Net Zero Leaves Britain Paying France to Take Our Power

3 min read

The cackhanded pursuit of Net Zero by Ed Miliband and his predecessors has left Britain having to pay France and other countries to take excess power off our hands for a significant portion of the year. The Telegraph has more.

It’s the Ed Miliband paradox: why does Britain have among the highest power prices in Europe when we have so much electricity that suppliers have to pay customers to use it?

It was a question repeated across the energy industry last week after power prices briefly turned negative, meaning customers and countries abroad were paid to use surplus electricity generated in Britain rather than having to pay for it.

It meant free energy for some consumers to use as they pleased – to charge their electric vehicles (EVs) or simply make a cup of tea – and saw Britain offloading the rest to the likes of France and Holland, not just free but with a chunky payment attached.

This might sound like an oddity, but it was far from the first time. So far this year, Britain has seen around 50 hours of negative prices. Last year, the amount totalled 150 hours – a sevenfold increase since 2021, according to Aurora Energy.

By 2028, UK prices could be below zero for 15% of the year – more than 1,300 hours, LCP Delta says.

The reason is that Britain is generating too much energy, resulting in a surplus that must be absorbed for the power system to function properly.

The obvious answer would seem to be switching them off. But in Britain, the system for connecting solar power and some wind means they are always on. Our nuclear stations are also difficult to ramp up and down.

Companies such as Octopus have turned the situation to their advantage. Its Agile tariff allows customers to take advantage of ‘plunge pricing’, with the company paying customers, by knocking money off their bills, to use electricity at quieter times of the week.

France, Belgium, Holland, Ireland and Norway also benefit, with the surplus sent abroad via the network of subsea cables linking the UK.

But the situation has prompted growing questions about Britain’s energy system. …

Tim Santonastaso of Argus Media says prices go negative when more power is generated than the grid can use or store.

The rush to Net Zero, he adds, will make the problem worse.

“The phenomenon is set to rise as long as Britain adds renewables faster than increases in demand or storage,” he says.

“The electrification that was meant to drive demand up has arrived slowly. EVs, heat pumps and data centres are well behind the optimistic forecasts of a decade ago, with heat pumps especially lagging.”

He doubts this will ever cut bills. They may even grow.

This is because the Government uses a multitude of subsidies to incentivise the construction of new wind, solar and nuclear plants, which are fixed to bills.

Almost all such levies are added to electricity bills, with analyses by the Office for Budget Responsibility showing the £11 billion total added last year will rise to £19 billion by 2030.

Network costs – for the wires that carry power – account for £200 of the average £900 domestic power bill, and these, too, are set to surge as grids are expanded.

Such costs, already comprising two thirds of domestic power bills, are additional to the cost of the actual power, so negative prices will do nothing to bring them down, says Kathryn Porter, founder of energy analytics firm Watt-Logic.

Worth reading in full.

Comments

This week across the site:

Email me alerts for this discussion
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

20 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
marebobowl
marebobowl
3 months ago

Are the Brits totally powerless. It sort of looks that way.

Rusty123
Rusty123
3 months ago

Put simply, we are being screwed to subsidise mad millibands puerile dreams, paying France(those that get millions for shoving illegals our way) to use power we generated, whilst our bills remain obscenely high, makes perfect sense😒

happycake78
happycake78
3 months ago

We keep giving money to France to not help us.

EARLGRAY
EARLGRAY
3 months ago

It is a pity that there is no soundtrack to that photograph. He is probably singing his favourite song – Bob Dylan’s Blowing in the Wind.

Gezza England
Gezza England
3 months ago
Reply to  EARLGRAY

Ivor Biggun’s song “I’m a wanker” would be more apt.

Gezza England
Gezza England
3 months ago

The big problem of our system is that there is so much generation connected to the distribution grid and NOT the transmission grid that is monitored by the central control room. All the solar subsidy farms, the rooftop solar, domestic feed in solar are not controlled by the central control which is why are grid management costs have soared ever since we started down the path of this lunacy.

Cotfordtags
Cotfordtags
3 months ago

It just makes no bloody sense. The more I read about green energy the more ridiculous it becomes. So many questions come out of this report:-
1. Presumably if they are sending electricity to us at times of need, it’s because they have surplus and therefore they pay us in a reciprocal manner. If not, why not? They surely don’t supply us and deny themselves the necessary power? Or did they always plan the disposal of surplus for a profit, which we obviously didn’t?
2. We are obliged to send electricity to them because our system is in overcapacity, apparently, and we have to pay them for helping us out. But what happens if we are both overcapacity at the same time, what happens then, or does one or the other of us end up blowing up our grid?
3. If it is so difficult to down supply the grid when solar, wind or nuclear are generating, why hasn’t a grid discharge function been invented? Surely one of these green power genii could have foreseen this eventuality and that would have been the first thing planned/invented or whatever before the green grid was even begun or did they just say,… Read more »

Purpleone
Purpleone
3 months ago
Reply to  Cotfordtags

Basically the French have choices as they invested heavily and long term in nuclear – we didn’t, we kicked the can down the road hoping ultimately the renewable fairies would save us… and here we are, no choices, and dangerously exposed and fragile grid, massive subsidies driving huge increases in bills and less and less flexibility… makes you proud to be British doesn’t it?…

they don’t need to reciprocate when we are desperate – they could, or they could not. It’s all about the timing and dispatchability of their power sources… something we’ve slowly removed with renewables (unreliables)

soundofreason
soundofreason
3 months ago
Reply to  Purpleone

It’s all about the timing and dispatchability of their power sources…

…and keeping the UK dependent (hooked).

Purpleone
Purpleone
3 months ago
Reply to  soundofreason

Maybe – however as a nation we have total control over our destiny do we not… the fact our stupid f^#^*%# politicians can’t see further than next week is our main problem I think…

RichardTechnik
RichardTechnik
3 months ago
Reply to  Purpleone

Its a peculiarly British problem that, goes back 100 years when electrical engineer Merz and industrialist Weir proposed the ‘gridiron’ of interconnections between power stations and distribution substations, under the Electricity Supply Act 1926 For some time we had the best and most stable grid in the world. However, politicians and especially civil servants had no technical experience and qualifications, were absolutely ill-equipped to consider engineering reality and needs, and became progressively captured by ideology and short term thinking. This has served us very badly with no coherent energy policy for the UK from about the 1960s to the more recent net zero fantasy.

Purpleone
Purpleone
3 months ago
Reply to  RichardTechnik

Exactly – once you remove enough engineers and replace them with non-engineer managers, there is a tipping point…

Gezza England
Gezza England
3 months ago
Reply to  Purpleone

So a good job all these highly trained engineers are paddling their way across the Channel to help us then?

RichardTechnik
RichardTechnik
3 months ago
Reply to  Cotfordtags

“why hasn’t a grid discharge function been invented?”

It has- it used to be called industrial load. a few decades ago we had large coal fired generating capacity, with gas turbine peak load generation being ready to add an extra 8 or 9 % should consumer loads increase or a coal fired station go off-line, large electrical consumers such as electrolysis plants ran 24/7 on a ‘maximum demand’ tariff. This meant relatively cheap electricity for most of the 24h but for a 50MW plant, if a ‘maximum demand 20MW’ requirement was received, within 30 minutes, the plant had to wind down its process to 40% load and maintain that roughly so that no more than 10MWh were consumed in the next 30 mins. If that was exceeded, the additional MWh’s were pretty expensive. It worked well at a Cheshire plant I was an electrical engineer in the 80s, there was good co-operation with the then CEGB, I’d built a rudimentary cumulative average digital device to monitor metering and control the plant, and it was only imposed half a dozen times in 5 years. Now we don’t have anywhere near such load and essentially the load taken by the consumer will… Read more »

soundofreason
soundofreason
3 months ago

I presume the deal where we pay them to take our electrickery means that we can have free power from them when we need it?

Ah. Shame about that.

Gezza England
Gezza England
3 months ago
Reply to  soundofreason

No, because our system is run by ideological morons when we take power from France it is because we are desperate to prop our grid up so they charge accordingly.

soundofreason
soundofreason
3 months ago
Reply to  Gezza England

I begin to see how this works:

and when we send power to France it is because we are desperate to prop our grid up so they charge accordingly.

transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
3 months ago

France currently shipping 10% to us, which is pretty average. Generally when I check what France is doing, their domestic demand is satisfied with what they are generating from always-on hydro and nuclear, meaning they are free to flog surplus wind and solar to the rest of Europe.

soundofreason
soundofreason
3 months ago

Hmm. I hope they’re labeling those electrons properly according to EU rules. I mean, it really wouldn’t do if we thought we were buying solar or wind generated electrons and they turned out to be nuclear instead.

More horsemeat lasagne anyone?

Edited for speling.

Gezza England
Gezza England
3 months ago
Reply to  soundofreason

More likely to be coal generation as it is profitable to send it to us.

Thank you for reading. Please help us keep the Daily Sceptic going by becoming a donor.