The narrative on renewable energy has changed: here’s why

Everyone loves a wedge issue in politics - renewables and net zero is exactly that. Rishi caused a ruckus around net zero. He villainised the LEZ (and its obliged costs), and made individuals feel like they were responsible for solutions e.g. car switches, driving less, framing net zero as the inconvenience that many seem to think it is. But LEZ has nothing to do with Net Zero – it’s clean air…

This tactical model – complicate and confuse everyone to make them feel like the issue affects them - extends to today’s political narrative around renewables. I follow politics closely and the sentiment has shifted. In the same government, what was once considered positive (Boris’s COP26 attendance and energy discussions) is now a political wedge that can be portrayed as a negative.

It’s been interesting to observe, and I’ve divulged my thoughts theorising why in this thought piece.

Where have politicians gone wrong?

The perceptions around renewables are clear; wind turbines are an eyesore; solar farms are destroying the look of our land; solar farms are stealing land from farmers for growing food. But few people see them and most rarely end up near them. So how has this happened?

Politicians use renewables as a method for quick wins. Putting them front and centre, fully aware of its controversies to get re-elected. In fairness, politicians both for and against renewables do this. And while the quick win might lead to a favourable poll here and there, lacking in long-view leadership sets themselves up for failure when facing these issues during term or ahead of re-elections.

Why do politicians get it wrong?

As always though, the wedge issue lurks in the corner, and the counter arguments are tricky to communicate. It’s not as punchy or memorable and it sounds like you’re not well read on the subject. For example...

Argument: You need subsidies

Counter argument: Most, if not all energy production need subsidies or incentive to bring investment and development into the system. However, if you mention subsidies and incentives around Gas peakers or powerplants, people think you’re talking nonsense.

Argument: You need expensive support infrastructure

Counter argument: As we develop into the future, no matter the kind of distributed generation is rolled out and what generation type is connected to it, the infrastructure requirement will change, as will its cost. Long gone are the days of big coal power plants sat on the A1 pumping huge amounts of power to the south.

When you think of it, how much was the cost of inefficiency to do that?

Argument: You need the magic tree of storage…

Counter argument: Storage has always been in an issue. Even in the grand old days of coal power plants, the resolution was to over generate to peak load 24/7 – no storage. So, how was this combatted? Huge infrastructure in street lighting was built to sync power, amongst other forms of power dumping to balance the grid. Even then, we still needed STOR peakers, and quick response supply from costly TRIAD calls.

So, how is the renewable energy narrative changing?

In a matter of months though, the narrative on energy production is won (at least in my world it has). Not necessarily from the perspective of Net Zero, but from the point of Energy Security.

Home grown energy is essential in a world where oil and gas reserves are monopolised by Despots, and global conflict and instability is impacting our access to this resource. To be independent from their influence, to allow us to thrive in the future, power needs to be produced locally. The money spent on them needs to be retained in this economy, our economy, and not sent elsewhere to finance others political ambitions.

Thankfully, the UK is generating its own power from its own resources (42.3% of the UK energy mix was from renewables in the 12 months to January 2025), without the crux of an outside power. And to top it all off, it’s also fairy cheap, at least cheaper than ONG so sells itself.

To manage all this, and the transition to “Energy Security”, the government introduced the Nationalised Energy System Operator (NESO), a state-owned body taking over from the privately owned Electricity System Operator and the gas network, transitioning out the requirement for Natural Gas to heat homes and produce an Electrical System fit for us in the future.

It is no longer a left vs right debate

While the government that introduced NESO was Conservative, Labour has inherited this. With glee likely – yes, however the principle was incumbent and would have happened in any case.

Therefore, the discussion in business’ affected by NESO should not be a political scrap about the alignment to one political cause or another. Instead, it must be key decision makers engaging with the industry to make sure we work together to help meet the UK’s clean energy goals.