![\"\\u200bWind](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/u200bwind-turbines.jpg\")
<\/p>\nBritain could face blackouts lasting up to two weeks because the Government has failed to account for the country\u2019s unpredictable weather in its drive towards Net Zero, energy experts have warned.<\/p>\n
A major study, carried out by engineering academic Professor David Walwyn and Cambridge University engineering expert Tony Stephens, has found the UK\u2019s energy system is vulnerable to long periods of calm weather, when wind turbines generate almost no power.<\/p>\n
Wind energy is at the heart of the Government\u2019s green plans, with a pledge that 95 per cent of the UK\u2019s electricity will come from \u2018clean\u2019 sources by 2030. <\/p>\n
But researchers say the strategy is based on \u201coverly optimistic\u201d modelling that underestimates the impact of so-called \u201cwind lulls\u201d \u2014 periods lasting up to 14 days when there is little or no wind across the country.<\/p>\n
Professor Walwyn, of the University of Pretoria, said: \u201cWe\u2019ve studied this in depth using historical weather records. Wind lulls are both in winter and summer, are unpredictable and not infrequent, yet they\u2019ve been ignored in the official energy models.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you quadruple the number of wind turbines, it won\u2019t make any difference when there\u2019s no wind. The system simply won\u2019t generate enough electricity, and people will be cut off from supply.\u201d<\/p>\n
The study compared real-world data with the National Energy System Operator\u2019s (NESO) official predictions. It found that NESO\u2019s models do not factor in the risk of prolonged wind lulls and fail to state any confidence levels in their assumptions.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe asked the modellers how confident they were in their forecasts,\u201d said Prof Walwyn. \u201cThey didn\u2019t give us a clear answer. These reports were published without proper scrutiny.\u201d<\/p>\n
Wind turbines<\/p>\n
PA<\/p>\n
The UK currently stores just 7.5 days\u2019 worth of gas for winter emergencies. By comparison, France and Germany hold months of backup reserves. Experts say this leaves Britain dangerously exposed if renewables underperform.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn South Africa, we call this \u2018load shedding\u2019 \u2014 when you can\u2019t match supply with demand, the grid collapses,\u201d said Prof Walwyn. <\/p>\n
\u201cIn the UK, that could mean seven to 14 days without sufficient power for the whole country.\u201d<\/p>\n
Emeritus Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University, Michael Kelly, who has reviewed the research, said: \u201cStudies like these haven\u2019t been given enough attention in the rush to net zero. The risks are real and threaten the viability of these major investments.\u201d<\/p>\n
Prof Kelly, a Fellow of both the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, added: \u201cIf this study is correct, we\u2019ll have wind turbines sitting idle and no backup from gas-fired power stations, because they\u2019ll have been shut down.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat would lead to blackouts \u2014 like the one that recently hit Spain \u2014 but potentially lasting more than a week.\u201d<\/p>\n
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS: <\/strong> Wind turbine sizes<\/p>\n PA<\/p>\n \u201cCritical infrastructure like hospitals and air traffic control would be especially vulnerable if they rely on wind or solar for backup.\u201d<\/p>\n The study claims that increasing the UK\u2019s wind generation capacity from 20 GW to 30 GW would bring negligible extra carbon savings, while adding \u00a3120billion to the cost. <\/p>\n Reaching the Government\u2019s 2030 target of 78 GW wind and 74 GW solar would cost another \u00a340billion \u2014 yet still would not prevent blackouts during lulls.<\/p>\n \u201cThis expansion is uneconomic,\u201d said Prof Walwyn. \u201cYou wouldn\u2019t buy a second unreliable car if the first one kept breaking down \u2014 you\u2019d fix the reliability problem.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe assume building more turbines will deliver energy security, but wind doesn\u2019t work that way. We don\u2019t have the storage technology to make it reliable.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s not the volume that\u2019s broken \u2014 it\u2019s the dependability.\u201d<\/p>\n The experts argue that instead of focusing on hitting carbon targets, the UK should prioritise grid resilience, including building larger gas reserves and investing in reliable backup systems.<\/p>\n The Government\u2019s \u00a322billion Net Zero plan also includes proposals for carbon capture and storage, small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), and green hydrogen.<\/p>\n But Prof Walwyn warned these are \u201chigh-risk technologies\u201d that are unproven at scale.<\/p>\n \u201cCarbon capture is still experimental. Green hydrogen isn\u2019t scalable in the time available. Yet we\u2019re relying on them to balance the grid,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n He added: \u201cThis is wishful thinking, not sound engineering.\u201d<\/p>\n Offshire wind turbines<\/p>\n PA<\/p>\n Even if carbon capture succeeds in reducing emissions, the report says it will do nothing to prevent power shortages during wind lulls.<\/p>\n \u201cThe current strategy ignores the real issue: renewables are intermittent, and the backup isn\u2019t in place.\u201d<\/p>\n The potential economic cost of energy shortages could be severe. It is estimated that serious blackouts could cut GDP by one to two per cent per year \u2014 hitting industry, healthcare, transport, and national security.<\/p>\n \u201cThis isn\u2019t a minor inconvenience,\u201d said Prof Walwyn. \u201cIt affects everything.\u201d<\/p>\n He warned that without urgent changes, Britain faces regular energy crises.<\/p>\n \u201cEvery four years, we see a major wind event that the system can\u2019t handle. Without adequate backup, we\u2019ll see blackouts.\u201d<\/p>\n He concluded: \u201cI\u2019m not against the energy transition. Britain can and should reduce emissions. But there\u2019s no sense in sacrificing energy security and imposing unnecessary costs on households for a strategy that isn\u2019t proven to work.\u201d<\/p>\n A spokesman for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero said: \u201cThese claims are categorically false \u2013 the National Energy System Operator factors in the impact of wind lulls in its research.<\/p>\n \u201cOur robust electricity system is already set up to cope with such scenarios. As we transition to net zero, we will continue working with our partners to ensure the safe, secure and resilient supply of electricity across Great Britain.<\/p>\n \u201cOur varied sources of gas supply means that the UK is less reliant on gas storage than some European countries and early analysis shows a positive outlook for the UK\u2019s energy supply, which is expected to meet demand this winter thanks to our diverse and resilient energy system.\u201d<\/p>\n A spokesman for NESO, which runs the Government energy system, added: “NESO’s Clean Power for 2030 advice to government is robust and incorporates our operational and modelling expertise from many years of expertly operating Great Britain’s electricity system. <\/p>\n “We take our primary duties seriously, which includes ensuring security of supply for current and future customers and we categorically challenge these false claims on our modelling approach and assumptions. <\/p>\n “We use electricity market dispatch modelling, with a wide range of historic data that includes variations on wind and solar output covering periods of very high, average \/ typical and very low renewable output, which can last for short or extended periods.”<\/p>\n A spokesman for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero said: “These claims are categorically false \u2013 the National Energy System Operator factors in the impact of wind lulls in its research.<\/p>\n “Our robust electricity system is already set up to cope with such scenarios. As we transition to net zero, we will continue working with our partners to ensure the safe, secure and resilient supply of electricity across Great Britain.<\/p>\n “Our varied sources of gas supply means that the UK is less reliant on gas storage than some European countries and early analysis shows a positive outlook for the UK\u2019s energy supply, which is expected to meet demand this winter thanks to our diverse and resilient energy system.”<\/p>\n A spokesman for the Government backed National Energy System Operator (NESO), which runs Britain’s energy system, said: “NESO’s Clean Power for 2030 advice to government is robust and incorporates our operational and modelling expertise from many years of expertly operating Great Britain’s electricity system. We take our primary duties seriously, which includes ensuring security of supply for current and future customers, and we categorically challenge these false claims on our modelling approach and assumptions. <\/p>\n “We use electricity market dispatch modelling, with a wide range of historic data that includes variations on wind and solar output covering periods of very high, average\/typical and very low renewable output, which can last for short or extended periods.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Britain could face blackouts lasting up to two weeks because the Government has failed to account for the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":217211,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5018,3,4],"tags":[748,35,393,4884,12,1144,285,712,16,3106,15,1764],"class_list":{"0":"post-217210","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-britain","8":"category-uk","9":"category-united-kingdom","10":"tag-britain","11":"tag-energy","12":"tag-england","13":"tag-great-britain","14":"tag-news","15":"tag-northern-ireland","16":"tag-politics","17":"tag-scotland","18":"tag-uk","19":"tag-uk-politics","20":"tag-united-kingdom","21":"tag-wales"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114752465707753492","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217210","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=217210"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217210\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/217211"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\\u200bWind](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/u200bwind-turbine-sizes.jpg\")
![\"Offshire](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/offshire-wind-turbines.jpg\")