UK Electricity Grid Rescued by Gas as Massive Winter Wind Droughts Disrupt Supply

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Chris Morrison

Sunning himself in some Spanish spring sunshine, the British Prime Minister is no doubt relieved that the Supreme Court back home has given him some much needed guidance on the biology of a woman. But we must hope his holiday good humour is being disturbed by news that the breezes that will power his new socialist economic miracle went on strike during significant parts of the first quarter. In a colder-than-usual winter, windmill output fell by 11%, pushing up demand for gas and imports and causing a number of unstable and highly expensive price spikes. What dick is in charge at the Department of Energy, he might be asking himself.

Step forward Ed Miliband, whose entire political career now seems to rest on his ability to keep a straight face while stating that the unreliable breezes and sunbeams are cheaper than regular-as-clockwork gas. According to Montel Analytics, low levels of renewable generation and high demand drove gas-fired power production to its highest level since 2021 for the first three months of 2025. But this gas rescue act came at a large cost since Britain’s increasingly unstable electricity supply, which provides some of the highest prices in the world, showed wild cost swings in windless days in January. On at least two freezing winter days, wind production was more-or-less zero. Not untypical winter weather conditions also saw the sun fail to shine for a number of consecutive days. Some periods saw the wholesale peak-time electricity price top £160 per megawatt hour ((MWh). On January 8th, when winter high pressure stopped the wind blowing across the UK, the wholesale price soared to £300 MWh, while the sophisticated clearing price needed to balance the non-storable supply with instant demand soared to £2,900 MWh.

Gas-generated electricity rose to 26.8 TWh during the first quarter, a rise of 13% from Q4 2024 and the highest Q1 level for four years. This despite considerable new wind capacity coming online. Wind generation fell to its lowest first quarter output since 2020. Britain sits on huge reserves of onshore gas and offshore hydrocarbons but over the winter the Mad One ordered two remaining gas fracking wells near Blackpool to be destroyed. Despite an official admission that gas will be needed for renewable electricity back-up into the foreseeable future, new oil and gas exploration has been stopped. And continuing with the de-industrialising, job-destroying, national security harming themes, a new coking mine in Cumbria was recently knocked on the head and this may have contributed to the economic woes of steel-making at Britain’s last blast furnaces in Scunthorpe.

A modern electricity system fit to power an advanced industrial society is highly complex and must take account of large swings in demand throughout a 24-hour period. Power has to be instantly supplied whatever the time of day, weather conditions and the industrial or social activities a population of nearly 70 million people choose to undertake. Last winter saw long periods of wind drought causing chaos to this delicate operation and the UK was lucky to avoid serious blackouts. The German word for such a drought is dunkelflaute which might roughly be translated as ‘no frigging wind’. It might also be noted that the eco-zealots led by the Mad Miliband who are destroying a once reliable cheap electricity system and causing mass de-industrialisation have no frigging idea what they are doing.

The big lie of course is that renewable power is cheaper than gas. Many commentators including David Turver in the Daily Sceptic have shown this is deluded poppycock. The lie travels around the TV and radio studios because £15 billion of annual renewable subsidies are ignored. Without these subsidies, which add hundreds of pounds to the electricity bills of rich and poor alike, nobody would instal a windmill or solar farm. Add in the extra costs of grid balancing, backup and necessary expansion of the network and it is not difficult to see why some of the highest prices for electricity in the world are driving industry away from the UK. Turver notes that “if something needs a subsidy, it’s more expensive”. But few want to acknowledge the huge elephant in the room since Net Zero is not subject to rational mathematics and science. The obvious reason for this is that it is a political agenda. A fake climate crisis, accepted for 20 years by media outlets such as the BBC without a scintilla of convincing proof, is mobilised to achieve long sought after hard Left collectivist ambitions.

Another reliable commentator is Paul Homewood and he has been working on the true electricity figures for many years. “These subsidies have to be paid because renewables are intrinsically much dearer than gas power, not the reverse,” he observes. But the house of cards is undoubtedly starting to sway in the sceptical breezes. Journalist legend Andrew Neil recently posted on X his frustration with those interviewing Miliband by suggesting they “need to be better briefed so they can call him out when he spouts nonsense”. Miliband often claims the UK is in the grip of petro-state dictators, yet in the absence of job-creating fracking, Britain obtains most of it foreign gas from Norway and the USA. On the other hand, Miliband was noted to have recently travelled to China to plead for stakes in green UK infrastructure. Not so much a petro-state dictatorship, points out Neil, just a dictatorship.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

4.8 22 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eng_Ian
April 19, 2025 11:07 pm

Wow, the UK power prices bounced up to 2,900 pound per MWHr.

In Oz, the ceiling is over $15,000 per MWHr.

If this new stuff is cheaper I’d like to see what grades our energy ministers and their minions achieved in primary school mathematics.

MarkW
Reply to  Eng_Ian
April 20, 2025 8:23 am

They can count votes. That’s all the math they need.

c1ue
Reply to  Eng_Ian
April 20, 2025 8:39 am

Oh but it gets better: The amount of wind electricity curtailment in 2025 is already the 5th highest on record for the UK. So while there was a “wind drought” overall, there was still excess wind electricity in huge amounts (over 2.8 million megawatt-hours or 2.8 billion kilowatt-hours) so far. To put this in perspective – the entire annual electricity consumption for the UK is around 260 TWh meaning the wind electricity curtailment in 2025 is already over 1% of the annual electricity consumption for the entire nation.

THIS IS A LOT OF POWER.

The only good news is that the curtailment cost for getting rid of this excess power was a record low 24 GBP per MWh = 68.7 million GBP paid for wind electricity curtailment.
It is not clear to me if this is a fundamental change to the bullshit contracts enjoyed by the wind electricity producers or a one off/market pricing issue – time will tell.

Reply to  c1ue
April 22, 2025 8:34 pm

It is simply the result of competition between wind farms not entitled to any subsidy. These come in two flavours: those on CFDs that pay no compensation when day ahead market prices are negative, and those that are on market prices because on average they are doing much better than they would if they exercised their CFD which was bid at too low a price.

Curtailment used to concentrate on Scottish onshore wind farms because their subsidy of a single ROC was less than the subsidies paid to offshore wind. Now, a single ROC is worth around £75/MWh, so they need a lot of compensation to curtail. But Seagreen wind farm is evading its CFD, and gets market price. Around 60% of its output gets curtailed.

Phillip Bratby
April 19, 2025 11:09 pm
GeeJam
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
April 19, 2025 11:25 pm

Thanks Phil. Quote from article: Miliband says Farage’s party and the Tories “make up any old nonsense and lies to pursue their ideological agenda”.
Talk about pot calling the kettle black!

Reply to  GeeJam
April 20, 2025 8:06 am

It takes one to know one.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
April 20, 2025 4:38 am

What on Earth has happened to the Guardian? I am old enough to remember when the Guardian was a decent newspaper. Now it is only useful for catching your pet budgie’s droppings.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Bill Toland
April 21, 2025 6:44 am

The rot started to set in when the Guardian moved from Manchester to London and the journalists began to mingle with their metropolitan compatriots.

GeeJam
April 19, 2025 11:12 pm

Reporter: So Mr Miliband, how much of the earth’s atmosphere is CO2?
Miliband: A Lot.
Reporter: Can you be more specific?
Miliband: Tons of it.
Reporter: Ok. Have you got your mobile phone?
Miliband: Of course.
Reporter: Good. Open the calculator App, and type in a million.
Miliband: How do I do that?
Reporter: Er, that’s a one, then six noughts.
Miliband: Ok, got it.
Reporter: Now imagine that your million is a million pounds.
Miliband: Now you’re talking my language!
Reporter: How much in monetary terms of that £1M is CO2
Miliband: A lot, I’ve already told you.
Reporter: CO2 is 424 parts per million. So, in cash value, that’s what?
Miliband: Tons of it.
Reporter: I give up. Try just £424.00.
Miliband: So are you saying that £999,576.00 is not CO2. Rubbish!

Editor
Reply to  GeeJam
April 19, 2025 11:42 pm
  1. No way could Ed Milliband subtract 424 from 1m.
  2. Ed Milliband’s last reply would more likely be: So with Net Zero, everyone saves £424 on their electricity bill.
Reply to  GeeJam
April 20, 2025 5:21 am

4.2 cents in $100, up from 3 cents in $100 in 40 or so years

Scary stuff !!

MarkW
Reply to  bnice2000
April 20, 2025 9:03 am

I’ve read that 10 micrograms of arsenic per liter is considered dangerous.
That’s 1 cent in $1,000,000 dollars.

My point is that just because the amount is small, is not evidence that it isn’t dangerous.
I’m not saying that CO2 is dangerous, just I have a visceral reaction to non-scientific arguments.

Let’s leave the bad science to the warmists. It’s their specialty.

Mr.
Reply to  MarkW
April 20, 2025 11:02 am

But to argue the point as a classical science advocate should, you need to provide the precise definition and specifications of the scale and degrees of “dangerous”.

MarkW
Reply to  Mr.
April 20, 2025 11:56 am

In this case, it means capable of causing biological harm. I’m summarizing multiple articles.

Reply to  MarkW
April 20, 2025 1:09 pm

We breathe out $4 worth, your comment shows a total lack of understanding.

MarkW
Reply to  bnice2000
April 20, 2025 7:10 pm

Your comment makes no sense.

GeeJam
Reply to  MarkW
April 21, 2025 7:50 am

Mark, thanks for your reply to my comment.

Fistly, let us establish the consistency of your analogy.
Micrograms are weight. A litre is volume.
So I assume you mean 10 microlitres of arsenic to 1,000,000 (1M) microlitres (equ.1 Litre) of water.

Secondly, It’s all about potency . . . .
Only if ingested, I agree, Arsenic is far more likely to be dangerous at 10 ppm than CO2 at, say, 10,000 ppm.
Naval submariners often live in a confined breathable atmosphere with CO2 of up to about 11,300 ppm – and they survive. Note: A maximum value of 40,000 ppm CO2 is considered immediately dangerous to life and health.

At the moment, the air that goes into our lungs contains CO2 at only 424 ppm. That’s about 1/2,550ths of the sky. It is not even slightly dangerous.

So your ‘Arsenic’ analogy is not comparing apples with apples.

Incidentally, as you are already no doubt aware, that of the 424 ppm CO2 we inhale, about 402 ppm is produced from entirely natural sources (Calcification, Volcanic Activity, Decomposition, Photosynthesis, Respiration, Natural Fermentation, etc.)
We cannot control what is natural.

This leaves only a microscopic amount of about 22 ppm which is anthropogenic (incl. Cremation, Brewing Industry, Propellants, Decaffeination, Food Manufacture & Packaging, Incinerators, Lime-kiln Processes, Laser Cutting, etc.) .
And all this ‘Net Zero’ crap is about stopping us all doing these things at astonomic financial cost just because some idiot keeps telling us the Earth will go bang if we don’t.

Louis Hunt
April 19, 2025 11:38 pm

I’ve heard of massive floods and massive wind storms, but not massive droughts. Would you say “massive darkness” when it remains cloudy for long periods? Perhaps prolonged or unrelenting wind droughts might express it better.

Reply to  Louis Hunt
April 21, 2025 1:04 pm

The Germans have a nice word for it: “Dunkelflaute”: gray skies (or fog) (Dunkel = dark) and faint wind (Flaute = faint) in combination.

Has been the case for about 2-3 days to a few weeks per month in every season for large parts of Europa and for full three weeks in December 2023 in whole Europa (not only the EU) with less than 10% output of all installed wind power and solar panels…
https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=ALL&week=48&source=public&year=2023

StephenP
April 19, 2025 11:46 pm

I see that at the moment, 7.45am, the UK is buying in 30% of our electricity from abroad.
Wind is providing 13%.

StephenP
Reply to  StephenP
April 19, 2025 11:48 pm

Source, gridwatch UK

Reply to  StephenP
April 20, 2025 8:34 am

About a week ago I downloaded the gridwatch data from the Monday after the General Election until that minute.

My calculation showed we’d imported 25TWh from Europe. My view is it keeps the gas generation figures artificially low so Net Zero Zealot Cabinet Ministers can trumped how well renewables are performing safe in the knowledge that nobody from the MSM will ask difficult questions

Idle Eric
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
April 20, 2025 8:56 am

My view is it keeps the gas generation figures artificially low so Net Zero Zealot Cabinet Ministers can trumped how well renewables are performing…..

This seems to be the case for all of our net-zero efforts, a pretence that shifting CO2 emitting activities to other countries and then consuming their products is somehow reducing our carbon footprint.

The reality is that we’re destroying our economy, and by moving production to (coal fired) China, likely increasing global CO2 output at the same time.

Idle Eric
Reply to  StephenP
April 20, 2025 2:29 am

Worth mentioning that that percentage is relative to a very low early morning demand of ~23GW, the midwinter peak can be close to 50GW.

Idle Eric
Reply to  StephenP
April 20, 2025 5:07 am

Now less than 2GW and under 7% of demand, and this is on a low demand, sunny Easter weekend.

Midweek, in December? I have an ample supply of candles and bottled gas, for those that don’t, good luck.

Ed Zuiderwijk
April 20, 2025 2:19 am

Miliband is a blinkered idiot. More you do not need to know.

Westfieldmike
April 20, 2025 3:07 am

In East Sussex we had three consecutive weeks of no wind and very cold weather .Glad we have a fire.

April 20, 2025 5:48 am

Heaven help anyone who thinks that gas rescued the UK grid. It is a perverse way of considering the prime essential source of energy in the UK.

There are highly destructive forces aiming to wreck the UK economy that want to eliminate gas from the energy supply. Without gas, the UK electricity grid ceases to exist as a useful source of energy.

The heading should read “UK Grid moves ever closer to Collapse as Dispatchable Gas Fired Generating Capacity Falls below Critical Level”

rhs
April 20, 2025 6:46 am

Then there’s Colorado’s governor drinking the Kool-aid that renewable are cheaper then coal:
https://coloradosun.com/2025/04/15/coal-fired-power-craig-tri-state-xcel-trump-orders/

MarkW
April 20, 2025 8:21 am

The fixed cost of natural gas stays the same, regardless of how much electricity is being generated.
Labor, maintenance, taxes and insurance, etc.

The only thing that drops are fuel costs.
First fuel costs are small compared to the other costs.
Secondly, since the plant has to be kept on, at a minimum, warm standby, so that it can take over in a matter of minutes after wind and solar have failed, they end up burning almost as much fuel as they would if they were supplying the whole load.

If the power plant produces 10% less power, while costs go down 1%, then the cost per kWh is going to go up.

Jeff Alberts
April 20, 2025 8:21 am

Not untypical winter weather conditions also saw the sun fail to shine for a number of consecutive days.”

Where exactly, outside of the Antarctic, did the sun fail to shine? Seems like this would be Earth-shattering news? Do you mean it was cloudy? Not even remotely the same thing as the sun failing to shine.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 20, 2025 8:36 am

If pedantry is all you have don’t bother.

Mr.
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
April 20, 2025 11:07 am

But in science, pedantry is everything.
Terminological precision is just as critical as precision in measurements.

Reply to  Mr.
April 20, 2025 11:48 am

Did you know what was meant by the phrase” the sun fail to shine for a number of consecutive days”?
Forme it means a cloudy day or series of days where Campbell-Stokes sunshine recorders registered zero or very little sunshine.

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 20, 2025 12:01 pm

For solar panels, the difference between the two statements is negligible.

Westfieldmike
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 20, 2025 1:09 pm

Trouble maker

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Westfieldmike
April 20, 2025 5:24 pm

You honestly don’t think there’s a difference between the two statements?? Wow.

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 20, 2025 7:12 pm

Did you honestly believe that anybody actually thought the sun had gone out?

Bob
April 20, 2025 1:30 pm

Very nice Chris. Britain will never recover until it comes to grips with the fact that they MUST hold people like Miliband personally responsible for the destruction they have caused. Government should never be in the energy or transportation business for the simple reason that government and government players are not held accountable. Britain is a perfect example. Britain you need to wake up and act, these monsters will never reform on their own accord.

Corrigenda
April 21, 2025 1:23 pm

Always the case