Professor Jacopo Torriti in Britain's Net Zero Future. Source ChatGPT.com, Fair Use, Parody.

University of Reading Professor Explains How Britons will Have to Do Without when Renewable Energy is Unavailable – Unless you are Rich

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… Up to now, the solution has been to build more storage or curtail generation. Both approaches can work, but both can also be expensive. …”

How the new Great British Grid could help households benefit from abundant and cheap renewable power

Published: October 2, 2026 12.23am AEST
Jacopo Torriti
Professor of Energy Economics and Policy, University of Reading

Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s proposal to create a new Great British Grid has put a spotlight on one of the UK’s biggest energy challenges: connection queues. But building a larger grid to accommodate renewable energy is only half the problem. Britain also needs to get better at using electricity when it is abundant and cheap.

…

For years, energy policy has focused on getting consumers to reduce demand at peak times through smart tariffs, energy efficiency incentives and other measures.

That logic still matters. But as wind and solar generation continue to expand, the system is beginning to face the opposite problem more often: periods when there is more renewable electricity available than the network or market can absorb.

…

Up to now, the solution has been to build more storage or curtail generation. Both approaches can work, but both can also be expensive.


The alternative is both simple and radical: pay people to use more electricity.


…

For households, this could mean charging an electric vehicle, heating water or running appliances when there is surplus renewable power on the system. For businesses, it could involve scheduling electricity-intensive activities to coincide with periods of high wind and solar generation.

…

This rewards households that already own expensive technologies such as electric vehicles, home batteries or smart heat pumps that can use electricity when it is cheapest. Demand turn-up could potentially be more inclusive. Rather than rewarding those with the greatest ability to invest in flexibility assets, it can create value from everyday electricity uses. 

…

Read more: https://theconversation.com/how-the-new-great-british-grid-could-help-households-benefit-from-abundant-and-cheap-renewable-power-293295

What about businesses which need to run energy-intensive activities all the time?

I like making things. While pursuing my hobbies, I got fed up with cheap metal working equipment, so I bought a large compressor and a set of pneumatic tools, the kind of air powered tools motor vehicle mechanics use.

When those tools are running, my low end trade shop compressor is pouring 3000 watts through metal working tools not much larger than the palm of my hand. The tools are a delight to use – they make working quite substantial pieces of sheet steel as easy as wood working.

Real businesses also use such machines, usually on a far larger scale. 3000 watts per worker is about the minimum those machines use – serious professional versions of my low end trade tools use far greater amounts of power per worker.

What are energy intensive businesses which use such tools supposed to do with Professor Toritti’s brave new intermittent energy plan? Stop repairing automobiles or manufacturing goods, except for a few hours around midday in Summer when the sun is shining?

How can an economy possibly function with such intermittency? Do workers get sent home on low power days, only coming in to work when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing? Who pays the business expenses and worker’s wages when business activity is curtailed due to lack of available energy? Are workers paid whether they can work or not, or do they only get paid when energy is available?

What happens when the weather turns, and crops have to be urgently harvested before they rot in the ground – but the 10s of thousands of watts each electric tractor requires is not available at the time it is needed?

You would think a professor of economics might have thought about these issues, before proposing such absurdity.

Of course as Professor Toritti noted, rich people who can afford batteries and other backup systems won’t have to suffer the inconveniences poor people will be expected to endure – they can time shift energy to whenever they need it. But probably not on an industrial scale. The lower rungs of society such as ordinary workers will have to fight for scraps of energy availability, and go hungry when the weather turns against industrial activity.

Is this really the kind of Britain voters want to build? Wake up Britain – because the future Professor Toritti painted, they really mean it. This is the true nature of the reality that Milliband and Burham and all the other green globalists are working to create. And it will arrive sooner than you think, unless you make a stand and reject this disgusting reversion to Dickensian levels of poverty and privilege.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.7 16 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
50 Comments
Bryan A
October 3, 2026 11:07 am

it could involve scheduling electricity-intensive activities to coincide with periods of high wind and solar generation

So basically you can’t pre schedule energy intensive work weeks in advance but rather at a moments notice. The Wind might be blowing at 6mph at 10am and turbines not spinning then could pick up to 20mph at 11am until 1pm then drop again below 8mph until 8pm then strike up another 20mph marathon overnight. So should the energy intensive work only get done between 11am and 1pm (2 hours a day is extremely unproductive) or should the business go to the expense of paying everyone overtime to produce the work overnight? Thereby driving up the costs of goods produced!

gyan1
Reply to  Bryan A
October 3, 2026 11:15 am

Trying to make sense of their idiocy is a fools errand. Identifying the flaws in their “reasoning” is a worthwhile endeavor. Thanks for your efforts!

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
October 3, 2026 12:19 pm

People and businesses function best on schedules. Schedules that depend on reliable energy.
Now scheduled that work…
From 11am until 1pm on Monday
From 2pm until 4pm on Tuesday
From 6pm until 11pm Wednesday
Not Thursday (no wind)
Not Friday (no wind)
Saturday from 8am until 10pm (strong wind the whole day)
Sunday from 2am until 8am then 10am until 11am then 2pm until 4:30pm (variable winds)
Then Not Monday or Tuesday (no wind)
It just doesn’t work!

Steve Bunten
Reply to  Bryan A
October 4, 2026 8:33 pm

Unfortunately you can’t know any of those things in advance so it is the most ignorant proposal for consumers and businesses to act at a moment’s notice to use more electricity. Companies (nor consumers who may easily be at work) can’t make decisions like that. Total stupidity!

Mr.
Reply to  Bryan A
October 3, 2026 12:25 pm

Ideas so stupid only academics could entertain them.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mr.
October 3, 2026 11:18 pm

I might amend “Academics” to “Liberal Academics”
AKA Pseudo Intellectuals!

gyan1
October 3, 2026 11:08 am

Inconveniencing people for a fictional problem is ludicrous.

MarkW
Reply to  gyan1
October 3, 2026 1:53 pm

Solutions that don’t work, for a problem that doesn’t exist.

GaryD
Reply to  MarkW
October 4, 2026 6:31 am

“government often creates the problem it claims to solve, then applies the wrong solution” – Milton Friedman

Steve Bunten
Reply to  GaryD
October 4, 2026 8:35 pm

As Ronald Reagan so succinctly put it four decades ago that the scariest four words are, “I’m from the government…”

Bruce Cobb
October 3, 2026 11:15 am

Welcome to the Brave New World. Now get in line for your weakly electric allowance, and times of day you can use it. Step smartly now!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 3, 2026 11:29 am

weakly?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 3, 2026 12:10 pm

Yes, very.

October 3, 2026 11:29 am

JAFFF
Just another fact free fantasy
The answer is to build nuclear power stations and just generate reliable electricity/.
And abandon renewables altogether

Reply to  Leo Smith
October 3, 2026 11:58 am

Nuclear is still quite expensive. Where natgas is available (not LNG), CCGT is lowest cost. Where it isn’t, supercritical coal is lowest cost—the Chinese solution with imported Australian sub-bituminous steam coal. ‘Carbon pollution’ should not be a consideration, as CO2 isn’t a pollutant. It’s increase is greening the Earth without any of the posited deleterious effects.

cgh
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 3, 2026 3:11 pm

Coal can be extremely expensive. It depends largely on whether or not it has to be transported any significant distance and how. China finds Australian coal economically attractive because it is incapable of moving its own coal out of Manchuria by rail. Nuclear power avoids any significant fuel transport costs.

Bryan A
Reply to  cgh
October 3, 2026 11:22 pm

China likes Australian coal because it uses up Australian Coal and reserves Chinese Coal until after Australia runs out

Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 3, 2026 4:01 pm

Nukes aren’t expensive if they did the reliable Korean design cookie cutter approach and got rid of their stupid “environmental” requirements. Building one-offsb with things like fish discos is why the UK has super=expensive nukes (which are still cheaper than the total system cost of full unreliables.

Bryan A
Reply to  Chris Morris
October 3, 2026 11:26 pm

Especially when the potential 80 year Lifetime of Nuclear is factored into the equation…how many times Renewables need to be rebuilt relative to Nuclear…and Renewables overall capacity factors (25% Solar & 40% Wind) relative to Nuclear powers 98%.
Then there’s that nagging fact that Renewables only generates when Nature decides to deliver the “Free Fuel) and not when Peak Demands it while Nuclear generates 24/7 for two years less two weeks for refueling.

Steve Bunten
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 4, 2026 8:39 pm

Nuclear is expensive only due to government regulations and local resistance to getting approval. The Navy can make a new nuclear plant for a submarine or aircraft carrier without decades of lawsuits and other problems but a commercial plant has decades to go from proposal to online and not due to construction issue but regulatory delays.

October 3, 2026 11:46 am

None of this is required when sufficient conventional power plants are constructed to meet demand.

October 3, 2026 11:52 am

“In theory, practice is the same as theory—but not in practice.”
With professors like this, UK universities are definitely not a good investment.

kwinterkorn
October 3, 2026 11:54 am

Britain, like Germany, is dying—-and the intellectual/academic class are the executioners.

October 3, 2026 12:10 pm

Does this person actually live in Britain? Running a household far less the country using the weather as the decision maker is impossible and insane.

Paul McLellaln
October 3, 2026 12:22 pm

With smart meters it would be possible to make it clear what the difference is between intermittent power and reliable power and let people choose which they want; When there isn’t enough power, turn off all the people who picked unreliable power. I bet a lot of households would vote for unreliable power if it only paid (say) 20% of the price of reliable power;

John Hultquist
Reply to  Paul McLellaln
October 3, 2026 12:37 pm

Darn. There goes the ice cream.

Editor
Reply to  Paul McLellaln
October 3, 2026 3:02 pm

I have an unprecedented(TM) eco-friendly(TM) progressive(TM) sustainable(TM) alternative: work out when people need power, and how much, and then provide it.

Bryan A
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 3, 2026 11:36 pm

Like Wind under ultra cold winter blocking highs and people want to run their electric heaters or Solar during daily Peak Demand which occurs after the Daily 4pm Solar Drop off
or winter solar when generation drops by more than 50% during solar noon because its winter. Or even the drop in capacity factor for solar above 50°N/S latitudes.

Bob
October 3, 2026 4:31 pm

It is guys like this that diminish the prestige of professors.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  Bob
October 3, 2026 4:50 pm

Oh, the days when this degeneration of teachers and academia are long gone.
Post-war peace and prosperity commenced the decline into decadence.

October 3, 2026 8:04 pm

Battery storage has always claimed to be the solution for the intermittency of wind and solar. However, the storage capacity of lithium batteries is too expensive and therefore too small to solve the problem.

I’m beginning to wonder if this might change in the future as sodium-ion technology scales up.

Here is some current information I got from my internet search.

Why Sodium-Ion is Scaling up

“Grid operators are increasingly turning to sodium-ion storage to escape the supply volatility of lithium. Sodium is roughly 1,200 times more abundant than lithium, completely eliminates the need for cobalt or nickel, retains over 92% of its capacity in extreme cold (-20°C), and boasts a lifetime of up to 15,000 cycles (lasting up to 30 years).”

Current Largest Operational System

“The largest operational sodium-ion battery energy storage system (BESS) in the world is the Datang Hubei Sodium-Ion New Energy Storage Power Station located in Qianjiang, Hubei Province, China.
The grid-connected station utilizes 42 battery storage containers packed with cells supplied by HiNa Battery. At full capacity, a single charge can supply enough peak electricity to power roughly 12,000 households for a day.”

Massive Next-Generation Deployments (2026)

“While the Datang Hubei project holds the current operational record, technology giants are deploying modular systems that dwarf past projects, shifting sodium-ion from demonstration scale to mainstream commercial reality:

CATL’s Tener Sodium System: The world’s largest battery manufacturer, CATL, recently launched its mass-produced Tener Sodium grid storage system. Each single modular unit stores over 30 MWh. By linking just 34 of these units together, CATL is currently deploying 1 GWh stations onto the grid in China.
To feed this massive expansion, CATL signed the largest sodium-ion battery supply agreement in history with energy storage integrator HyperStrong. The contract covers a staggering 60 GWh of sodium-ion capacity over three years to anchor utility-scale projects globally.”

I wonder how many downvotes I’ll get for a post about technological development. (wink)

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 4, 2026 6:24 am

Eric, you’re exaggerating. Google AI tells me:

“There have been no recorded meteorological events where both solar and wind capacity dropped to near zero for an entire season.
While prolonged periods of low renewable generation do happen, they are fundamentally short-term events measured in hours, days, or at most a couple of weeks—not months.”

These Dunkenflaute events are usually regional. A solution to these regional events is to construct High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission lines alowing continents to trade power across thousands of kilometres.

While building a High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) link is a very expensive multi-billion dollar investment, it apparently acts as a massive “efficiency multiplier” for the entire grid. By connecting distant regions, it prevents cheap renewable energy from being wasted and drives down wholesale power prices. (According to Google AI).

As you probably know, AC power suffers from massive transmission losses over long distances. HVDC reduces line power losses by 30% to 50% over long routes, meaning more generated renewable energy actually reaches homes instead of vanishing as heat.

Also, the best solar and wind resources are usually far from cities (e.g., deserts). HVDC allows grids to access these very cheap, high-yield remote generation zones which are not being used for any profitable purposes.

Nevertheless, I do see potential major problems with such long distance power lines, such as wars and conflicts, earthquakes, and other natural disasters which could disrupt the power supply.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
October 4, 2026 6:35 am

They don’t have to drop completely to zero for weeks on end.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Vincent
October 4, 2026 4:36 pm

[“ they are fundamentally short-term events measured in hours, days, or at most a couple of weeks—not months.”]

You can’t buy a battery that will store a couple of weeks’ worth of energy for a house, let alone run a country !!
Silly boy.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
October 4, 2026 7:43 pm

In the winter, for many locations, solar in affect does go away for months. Even when the sun is above the horizon, it isn’t high enough in the sky to create more than a trivial amount of power.
And that’s before factoring in frost, snow and frequent cloudy days.
As for wind, unless you are willing to power heaters for the bird choppers blades, they are also often useless for days on end due to snow and ice build up. Often at the same time that solar is out.
Even when heaters are used, is questionable whether the bird choppers even produce enough power to run the heaters.
Remember that the generators also have to be heated to preven the oil from becoming too cold to flow.

Bryan A
Reply to  Vincent
October 3, 2026 11:40 pm

I would imagine that IF Sodium Ion were as promising as reported Soon Musk would be building Sodium Battery Manufacturing facilities at all of his Gigabattery plants and stop manufacturing Lithium batteries altogether… but he isn’t.

Reply to  Bryan A
October 4, 2026 6:39 am

Lithium batteries are still cheaper because of the massive supply chain advantage that lithium has built over decades. However, major manufacturers like CATL estimate that sodium-ion will reach true cost parity with lithium by the end of 2026, with prices eventually falling to $40–$50/kWh by 2030 as mass production scales globally.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
October 4, 2026 7:45 pm

You forget the fact that these sodium batteries have a lower power/pound ratio. Cars built with them may be a little bit cheaper, but they will also have a substantially reduced range.

Idle Eric
Reply to  Vincent
October 3, 2026 11:59 pm

The best estimates are the UK would need 25tWh as a minimum to cope with seasonal fluctuations in wind/solar, above 60tWh to cope with 1/40 year events, and that’s based on current demand, even to cope with a dunkelflaute lasting a few days, the country would still need storage measured in tWh.

In terms of cost 1tWh of storage costs ~ £300 billion, so perhaps £7.5 trillion for a 25tWh system, rising to £18+ trillion for sufficient to cover rare events, which is clearly unaffordable at the most obvious level, in fact even if sodium were to reduce to cost to 1% of lithium the £75 billion to £180 billion cost would still likely be unaffordable.

To add a bit more context the worlds largest BESS is 6.6gWh, so the UK would need over 4,000 of them to achieve 25tWh storage.

Unless sodium is literally 10,000% better than existing batteries, it’s not going to make a difference.

MarkW
Reply to  Idle Eric
October 4, 2026 6:38 am

Then throw in the 15 year expected lifespan for most batteries and even after you build out the system, you can expect to spend trillions every year forever.

And that doesn’t cover the costs of maintaining the battery systems or the not so infrequent cost of battery fires.

Reply to  MarkW
October 4, 2026 8:43 am

“Then throw in the 15 year expected lifespan for most batteries”

No. Throw out the 15 year expected lifespan for most batteries, and throw in the 30 year expected lifespan of the latest Sodium-ion batteries, which work much better in extreme cold and heat, and will cost less to produce in the future, as production scales up.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
October 4, 2026 7:46 pm

Still vapor ware. Claims for lithium batteries also vastly exceeded real world results when they were finally released into the field.

Reply to  Idle Eric
October 4, 2026 6:47 am

Cheap, reliable battery storage, such as future Sodium-ion batteries, plus long distance HVDC power lines, and undersea HVDC power cables are a potential solution, from my unbiased perspective.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
October 4, 2026 7:47 pm

History has shown that real world results almost never match the hype based on nothing more than lab results.
As for you being unbiased, try pulling the other one.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Vincent
October 5, 2026 12:25 am

[“I wonder how many downvotes I’ll get for a post about technological development. (wink)“]

I’ll give you one !! (;-))

But thanks for the heads up. Did your internet search come up with costs ??

Bob Heath
October 4, 2026 12:11 am

So fellow Brits, vote Reform.

Reply to  Bob Heath
October 4, 2026 2:54 am

Absolutely Bob.

October 4, 2026 2:56 am

Back in the bad old days! coal fired power stations were located adjacent to large coal mines.
It’s almost like they knew what they were doing. Virtually zero fuel transport costs.