UK Renewable Energy Firms are Being Paid Huge Sums to Not Provide Power (bbc.com) 75
The U.K. electricity grid "was built to deliver power generated by coal and gas plants near the country's major cities and towns," reports the BBC, "and doesn't always have sufficient capacity in the wires that carry electricity around the country to get the new renewable electricity generated way out in the wild seas and rural areas.
"And this has major consequences." The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can't take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output. It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 [nearly $100,000 USD] not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded — one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day. At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.
Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy. Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company's analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network. It's pushing up all our energy bills and calling into question the government's promise that net zero would end up delivering cheaper electricity... the potential for renewables to deliver lower costs just isn't coming through to consumers.
Renewables now generate more than half the country's electricity, but because of the limits to how much electricity can be moved around the system, even on windy days some gas generation is almost always needed to top the system up. And because gas tends to be more expensive, it sets the wholesale price.
The UK government is now considering smaller regional markets, so wind companies "would have to sell that spare power to local people instead of into a national market. The theory is prices would fall dramatically — on some days Scottish customers might even get their electricity for free...
"Supporters argue that it would attract energy-intensive businesses such as data centres, chemical companies and other manufacturing industries."
"And this has major consequences." The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can't take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output. It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 [nearly $100,000 USD] not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded — one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day. At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.
Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy. Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company's analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network. It's pushing up all our energy bills and calling into question the government's promise that net zero would end up delivering cheaper electricity... the potential for renewables to deliver lower costs just isn't coming through to consumers.
Renewables now generate more than half the country's electricity, but because of the limits to how much electricity can be moved around the system, even on windy days some gas generation is almost always needed to top the system up. And because gas tends to be more expensive, it sets the wholesale price.
The UK government is now considering smaller regional markets, so wind companies "would have to sell that spare power to local people instead of into a national market. The theory is prices would fall dramatically — on some days Scottish customers might even get their electricity for free...
"Supporters argue that it would attract energy-intensive businesses such as data centres, chemical companies and other manufacturing industries."
Failure of their payment structure (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Failure of their payment structure (Score:5, Insightful)
They shouldn't be paying for power they can't receive.
This would give the grid operator the ability to choke companies that they don't like and effectively put them out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
How would that work?
The regulator will be all over their asses just like now, where all providers have a regulated cap to the maximum price that can be charged. If they cant avoid that cap how would they attack each other?
When all those energy companies failed a couple of years ago the regulator forced the others to absorb the lost customers, on the same tarriff till such a time they could be migrated to that companies standard tarriff.
Maybe if they were to try and do what you suggest it would spice up the
Re: (Score:2)
How would that work?
By not building out needed infrastructure to fully enable a particular energy supplier (e.g. a bottleneck) or expand shared conduits (so they can say it's full because the non-bottlenecked energy suppliers saturate existing capacity), The ability to purposely make bottlenecks and not expand capacity would keep some suppliers at a distinct disadvantage. Any plans for expansion would be entirely dependent on the grid operator. This means the grid operator can stunt the growth/expansion of an energy supplier w
Re: (Score:2)
Grid operators are among the most heavily regulated enterprises on the planet. And they have to be because they are an actual local monopoly and at some times of the year a modern electrical grid is always five minutes away from collapse. Look at what recently occured both in Spain and in Louisiana, despite certainly some healthy effort (and planning one would hope) to keep the grid in those areas running fine under difficult conditions. The eastern U.S., Texas, and California have also suffered *major* b
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you mean about Louisiana...?
I mean, we've not nothing like Spain hit us....
A few years ago, I believe it was Hurricane Ida that hit and knocked down all transmission lines into the greater New Orleans area....power was out there about a month, but that's Hurricane damage....catastrophic dama
Re: (Score:3)
Not as bad as Spain (or Texas in the winter a few years ago) by any means, but there was a major (and predictable) power outage in Lousiana two or three weeks ago that made the national news. Typical failure to plan properly in the MISO area this time - like not enough conventional power plants, relatively high temperatures, and not enough transmission lines, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I LIVE in the New Orleans area in Louisiana, and I know nothing about this power outage you speak of....?
I never saw anything about this on local or national news....?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It looks like a storm in a tea cup. $100k? Seems like a rounding error for the national grid of a country like the UK.
You should read to the end of the sentence. That was only for one 30-minute period.
Re: (Score:2)
The gap that you need fill in is the issue here - renewables are producing energy in a varying volume that can't be controlled aside from shutting off the production.
Power plants like coal and nuclear are slow to change. They can produce a steady continuous power that can change slowly. With water power plants you can change the power production faster and compensate to some extent for variations from the renewables.
However the grid is the big problem - it's dimensioned and designed for a few large producti
Re:Failure of their payment structure (Score:4, Interesting)
> Power plants like coal and nuclear are slow to change
Pointing out we have no coal power stations in the UK. We have lots of CCGT and a few OCGT and they are used to meet rapid demand spikes. There are also some pumped hydro which are also used for such rapid responses.
The problem with nuclear is the regulations etc are stuck so much in the past it takes an age to simply start building one. Past governments have simply let the old sites whither and close, or allowed an extension after a bit if spit and polish. No new nuclear was built, none. So we are stuck in a situation where several of the few remaining sites/reactors will close before Hinckley Point C even starts being commissioned. Pretty standard fayre over here.
> One way to at least relieve the situation quite a bit is to run batteries at every installation to smooth out the day to day production/consumption
Sounds nice on paper but will never happen. Also trying to convert UK houses to multiple phases will never get off the ground. Consider that energy companies have failed to manage to force everyone to install a smart meter, so they risk getting fined for not having installed them, but the regulator would smash their knuckles should they actually make smart meters non-optional. I'm one of the holdouts. I get calls, SMS, emails and post all telling me "it's time to upgrade" and it will "save me energy" blah blah which I know is a con. What saves energy is not using it. Nobody ever needed a smart meter to do that. We have these amazing things called s-w-i-t-c-h-e-s and I've never known anyone not to switch off the wall socket of devices that shouldn’t be on! So it turns out that it'll save a few hundred quid a year, but that makes just a few quid a month if that. Wow. If they design the SMETS 3 meters correctly (unlike the burning pile of dog shit that was the current meters), I may bite.
So as they can’t get us to upgrade, they have zero chance re-gigging the entire house for multiple phases. They don’t need to anyway, it’s all done at the substation. Most UK housing are ring mains so you'll have to employ teams of people to enter EVERY property in the UK and literally re-wire the house, FOR FREE. It has to be free as nobody today is going to pay to have it done.
Batteries? Heck those aint even free so they are a dead end. Considering that for the majority of housing they will be not permitted as they will be *considered a fire hazard*. So you'll only be able to target detached housing, perhaps semi-detached and likely will have to wait till sodium batteries become the norm so wont explode and kill your neighbours. Who will pay for it again? In a country that won’t install heat pumps because it'll cost at least 10 grand (not to mention you can only install them in non-terraced)...
You see the problem. It amazes me that somehow in the past this country managed to rustle up workers and pay them to *actually enter people’s homes* and convert their gas appliances from town gas to LNG, for FREE.
But today, none of that is possible so this sort of thing just is normal:
1. Installation of smart meters has low uptake.
2. Upgrade of copper phone lines to fibre has been delayed multiple times and is now on pause pending government review.
3. Heat Pumps are pushed to a public that can’t afford to install them and rarely live in a property that can LEGALLY have one installed.
4. Electric cars are peddled to a public that largely live in housing that has no off street parking and thus cannot charge at home. Charging at home is ideal as VAT on leccy is fixed to 5% there, but public chargers have 30% VAT on leccy plus additional costs.
5. To use a heat pump, and to save energy in general, you need to insulate. Grants exist but most people:
5.1 Dont know they can add insulation.
5.2 Have a land lord that doenst know.
5.3 Have no money to do it, even with the grant.
5.4 Have no time to do it as they are too busy working their so
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly their payment structure is badly screwed up.
This isn't the principle screw-up. If a non-renewable source, say gas, kicks in for a charging period, then the whole of the electricity price for that period is determined by the gas price, rather than just the percentage of energy that it produces.
Re: (Score:2)
Bear in mind that 90% of people dont have these "charging periods" you speak of.
Which means 100% of their bill IS at the price of gas, regardless of if it was ever used. 100% of my bill is calculated from the price per unit as if it were only gas.
Very few people have the ability to even consider switching tariff, let alone the ability to switch to a time of day tariff with charging periods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually that is false. Their payment structure is working perfectly to follow supply and demand. People don't pay for "power" they pay to balance a system which provides energy. If that means paying money to a producer to reduce power, or paying money to a consumer to over consume then that's just the reality of realising that the supply and demand curve can actually move beyond the zero axis for any fungible traded thing (like electricity).
The question for how efficiently the payment system works is: Are
Re:Failure of their payment structure (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a failure of transmission structure, they allow buildup of a bunch of energy production but do not provide the transmission infrastructure to export it properly, this happens a lot unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a failure of transmission structure
This is a failure of government. It is happening right now in the USA, so it appears we are infected with the same disease that ended the British Empire.
What a miserable future of incompetence and waste. I guess our BREXIT will be NATOEXIT?
Re: (Score:2)
But it's one of the subsidies they gave to make the projects economically feasible.
Not payment, but infrastructure. (Score:2)
The issues are:
1) Transmission of electricity is inefficient, so local = better.
2) Storage of electricity is inefficient, so time matters.
3) The worst forms of electricity (coal, oil, natural gas) were designed under the assumption they would be the main form of electricity so they cannot easily be turned off or turned down.
4) The best forms of electricity (wind, solar) are intermittent, so can not be depended upon.
Stationary Grid Battery (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of gravity battery options, including dams.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, excess energy that the grid can't accept should be stored [interestin...eering.com] for later use when possible, or perhaps used to generate hydrogen (or synthesize gasoline or whatever fuel is most appropriate) for resale.
Re: (Score:2)
Pumped hydro can do that buy you'll have to find the sites.
> perhaps used to generate hydrogen
I dont see a point in that. Hasnt got a use.
Flywheels are an option. We have one in the ffestiniog power station so that would be ideal.
> or synthesize gasoline
It's hyper expensive already and it would also go against net zero targets. We'll have kids and pensioners in the streets gluing themselves to tarmac all over again.
Re: (Score:2)
Which rivers, I don’t think any are dammable.
You'll probably want more pumped hydro then... That’s been floated about (pun intended). Only no sod knows where to build one. That’s the best plan, but adding more pumped hydro is a bit like building a reservoir and we haven’t done that for 50 years and now are running out of fresh water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stationary Grid Battery (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Using batteries that contain lithium for grid scale storage is a bad idea. The reason lithium batteries are popular is because of their high energy storage capacity to a given volume and/or mass. When the batteries are not going to move, such as with grid storage, the mass and volume is of little concern.
As an example on how little concern we have for mass and volume for grid connected storage look at the energy density of water behind a dam and compare that to NMC or LFP batteries: https://en.wikipedia.o [wikipedia.org]
Re:Stationary Grid Battery (Score:4, Interesting)
The benefit of pumped hydro is that it means large bodies of water that can serve double duty as a heat sink for thermal power plants. It could also mean other dual use like desalination plants, water for irrigation and municipal supplies, and so many others that I could list. Damming up rivers for flood control or such could provide the added benefit of pumped hydro storage. If artificial lakes are built for pumped hydro storage then that could provide the benefit of a lake for fishing, recreation, a heat sink for a power plant, etc.
All good points but not in the UK. We don't have much terrain for it. There's some in the wilds of Scotland, but you don't get any of the ancillary benefits you mentioned, plus you need to build out infrastructure to there in the first place.
Also, we're small, densely populated, started the industrial revolution and as I said fairly flat: we basically engineered every significant and most insignificant rivers to with an inch of their lives a hundred years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
MacMann is just obsessed with finding reasons why everyone should build nuclear. Never mind that it's insanely expensive and takes 20+ years in Europe, you could use a reservoir as a heatsink to stop it melting down!
Re: (Score:1)
Where did I mention nuclear power in my post above? It appears to me that the question of nuclear power in UK has been answered, and the answer is "yes". I read about it on a website called "Slashdot", perhaps you've heard of it?
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
When it comes to the terrain for pumped hydro I can see that there's been surveys to this effect and Scotland has the potential for 500 GWh of pumped hydro storage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If the lack of infrastructure for pumped hydro is
Re: (Score:2)
So what are these thermal power plants that need a heat sink but are not nuclear?
Re: (Score:1)
So what are these thermal power plants that need a heat sink but are not nuclear?
Coal, natural gas, fuel oil, geothermal, solar thermal, biomass, waste burning, and maybe one or three more I'm missing.
If your mind connects thermal power plants to nuclear power then it would appear that the nuclear fission advocates are being quite successful in getting the public thinking about nuclear power. Have the solar power advocates given up on concentrated solar thermal? That might be the case. I like solar thermal power, it is a nice test bed for the thermal storage and conversion systems th
Re: (Score:2)
Agree 100% with pumped hydro however there are limited sites around that can be used for it.
> Putting batteries on the grid may be fast
You have to buy the land first and that can slow things down.
> The benefit of pumped hydro is that it means large bodies of water that can serve double duty as a heat sink for thermal power plants.
I think you mean a heat source?
> water for irrigation and municipal supplies
Pumped hydro is supposed to be a closed system. You pump the water up to the top of the mounta
Re: (Score:1)
Agree 100% with pumped hydro however there are limited sites around that can be used for it.
Sure, there's limited sites but there is apparently a potential for 500 GWh of storage in Scotland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I'm not sure how to compare 500 GWh of storage to the electrical power needs of the UK national grid but I expect that would be exceedingly helpful in keeping the lights on.
You have to buy the land first and that can slow things down.
I'm certain a lot of logistics could slow the construction of a grid connected battery but if there's a solar power project in place then can't the batteries be put in the shade of the solar panels? Any sto
Re: (Score:2)
The processes associated with the grid are not designed well, unfortunately. The one that you use to get permission to connect the grid is designed for large generators, such as gas or nuclear power stations. Even a small grid scale battery has to go through a slow queuing system before it can be considered and that bungs everything up.
The article also talks about zonal pricing. At the moment, you pay the same wholesale price where ever you are, meaning there is little incentive to put the batteries near th
Re: (Score:2)
Wind and solar power fluctuate a lot. So when electricity production is high the price drops, and the producer has to choose between stopping production, which is difficult, or selling at a negative price.
This has led to negative prices for electricity generation becoming more common in the US and Europe. Negative electricity prices mean t
Re: (Score:2)
> The fastest solution is to build a few batteries
Where?
Whos land?
Maybe brownfeild?
I think you'll be struggling as land is a premium asset on an island.
Perhaps the batteries should be spread out, uner each panel in a field can be a battery. It thus gets shaded too, which helps with coolling.
However I can imagine many trying to nick them like they do with copper.
Re: (Score:3)
>Where?
Anywhere. Like literally anywhere.
> Whos land?
Yours. have your attic cleaned out by Thursday.
More seriously though; there is no shortage of space. Utilities own or otherwise control tens of thousands of acres for their infrastructure and facilities.
Using Australian's BESS [narroginbess.com.au] project as a rough guide, we'd need about 75 acres per GWh. That's a conservative estimate. If the UK uses about 710 GWh per day [wikipedia.org], and assuming we'd need a full day's worth of battery storage - let's just call it 750GWh - that
Re: (Score:2)
Here batteries are only really used for smoothing the output of renewables, we don't have very large scale storage. I'm not sure why, maybe partly because we don't make our own batteries and don't want to buy Chinese ones for some reason.
There are some big storage projects in the works, like turning valleys into pumped storage reservoirs, but we are also crap at big projects like that so it won't be available for a while and will likely go massively over budget.
So yes, we need more battery storage, bought i
Re: (Score:3)
To first approximation, environmental authorities and local opposition have made construction of new electrical transmission lines of any significance impossible. And there are a lot of places that need them, which you can see easily by looking at the difference in real time price of electricity just fifty to one hundred miles apart on online charts of those prices in areas that have and provide them. Electricity does often sell for negative prices in the United States due to production tax credits while
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, they have a few, but the British money is 101% involved in chasing more money for the already wealthy. There is zero money to bad had for infrastructure or future thinking.
Is this really saving the environment? (Score:1)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/... [disquscdn.com]
Multiple problems combining (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Other countries, similar problems.
I also see two problems you don't mention.
- "They" are in part ridiculously slow because they didn't start investing when they should have, going for shareholder dividends instead.
- Politicians are unable to understand and/or care about such a long term problem.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
First, paragraphs are your friend and it would be helpful to use them.
Second, this "misalignment" is likely temporary as the cost of paying windmill farms to curtail output should drive the construction of new power lines and energy storage. There is no profit motive to bring the UK economy to a halt. I expect that there will be some that want to drive up profits quickly so they can take the money and run. There are also those that look to make long term investments so they can leave a pile of money for
Re:Working as planned then? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the crux of the problem. The UK's grid was built when large carbon-fueled power stations were king, and so the distribution network is essentially a hub-and-spoke design radiating out from those to the end users, with the load carrying capacity getting smaller and smaller as you go. That means by the time you get to the rural fringes, like Scotland and Cornwall/Devon, which is where a lot of the optimal offshore wind sites are, the grid simply does not have the capacity to take large amounts of power the other way. Baseload capacity has to be pushed around the core of the grid, which - since we're talking overhead HT lines - are generally built along mostly flat routes between the carbon-fueled power stations, and only pass conveniently close to on-shore wind farms or off-shore wind landing stations by coincidence.
You know what else the UK has a lot of besides green energy it can't fully utilise? Nimbyism. As you'd probably expect, Nimbys really don't like the idea of new HT lines running through their local countryside (or nuclear plants, to touch on your other point), so the other goal of this regionalisation is to encourage them to accept the tradeoff in return for (relatively) cheaper local market prices in areas where there is a lot of existing or potential green (or nuclear) energy capacity. Supplementing that with local storage systems - batteries, pumped water, molten salt, or whatever - should hopefully be something that comes along in lockstep, but so far that doesn't seem to be integral to the plan, but is rather being left up to the generating companies to decide on.
Re: (Score:2)
As you'd probably expect, Nimbys really don't like the idea of new HT lines running through their local countryside
I don't think it's unreasonable to object to doing significant harm to the country side for the sake of green power, it's contradictory and unnecessary. No one objects to underground cables, it's cutting a massive track through the country side to fill with pylons that people object to for a variety of valid reasons. Burying cable costs more on paper, but probably not by the time you've gone through the legal processes to force it on everyone, and the cost of the delays these incur. The problem is trying to
Re: (Score:2)
The devil's in the details, but my gut feeling is that much of the distribution infrastructure
Re: Working as planned then? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that cheaper energy will be enough to deal with NIMBYism. We just need to change the law so they can't stop critical infrastructure being built. Or new houses, for that matter. Sure, have oversight to make sure it is done in a way that doesn't trash the environment, but manage it centrally and have the overriding goal be to build stuff unless it's really bad.
NIMBYism is a relatively recent thing, at least on this scale. After the war we built a lot of new homes and towns, often on "green belt".
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure how NIMBY-ism applies if the windmill farms and power lines to them already exist. There's a path cleared for the wires now, it appears they just need to be made bigger.
The same could be applied to any NIMBY-ism against nuclear power. It appears that the existing nuclear power reactors are aging and in need of replacement, so they should be able to build new reactors on those sites without triggering any NIMBY reaction. Build them a bit bigger, and beef up the existing power lines out of the
Re: (Score:2)
The UK's grid was built when large carbon-fueled power stations were king
This is how you know your nation is utterly failed: no planning for the future, just sitting in filth, perfectly happy with what what they have but not even trying to maintain it. Ah well, here in America, we get to see what we will be in the not-to-distant future... assuming WW3 doesn't break out before then.
Re: (Score:2)
build more power lines, batteries
The UK is doing just this, of course it would be better if we were further ahead than we are. We are paying the price of a slightly uncoordinated roll out, i.e. lots of new green power generation before power lines and storage, but we are moving in the right direction and will get there in the end. For its faults, a lot of people in parts of Europe, or even the US, would love to have a grid that works as well as ours.
Re: (Score:2)
> This gets to a recently highlighted article on Slashdot on the UK government incentivizing the construction of new nuclear power plants
A moot point.
It will take 10-15 years to build just ONE plant.
The single plane we are building is way late, massivley over budget and has been controversioal for so long nobody take it seriously anymore. It's a joke, a money waters dream and only provides a tiny boost to the grid compared to our forever increasing insane demand.
The biggest problem I see with nuclear is
Re: (Score:1)
A moot point.
How is this a moot point?
It will take 10-15 years to build just ONE plant.
Then I'd guess they'd better get started soon.
The biggest problem I see with nuclear is it has no black start capability nor inertia. Only one windfarm in the UK has black start capability, no solar farms. Heck you cant even power your house from your own panel in a blackout.
Nuclear power plants have plenty of inertia, if I'm catching what you mean by inertia. There's nothing inherent about a nuclear power plant that prevents a black start capability. Maybe the reactor itself can't be started without power but the plant is almost certainly going to have backup diesel generators, battery packs, and maybe even some windmills or solar PV panels that can provide power for restarting a reactor.
Plenty of people
Re: Working as planned then? (Score:2)
Re: Working as planned then? (Score:2)
Who dug this up? Oh, the BBC... (Score:2, Interesting)
How has this been dug up from the landfill?
This was news about 10-15 years ago. We know this, it's a frequent argument used against green taxes and over reliance on renewables vs others like concentrating on building nuclear etc.
Every time it's brought up, the far-green brigade dismiss it and go on about how its all a climate denier conspiracy etc etc.
Then they say that "green" leccy is far cheaper and so on, totally ignoring the other bit of "non-news" that everyone knows that its only cheaper for the pro
Don’t upgrade the grid (Score:2)
Scale (Score:2)
Are the operators paid at the full rate they're capable of producing, or are they simply receiving a small stipend when the grid operator is bottlenecked?
Re: Scale (Score:2)
this sounds like an issue of "paying for capacity" (Score:2)
Existing energy infrastructure already pays for "capacity" thats not being used, to older systems like natural gas and coal. This is necessary because energy production MUST match energy demand or someone's lights are going out. When an energy source (power plant) on a reasonably big grid suddenly goes offline ("trips out"), the grid can tolerate it but drops dangerously low. Other plants that are only putting out say 70% of their capacity quickly spin up to max production to cover this shortfall and bri
What? (Score:1)
"(not) sufficient capacity in the wires that carry electricity around the country"
"around the country" sounds big, but the UK is a postage-stamp sized country. You can drive the longest crossing route in like 15hrs.
High-Voltage power lines can cover what, about 300mi at a stretch, and the UK is only 700m tip to tip. Maybe you guys should stop using extension cords from Home Depot for your power?
Or just regular people (Score:2)
"Supporters argue that it would attract energy-intensive businesses such as data centres, chemical companies and other manufacturing industries."
Cheap or free electricity wouldn't just attract data centers and other companies. It would also incentivize households to be much less vigilant about power efficiency. If electricity is so cheap/free, then running the AC 24/7 is a no-brainer, as would be not bothering to turn off lights, not putting computers to sleep, not bothering to upgrade appliances. etc.
Bring back ... (Score:3)
UK Needs Batteries (Score:2)
Add more batteries to store the power that cannot be used.
Build more power lines to expand the area to which reserve power can be delivered.
Re: (Score:2)
And more power lines to deliver that 'excess' power to those batteries.
Clearly the necessary infrastructure is inadequate. Build it or fail your voters. Assuming British elections matter.
UK Electricity (Score:2)
When the Ukraine war happened, the gas prices rose.
All UK electricity prices rose... not because we're utterly reliant on gas... but because electricity is charged at the unit rate of the most expensive method of production.
Previous governments have put this stuff in, and it's basically a way for energy companies to profit from an arbitrary law.
Sure, there are some costs with some methods of production to keep them "online" even if not actively producing power, but this is far beyond that. This is paying a