Plans for huge wind farm paused over ‘unfair’ grid charges

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

A huge wind farm planned off the north coast of Scotland will not be built unless “unfair” transmission charges are overhauled, the developer has warned.

The 125-turbine West of Orkney wind farm had planned to generate enough electricity to power two million homes by 2029.

But the consortium behind the project says the cost of connecting to the electricity network – which is highest in Argyll and the north of Scotland – makes it impossible to compete against projects proposed in England.

The UK government said it is considering the charges as part of a wider review.

Transmission charges are imposed on power generators to build and maintain the network of pylons and underground cables which carry high-voltage electricity around Great Britain.

The charges for connecting to the grid were designed to encourage generators to build power stations close to where it is consumed.

It means they are the lowest around London and the south of England, where the electricity travels the shortest distance to reach the most densely populated group of consumers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8x919v8g19o

It’s hardly rocket science, is it?

If you build a wind farm near the Orkneys, how do you think that electricity is going to get to England where it will be used?

According to Grok:

The West of Orkney Windfarm (a 2 GW offshore wind project located about 30 km off the west coast of Orkney and 25 km from the north Sutherland coast) will connect to the UK’s National Grid via a grid connection agreement with National Grid ESO, specifically in Caithness on the Scottish mainland.

Electricity generated offshore will be transmitted as follows:

  • Offshore export cables (high-voltage alternating current, HVAC) will carry the power from the wind farm’s offshore substation platforms to cable landfall points on the north Caithness coast. One key mentioned landfall area is to the east of the former Dounreay Nuclear Facility (near Dounreay in Caithness). Up to two cable landfalls and up to five (or more in some descriptions) associated export circuits/cables are planned, with cables buried underground once onshore.
  • From the landfall points, onshore underground cables (export circuits) will route inland across Caithness for approximately 20 km (in some references) to a new onshore substation located at or near Spittal in Caithness.
  • The onshore substation will handle the electrical equipment (e.g., switchgear) and connect the project directly to the National Grid transmission network. It is associated with the SHET-L Spittal 2 substation (part of the Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission network, which operates in the north of Scotland under National Grid oversight for connections).

Why should anybody else pay for all of this work, other than the wind farm itself?

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
HB
January 22, 2026 2:11 am

So it is uneconomic to move electricity from the Orkney’s to the consumer
Who would have thunk it !!!
Just maybe mad red ed is eventually coming up against the financial brick wall

January 22, 2026 2:22 am

Obviously the wind farm should be paid for the electricity it would have produced if there had been a connection to the grid.
Isn’t that how the system works?

January 22, 2026 2:28 am

‘The 125-turbine West of Orkney wind farm had planned to generate enough electricity to power two million homes by 2029.’

My understanding is that the nameplate capacity is 2 GW. 
That is 1 KW per home. But of course, the real capacity will be much less.

So how will it power 2 million homes?

Leon de Boer
Reply to  stevencarr
January 22, 2026 3:00 am

They are “virtual houses” like the “virtual generation” or perhaps it’s the 2 million houses homeless people with no services live in?

strativarius
January 22, 2026 2:40 am

The UK government said it is considering the charges 

Which means they’ll find the money from somewhere.

When most of the power generated is consumed south of the Hadrianic wall and this scheme is well to the north of it… the failure to think it through is true to the modus operandi of this government. Yes, we have older housing stock, but with cheap energy that isn’t such a big deal. It’s when you mess around claiming a faux climate crisis and make energy prohibitively expensive that the notions of fuel poverty start to manifest themselves.

About £5bn will be invested in home upgrades, including solar panels and batteries, in the form of grants to people on low incomes, as well as £2bn in consumer loans for people who can afford them”Guardian

People on low incomes tend to live in smaller properties and will certainly have no room for batteries, heat pumps and water tanks , let alone the X2.5 larger radiators. I doubt underfloor heating will be an option. But what Miliband is doing in effect is inviting a whole new host of cowboy builders to rip people off…

Government officials assured customers as recently as December that the company’s parent company would complete any outstanding work, but a statement on CES’s website now states the firm “will be unable to carry out any remedial works or repairs, or to progress or resolve any existing complaints”.
“There’s no repercussions for these companies. They set up, they make loads of money and then they just disappear,” said CES customer Hannah Luckett“. – MSN

Looking forward to the future government inquiry on how it could have possibly happened….

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 22, 2026 2:50 am

1 meter of undersea cable has about 50 kg of copper. 1 kilometer thus 50 metric tons of copper. 30 km 1500 metric tons of copper. Double that to add the cabling connecting the turbines to the collection point out at sea.

How much coal will be used in China to make that copper out of the raw ores?

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
January 22, 2026 2:54 am

1 meter of undersea cable has about 50 kg of copper.’

The density of copper is 8960 kg/m^3 , so that is a cable of copper of diameter 8.4 cm.
Is that right?

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  stevencarr
January 22, 2026 3:37 am

Carrying 2 GW. Needs a cable between 70mm and 235mm depending on the design used. The cross section of copper needed is at least 25 square centimetres, which would give 2.5 litre per meter. 50 kg may be overdoing it, 30 more likely.

Rod Evans
January 22, 2026 3:39 am

The most insane energy option is to build yet more wind turbines out at sea north of Scotland.
The cost last year as reported in the Daily Telegraph was over £800,milliom to Scottish windfarms to stop producing when the wind is blowing and they can not shed their electricity into the already saturated grid.
The cost of blocking wind power because it has been built in the wrong location is expected to increase by 25% this year.
Why would anyone in their right mind (Ed Miliband) authorise yet more production of turbines in a remote area that is already over subscribed and will cost the tax payers £1billion for nothing but simply being there this current year?

rovingbroker
January 22, 2026 3:41 am

In the days of coal power, the coal was (and still is) carried by rail to the generators. I guess they never thought of building miles and miles of copper wires to carry electric power from the coal mines to the big cities. How foolish they were 🙂

Why is it that the people promoting these crazy schemes never include cost with their brilliant ideas?

in·nu·mer·ate
[iˈno͞omərət]

  1. without a basic knowledge of mathematics and arithmetic:
  2. “to this day I am practically innumerate”