The West's next mass blackouts might be ‘made in China'
'Cheap, clean power, to give us energy security,' declared Ed Miliband, as he strode through a grassy field flanked by rows of solar panels.
With a film crew in tow, the Energy Secretary visited Castle Hill solar farm, in East Yorkshire, last Thursday to promote the launch of Great British Energy, the new publicly owned energy company.
If he gets his way, there will soon be many more sites like it. Under Labour's clean power mission, the Government wants to almost triple the amount of British solar capacity by 2030.
Yet while ministers say this will ensure we 'take back control of our energy system', there are fears that sourcing large amounts of kit from China will achieve precisely the opposite.
Just hours before Miliband's visit to Yorkshire, it was reported that American engineers had discovered the presence of secret components in Chinese-made power inverters used by US solar farms.
Power inverters take the DC electricity generated by solar panels and change it into a AC format the grid can use.
The parts, which were not included in any schematics, included communication devices such as cellular radios that would bypass other protections and allow the inverters to be remotely disabled.
In other words, it represents a potential 'kill switch'.
If replicated elsewhere, experts warned it could pose a serious threat to grid security. Shutting off even three to four gigawatts (GW) of capacity at once can trigger a cascading wave of power cuts in a modern electricity network.
It was not clear this week which Chinese supplier or solar farm was involved. Nor was it immediately clear whether the presence of the hidden components was deliberate or a mistake. It is normal for equipment to have some internet-connected parts, usually to administer 'over the air' software updates.
But the revelations have sent shockwaves through the solar industry and have triggered fresh scrutiny of Chinese suppliers and their role in Western infrastructure – particularly given China's dominance over particular critical technologies.
In Britain for example, more than two fifths of imported solar panels come directly from China, according to HM Revenue & Customs. One solar panel executive said the true market share of Chinese suppliers may be even higher, given that some will be resold by companies based in Europe.
Globally, Chinese companies have the solar supply chain in a near-total stranglehold. They control 79pc of manufacturing capacity for polysilicon (the crystalline material used to make wafers), 97pc of wafer manufacturing, 85pc of solar cell manufacturing and 75pc of module or panel manufacturing.
Meanwhile, Chinese firms account for about two thirds of global power inverter shipments, as well as around 60pc of the market in the UK, according to Wood Mackenzie.
The biggest two companies by far are Huawei and Sungrow, followed by Ginlong Solis and Sineng.
British sites that appear to have used Sungrow inverters include the Strensham and Llanwern solar parks, in Worcestershire and South Wales respectively, owned by Next Energy. On Friday, a spokesman for the company did not respond to a request for comment.
Similarly, the Skeeby and Bishampton solar farms in Yorkshire and Worcestershire were built by a company that struck an inverter supply deal with Huawei for its UK sites in 2015, The Telegraph has found. Spokespeople for the owners did not respond to a request for comment either. There is no evidence of similar devices being found on these farms.
The dominance of Chinese firms is largely down to price, particularly in the UK, where competition is intense.
'In regions like Europe, where you have competition between Chinese manufacturers and more traditional Western manufacturers, a Chinese utility-scale inverter is often half the cost of a similar Western one,' says Joe Shangraw, a solar analyst at Wood Mackenzie.
European firms claim their Chinese rivals are selling their equipment for less than the cost of production, a 'dumping' strategy aimed at destroying the competition.
But the current state of play also reflects Beijing's years-long quest to dominate key technologies under the Made in China 2025 industrial strategy, which has handed companies in favoured sectors massive state support.
Now, top suppliers such as Huawei are not just cheap – they are also the most technologically sophisticated, says Shangraw.
Still, critics have long warned that allowing China to gain so much control over solar supply chains risks, at the very least, putting Western countries in an uncomfortable position.
Miliband, for example, admitted in March that many of the solar panels deployed in Britain would inevitably be sourced in China – triggering concerns that the Government's net zero push risked unintentionally supporting suppliers infamous for using forced labour in the Xinjiang region, where Beijing has instituted a brutal crackdown on Uyghur Muslims. There is no suggestion that Huawei or Sungrow is linked to this scandal.
Others warned that giving Beijing so much leverage over Western supply chains would allow it to apply huge diplomatic pressure during disagreements.
Yet for experts and politicians, the concerns raised by the discovery of hidden components in Chinese power inverters hit much closer to home. If they are the result of foul play, it implies Beijing could inflict mass blackouts on the US and Europe during a crisis.
More than 200GW of European solar capacity now depends on Chinese-made inverters, according to the European Solar Manufacturing Council.
'If you control such an amount of inverters and you turn them off in a coordinated way, you could cause blackouts across Europe in just a second,' warns Christoph Podewils, the council's secretary general.
Even if you believe Chinese firms themselves present no risk, Podewils says that having so much capacity concentrated in the hands of Huawei and Sungrow – which control the majority of the European market – is a risk in itself.
'You've got a single country that basically controls the European power system, or in particular just two companies. They could be very effective targets for hackers to blackmail them, for instance, even if they do not really want to control the system.'
This is one reason Podewils and European manufacturers are now lobbying for governments to impose restrictions of the kind imposed on Huawei's role in telecoms networks due to Western spying concerns.
Though Huawei has always denied it poses any threat, British ministers announced a clampdown in 2020 that banned the Chinese company from having any role in 5G mobile infrastructure and limited its reach to just 35pc of fibre optic networks.
The Conservatives have called for an investigation into the similar concerns about Chinese solar inverters.
Andrew Bowie, a shadow energy minister, urged Miliband to pause his clean power rollout until ministers have clarity over whether UK solar farms could be a risk.
The Government has insisted it will 'never let anything get in the way of our national security', adding: 'Our energy sector is subject to the highest levels of scrutiny.'
But on Friday, Tory backbencher Nick Timothy accused Miliband of being 'a danger to our energy and national security'.
'This tech could allow a hostile state to knock out our grid – potentially for a long time – and immobilise infrastructure and key equipment,' he added.
Solar farm owners are understood to be investigating the claims, with industry body Solar Energy UK insisting that power inverters can be replaced relatively quickly if necessary.
However, ditching Chinese suppliers entirely would not come without cost, Wood Mackenzie's Shangraw says.
'There are going to be downsides to that, especially in terms of pricing,' he warns.
In recent years, the order to rip out Huawei kit from telecoms networks has been blamed for inflicting billions of pounds of extra costs on mobile and internet operators – and by extension consumers.
If the worst comes to pass, it means Miliband's gamble on Chinese solar may not deliver cheap power or energy security after all.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Four of Trump's Cabinet secretaries coming to Santa Fe for Western governors meeting
Santa Fe may be one of the most liberal cities in New Mexico, if not the nation. But later this month, the City Different will host some of the most high-profile figures of the MAGA movement. Four U.S. Cabinet secretaries under the administration of Republican President Donald Trump will headline the 2025 annual meeting of the Western Governors' Association as keynote speakers June 23-24, the association announced Friday. They include Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin. Additional Trump administration officials may be coming to New Mexico, too, but their attendance has not yet been confirmed. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who chairs the association, said the four Cabinet secretaries' attendance represents the largest gathering of presidential administration officials at a Western Governors' Association meeting since the coronavirus pandemic. "I think the point is both Democratic and Republican governors want a chance to talk about their states and what their pressing issues are," Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview Friday. "All the governors in the National Governors Association signed a resolution that I helped lead that is against all the cuts that we're seeing in the budget reconciliation bill, so this is a chance to maybe, outside of the larger party platform lobbying, to talk about real issues," she said. The two-day meeting, held at the Eldorado Hotel and Spa, will be a star-studded event, at least in the world of politics. In addition to the four Cabinet secretaries, six Western governors — Mike Dunleavy of Alaska, Jared Polis of Colorado, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, Arnold Palacios of the Northern Mariana Islands, Spencer Cox of Utah and Mark Gordon of Wyoming — are also scheduled to attend. "Together, these federal officials and state leaders will explore bipartisan solutions to the West's most pressing challenges," a news release states. The governors will also moderate panel discussions on various issues, including rural health care, outdoor recreation for disabled people, housing and post-wildfire flooding. 'True bipartisan dialogue' Amy Barela, chair of the Republican Party of New Mexico, said the state GOP welcomes the Cabinet secretaries and governors to New Mexico. In a statement, she called the meeting an extraordinary opportunity for New Mexico to be part of meaningful conversations on critical issues impacting the region. "We sincerely hope this event fosters true bipartisan dialogue — especially on matters like rural health care, which must prioritize the needs of New Mexican citizens first; outdoor recreation, which should begin with making our state a safer, more desirable destination; and post-wildfire flooding, where discussions must recognize not only the diverse landscapes but also the stark differences in recovery outcomes," she said. Barela noted New Mexico's wildfire recovery efforts are much further along under Republican-led leadership in Ruidoso and bipartisan leadership in Roswell, "while citizens in San Miguel and Mora counties under Democrat leadership are still suffering and waiting for meaningful recovery." "These contrasts must be acknowledged in any honest discussion about disaster response and preparedness," she said. Lujan Grisham, who announced her initiative would focus on housing when she was elected association chair last year, said she wants to make sure housing is a big topic of discussion during the meeting. "Affordable housing is my signature issue, and I want to make sure that we get a chance to really talk about the federal government's role and the state's regional roles at supporting each other to get more affordable housing in stock," she said. 'We are not shy' Lujan Grisham said Cabinet secretaries typically talk about their priorities and "what we should expect to see in the Trump administration." "They're beginning to hire people back," she said. "They want us to know that that's occurring, that they are wanting to engage with states directly, and this is really what the Western Governors' Association promotes, that irrespective of the federal administration, we want these partners to recognize states' rights and the state's priorities, and as they unfold their own [priorities], do no harm and make sure that you're engaging in the things that matter to us." All the governors will want to talk about regulatory reform and "to lean much heavier on states' rights," Lujan Grisham said. "I've been a proponent of that as well." Asked whether she expected friction, given proposed federal budget cuts, Lujan Grisham said the Western governors are "typically pretty respectful, which is one of the reasons that the [Western Governors' Association meeting] is a popular forum." But, she added, "we are not shy." "I just got back from Alaska," she said. "Gov. Dunleavy and the administration officials who were there will tell you I'm not shy. They know how I feel about the cuts and how I feel about some of the more draconian measures that are being pitched and proposed, and I think that they fully expect for us to be talking about it." The meeting also presents opportunities to discuss collaborations, she said. "There are some issues and proposals that could really help us," she said. "I'd like more help finishing up our transmission lines, so I do think there's an opportunity here, so we really try to make it a dialogue. But none of us are going to shy away from what our concerns are, and they didn't in the Biden administration, either." An economic boon Lujan Grisham called it "kind of fantastic" to have the meeting in a super blue city like Santa Fe. "It is valuable to show that we can stand on our own, that we are not afraid of having active dialogue," she said. "We can be respectful, but we can also make sure that we're heard. "And they should come here," she added. "They expect me to go to D.C. I expect them to come into my fantastic state and to talk about resolutions to the problems that they, A, may create, and B, they have the power to resolve. I like these juxtapositions." The meeting is expected to provide an economic boon for Santa Fe. More than 400 people are registered so far. While the meeting will include various panel discussions and keynote addresses, it won't be all business for the governors and administration officials. The agenda includes a dinner at the Santa Fe Opera, a reception at La Fonda on the Plaza and a working lunch meeting at the governor's residence. "I think the vast majority of governors are bringing their spouses and partners, and I think that speaks volumes about people wanting to be in New Mexico and wanting to be in the City Different, so I'm excited about that," she said. "It's a packed agenda, so we're going to be working overtime, so I'm excited about that, too." Lujan Grisham said her husband, Manny Cordova, may have his hands full, too. "We're trying to get Manny to do a red chile cooking lesson for the spouses," she said. "And maybe one last thing we'll do, we'll remind all the governors that the best green chile in the world is indeed in New Mexico."
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Proud Boys Sue DOJ For $100 Million Over Jan. 6 Arrests
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump issued a blanket pardon to more than 1,500 people charged in the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection. But it still wasn't enough. Now, five Proud Boys leaders are suing the Department of Justice (DOJ) over their prosecutions and asking the government to surrender millions. The lawsuit, filed by Dominic Pezzola, Henry 'Enrique' Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joe Biggs, and Zachary Rehl, asks the government to pay them $100 million in restitution, despite the fact that the latter four were found guilty of engaging in a seditious 2021 conspiracy to keep Trump in power. Two years after the riot, Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs and Rehl were found guilty of plotting to oppose Congress' election certification by force. Pezzola was the only one who was acquitted of seditious conspiracy but was still found guilty of assaulting police, stealing a riot shield, smashing a window breached by rioters, conspiring to impede lawmakers and police, and more. The five men filed the lawsuit Friday in Florida, putting the ball in Trump's court to either defend the prosecutions or pay an exorbitant sum at taxpayers' expense. The Proud Boys is a far-right militant organization that promotes political violence and embraces misogynistic, xenophobic, and anti-LGBTQ+ ideologies. If the DOJ decides to pay the Proud Boys members, many Democrats worry that it could symbolize the president's willingness to outwardly sanction political violence and empower extremists. In the pardon proclamation announced on Jan. 20, Trump noted that the controversial mercy 'ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation.' Prior to the pardons, Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs, Rehl, and Pezzola were each sentenced to 22, 18, 17, 15, and 10 years in prison, respectively. The Proud Boys members claim there was an 'egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system and the United States Constitution to punish and oppress political allies of President Trump, by any and all means necessary, legal, or illegal.' 'A settlement would suggest that the violence of January 6 was entirely justified,' Matthew Dallek, a political historian at The George Washington University, told The Washington Post. 'It would say to the country that these Proud Boys who were convicted in a court of law, in a fair trial, were wrongfully prosecuted and victims. It just turns the entire day on its head.' The insurrection interrupted Congress' attempt to certify former President Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. After a mob stormed the Capitol, five people died in or immediately after the violence and 140 officers were assaulted. The Daily Beast has reached out to the Trump administration for comment.

Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chaco region ban on oil and gas drilling being reconsidered under Trump
Jun. 6—The Trump administration's focus on domestic energy production has pushed the Bureau of Land Management to reconsider a rule against oil drilling in a 10-mile area surrounding the Chaco Culture National Historical Park. As Department of Interior secretary, New Mexico gubernatorial candidate Deb Haaland issued an order in 2023 to prevent oil and natural gas drilling in the 10-mile radius surrounding Chaco Canyon for 20 years. The All Pueblo Council of Governors wants those protections to stay in place for the sake of protecting sacred sites in the Chaco region. But the Navajo Nation is suing to revoke the protections, arguing the withdrawal causes significant economic harm to its members. Increasing domestic energy production and mining is a Trump administration priority. On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order telling agency heads to identify actions that impose an "undue burden" on the development of domestic energy resources, particularly oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical minerals and nuclear energy resources and to make plans to revise or rescind those actions. "This will restore American prosperity — including for those men and women who have been forgotten by our economy in recent years. It will also rebuild our nation's economic and military security, which will deliver peace through strength," the order reads. Subsequently, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued an order in February essentially telling his agency to take steps to follow Trump's order, including "actions to review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands." When it comes to Chaco, the Bureau of Land Management is following that order to review withdrawn public lands. According to an agency spokesperson, no formal decision has been made yet related to the Chaco order, which prohibits oil and gas development and exploratory mining on federal lands within a 10-mile radius of the Chaco Culture National Historic Park. "It's deeply disappointing that Trump and his administration are working to undermine our communities rather than to address the struggles and concerns that New Mexicans face every day," Haaland said in a statement. The Bureau of Land Management held a tribal consultation in late May about considering revoking the Chaco order. Ahead of the meeting, Acoma Gov. Charles Riley called for a united tribal response to keep the protections in place. Recently, the All Pueblo Council of Governors also passed a resolution reaffirming its opposition to weakening Chaco protections. "Chaco is a place that's very sacred to us," Riley said. "It contains many of our beliefs and origins. ... Many times, people don't understand our connection with these sites, whether it be Chaco, Mesa Verde, Bears Ears, things like that, many of our religious tribal leaders still go back to these places and call upon our ancestors to guide and protect our people, and that's what people don't understand." Acoma also received notice of the consultation late, only 19 days ahead of time instead of the typical 30, Riley said, giving the pueblo leaders less time to prepare, and the consultation didn't seem like a "true consultation," he said. "It just doesn't seem like this administration is listening. They hear you, but they're not listening," Riley said. 'A domino effect' As the Biden administration came to a close in January, the Navajo Nation filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the United States, the Interior Department, the Bureau of Land Management and Haaland, arguing that she failed in her statutory obligations and fiduciary duties to the Navajo Nation when issuing the order. Navajo Nation members hold mineral rights for land in the area, and the lawsuit argues that profiting off of those mineral rights will be effectively impossible with the checkerboard of surrounding federal lands ineligible for lease. "This will result in sizable financial losses, especially relative to modest incomes that are prevalent in this isolated region, and will significantly reduce economic activity and employment in the region, further detrimentally affecting the Nation and its citizens," the lawsuit reads. The Navajo Nation repeatedly proposed a 5-mile withdrawal radius as a compromise approach to protecting Chaco. The lawsuit argues that the U.S. government never officially considered that suggestion, so it didn't encourage public consideration of it. The office of Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren did not respond to a request for comment by the Journal's print deadline. In April, the Acoma and Laguna pueblos asked to join the lawsuit as intervenors on the side of the defendants. New Mexico's all-Democratic congressional delegation have been vocal about trying to protect certain wild or culturally significant areas in the state, like the Gila and Pecos watersheds, from mining and oil and gas development. In April, Sen. Ben Ray Luján and Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández led the reintroduction of a bill to make the 10-mile protected area around Chaco permanent. All five members of the delegation are cosponsors. It seems unlikely to pass in a Republican dominated Congress. "With the atmosphere of today and the push for shorter environmental reviews, the fast track of mining of uranium and oil and gas production, it really does threaten a lot of our sacred places around the country," Riley said. "And if we — God forbid — fail on Chaco, then, in my opinion, it's just a domino effect. Then, who's next? What's next?" Journal Capitol Bureau Chief Dan Boyd contributed to this report.