The side that won had the thinner bench: its case carried the vote, but the room’s most forceful objections came from No voters who treated the question as a warning about reliability, cost and control. This self-selected platform debate was less a clean endorsement than a narrow choice made amid deep suspicion.
The highest-respected Yes case was briskly maximalist: “It is literally the best option by all metrics”, coupling lower costs with protection of nature and finite fossil fuels. Other Yes voices were more conditional, accepting a continuing role for gas and nuclear while arguing that “We overproduce from renewables but can't store it” — making storage, grid capacity and energy independence part of the case rather than afterthoughts.
No voters answered with a mixture of technical objections and outright distrust. The practical argument was that “Renewables still need backup supply”, with intermittency, imports, transmission delays, subsidies and manufacturing overseas all invoked; alongside it came the harsher verdict that “It's the biggest scam since the Ukraine war”.
The two sides often argued at different levels. Yes was voting for the direction of travel — away from volatile fossil-fuel markets and towards lower-carbon generation — while No wanted the system built in the right order, with one of its sharper interventions insisting that “The question is the wrong one”: invest first in transmission, balancing, storage, nuclear, efficient homes and a resilient network.
The platform has chosen more renewables, but its arguments leave the harder question intact: how to make that choice dependable when the wind drops, the grid strains and the politics turns sour.
20 Opinions
Its not either or, we should stop arguing over the best way of making electricity and just throw everything we have at making as much electricity from all source as physically possible, we're not going to make 'too much' electricity
I prefer a greener way of producing energy. Wind Turbines look elegant, agree they are noisy, so are trains and traffic, quite entertaining having a railway at the end of your garden. We need to embrace the change. Life doesn't stay the same, but there's no harm in also looking at what worked well in the past.
More solar panels from China with minerals mined by children and a finite lifespan…
We need both, let the market decide, oil, gas taxed to hell whilst solar ,wind turbines cost taxpayers more! Level it out
It makes sense to invest in renewables, not just because of climate change, but because fossil fuels are finite. There is a place for both to meet current needs, until such time as renewable technology is sufficient to meet all needs.
Renewables still need backup supply for the times they can't generate. This is either expensive imports or using gas turbines. In addition the grid is nowhere near being ready to transmit power generated to where it is needed. The subsidies add much to the cost to consumers, and give a false impression of their cost. In addition they are produced in China using fossil fuel so they are far from being environmentally friendly.
All energy needs investment. Ships cant move on renewables we need steel to strengthen the navy etc
We have enough wind and solar projects. Spend money on Grid and nuclear now.
Renewables are not renewable. It’s a lie that they are sustainable. It’s a criminal scam and those involved in government the climate change committee and civil servants & NGOs should be prosecuted for fraud & where appropriate malfeasance in Public Ofguce. UK should then revived the £Billions from the Green Washing sector. It’s all about control not climate & Miliband et al are very aware of this. He is a criminal.
YES Along with investing heavily in nuclear energy. GB should be heavily supporting & buying into these new fusion reactors, they may not work properly yet but once they do, scientist predict within 10yrs, they'll be a game changer when it comes to providing energy