How can you disagree with the sentiment? You can’t, that’s why it is such a clever soundbite. But soundbites often crash and burn when put to the test and this one is no different.

The phrase is rolled out when discussing solar and wind power generation, often set against imported fossil fuels. Now I agree with the sentiment behind the soundbite but I do confess to getting thoroughly insulted with the concept of “control” over the sun and wind. Some unkind souls claim the Energy Secretary has a messiah complex; all I would say is that we should be honest with consumers and admit what is glaringly obvious, solar and wind may be green, they may have low marginal costs to generation but they are weather dependent and not controlled by humans (even Ed).

But exploring the concept of clean, homegrown energy we can control, it would be amiss not to point out how green gases do fit the bill. Take biomethane, homegrown, clean and certainly capable of being controlled. We can control the inputs and importantly, have much greater control over the energy vector outputs. In the form of a gas, we can store it far more cheaply and for longer than we can electrons and it has far greater flexibility in its use.

The same, arguably, is true of green hydrogen. Produced from excess wind (or dedicated generation) hydrogen is clean, home produced and again can be used more flexibly than electrons.

So, you ask, why are only electrons referred to by the soundbite? Well, the cynic (realist) in me suggests it is because DESNZ doesn’t do gas. It is that simple, that blunt and frankly, that stupid.

My challenge to our sector is to turn the soundbite to our advantage. Use it whenever we talk about biomethane or hydrogen. Repeat and repeat until others are sick of hearing it. If we believe in the cause and agree the soundbite applies to our solutions, use their words to sell our vision.