Lana Hempsall is an entrepreneur and business coach, Conservative councillor, the CPF National Discussion Lead for Transport, and the co-founder and director of Conservatives in Energy.
On January 8, 2025, Great Britain narrowly avoided blackouts during one of the most challenging days for its electricity market since 2011. A combination of plummeting temperatures, low wind power generation, and interconnector outages pushed the National Energy System Operator (NESO) to its limits.
This article examines the events leading to this near-miss, the measures taken to avert disaster, and the broader implications for the UK’s energy strategy, which must pivot from green ideology to a balance of the well-being of its residents with sustainable economic growth and real energy security.
Forecasted challenges and early warnings
In the days leading up to January 8, market forecasts highlighted potential electricity supply tightness, particularly for January 8 and January 10. Analyses from platforms like Amira Technologies raised concerns about the grid’s ability to meet demand. Despite these warnings, the severity of the crisis on January 8 caught many by surprise.
At 8:36 PM on January 7, NESO issued its first Electricity Market Notice (EMN) of the winter, signaling a 1,700 MW shortfall for the following day. On January 8, the notice was updated several times as NESO scrambled to manage the grid. Additionally, a Capacity Market Notice (CMN) issued at 12:01 PM was rescinded just 30 minutes later, underscoring the precariousness of the situation.
Understanding Electricity Market Notices
An Electricity Market Notice serves as an alert when available spare capacity does not meet NESO’s contingency requirements. For example, if a 1,000 MW contingency is necessary but only 500 MW of spare capacity is available, an EMN signals the shortfall. These notices prompt market participants to take corrective actions to stabilize margins.
The events of January 8, 2025
On January 8, several factors converged to push the electricity grid to the brink:
– Low Wind Generation: Wind power output fell to 2.5 GW during the evening peak, significantly below typical levels.
– Zero Solar Contribution: As expected in winter evenings, solar energy was nonexistent.
– Interconnector Outages: Outages reduced interconnector capacity to just 5.7 GW. Note that reliance on interconnectors – essentially imported electric power – is not real energy security.
These factors created a situation where even the failure of a single large power station could have necessitated demand-control measures, such as disconnecting parts of the grid, to prevent uncontrolled blackouts.
Market response and NESO’s actions
To avert disaster, NESO deployed various tools, including the Maximum Generation Service, which activates additional generation capacity. NESO also collaborated with trading points, control points, and interconnected operators to secure every available megawatt of capacity.
Despite these efforts, the system margin remained critically thin. At 5:30 PM, spare capacity had dwindled to just 580 MW. Experts warned that even a minor outage could have triggered widespread blackouts.
Financial costs of crisis management
To maintain supply, NESO incurred significant costs, spending £21 million on gas power plants and paying up to £5,500 per megawatt-hour to balance supply and demand. These bumper prices are approximately 100 times normal prices. These extraordinary costs highlight the financial strain of operating with such slim margins.
Implications for the UK’s energy strategy
This near-miss has reignited debate about the UK’s energy strategy, particularly its reliance on weather-dependent renewable energy. Intermittent supply is not energy security. It is energy vulnerability and the leading cause of massive price volatility. Critics argue that the lack of reliable baseload power – such as nuclear or gas-fired plants – leaves the system vulnerable during periods of low renewable output.
Shadow Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho criticized the current approach:
“Ed Miliband’s obsession with wind and solar, far from giving us energy security, will leave us out of pocket and at the mercy of foreign imports.”
She advocated for a balanced strategy, including constructing more gas and nuclear power plants.
The path forward: addressing structural issues
It has become evident that the UK’s current approach to achieving Net Zero is insufficient and misguided. Wind and solar, while valuable, cannot form the foundation of the energy baseload in Northern Europe, where peak demand occurs in winter. Unlike countries such as Australia, where high solar output is possible, the UK’s energy needs require a different solution.
Australia, like the UK, has large gas and coal reserves but has also embarked on an ideological pursuit of net zero through solar with equally disastrous results. Renewables could instead play a supporting role, such as producing green hydrogen for storage.
Beyond renewables, systemic issues in the UK’s electricity infrastructure exacerbate the problem. The aging grid is ill-equipped to handle current demand, let alone future growth. Businesses face years-long waits to connect, stifling economic development and forcing industries to relocate. The lack of grid capacity has driven deindustrialization, leaving industrial parks and factories underpowered and underutilized. Jobs are disappearing. The UK has dropped off the list of top ten manufacturing nations.
Learning from global practices
Devolution initiatives often promote visions of a high-tech Britain, yet the reality is stark: the grid cannot support these ambitions. By contrast, in the US, data centers are built where they are needed and nuclear and gas plants are being built nearby to ensure reliable power supply. The UK must follow suit, focusing on steady, dependable energy sources to power growth.
What about nuclear?
While nuclear energy offers a long-term solution, its current cost and timeline are prohibitive. China can build a nuclear plant for £6 billion, but the UK’s projects at Sellafield and Hinkley are projected to cost over £60 billion and take decades to complete. In the short term, gas remains the only viable option. Unfortunately, the UK often ends up purchasing gas at exorbitant prices during crises, enriching private trading firms and other countries at UK taxpayer expense.
Rethinking Net Zero
In its current form, Net Zero is a flawed strategy. While solar and wind reduce domestic emissions, their production relies heavily on coal-powered manufacturing in countries like China. This simply shifts emissions abroad, creating a misleading sense of progress. Meanwhile, British taxpayers face record-high energy costs, deindustrialization, and an exodus of talent due to high taxes.
Fossil fuels are not inherently the enemy. Hydrocarbons are integral to life and industry. The real challenge lies in pollution management—not simply moving carbon emissions out of sight. New technologies, such as sustainable fuels, should only be pursued if they are economically and environmentally viable. As it stands, Net Zero has become an industry enriching a select few at the expense of the wider public.
The events of January 8, 2025, highlight the urgent need for a pragmatic, diversified energy strategy. Britain must prioritize reliable baseload power, overhaul its grid infrastructure, and critically assess the costs and benefits of its Net Zero ambitions. Only by addressing these challenges can the UK ensure both energy security and economic prosperity in the years to come.
conservativehome.com (Article Sourced Website)
#Lana #Hempsall #Britains #electricity #market #avoid #risk #future #blackouts #Conservative #Home