A British household paying £1,500 per year for electricity would pay roughly £350 in America for the same consumption. A European household pays perhaps £600. The gap is not explained by weather, geography, or population density. It is explained by policy — specifically, decades of policy decisions that have made Britain’s energy sector one of the most expensive in the developed world. The crisis is not inevitable; it is manageable, if policymakers have the will to act.
Britain’s energy mix has shifted dramatically. In 2024, 75 per cent of UK energy generation remains fossil fuel dependent — down two percentage points from 2023. Renewables now account for 25 per cent of energy consumption, and 51 per cent of electricity generation. This is genuine progress. Yet the gains have been achieved through an expensive, inefficient patchwork of subsidies, grid upgrades, and international dependencies. A strategic energy policy could achieve better outcomes at lower cost.
The cost structure problem
British electricity prices are structured around three problems. First, infrastructure investment in the National Grid is passed directly to consumers. Second, energy production is fragmented across competing private operators, each requiring shareholder returns and debt servicing. Third, the UK is dependent on imported natural gas for heating and power generation, making us vulnerable to global commodity price volatility.
The United States benefits from vast domestic fossil fuel reserves, lower environmental regulations on new plants, and a more consolidated energy sector. Continental Europe benefits from nuclear power (France derives 70 per cent of electricity from nuclear) and long-established interconnects between national grids. Britain has done neither. Instead, we have pursued an expensive transition to renewable energy without either backing it with significant nuclear deployment or managing the fiscal burden effectively.
The high cost is a drag on the entire economy. Every manufacturing operation compares energy costs when deciding where to locate. Every data center, every hospital, every school pays more in Britain. This is not a burden borne equally; it is most severe for energy-intensive industries that should be competitive. British chemical manufacturers, steel producers, and materials processors operate at a structural disadvantage against international competitors.
The households suffering most are those least able to bear the cost. A pensioner on £12,000 per year has energy costs consuming 12-15 per cent of income. A wealthy household with income of £100,000 per year has energy costs consuming 1-2 per cent. Energy policy has become regressive policy, shifting wealth from the poorest to the richest through every bill paid.
The four-pronged strategy
The CRPF proposes a comprehensive energy policy combining four elements, each achievable with current technology and known costs. Together they would address the structural cost problem while creating an energy-independent Britain.
First: British biomass leadership
Biomass is the second-largest renewable energy source after wind, yet Britain has ceded leadership to imports. The Drax power station, for example, sources biomass predominantly from North America rather than British sources. This requires transatlantic shipping, costs more, and keeps supply chain profits offshore. Britain could produce industrial-scale biomass from sustainable forestry, agricultural waste, and managed woodlands. British biomass would be cheaper (no shipping), renewable (managed sustainably), and would keep economic value domestic.
The biofuel market is growing at 6.3 per cent annually and is projected to reach $204 billion by 2030. European biofuel demand is growing at 6.07 per cent annually. This is not speculative; this is market reality. Britain could establish biomass and biofuel leadership through targeted investment in processing infrastructure and managed incentives for sustainable production.
Second: Small Modular Reactors at scale
Rolls Royce is developing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) at an estimated cost of £2 billion per reactor. Each reactor generates roughly 300 megawatts of baseload power — enough to power approximately 1.1 million homes. An SMR programme deploying 15-20 reactors over a decade would cost roughly £30-40 billion, a substantial but manageable investment. These reactors would provide stable, predictable baseload power, eliminating the volatility that plagues renewable-only systems.
High energy prices function as a tax on the entire economy. Every household, every business, every public service suffers from elevated energy costs relative to international competitors.
Christine Lagarde, ECB
SMRs have advantages over large reactors. They can be deployed modularly, spreading cost and risk over time. They generate waste at lower volumes. They offer opportunities for local participation and revenue sharing. And they address the baseload power problem that renewable-only systems cannot solve. When the wind stops and the sun sets, the grid requires power. SMRs provide it consistently.
Third: Mandatory photovoltaic roof tiles and battery storage
Three British companies now produce roof-integrated photovoltaic tiles — technology that generates electricity while serving as roofing material. These tiles cost roughly 20-30 per cent more than standard roofing but generate power for 25+ years. A building code requirement for photovoltaic roofs on all new commercial and residential construction would create immediate demand, reducing per-unit costs through scale.
Paired with battery storage (a technology falling in cost rapidly), distributed solar would supplement centralized generation. A household with 50 square meters of roof space in southern Britain can generate roughly 5 kilowatts of peak power — meeting much of typical household needs. Aggregated across millions of properties, this creates a distributed generation network requiring less grid investment and vulnerability.
Fourth: Seaweed-based biofuel from aquaculture
As outlined in our aquafarming analysis, seaweed cultivation could provide feedstock for biofuel production. At scale, this creates a renewable fuel source for both electricity generation and transport. It is capital intensive but achieves returns of 8-25 per cent depending on sector and implementation.
The industrial policy dimension
Energy policy is industrial policy. A decision to pursue SMRs creates opportunities for British manufacturing, engineering, and construction firms. A commitment to biomass leadership attracts processing and conversion plants. A roof tile programme drives innovation in integrated solar. A seaweed biofuel programme creates coastal jobs and agricultural opportunity.
The investment required — perhaps £50-60 billion over a decade across all four elements — is substantial. But it is less than half of annual pension spending. It is equivalent to five years of National Insurance contributions. And it would generate returns far exceeding the initial investment through lower energy costs, reduced imports, and industrial growth.
Energy investment generally returns 8-25 per cent per annum depending on the sector. A £50 billion programme generating average 12 per cent returns would yield £6 billion annually by the end of a decade — repaying the investment entirely within two decades while reducing energy costs for every household and business.
The grid and storage question
The challenge of transitioning to renewable-heavy systems is grid stability. Wind and solar are intermittent; they generate when conditions permit, not when demand peaks. Biomass, SMRs, and biofuels provide dispatchable power — available when needed. The combination creates resilience that neither renewable-only nor fossil-fuel-only systems achieve.
Grid investment remains necessary. But a more diverse generation portfolio reduces the need for extensive long-distance transmission. Distributed solar reduces peak demand pressures. Biomass and SMRs provide baseload capacity. Battery storage smooths volatility across hours. The result is a system more resilient, less vulnerable to weather shocks or supply disruptions, and fundamentally cheaper to operate.
Modern bioenergy is the overlooked giant of the renewable energy field. It offers dispatchable power, process heat, chemical feedstocks, and fuel production from sustainably managed biomass. Yet it receives a fraction of investment given to wind and solar.
International Energy Agency, 2024
The cost to implement this strategy is real and requires political courage. It requires committing to biomass infrastructure that takes years to build. It requires regulatory approval for SMRs in a sector where opposition is organized. It requires mandating roof tiles that cost more but generate power. It requires investing in aquaculture systems that are nascent. But the alternative — continuing the current expensive, fragmented, import-dependent system — is far costlier.
The fiscal case
Current high energy costs burden the exchequer in multiple ways. Every government building pays premium rates. Every hospital heating bill is higher. Public transport systems pay more for power, affecting subsidy requirements. Welfare spending increases because benefits must cover higher household energy costs. Every pound of public expenditure is less efficient because energy is more expensive.
A strategic energy policy that cuts household energy costs by 30 per cent — bringing UK costs closer to European levels rather than achieving parity with the US — would save the average household £450 per year. Scaled across 28 million households, that is £12.6 billion in annual household savings. For government, reduced welfare costs alone would likely exceed £2 billion per year. The investment pays for itself through fiscal effects within a decade.