Offshore wind, onshore wind, solar and nuclear are not simply climate instruments; they are tools of economic security.
The Iran crisis has not created a new problem for Britain’s energy system. It has exposed an old one, again. We tend to remember it only when prices move.
That is the nature of exposure. It is easy to ignore while markets are calm. It becomes impossible to ignore when a narrow strip of water half a world away starts to shape what British households and businesses pay for energy.
We remain a price taker in global fossil fuel markets. When instability passes through the Strait of Hormuz, it reaches British homes and industry soon afterwards.
This is not chiefly the failure of any one government. It is the reality of a system still anchored, at the margin, by gas. And the issue is not price alone. A large share of global oil and liquefied natural gas flows through that narrow, vulnerable chokepoint. Even with diversified imports, disruption there tightens global markets and feeds directly into UK costs.
Ministers are right to focus on immediate stability and consumer protection. But the strategic question is not how we respond to this shock. It is how we reduce our exposure to the next one.
There is now broad agreement within government that expanding domestic generation is the right direction, even if that consensus is not yet shared across the political spectrum.
Offshore wind, onshore wind, solar and nuclear are not simply climate instruments; they are tools of economic security. By the time of the next general election, much of this infrastructure will already be contracted into the system. Whoever forms the next government will inherit a power system shaped by these choices and will have to manage the consequences.
The second phase of the energy system is less developed, and it needs shaping now. A power system led by renewables still requires dispatchable capacity, power that can respond when demand rises or renewable output falls.
Today, gas performs that role. It is flexible and reliable, but it also sets the marginal price. That means volatility in global gas markets still passes straight through to the domestic system. As long as gas remains the default backstop, geopolitical risk will continue to translate into domestic cost.
There is a further problem. Britain’s existing gas fleet is ageing. Much of it will need replacing or retiring within the next decade, just as the system will need reliable backup to support renewables.
The question, therefore, is not whether we build more clean generation. It is how we build a system that can operate reliably without leaning so heavily on gas when conditions turn against us.
That brings us to system flexibility, and to a technology that can provide it: hydrogen to power.
Hydrogen to power uses hydrogen as a fuel to generate electricity on demand through gas turbines, performing the same system role as today’s gas plants but without relying on unabated fossil fuels. When renewable generation is higher than we need, rather than curtailing it, the surplus electricity is used to produce hydrogen through electrolysis.
That hydrogen can then be stored at scale in underground salt caverns, drawing on Britain’s geology, and converted back into electricity when needed. Batteries play a critical role in managing short duration flexibility, but they are not designed to cover longer gaps in generation. Hydrogen stored in salt caverns can provide energy over days, weeks or longer, making hydrogen to power one of the few credible options for longer duration system flexibility.
It is also worth remembering that Britain has used hydrogen at scale before. Town gas, which supplied homes until the 1960s, contained a high proportion of hydrogen. That does not mean we should recreate the old system. But it does remind us that hydrogen is not alien to British energy infrastructure. Its most effective modern role, though, is in the power system rather than domestic heating.
Green hydrogen supports a renewables led system and reduces reliance on imported gas when conditions turn against us. For consumers, that means a system less driven by volatile gas prices.
There is also an economic benefit. Building hydrogen power stations and storage at scale would support skilled jobs across engineering, construction, operations and maintenance, particularly in industrial regions with strong energy and manufacturing capability.
This is where government needs to be clearer, and faster.
If we are not expanding further into the North Sea, and are serious about reducing dependence on imported gas, including LNG exposed to Middle Eastern supply routes, then ministers, and Ed Miliband in particular, need to explain how these transitional technologies will be supported at pace and at scale.
UK policy on hydrogen to power is starting to take shape through the proposed business model, transport and storage frameworks, and wider strategic energy planning. But it is not yet clear enough to unlock investment.
Capital does not move on ambiguity. Without a clear position from government, the UK risks a real gap in its energy system. If clarity for investment comes now, it begins to solve that problem before it becomes a crisis.
If it does not, we will face a simultaneous challenge: decarbonising the power system while scrambling to replace the dispatchable capacity that gas currently provides. That is a significantly harder task.
Government’s role is not to build these projects. It is to make them investable. That requires stable revenue arrangements and a planning and grid regime that recognises the strategic importance of hydrogen to power and geological storage in a flexible energy system.
None of this requires a change in direction. It requires a sharpening of focus.
The events in Iran remind us that energy policy is, in the end, about exposure to risk. We cannot control instability in global markets. But we can decide how exposed we choose to remain.
We have the technology. We have the industrial capacity. What is missing is the policy certainty needed to unlock investment. Without it, we drift further from real energy security.
Energy security is not a slogan. It is a design choice. The longer we delay that choice, the more exposed Britain remains.
You can subscribe to Tom Watson’s substack here:
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.