As far as excuses go the near-meltdown of one of your larger nuclear power stations might seem a good way to get out of your international climate obligations - but does it stack up.
As has often been the case recently, announcements about rises in fuel bills – in this case from SSE -are accompanied by much grandstanding about what and who or what is to blame.
On the 31 March, the Sunday Times, Independent on Sunday and Scotsman previewed the launch of a “deep pocketed” “cross industry” new industry and consumer lobby group, apparently set to take on the government’s energy reforms and apply “logic and focus to a low-cost/low-carbon economy debate” through a national advertising and social media campaign.
Headlines about fracking (including on these pages) are usually nothing if not sensationalist.
Something about the notion of lots of gas trapped in rocks - and the word fracking - seems to lead even the most cautious sub to take a long sip of the metaphorical cool-aid.
But Saturday's headline in The Times "Britain has shale gas for 1,500 years, but bills won't be lower" was truly an extreme example of its kind.
A release from the reputable Public Accounts Committee reported in almost every newspaper claimed it was £17bn. That, the Telegraph calculated, adds up to £35 a year on household bills who are helping to pay for a 10-11% return on investment for those lucky enough to own a offshore wind power line. Is it true?