Oxford Energy Expert Warns of Soaring Costs and Questionable Climate Benefits.
Professor Sir Dieter Helm is a leading British energy economist, Professor of Economic Policy at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Economics at New College, Oxford. He has advised successive UK governments on energy and climate change, including undertaking the Government’s independent Cost of Energy Review in 2017.
On 1 September 2026, he gave evidence to MSPs on the Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee, delivering a critical assessment of Scotland’s renewable energy strategy, its escalating costs and its contribution to tackling global climate change.
His central message was that Scotland is developing vast amounts of renewable electricity without adequately considering where it will be used, how it will be transported, what happens when it cannot be used and, crucially, who will pay for it.
Helm warned that, rather than delivering the cheap, secure energy promised, current policies risk locking consumers and businesses into high electricity costs for decades.
Scotland Is Generating Far More Electricity Than It Needs
Scotland’s peak electricity demand is approximately 5 gigawatts (GW), down from 6–7GW in 2010. Yet its energy strategy envisages around 20GW of additional renewable capacity by 2030.
Helm argued that this expansion is primarily intended to export electricity to England and potentially further afield, rather than meet Scotland’s own needs.
He questioned the logic of locating so much offshore wind generation in Scotland when most electricity demand is further south. Although Scotland has stronger winds, this must be weighed against the enormous cost of transporting electricity over long distances.
His conclusion was striking:
“However, they are there, so the question is what to do now. Do not put any more there.”
The Hidden Cost of Renewable Energy: Wind Is Not Free
Helm challenged claims that wind and solar provide cheap electricity, arguing that the cost of generating power is only part of the picture.
Intermittent renewables require extensive transmission networks, pylons, subsea cables, backup generation, battery storage and additional capacity to maintain electricity supplies when the wind does not blow. Along with being intermittent, wind and solar are also low-energy-density and geographically dispersed, increasing the amount of infrastructure and capacity needed to deliver electricity when and where it is needed.
He illustrated the scale of this problem: Britain previously needed approximately 60GW of generating capacity to meet peak demand of 45GW. Today, almost 120GW is required to meet a lower peak demand.
In other words, generating capacity has almost doubled despite falling electricity demand.
Helm argued that the true cost of renewable electricity must include the expense of making it available when and where it is needed.
Why Are Electricity Bills So High If Renewables Are Cheap?
If Scotland has so much renewable generation, why have electricity bills continued to rise?
Helm pointed to increasing system costs and Contracts for Difference (CfDs), which guarantee renewable generators an agreed electricity price.
He warned that some Scottish offshore wind electricity already costs £113 per megawatt hour, while future contracted prices could remain at £70–£100 or more, potentially locking consumers into high costs well into the 2040s.
Even when wholesale electricity prices fall dramatically because of surplus generation, consumers can remain exposed to higher contracted prices.
Helm also criticised the fact that developers do not directly bear all the additional costs of transmission infrastructure, backup generation and storage associated with their projects. Ultimately, those costs are recovered through the electricity system.
Paying Wind Farms Not to Generate Electricity
Scotland already experiences significant curtailment, where wind farms are instructed to reduce or stop generating because the electricity cannot be accommodated by the grid.
Generators can receive constraint payments under these arrangements, meaning costs are incurred even when electricity cannot reach consumers.
Helm questioned the logic of building further renewable capacity without sufficient infrastructure or demand to use it.
He also highlighted the limitations of exporting surplus electricity to Europe. When Scotland experiences strong winds, countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia may also have excess renewable generation.
Who will buy Scotland’s surplus electricity when neighbouring countries have their own surpluses?
Simply building more turbines does not guarantee that the electricity will be needed or economically useful.
Billions More for Pylons and Grid Infrastructure
Helm suggested that £30 billion to £70 billion of additional grid investment could be required to meet the relevant 2030 net zero ambitions, with actual costs potentially exceeding those estimates.
This means more pylons, substations, cables and other infrastructure, much of it crossing Scotland’s rural landscapes.
These costs are ultimately reflected in electricity bills, with Helm warning that the impact could amount to hundreds of pounds per customer.
During the session, MSP Rachael Hamilton highlighted growing opposition to pylons, battery storage and other energy infrastructure in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Helm argued that such opposition should not simply be dismissed as NIMBYism. Instead, communities should be asking why so much generation is being built so far from where electricity is needed and whether its financial and environmental consequences are justified.
Are Scotland’s Renewable Policies Really Tackling Climate Change?
Helm challenged the assumption that reducing Scotland’s domestic carbon emissions necessarily delivers equivalent reductions globally.
He distinguished between territorial emissions, produced within Scotland, and consumption-based emissions, which also account for imported goods and services.
Closing energy-intensive industries may reduce Scotland’s reported emissions, but if production moves to coal-dependent countries such as China, global emissions may not fall and could potentially increase.
He also highlighted the environmental consequences of manufacturing renewable technologies, including mining minerals, producing components and transporting equipment internationally.
As he put it:
“Renewables are also not clean, although they are cleaner.”
Helm stressed that renewable energy must be assessed across its entire supply chain, rather than assuming that all renewable generation is environmentally benign.
The Global Climate Challenge Is Much Bigger Than Electricity
According to Helm, approximately 80% of the UK economy remains dependent on fossil fuels, compared with 80–85% globally.
Electricity is only one part of energy consumption. Transport, heating, manufacturing, agriculture and petrochemicals remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels.
With global energy demand potentially doubling by 2050, Helm questioned whether concentrating so heavily on renewable electricity targets adequately addresses the wider climate challenge.
He also highlighted continuing increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, arguing that current international policies are failing to deliver sufficient progress.
What Does This Mean for Scotland’s Rural and Island Communities?
Helm’s evidence has particular relevance for communities facing large-scale offshore wind farms, onshore turbines, pylons, substations and battery storage developments.
These projects can have significant consequences for landscapes, seascapes, biodiversity, tourism and local economies.
His evidence raises important questions about whether those impacts are being adequately balanced against the actual economic and environmental benefits.
If Scotland already produces surplus renewable electricity, should further generation automatically be considered beneficial?
If additional capacity requires billions in transmission infrastructure, should those costs be included when assessing value for money?
And where developments threaten internationally important landscapes or seascapes, should their claimed climate benefits be measured against their actual contribution to reducing global emissions?
These are questions that deserve scrutiny before irreversible decisions are made.
Why this Matters for MachairWind
Helm’s evidence raises questions directly relevant to the debate over MachairWind: what is the evidence for the claimed national benefits, how does the location of generation relate to where electricity is needed, and what transmission infrastructure and wider system costs are required?
These questions are particularly important when a development’s claimed national benefits are weighed against its effects on a specific location. At least three of the island Community Councils opposing MachairWind have argued that the case for additional renewable generation does not, in itself, establish the need for this particular development at W1. That question must be considered alongside the extensive adverse effects on nationally important landscapes, seascapes and heritage, and the other environmental effects identified in the assessment of the applications.
Climate Realism: A Different Approach to Energy Policy
Helm strongly supports tackling climate change and recognises the important role of renewable energy, while arguing that the transition, and the government targets associated with it, must take proper account of affordability, competitiveness and the practical costs and requirements of relying increasingly on intermittent renewables.
He argued that energy policy should be assessed against three objectives:
- Climate change: Does investment deliver meaningful reductions in global emissions?
- Affordability: Can households and businesses sustain the costs?
- Economic competitiveness: Does it support industry, employment and growth?
Rather than pursuing targets regardless of expense, he advocated determining what consumers and industry can realistically afford and directing investment towards the most effective solutions.
Conclusion: Is It Time to Question Scotland’s Renewable Energy Strategy?
Helm’s evidence challenges the assumption that more renewable generation automatically means cheaper electricity, greater energy security or better environmental outcomes.
His arguments call for much closer scrutiny of the costs, benefits and practical requirements of further renewable energy expansion.
For communities facing major energy infrastructure developments, the fundamental questions remain:
How much additional renewable generation does Scotland actually need? Who will use the electricity? What will it cost to deliver? Who will pay? And what measurable difference will it make to global climate change?
Ultimately, building more renewable infrastructure is not, in itself, proof of environmental or economic progress.
What matters is whether the benefits justify the financial, environmental and social costs.