The collapse of Cuba's electrical grid this week, leaving 11 million citizens in darkness for days, is a stark reminder that ideology cannot override the laws of thermodynamics. The blackout, triggered by hurricane damage and compounded by decades of underinvestment in fossil fuel infrastructure and renewable energy, has revealed the fragility of a centrally planned energy system. As a climate correspondent who has studied the physics of power grids, I see this as a cautionary tale: without diversification, redundancy, and market incentives, any nation risks a similar fate.
Cuba's energy crisis is not merely a political failure but a physical one. The island relies heavily on imported oil, primarily from Venezuela, and its thermal power plants are ageing. When Hurricane Ian struck, it damaged transmission lines and disrupted fuel supply, leading to a cascade failure. The government's response, rolling blackouts to prevent total collapse, is a feature of socialist central planning: prioritising control over efficiency. Yet this approach ignores fundamental principles of grid resilience.
The UK offers a contrasting model. Our National Grid is one of the most reliable in the world, balancing a diverse mix of natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, and interconnectors with France and the Netherlands. We have invested in smart grids, energy storage, and demand-side response. This is not a triumph of capitalism but of physics: a system that adapts to fluctuations, decentralises risk, and incentivises innovation.
Consider the data: Cuba's electricity generation capacity has declined by 20% since 2016, while demand has only increased. The UK, in contrast, has increased its renewable capacity by 400% since 2010, while reducing total carbon emissions by 30%. Our grid is not perfect. We have faced spikes in wholesale prices and cold snaps, but we have not experienced a nationwide blackout since 2003. Why? Because we allow market forces to guide investment and encourage competition.
The fundamental difference lies in how we treat energy as a commodity versus a right. Cuba views electricity as a public service to be provided by the state. This leads to chronic under-pricing, waste, and lack of maintenance. The UK treats it as a mixed system: critical infrastructure regulated for security, but with private generation and distribution. This creates an environment where companies are incentivised to maintain reliability.
Some argue that Cuba's situation is unique due to the US embargo. But the embargo does not prevent the island from building solar panels. Indeed, Cuba has abundant solar resources and could generate 10% of its electricity from photovoltaics alone. Yet less than 1% of generation is from solar. This is a political choice, not a physical constraint.
The lesson for the world is clear: energy resilience requires a portfolio approach. The UK's success is not about being a beacon of capitalism but about being smart with physics. We recognise that no single fuel source is immune to disruption. We diversify. We build interconnectors. We embrace market signals that allocate resources efficiently.
This is not a partisan argument. It is a scientific one. As the planet warms and extreme weather events become more frequent, every nation must rethink its energy strategy. Those that cling to ideological purity, whether socialist or authoritarian, will face the same fate as Cuba. Those that adopt a systems-level approach, using all available tools, will thrive.
The Cuban blackout is a tragedy, but it is also a teachable moment. The UK should not be smug but should share its model: a resilient grid does not happen by accident, but by design. And that design must be grounded in reality, not rhetoric.
