Bill for switching off wind farms hits £500m

Payments related to switching off wind farms in 2025 so far are equivalent to £3.3m a day – or £136,000 per hour.
A row is growing in the energy industry over how to tackle the issue, with the Government currently looking at options to reform the market.
One idea being considered is a break-up of the existing national market into different regions, or zones, that would see each part of the country pay a different price for electricity based on local supply and demand.
This would mean the amount paid to wind farms in Scotland when there is too much power being generated would fall dramatically.
It would also probably result in higher energy prices for households in London, southern England and the Midlands, given that these are areas where renewables are in short supply.
Wind farms that were curtailed on Tuesday included the Seagreen offshore wind farm in the North Sea – the largest of its kind in Scotland – which was switched off for nearly three quarters of the time it was meant to operate last year.
Investment fears
Wind farm developers Scottish Power and SSE have argued that reforming the market will make it far harder to predict future revenues and could create huge uncertainty – potentially holding up major investment decisions on new schemes.
This would also put the Government at risk of missing its 2030 clean power target, which requires huge amounts of generation capacity to be installed in the next five years.
On Wednesday, a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman said: 'The National Energy System Operator's independent report shows we can achieve clean power by 2030 with cheaper electricity, even factoring in constraint payments.
'Through our clean power action plan, we will work with industry to rewire Britain, upgrade our outdated infrastructure to get renewable electricity on the grid and minimise constraint payments.'
A spokesman for Neso, which manages the electricity grid, said: 'Neso takes its role to deliver a safe, secure and reliable national electricity network at least cost to consumers, extremely seriously.
'We are constantly looking for new ways to reduce costs associated with balancing electricity supply and demand on a second-by-second basis, as these costs are passed on to consumers in their electricity bill.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

35 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Reckless cyclists who kill pedestrians could be jailed for life as government set to crackdown on 'nightmare' E-bikes

Reckless cyclists who kill or seriously injure pedestrians will face tougher sentences in line with motoring offences. Under changes to the Crime and Policing Bill, a cyclist who kills someone by riding dangerously could face life in prison. Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling – or causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling – could be met with five years in prison, a fine or both. A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling could result in a two-year prison sentence, a fine or both. The law change, which cleared the Commons this week, includes legal e-bikes as well as pedal cycles, the Government said. The Tories agreed to change the law after campaigning by Conservative grandee Iain Duncan Smith – only for it to fall foul of the early general election last year. Sir Iain has worked with Matthew Briggs, whose wife Kim died from head injuries after a collision with a cyclist in London in 2016. Charlie Alliston, who was riding a fixed-gear bike with no front brake, was found guilty of causing bodily harm by 'wanton or furious driving' – a crime under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act – but cleared of manslaughter. Sir Iain said the change in the law would mean that for the first time there would be specific punishments for 'reckless, dangerous cycling causing injury or death'. The Bill includes e-bikes, which he said were becoming a 'major nightmare' for police, with crimes being committed using them as well as being ridden dangerously. Sir Iain said he hoped the legislation would make it 'worthwhile' for police to arrest someone for such offences. 'Now you have very specific criminal offences at those who misuse and damage people's lives and kill them,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. 'That will now be a specific crime, and will include e-bikes – riding on pavements, smashing into people, causing problems – that becomes a criminal offence.' The Government said it was changing the law to ensure there is an 'appropriate framework of offences to punish dangerous and careless behaviour that results in serious harm to other road users'. The Ministry of Justice said the new offences 'introduce penalties equivalent to those in place if the same level of harm is caused by drivers of other vehicles'. In 2023, four pedestrians were killed and 185 seriously injured after being hit by a cyclist, according to government figures. On average, three pedestrians have been killed per year by cyclists over the past decade.

Daily Mail​

an hour ago

• Daily Mail​

QUENTIN LETTS: Something ominous was in the air, and possibly soon in your veins...

The assisted dying vote was reported at half past two. 'Unlock!' said Speaker Hoyle, and his voice went all strangulated. Had someone slipped Mr Speaker a lethal dose? It was that sort of a day. Jangling. Something ominous in the air. And possibly soon in your veins. Four hours' talk of death made for an incongruous Friday this flaming June. Outside, the blessings of creation twinkled under a blue sky. Inside the chamber, MPs anguished over death-bed agonies and the prospect, some feared, of disabled or anorexic patients being hastened to their Maker. The state would now 'exercise power over life and death', said Tom Tugendhat (Con, Tonbridge). Supporters of the Bill heckled him. But he was only reflecting the reality if this Bill is passed by the Lords. The Upper House may disagree. The majority of 23 felt slender. Brexit had a majority of over a million and the Lords did its best to kibosh that. Chi Onwurah (Lab, Newcastle C) noted that private companies, as well as the state, would now be able 'to kill citizens'. My dears, we're going private for Grandpa. So much quicker, and they'll play Vivaldi's Four Seasons to muffle the sound of his death rattle. Ms Onwurah's was one of three or four speeches that appeared to start with one position and concluded with the opposite. The debate drifted like seaweed. A strong speech for choice from Kit Malthouse (Con, NW Hants) would be balanced by an affecting plea from Jen Craft (Lab, Thurrock) to think of pressure being placed on disabled people. Ms Craft has a daughter with Down's syndrome. Kim Leadbeater (Lab, Spen Valley) was her usual chirpy self as she moved her private Bill. She bounced about, grinned exhaustingly and said 'this is a robust process!' and 'take back control of your dying days!' Death by exclamation mark. There was a dissonance between her bleak obsession and this Butlin's redcoat persona. Ken Dodd playing an undertaker. One eloquent supporter of her Bill was Peter Prinsley (Lab, Bury St Edmunds), a doctor with 45 years' experience. He and John McDonnell (Ind, Hayes & Harlington) lent welcome age to that side of the argument. Others throbbed with the certitude of youth and, one fears, the naivety of new MPs yet to learn how officialdom mangles noble legislative intent. A former NHS manager, Lewis Atkinson (Lab, Sunderland C), insisted hospitals would cope. They always say that. More persuasive support for the Bill came from an intensive-care nurse, Sittingbourne's Kevin McKenna. He had trust in doctors. Do you? After so many NHS scandals? 'I wouldn't put my life, or the life of someone dear to me, in the hands of a panel of officials,' grunted Diane Abbott (Lab, Hackney N). Three times she spoke of 'the vulnerable and marginalised'. But Hanover-born Wera Hobhouse (Lib Dem, Bath) was indignant that constituents had told her that MPs were too stupid to care for the vulnerable. 'Ve haf to educate people!' fulminated Frau Hobhouse. Sarah Olney (Lib Dem, Richmond Park), shouting like a Sergeant Major, attacked the Bill's workability. Her colleague Luke Taylor (Sutton & Cheam), not the nimblest of orators, gripped a text of his speech tightly with his thick fingers and deplored 'the status crow'. It was a matter of 'how one might exit this earthly realm', he averred, more Mr Pooter than John Betjeman. James Cleverly, in the Man From Del Monte's suit, kept touching his heart as he feared money would be diverted from elsewhere in the NHS. We kept hearing the term 'a fundamental change'. When relations were bumped off, would suspicion be seeded? Mark Garnier (Con, Wyre Forest) was pro the Bill but admitted: 'I'm not the world's greatest legislator.' Oh. The most troubling speech came from a vet, Neil Hudson (Con, Epping Forest). Having killed many animals, he reported that 'the final act doesn't always go smoothly or according to plan'. He 'shuddered to think' what would happen when an assisted death turned messy.

Sky News

2 hours ago

• Sky News

The assisted dying debate has been politics – but not as we know it

The House of Commons is a place defined by confrontation where political battles play out and engage more actively with their constituents. But the atmosphere could not have been more different on Friday, as those on both sides of the assisted dying debate listened respectfully, almost solemnly, to one another in the final hours before the crucial vote. As MPs headed for the division lobbies, the bill's supporters seemed confident but nervous. When the voting was completed and the result imminent, a long and profound silence fell over the House. From the press gallery, it seemed that the entire Commons was holding its breath together, collectively aware of the historic moment we were all about to witness, whatever the outcome. The woman at the centre of this seismic moment, the bill's sponsor Kim Leadbeater, braced herself as the result came in. Many months of pressure and responsibility appeared to be lifted from her shoulders as the win was announced and colleagues gathered to commend her efforts. Throughout the process this been politics but not as we know it, with party divisions put aside and MPs asked to search their own consciences and come to their own conclusions. It has created a more collaborative atmosphere in parliament and encouraged MPs to engage more actively with their constituents. 3:06 In the end there was still anger, frustration and disappointment among those who were against the law change, either on principle or because they believed the legislation was flawed. And of course, politics will go back to being combative and voices in the Commons will be raised once again. But for a brief period, historic change was calmly ushered in. The challenge for the proponents now is to take the legislation through the next phases and deliver it with the same smoothness and determination.