“UK’s ‘Biggest Battery’ Powers Just 2 Hours – But You’re Told It Runs 680,000 Homes”

The Hype: Britain’s Biggest Battery

On 18th August 2025, National Grid proudly announced that it had connected the UK’s largest battery energy storage system at Tilbury in Essex.

The headlines sound impressive:

300MW of capacity.

680,000 homes “powered.”

A symbolic shift “from coal to clean.”

It’s the kind of glossy announcement designed to make you feel the Net Zero dream is real, that Britain is marching confidently into a greener future.

But scratch the surface, and the story looks very different.

The Reality: Two Hours of Power



Yes, the Thurrock Storage battery is big by UK standards: 300MW / 600MWh. But here’s what that actually means:

It can deliver 300MW of power, but only for two hours.

That “680,000 homes” figure is a sleight of hand. In truth, it could run those homes for a couple of hours, not indefinitely.


For context:

Britain consumes around 900,000MWh every day.

This battery covers 0.07% of that daily demand.

It’s a drop in the ocean, not a replacement for real power stations.

The Symbolism Trick

National Grid painted this as a victory over coal:

> “Our Tilbury substation once served a coal plant, and with battery connections like this, it’s today helping to power a more sustainable future.”



Sounds inspiring. But left out is the fact that the same site will soon host a 450MW gas plant. That doesn’t quite fit the “coal-to-clean” slogan.

It’s not a clean transition. It’s coal to gas plus a couple of batteries.

What They Didn’t Tell You

Here’s what’s missing from the press release:

Cost: Building this battery cost well over £300 million. Who pays? Ultimately, you do – through your energy bills.

Losses: Batteries waste 10–15% of the energy stored.

Back-up: When the wind isn’t blowing for days, or solar collapses in winter, a two-hour battery does almost nothing.


But the PR spin doesn’t dwell on that. It gives you the illusion of progress, not the truth of limitations.

The Bigger Picture

This isn’t an isolated case. It’s part of a pattern of climate propaganda:

Overinflate small-scale projects.

Ignore costs, efficiency losses, and fossil backup.

Frame symbolic gestures (coal plant replaced by battery) as system-changing progress.

Condition the public to believe Net Zero is inevitable, affordable, and working.


Meanwhile, the hard engineering truth is brushed aside. Britain still relies on gas, nuclear, and imports to keep the lights on.

Conclusion: Don’t Fall for the Brainwash

The Tilbury battery is not a revolution. It’s a giant PR stunt – a short-term storage unit dressed up as a “clean energy milestone.”

If the public keeps swallowing this spin, we’ll end up paying more for an energy system that’s less reliable and still dependent on fossil fuels.

The truth? Batteries don’t generate power. They just move it around. And right now, Net Zero is running on illusion, not reality.

🔥  Call to Action:
“Don’t let the spin merchants decide Britain’s energy future. Demand honesty, demand affordability, and demand real power – not PR batteries.”


Comments

2 responses to ““UK’s ‘Biggest Battery’ Powers Just 2 Hours – But You’re Told It Runs 680,000 Homes””

  1. David Roland avatar
    David Roland

    The last 10% of anything is almost always the most expensive 10%. There are so many places around the world that haven’t even started reducing carbon and are simply burning more and more coal as they need more and more electricity. however the first 50% of the carbon reduction in these other countries is very likely to be cheaper than the last 10% in Britain.

    For example rather than build three 3000 mile long HVDC cables from Morocco along the coast of Spain and France to Cornwall wouldn’t it be better to use this power in Morocco itself to substitute the coal it burns at present. If necessary Britain can continue to burn gas which is half as dirty coal. But for the world this would still be a significant reduction in carbon. (So what is really needed is an effective carbon trading system). People seem to forget that carbon dioxide does not respect international boundaries.

    Installation of solar panels together with batteries and heat pumps might be worthwhile on new builds or rebuilds. However retrofitting an existing building only gives you a return in the feel good factor that you are doing something good for the environment. In this case it might be better to spend the same money on solar panels For an African village so they have power to pump water to the houses, Light the houses so people can study at night and do the cooking so they’re not living in a toxic atmosphere of wood smoke and causing deforestation and desertification. For them the intermittent nature of renewables is less of a problem. Energy storage could simply be in pumped water. And solar panels would be three times as effective in the sunny climes compared with cloudy Britain.

    So long before we reach net zero in any country we should be looking for Net 50% in the World. (Which would be cheaper for us and more beneficial for everyone in the World. It is a Global Climate Crisis, which needs global solutions.

    Like

    1. Unfortunately all the goals are set by the Climate and change committee and they only understand setting goals,achievable or not.

      Like

Leave a comment