2024 power generation in the UK

From edmhdotme

Ed Hoskins,

Introduction

Germany, the United Kingdom and France account for close to half of all European Weather-Dependent “Renewables”.

The illustrations here show the hourly power production by all generation technologies.  The data is as complete as possible for the UK.

The United Kingdom power generation illustrated 2024

The Gridwatch UK data had a major deficiency from 1/6/2024 to 10/7/2024, accordingly a batch of data was substituted from later in July that year.  This substitution will not materially affect any cumulative results shown here. 

UK Weather-Dependent “Renewables”

Productivity matters

The illustrations of UK power generation in 2024 shown above, indicate:

  • the imposition of an additional ~48 Gigawatt of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” has reduced the overall UK power fleet productivity, normally ~90%, down to ~39.5%.
  • in 2024 ~48GW of installed Weather-Dependent “Renewables” contributed the equivalent of ~9GW to the UK grid.
  • in 2024 UK Weather-Dependent “Renewables” achieved a combined productivity of ~18.4%, a relatively low value.
  • in 2024 Offshore UK wind power, which is normally quite productive, only achieved the low level of productivity of 23.5%.
  • the unreliability and intermittency of both Onshore and Offshore Wind power is clear from the third graphic above:
    • Wind power output can vary from close to full power on occasions down to virtually nil power output within a few hours.
    • Solar power is inevitably diurnal, very variable Summer to Winter and dependent on cloudiness.  The UK is one of the cloudiest nations.
  • Solar power consistently has continued its low overall productivity of only ~10%.
  • Solar power contributed most power at periods of low demand during the summer and very little during the winter, the period of high demand.
  • the daily timing of the contribution from Solar power does not meet the high power demand in winter evenings.
  • although capital installation costs of Solar power are almost comparable to Gas-firing for nameplate capital costs, Solar power output actually costs ~10 times as much as Gas-firing to install and maintain when its low productivity is taken into account.
  • the UK is heavily dependent on imported power, largely Nuclear from France, the Netherlands and Norway, amounting to ~15% of power generation over the year, with the UK exporting power only on rare occasions.
  • UK energy security is at risk by having to rely on imported power:
    • Norway is already considering curtailing its exports to the UK and retaining its power output for its own domestic use.
    • France has threatened its supply to the UK in a dispute over the Channel Islands.
  • imported power was close to equivalent to the output of the whole of the UK’s current indigenous consistent Nuclear power generation.
  • the final closure of the last UK Coal-fired power station occurred in 2024, it contributed less than 1% of power demand before closure.
  • the installation of ~48GW, Weather-Dependent “Renewables” ~65% of the present UK generation fleet, also produced a similar ~30% cumulative power output as from Gas-firing but that “Renewable” power output was non-dispatchable on demand: “Renewables” achieved at a combined productivity of only ~18.5% in 2024.
  • imported Biomass, with CO2 emissions about 4 times that of Gas-firing, contributed a dispatchable ~7% of UK demand.
  • using imported Biomass negated all and any CO2 emissions savings made by other Weather-Dependent “Renewables”.
  • with a installation of ~10GW+ Natural gas generated about 30% of all UK power at a productivity of ~87%: this power output was flexibly dispatchable, available to meet demand.
  • Gas-firing, but not using indigenous UK gas resources, was largely able to compensate for the intermittency and unreliability of the large scale imposition of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” already installed in the UK.

Data:  gridwatch.templar.co.uk   ref.org

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.9 21 votes
Article Rating
54 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Idle Eric
February 7, 2025 2:29 am

Ref the UK’s installed gas capacity.

The first/second graph seems to be implying ~ 10 GW gas capacity, but this time yesterday the gas plants were generating >20 GW, so there must be something wrong here.

strativarius
Reply to  Idle Eric
February 7, 2025 2:51 am

Government figures?

Reply to  Idle Eric
February 7, 2025 3:15 am

I think it’s the unit: Capacity = GW, production = GWh

Reply to  Eric Vieira
February 7, 2025 1:33 pm

The author of the article confuses efficiency and capacity factor

This article is about CAPACITY FACTORS

They are dismal for solar, less than 10%, just like Germany, lasting 25 years

Offshore, the best of a sorry lot, can be 45%, but also 25%, lasting 20 to 25 years

A base loaded coal plant 85%, lasting 50 to 60 years
A base-loaded nuclear plant 90%, lasting 60 to 80 years

What in hell are these UK nutcases thinking?

IT IS OVER.

STEP ASIDE AND LET RATIONAL PEOPLE RUN THE UK

Reply to  Idle Eric
February 7, 2025 4:04 am

Yes, that seems wrong, its not GWh. It is installed capacity. IIRC we gave about 30GW of gas capacity in emergencies.

mysql> select max(ccgt) from day;
+-----------+
| max(ccgt) |
+-----------+
|    27356 |
+-----------+

So the most gas Gridwatch has ever recorded is 27,3GW
There is also a little bit of OCGT

mysql> select max(ccgt+ocgt) from day;
+----------------+
| max(ccgt+ocgt) |
+----------------+
|          27886 |

It is a bit misleading to compare capacity factors between radically different energy generation technologies.

  • Nuclear capacity factors reflect refuelling and maintenance.
  • Wind hydro and solar capacity factors represent the weather and maintenance.
  • Pumped storage capacity factors represent the fact that it has to be pumped back up so is never more that about 50%.
  • Gas capacity factors represent how much of the capacity was not needed because of renewable precedence.

In general this article is pretty good, but there is a lot of deviltry in the hidden detail.
Also the popular press is extremely likely to look at the net imports and say ‘Britain depends on imports’ This is not true. It is simply that when imports are cheaper than gas, we import.

Reply to  Leo Smith
February 7, 2025 9:16 am

So, some of the details are incorrect, but the overall conclusions are valid. The general impression that weather-dependent “renewables” are essentially not yet, if ever, ready for the prom is correct.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Idle Eric
February 7, 2025 4:46 am

An example of author competence.

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2025 9:20 am

Disparaging comments seem to be the limit of your contributions. Not particularly useful as discussion goes. Perhaps you might offer some constructive critique like Leo does above. Otherwise, why bother commenting at all?

Richard Greene
Reply to  Mark Whitney
February 7, 2025 10:51 am

Accuracy matters to me
Perhaps it does not matter to you.
Do you want to censor comments that dispute the accuracy of an article? Would that make you happy?

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2025 11:07 am

Where did anyone say anything about censoring comments, RG?

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2025 11:19 am

Richard how is accuracy improved by ad hominem attack? If you have a case to make, correct the mistakes or offer something useful that improves understanding. Lordly denouncements serve only to discredit oneself.

KevinM
Reply to  Mark Whitney
February 7, 2025 1:26 pm

Agree. RG is becoming an auto-skip in the reading

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2025 5:35 pm

The problem YOU have is you don’t offer a cogent argument against the post, you are just mr. bla bla bla…..

Reply to  Idle Eric
February 7, 2025 4:52 am

The first/second graph seems to be implying ~ 10 GW gas capacity, but […] so there must be something wrong here.

You are correct, the “capacity” numbers in the “bars” half of that first graphic are incorrect.

NESO’s “Clean Power 2030” report can be downloaded from the following link :
https://www.neso.energy/publications/clean-power-2030

On page 47 you will find “Table 2: Capacity by technology in the clean power pathways (GW)”, a screenshot of which is attached to the end of this post for the lazy, which includes a set of “where we’re starting from” numbers for 2023 (2024’s numbers should be very similar).

Notes

– The “Onshore Wind”, “Offshore Wind”, “Solar”, “Nuclear” and “Biomass” capacity numbers roughly match the ATL graphic’s numbers / bar section lengths

– The ATL graphic’s 3-4 GW of “net transfer” capacity is less than half of NESO’s 8.4 GW of “Interconnectors”

– The ATL graphic’s ~10 GW of “natural gas” is a lot less than (/ ~27% of) NESO’s 37.4 GW of “Unabated Gas” capacity

.

Most of the conclusions of the ATL article regarding the intermittency problems of “Weather-Dependent Renewables (WDR)” are valid, but it does indeed look like the author(s) got some of the fossil-fuel related details wrong.

NESO_Clean-Power-2030_Table-2
strativarius
February 7, 2025 2:50 am

Yet again, the law of Sod is proven correct.

The more they proclaim the hottest evah… the colder it actually gets. Like it’s still 2C in UHI rich London. Hmm.

Hottest January on record mystifies climate scientists – Grauniad
Hottest January on record called ‘terrifying’ by climate scientists – Independent
It’s official: January was the warmest on record – UNhinged
Record January warmth puzzles climate scientists – BBC
ad nauseam.

Well, it might have been hot somewhere, but it ain’t and it hasn’t been, here. This global temperature nonsense is a very flaky crutch to rest on.

As for energy generation, I bought more coal, wood and kindling this morning….

Reply to  strativarius
February 7, 2025 3:27 am

Was the snow in New Orleans especially hot this January?

Reply to  stevencarr
February 7, 2025 3:35 am

That’s just weather Steven /s

strativarius
Reply to  stevencarr
February 7, 2025 3:39 am

If I understand my Holdren climate science correctly; the overheating Arctic – via the jet stream – displaces the cold further South while the polar bears sunbathe.

Reply to  strativarius
February 7, 2025 3:47 am

Basic physics. Hot air rises to the top of the world (ie the Arctic) while cold air sinks downwards (ie to the Equator).
Hence, we use wind turbines to catch all this moving air and suck the power out of it.

strativarius
Reply to  stevencarr
February 7, 2025 4:06 am

I was specific…

Holdren climate science “

KevinM
Reply to  stevencarr
February 7, 2025 1:31 pm

Sounds like we can make windmill-powered aircraft.

Rod Evans
February 7, 2025 3:44 am

Can’t wait for the BBC to present this data. They will claim the percentages represent ‘productivity to the grid’ thus suggesting the numbers are contribution to energy provided rather than the performance against nameplate potential.
Just watch.
The lowering of the offshore wind from high 30s% to low 20s% is a shocker.
What is causing the drop? Could it be lack of maintenance due to increase in numbers installed?

Reply to  Rod Evans
February 7, 2025 4:09 am

There has always been a huge discrepancy between the government’s official wind capacity factors and the actual recorded ones by the National Grid.

I investigated this one at one time and concluded that buried in the fine print of IIRC the Dukes report, the wind figures the government used were modelled not measured…

Of course when new, they all work, but within a year easily 10% or more are offline at any given time. The sea is a harsh mistress for electromechanical engineering.

The renewable industry is full of half truths, misinformation and downright lies. And massive profits.

Reply to  Leo Smith
February 7, 2025 5:04 am

And massive profits.

I think you mean subsidies.

Iain Reid
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 8, 2025 1:23 am

Leo,
I think it was Dr Gordon Hughes that said onshore wind and solar output decreases by 3% annually and offshore wind by 4.5% annually?

February 7, 2025 3:47 am

The Gridwatch UK data had a major deficiency from 1/6/2024 to 10/7/2024,

BMreports changed their API the day before I went into hospital for a major spinal operation, and I was unable to sit at a computer for nearly six weeks.

Sorry.

February 7, 2025 3:53 am

Meanwhile, from the UK Telegraph: [Story Tip]

In China, meanwhile, solar accounts for about 37pc of installed capacity. What this misses out is that it only generates about 2.5pc of its actual consumption. The result is that in 2023, Beijing added 47GW of coal capacity, and retired less than 4GW. Mined production of the fuel reached an all-time high last November, and more power plants are on the way. Some 204GW of coal power is under construction, 121GW permitted, 37GW at the pre-permit stage and 59GW announced.

The story in India is not too different:

Over the 10 years to March 2024, India’s power generation capacity almost doubled. While most of the additions were in renewables and biomass, 19GW (gigawatts) of coal-based capacity was added, taking the total share of coal and lignite to a little under half the country’s total capacity. In terms of the actual electricity generated, however, coal’s share was more like 80pc. And over the next decade, Delhi plans to add another 80GW of coal plants as part of its plans to double energy production, with 19.6GW expected to come online by this October.

And in the US….

Across the US, energy operators are rapidly revising grid projections as the largest tech firms ramp up spending on data infrastructure. Some are striking bargains to reopen shuttered nuclear plants, co-locating data and power supply for reliability and cost reduction. Others are forced to rely on local supply. The result is that Texas is predicting 152GW of new load by 2030, a forecast that’s risen by 40GW in just one year. Georgia Power is expecting 22GW of data centre demand by 2029, equivalent to 29pc of all installed UK capacity….

…..Over the United States as a whole, up to 46GW of gas-fired plants are expected to be built by 2030, while coal plants are seeing their planned closures delayed to keep the grid up. Far from heading towards a carbon-free grid by 2035, the US is slipping backwards. Only Britain is staying the course, in possibly the dumbest way it can.

Dumb is right. The UK does about 47GW peak demand at the moment. Abolish it totally, and it would have no impact on global emissions.

Starmer is also talking optimistically about huge investment in AI, which will raise demand. Also of course the mad move to heat pumps and EVs. And this is supposed to be done while moving to wind and solar, to net zero in power production by 2030? While the wind farm installation companies retrench and cancel projects as fast as they can?

Dumb is putting it mildly.

Rich Davis
Reply to  michel
February 7, 2025 6:32 am

Oh Michel, you’re such a pessimist! You have nearly 59 months to reach Net Zero. 255 weeks in fact! How much time do you think you need? If you come up short after all that time, no worries! Fusion power will only be 40 years away, (as ever).

I’m sure that by 2030, censorship in Airstrip One will be so complete that you won’t know whether Net Zero was achieved, much less be able to whinge on about it interminably.

KevinM
Reply to  michel
February 7, 2025 1:34 pm

In China, meanwhile, solar accounts for about 37pc of installed capacity. What this misses out is that it only generates about 2.5pc of its actual consumption

KevinM
Reply to  KevinM
February 7, 2025 1:36 pm

And: “ While most of the additions were in renewables and biomass
Leading one to ask how much of “and biomass” is the total?
Burning sh—– for energy.

Iain Reid
Reply to  KevinM
February 8, 2025 1:27 am

Kevin,

Drax is a valuable part of the grid, no argument it is not green, but it provides a lot of necessary inertia, reactive power etc lacking from wind and solar.
The grid would be worse without it.

altipueri
February 7, 2025 3:56 am

I apologise for the stupidity of my country. I didn’t vote for any of this climate nonsense.
I hope that some of you in other places can learn from our folly.

strativarius
Reply to  altipueri
February 7, 2025 4:09 am

“”I apologise…””

That sounds like true progressivism. I didn’t vote for any of it, and I’m certainly not going to apologise for the idiocy of my fellow citizens.

Fortunately we are not alone.

rovingbroker
February 7, 2025 4:20 am

It looks to me like power generation is low in the (warm) summer months and high in the (cold) winter months. Doesn’t that mean that a little “global warming” would reduce the annual energy usage?

In any case I’ll jump on my hobby horse and wonder why all energy generation isn’t nuclear? Safe, clean, reliable nuclear power?

strativarius
Reply to  rovingbroker
February 7, 2025 4:34 am

why all energy generation isn’t nuclear? 

According to the main opposition (in the UK)

1. Nuclear energy delivers too little to matter
2. Nuclear power plants are dangerous and vulnerable
3. Nuclear energy is too expensive
4. Nuclear energy is too slow
5. Nuclear energy generates huge amounts of toxic waste 
6. The nuclear industry is falling short of its promises  
https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/52758/reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-way-green-and-peaceful-world/

Try to build one….

Campaign group seeks judicial review of government’s decision to give green light to £10bn Hinkley plant

The government’s nascent nuclear new build programme suffered a fresh blow this week after it emerged that Greenpeace has launched a legal challenge against EDF’s £10bn Hinkley nuclear project.
https://www.building.co.uk/news/greenpeace-picks-legal-fight-over-hinkley-nuclear-project/5055507.article

They drag it out for years or as long as they possibly can. That tends to make nuclear pretty expensive in the end.

davidinredmond
Reply to  strativarius
February 7, 2025 12:44 pm

🙂 In that numbered list, you might substitute “wind” or “solar” for “nuclear” and be as, or more, accurate.

Related to the main article, I would love to see a similar comparison for US California. Don’t remember the details, but I thought they import between 25% and 33% of their power consumed. And a former governor was recalled in part due to power outages (Gray-out Davis). Though in So Cali, solar might make some sense. even if the bird incinerator at Ivanpah is circling the drain, as has Cali managed Tonopah. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.

KevinM
Reply to  strativarius
February 7, 2025 1:40 pm

When the number 1 argument for why something is not used is:

1. Nuclear energy delivers too little to matter

I wonders – what is a circular argument?

Richard Greene
February 7, 2025 4:42 am

This is allegedly an article about the UK’s fuel sources of electricity in2024

Near the beginning:

“The Gridwatch UK data had a major deficiency from 1/6/2024 to 10/7/2024, accordingly a batch of data was substituted from later in July that year. This substitution will not materially affect any cumulative results shown here”. 

I assume this means the 5 weeks from June 5 to July 10, 2024. If 5 weeks of 52 weeks are mysteriously missing. I can only wonder about the accuracy of the remaining data.

Is something important being hidden that happened during those 5 weeks?

Did the data never get compiled for 5 weeks or did they disappear later?

I stopped reading after the author admitted substituting his own fictional numbers for missing data. That is science fraud.

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2025 5:36 am

I don’t suppose you read the post above where the author stated he was in hospital fir while?
I also suppose we shouldn’t let facts get in the way of a whinge!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2025 6:39 am

STFU troll!

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2025 1:24 pm

Nick,

The Governor of New Jersey pulled the plug on the 5,000 MW offshore windmill goal by 2040.
IT IS OVER HE SAID

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2025 2:47 pm

Wrong. He stated what had been done. Fraudsters don’t do that.

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2025 6:49 pm

The data supplied from that link:
https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/download.php
is inaccurate from June 1, 2024 to July 9, 2024. This was because there was a change in the way the UK grid reported its data, and the maintainer of this website took a month or so to update his website to capture the data properly. I am guessing that when data is not obtained with his programming, the previous value is used. Pretty sloppy but its free. Thus, the same data numbers are reported for the entire time period. The only exception seems to be solar, which is supplied by Sheffield University.
I emailed the maintainer but he did not fix this problem, which is one reason why I download data now directly from elexon’s web site.
THIS IS NOT SCIENCE FRAUD. Spare us the bold font.

strativarius
February 7, 2025 5:40 am

Story tip

An FOI has been released which gathered correspondence between DESNZ officials and NESO in the run up to the report’s publication. There are numerous occasions on which NESO asks directly for feedback and input from Miliband’s department on the report itself. Take three egregious examples

We are keen to get views on the messaging, tone and structure (overall and for the main sections) as well as anything that you [DESNZ] think is missing and anything you strongly dislike or can’t live with!

We hope you will see that your feedback and comments have been incorporated wherever possible” 

please find the very latest draft report and costs annex which include the updated narrative and visuals on cost… In any case we will ensure the 3 orgs [NESO, DESNZ & Ofgem] are aligned on lines to take on costs.“
https://order-order.com/2025/02/07/milibands-department-consulted-extensively-on-independent-net-zero-report/

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  strativarius
February 7, 2025 6:52 am

Next you’ll be telling us that the Climate Change Committee isn’t actually providing independent advice and is merely there to add a facade of legitimacy to whatever bonkers green policies the government wants to justify.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  strativarius
February 7, 2025 9:19 am

Well to be fair to NESO their final report did say

“Several elements must deliver at the limit of what is feasible

contract as much offshore wind capacity in the coming 1-2 years as in the last 6 years combined

deliver carbon capture and storage and hydrogen power first of kind

build all planned transmission network on time which involves twice as much in the next 5 years as was built in total over the last decade

reform planning and consent processes

reform electricity markets to secure over £40bn investment annually to 2030

major network expansion is needed. Important projects face multiple barriers and some are already expected to deliver after 2030

more than twice as much transmission network needs to be built in the coming 5 years than in the previous 10 along with enabling works, connections and distribution network strengthening”

In other words “it is not possible mate”

Petey Bird
February 7, 2025 8:28 am

This actually makes the renewables look better than they are, since the variation throught the day and seasonally is even more wild.
Solar goes to zero every day, for example. None of the output variation is aligned with load demand. Productivity over the year doesn’t nearly describe the problem.

February 7, 2025 10:05 am

The Gridwatch UK data had a major deficiency from 1/6/2024 to 10/7/2024 …

I use Elexon (ex-BM Reports) plus NESO data to visualise what has happened to the GB (not “UK” !) electricity grid.

All such graphs will be “data dense”, but for annual ranges I usually use “daily sums / accumulators” numbers (in GWh) rather than the raw (30-minute averages) GW data.

My “separate lines” graph is different from the ATL article’s “stacked areas” one, but the overall pattern is (obviously !) very similar.

.

For information, my annual sums numbers for 2024 are as follows. Similar calculations to those made in the ATL article can be performed as desired by other readers.

Component : TWh : % of Demand (highest to lowest)
Total Demand : 268.097
Total Wind : 82.612 : 30.8%
CCGT : 72.615 : 27.1%
Nuclear : 38.332 : 14.3%
ICT sum : 33.300 : 12.4%
Biomass : 18.803 : 7.0%
Solar : 13.278 : 5.0%
(Conventional) Hydro : 3.583 : 1.3%
Other : 3.350 : 1.2%
Coal : 1.569 : 0.6%
Pumped Storage (PS) : 0.490 : 0.2%
OCGT : 0.166 : 0.1%

.

2024 was a leap-year, with (366 x 24 =) 8784 hours.

Dividing the above TWh numbers by 8.784 gives the following numbers (to compare with the “annual output” bars of the ATL article).

Component : Average GW
ICT sum : 3.791
Nuclear : 4.364
Coal : 0.179
xCGT : 8.286
Biomass : 2.141
Hydro + PS : 0.464
Total Wind : 9.405
Solar : 1.512

Total demand : 30.521

GB-grid_Daily-sums_2024
Rod Evans
Reply to  Mark BLR
February 8, 2025 3:09 am

Great post many thanks.

February 7, 2025 1:21 pm

UK, Germany and Norway
Norway gets 90% from hydro reservoir plants and 10% from west coast windmills.
Because of long distances, there is little connection between the north and south grid.
Any draw by the UK during W/S underproduction affects the south grid.
.
The grid is pumped by generators to a voltage with 50-cycle electromagnetic waves which travel at near the speed of light. Electrons do not travel. They just vibrate at 50 Hz
Any UK underproduction, resulting in voltage drops, is immediately sensed about 800 miles away, and compensated for, by automatically opening the water valves to hydro turbines in Norway.
.
A few years ago, during a W/S lull, Norway oversupplied Germany and the UK, which resulted in much higher wholesale prices in the south grid, too low water levels in reservoirs, rationing, aka blackouts/brownouts, and lots of Norwegians with mandated EVs and heat pumps being peed off.
.
This time the W/S lull happened again, and, just like that, the government fell. INSTANT DEMOCRACY.
We should have it in the US, instead of endless lying, obfuscation, grandstanding, obstruction, etc., for up to 4 years, or, God forbid, 8 years
.
NOTE: I lived in Norway for 3 years. My brother-in-law, a managing director for decades, worked at Norsk Hydro, which provides almost all hydro power in Norway. We talk shop. He thinks the nutcases in Oslo should be exiled to Nova Zembla

Bob
February 7, 2025 1:40 pm

Very nice Ed. This is all you need to know about wind and solar. They don’t work, stop building them and remove them from the grid. If we could get the average guy this information all this nonsense would go away.

February 7, 2025 4:05 pm

One must be careful of the data sources. I download data directly from:
https://bmrs.elexon.co.uk/api-documentation
The data set which shows all types “/generation/outturn/summary”
and the data set “generation/actual/per-type/wind-and-solar” just showing wind (onshore and offshore) and solar, give very different values for wind. This has to do with a lot of wind being curtailed for various reasons, with the wind-and-solar dataset showing about 18% more wind than the outturn summary dataset. In addition, onshore and offshore wind data seem erratic before late 2024 (2024-11-22).
A website which estimates curtailed wind power is here:
https://archy.deberker.com/the-uk-is-wasting-a-lot-of-wind-power/
The website listed above gets about 1/2 the amt of curtailed wind from simply comparing the two datasets above.

On the upside, this elexon data can be downloaded conveniently with scripting and has no data gaps as are present in the gridwatch database.

The burden of this message is that in regards to wind, things might be worst than they look.

John XB
February 8, 2025 9:10 am

We – in the UK – have been repeatedly told off-shore wind power will increase the contribution wind power makes because wind speed is more consistent and reliable. But from the graph it can be seen despite more off-shore turbines being installed, the off-shore contribution has declined to about what it was over ten years ago.

Despite the relentless increase in on-shore turbines, their contribution is actually lower than ten years ago.

Is there some inverse rule, the more wind turbines installed the less they contribute, and the more “free” wind and solar added to the mix the higher the prices of electricity to the consumer?