Power Struggles: Why the UK Is Paying Wind Farms to Switch Off

[Social Media]

 

Power Struggles: Why the UK Is Paying Wind Farms to Switch Off

 

In the early hours of June 3, fierce winds whipped across Scotland’s coastline — perfect conditions, you might think, for the giant turbines of the Moray East and West offshore wind farms. Located 13 miles off the country’s north-east coast, these installations are among the tallest in the UK and, on paper, capable of powering over a million homes. But that morning, instead of spinning at full throttle, their output was reduced. The reason? The national grid simply couldn't handle the power.

 

Despite the growing dominance of renewable energy, Britain’s electricity grid still reflects an outdated design. It was originally built to deliver electricity from coal and gas plants near major cities, not to transport vast quantities of clean energy from remote, wind-swept regions like northern Scotland. So when production exceeds the capacity of the grid to distribute power, generators are told to shut down — and compensated for doing so.

 

That morning, Ocean Winds, the company operating the Moray wind farms, was paid £72,000 to not produce power for just 30 minutes. Meanwhile, down in the south, the Grain gas-fired power station near London received £43,000 to generate more electricity. This isn’t a one-off. These so-called “balancing” payments are made almost daily. Seagreen, Scotland’s largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to reduce its output 71% of the time, according to Octopus Energy. In total, balancing the grid has already cost over £500 million this year — and could reach £8 billion annually by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO).

 

This inefficiency is driving up energy bills and undermining the promise that net zero would lead to lower electricity costs. Now, the government is exploring a radical alternative: breaking the single national electricity market into several regional or “zonal” markets. The hope is that more localized pricing will reduce waste and deliver cheaper power — especially for consumers in areas rich in renewables.

 

The proposal has provoked fierce debate. Some say it could drastically reduce costs in windy and sunny areas. On days like June 3, Scottish households might even get free electricity. Greg Jackson, CEO of Octopus Energy, claims zonal pricing could save £55 billion by 2050 and shave £50 to £100 off annual bills. “Zonal pricing would make the energy system as a whole dramatically more efficient, slashing this waste and cutting bills for every family and business in the country,” he argues.

 

But critics warn the plan could backfire. In regions like London and the south, prices could rise. Some fear it would make the system unfair and destabilize investment in renewables. “I can’t go to my board and say let’s take a bet on billions of pounds of investment,” says Tom Glover of German energy giant RWE, voicing concern that changing the pricing structure could undermine existing contracts and introduce uncertainty. Economist Stephen Woodhouse of AFRY echoes the caution, noting that higher borrowing costs and rising material prices are already hurting green energy projects. “Those additional costs could quickly overwhelm any of the benefits of regional pricing,” he warns.

 

The government is also investing £60 billion to modernize the grid, potentially reducing the need for such drastic market reforms. And while advocates of zonal pricing highlight Sweden’s successful switch in just 18 months, opponents argue the UK’s system is far more complex.

 

As Energy Secretary Ed Miliband defends his net zero agenda from both political and public pressure, the future of Britain’s electricity market hangs in the balance. For now, the grid remains a paradox — one where clean energy is abundant, yet power bills keep rising, and wind farms are paid to sit idle in gale-force winds.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC  2025-06-11

 

 

[Dionigi]

the question is, where there power cuts, the grid is not a sink to pour lots of power into if there is no power used. It has always been a balancing act to match power generated to power used with, in the past, coal fired power stations kept on line, gas and oil shut down first, as they are easier to ramp power up and down and gas turbines used to generate quick boosts of power, as they could be run up and down quickly although more expensive. with modern methods of power generation, things must still be the same, most cost effective and hardest to shut down would stay on line whilst less cost effective and easier to shut down go off line first. 

After denationisation of the power generation and distribution things are probably worse as now costs are set by the various companies who own the power generation companies.

[mikeymike100]

Britain’s grid can have surplus power in the north, like from Scotland’s wind farms, while the south, with higher demand, goes wanting. The problem is the grid’s limited transmission capacity. High-voltage lines connecting north to south, especially across the Scotland-England boundary, often hit their max, creating bottlenecks. So, instead of sending excess power south, operators curtail northern wind farms—paying them to stop generating—to avoid overloading the system.

So looks like a lack of long term planning?

[loong]

I don't understand these agreements where they pay the suppliers to switch off. Do they charge consumers extra if they use less electricity than last month?

[Purdey]

I think I got two things from this story:

1. Wind power works and is the future.

2. Britain's infrastructure is in need of an upgrade to handle all that free electricity.

[mikeymike100]

32 minutes ago, Purdey said:

I think I got two things from this story:

1. Wind power works and is the future.

2. Britain's infrastructure is in need of an upgrade to handle all that free electricity.

Wind power works when its 'windy'...

The 'GRID' definitely needs an upgrade!

 

Wind power isn't truly "free" despite the wind itself being a free resource. Here's why:

Initial Costs: Wind turbines require significant upfront investment for manufacturing, installation, and land acquisition. A single commercial turbine can cost $1-4 million, depending on size and location.

Maintenance: Turbines need regular upkeep, repairs, and part replacements (e.g., blades, gearboxes), which can cost $40,000-$150,000 annually per turbine.

Grid Integration: Connecting wind farms to the power grid involves infrastructure costs, including transmission lines and energy storage systems to handle wind's intermittent nature.

Operational Costs: Labor, monitoring, and administrative expenses add to the total cost.

Levelized Cost: The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for onshore wind is around $25-$50 per MWh, competitive with fossil fuels but not zero. Offshore wind is pricier, at $50-$100 per MWh.

Subsidies and Incentives: Some governments offer tax credits or subsidies, which can lower costs for consumers, but these are funded by taxpayers.

Once built, wind power is cheap to run since there’s no fuel cost, and it produces no emissions, making it one of the lowest-cost electricity sources over time. However, "free" overlooks the substantial capital and ongoing expenses.