid to bring power from remote offshore locations to the source of demand. Moreover, the costs for existing renewables are even higher than those offered in AR6. Contract for Difference (CfD) strike prices for the year ending March 2024 were £173/MWh for offshore wind, £109/MWh for onshore and £106/MWh for solar, as per the LCCC.

The first “myth” is confirmed shown to be true.

Clean Energy Sources are Unreliable

This brings us on to the second “myth” that clean energy sources are unreliable. The National Grid sponsored article says, “some people think that clean energy generation will stop on a cloudy day, or when there isn’t much wind.” The article acknowledges the truth of this argument but says that the problem can be solved with interconnectors that allows neighbouring countries to share surplus power.

However, the article fails to mention that reliance on intermittent renewables and overseas countries damages energy security, because we cannot guarantee that surplus power will be available when we need it. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article does not mention that that National Grid has perfected the art of buying high and selling low in their auctions of electricity across the interconnectors. In fact, we often buy above the prevailing market rate and frequently pay others to take away our surplus power at times when it is windy and there is low demand.

So, of course wind and solar are unreliable and the reliance on interconnectors adds further costs and reduces our energy security. The second “myth” is also found to be confirmed.

Clean Energy Cannot Meet Demand

The third “myth” is that clean energy cannot meet demand. It should be self-evident that this is in fact true and not a myth with the admission above that wind and solar are unreliable.

Newkey-Burden’s argument to debunk this myth is that “just one rotation of the first turbine’s blades at Dogger Bank – the world’s largest offshore windfarm – can produce enough clean energy to power an average UK home for two days.” He fails to explain how those homes will be powered when the wind is not blowing, nor how increased demand will be met when we are all driving electric vehicles and lukewarming our homes with heat pumps. Another “myth” bites the dust.

Electricity Infrastructure Has a Negative Effect on Biodiversity

The fourth “myth” claims that “a transition focused on wind and solar energy can result in significantly reduced environmental impact compared with other energy types.” This is simply untrue. Figure 3 is taken from an earlier article and uses UNECE data to show how wind and solar score badly on a range of sustainability measures.

Figure 3 - Wind and Solar Energy Score Badly on EROI, Land Usage and Mineral Requirements

Wind and solar use more land than gas and nuclear power and more critical and bulk materials than coal, natural gas and nuclear. Wind and solar also result in more deaths per TWh than nuclear power. Wind farms have also been shown to kill bats and birds, particularly large raptors, which is hardly good for biodiversity. Moreover, many fear that offshore wind developments are leading to the deaths of whales. These facts betray Newkey-Burden’s article which claims only opportunities and targets for National Grid to improve environmental value of the places it is expanding the grid. Another “myth” becomes established fact.

Clean Energy Takes Up Too Much Space

Myth number five is about the space requirements for renewables. The National Grid funded article in the Guardian makes the obvious point that energy infrastructure of any sort does take up some land. However, it also claims that clean energy does not use up disproportionately vast swathes of it. The data from UNECE in Figure 3 above shows that wind, solar and biomass score particularly badly on land use. So, another “myth” is once again found to be true.

Underground and Undersea Cables are Cheaper than Overhead Cables

Myth number six appears to be a strawman claim that underground cables are cheaper than overhead pylons. Nobody with any sense would make this claim. The article itself says that underground cables can cost 5-10 times more than overhead cables, which is probably true. However, this strawman argument avoids discussing the vast sums that need to be spent to upgrade the grid. The National Grid ESO has announced £54bn of spending on the electricity network infrastructure up to 2030 and a further £58bn in the 2030-2035 period. It is of small comfort to billpayers that this total spend of £112bn is smaller than it might have been had they decided to use underground cables rather install them overhead. This is a cost that should be largely attributed to “cheap” renewables.

The Great Grid Upgrade is About Getting Power to London and Things are Fine as They Are

The final two myths can be grouped together. Myth seven is downgraded to an assumption in the text of the article and somewhat misses the point. The Great Grid Upgrade is not specifically about London, it is needed to transport electricity from remote offshore locations where it will be consumed. Even though there are sources of demand for electricity are outside London, for instance in large cities in the Midlands and the North, they are hundreds of miles away from the large offshore wind farms. Much of the extra infrastructure is only needed because large coal and gas-fired power plants that are sited close to demand centres are being decommissioned and replaced with diffuse energy sources that are miles from anywhere. So, if they insist on building wind farms in remote locations, then of course the grid cannot stay as it is. The quote from Tom McGarry, the deputy external affairs director at National Grid that the grid upgrade is to provide energy security and underpin the route to affordability is frankly risible. As has been shown above, renewables are expensive, the infrastructure required to make them work will add a further cost of £112bn to our bills, so they are not affordable. And to claim intermittent renewables can deliver energy security is simply ridiculous.

Conclusions

Sadly, poor old Chas has demonstrated that he does not have the faintest clue about energy, nor economics. He should probably stick to writing about beard trimmers.

However, the bigger issue is why did the National Grid feel it necessary to commission and pay for such a blatant piece of propaganda. Moreover, given this article is a paid for “advertorial” one wonders whether the Advertising Standards Authority cover it, or the Guardian’s “Readers’ Editor.” We are about to find out because complaints have been submitted to both.

---

If you have enjoyed this article, please share with your family, friends and colleagues and sign up to receive more content.