British billpayers have spent an “absurd” £1bn [$1.26bn] to temporarily switch off wind turbines so far this year as the grid struggles to cope with their power. [emphasis, links added]
The amount of wind power “curtailed” in the first 11 months of 2024 stood at about 6.6 gigawatt hours (GWh), according to official figures, up from 3.8 GWh in the whole of last year.
Curtailment is where wind turbines are paid to switch off at times of high winds to stop a surge in power overwhelming the grid. Households and businesses pay for the cost of this policy through their bills.
The cost of switching off has reached about £1bn [$1.26bn] so far this year, according to analysis of market data by Octopus Energy, which was first reported by Bloomberg.
This is more than the £779m [$984m] spent last year and £945m [$1,193m] spent in 2022.
The jump in curtailment follows the opening of more wind farms at a time when the country still lacks the infrastructure needed to transport all the electricity they generate at busy times.
Clem Cowton, the director of external affairs at Octopus, added:
“The outdated rules of our energy system mean vast amounts of cheap green power go to waste.
“It’s absurd that Britain pays Scottish wind farms to turn off when it’s windy, while simultaneously paying gas-power stations in the South to turn on.
“We need to change the rules that govern our system to make the most of our homegrown energy and get bills down for British households and businesses.”
Octopus and others have called for the country to shift to a regional pricing system, which they say would incentivize more wind farms to be built closer to where power is needed.
This would reduce the need for hundreds of miles of cables to deliver electricity from the North and Scotland, where many wind farms are, to the South where demand is greatest.
However, the plans would be controversial as it would likely mean homes and businesses in the South paid more for their energy than those in the North.
Jason Mann, an electricity markets expert at FTI Consulting, said the high curtailment costs underlined the lack of cables to transport power to the South.
However, he also argued the £1bn cost was partly the result of Britain’s national electricity pricing system.
Mr Mann said:
“Congestion costs are an inevitable problem under the current market design we have in Britain.
“Increasing the amount of transmission capacity we have can alleviate the problem but not fully – it will remain an enduring issue.
“At some point, you have to do something that encourages greater demand in the North, for example, lower prices.”
According to the National Energy System Operator (Neso), curtailment costs are on course to surge to £6bn [$7.58bn] by 2030 if the status quo continues.
Via Climate Change Dispatch. Read rest at Telegraph
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply