Britain’s Skyrocketing Green Energy Prices are Forcing Internet Providers to Ration Access

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… Energy costs are continuing to surge with prices increasing by 70% in recent years. …”

Brits could have mobile phone data rationed under emergency plans – full list of networks

Mobile phone network operators have given a stark warning as the war in Iran continues.

By Mieka Smiles, News Reporter, Toby Codd
14:41, Wed, Apr 22, 2026 Updated: 18:03, Wed, Apr 22, 2026

Mobile network operators are warning they could need to ration phone signal access to combat rocketing energy prices. Telecoms giants said they were drawing up emergency contingency plans after being excluded from Rachel Reeves’s energy support scheme as the war in Iran rages on.

The plans include rationing access to their networks, slowing down speeds or increasing pricing. Broadband could also be hit by the move while mobile phone services such as calls and internet data could be the worst affected. Operators hope to reduce energy use in order to combat the ongoing impact of the war in Iran.

Energy costs are continuing to surge with prices increasing by 70% in recent years. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused the price of electricity to rise by 33% since the start of the war in Iran.

Telecoms companies are now calling on support from the government with growing frustration at Labour’s decision to exclude them from a recent support package. Rachel Reeves confirmed plans to cut electricity bills for 10,000 manufacturers by up to 25% under the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme (BICS).

Read more: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2197164/brits-could-have-mobile-phone

Obviously some of this is a play to be included in the British government’s magic subsidy circle, but a 70% surge in costs is a lot for any business to absorb, especially energy intensive high tech companies.

The British government seems totally delusional about the cost of energy, and appears unresponsive to the cries of pain from what is left of the British economy. Their hollow assurances that low cost renewable nirvana is just around the corner, or that construction of their grid ready nuclear Nottinghamshire FUSION reactor will be completed by 2040, are only convincing the climate faithful.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 12 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
94 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bryan A
April 23, 2026 2:10 pm

Limit Internet Access…Limit Information Access!!!
Limit Information Access…Control the Narrative!!!
Any Questions???

Junkgirl
Reply to  Bryan A
April 23, 2026 2:41 pm

EMERGENCY EMERGENCY. Go to your designated 15 Minute City. Power will be available there. Become a captive audience. (Sound of doors slamming shut).

Reply to  Bryan A
April 23, 2026 4:14 pm

They’ll probably start the internet slowdown by blocking WUWT. 🙂

Bryan A
April 23, 2026 2:18 pm

Perhaps Britain (The Crown) should consider taking one for the team and abolish energy taxation. At 52p/L with current pricing at 149.1p/L that effectively drops petrol to 97p/L and Diesel to 120p/L. This would go a long way to helping average Britons during hard times.

John XB
Reply to  Bryan A
April 24, 2026 5:13 am

But that 52p per litre helps pay for our “free” NHS.

We now have a welfare system that cost more than the entire annual income tax receipts.

Nick Stokes
April 23, 2026 2:21 pm

“Britain’s Skyrocketing Green Energy Prices…”
There is nothing about green energy here. The providers are quite explicit in their complaints:

“Telecoms giants said they were drawing up emergency contingency plans after being excluded from Rachel Reeves’s energy support scheme as the war in Iran rages on.”

“Operators hope to reduce energy use in order to combat the ongoing impact of the war in Iran.”

“The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused the price of electricity to rise by 33% since the start of the war in Iran.”

Green energy does not come through the Strait of Hormuz.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2026 2:34 pm

Green energy doesn’t come from anyplace at all! Especially not from Wind and Solar Subsidy Farms. Green Energy £s though go TO China on Large Transport Vessels powered by Diesel.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2026 2:38 pm

Ever ready to drink the political bathwater, as served up this time by the Daily Express. UK solar and wind are diseconomy, wherever they come from.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  R Taylor
April 23, 2026 4:10 pm

The Daily Express was served up by Eric.

Bryan A
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 23, 2026 2:40 pm

A MOST Inconvenient Truth!

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Bryan A
April 23, 2026 4:11 pm

Fantasy!

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 23, 2026 6:11 pm

Naw, renewable subsidies are negative, a net positive contribution to the budget. Anything to the contrary is just propaganda.

— Nice Strokes

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
April 27, 2026 7:58 am

Look at the source.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 24, 2026 4:42 pm

Not to mention that just across the Channel (and a few meters more) sits Germany, whom I’m sure has plenty of excess electricity to send over to former EU-partner, Great Britain.

After all, Germany declared that the current US-Iranian war was “Not their war”, so with their oh-so-successful Energiewende policy they obviously don’t need any of that Middle East oil waiting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

/sarc

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2026 2:47 pm

With most of the “Green Energy” scamculture being manufactured in China and the majority of Chinese imported Oil coming from Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran you can bet your bottom dollar that manufacturing and delivering that “Green Energy Infrastructure” needs Oil through the Strait for Diesel or it won’t get transported anywhere.

KevinM
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2026 4:57 pm

I think Stokes is correct that it’s not a green energy thing.
I’d add it’s not an Iran/Hormuz thing either.

I think it is a get-what-you-asked-for thing.
Britain elected leaders who decided to depend on energy controlled by external parties. Now this.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2026 7:19 pm

I have a Nick approved solution for the UK

You can use your phone and internet in UK whenever there is enough renewable energy to power it. So perhaps 50/50 and better in summer than winter.

Bryan A
Reply to  Leon de Boer
April 23, 2026 10:20 pm

Just don’t store your data in the Clouds…Solar don’t work so well with Clouds

Reply to  Leon de Boer
April 24, 2026 4:49 pm

Speaking of phone and Internet . . . hasn’t anyone asked an AI bot to provide the solution as to how to overcome the world’s current shortage of energy.

My understanding from all the publicity surrounding AI is that such now has the capability to resolve all of mankind’s problems.

But perhaps I’ve been misinformed.

leefor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2026 8:17 pm

But Green energy is so cheap. Sunlight and wind are FREEEE. Obviously there is no energy pricing problem in the UK. /sarc for those that need it.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 24, 2026 12:17 am

Exactly, Europe should continue the clown car of nut zero. Nick Europe sounds exactly where you should move.

Andrew St John
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 24, 2026 12:52 am

Hi Nick,
Good to see you joining the fray again.
Just once question – in terms of vital needs for food production how many solar panels and wind turbines are needed to produce a kilogram of fertiliser?

Reply to  Andrew St John
April 24, 2026 1:11 am

How many fools are needed to vote for a felon like trump who endangers the world’s food and energy supply?

leefor
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
April 24, 2026 1:45 am

How does ONE person endanger the whole worlds food and energy supply? He is going to turn the sun off? 😉

Bryan A
Reply to  leefor
April 24, 2026 5:25 am

Easily seen for one suffering with Severe TDS.
Since they can’t have the CO2 Endangerment Finding…
They are morphing into a Trump Endangerment Funding

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
April 24, 2026 5:02 am

How much would the detonation of a dozen nuclear weapons affect the world’s food and energy supplies?

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 24, 2026 5:18 am

trump is desperately trying to get the deal Obama already had, because his ODS couldn’t bear Obamas name standing on it. Only that his actions made Iran speed up their nuclear program while reducing their willingness to negotiate. trump also showed the world that the US is not reliable and their word means nothing.

Shart of the deal.

Bryan A
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
April 24, 2026 5:26 am

Ayup…Severe TDS!

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
April 25, 2026 4:42 am

The deal Obama did with the Mad Mullahs would have guaranteed that the Mad Mullahs would be able to create nuclear weapons.

That’s why Trump cancelled the deal.

The Mad Mullahs were never going to give up their nuclear ambitions. That’s why their nation is now devastated.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 24, 2026 6:48 am

well 2 biggies in japan didnt affect much? then a shitload in pacific via usa n french add on land usa ones throw in UK maralinga in Aus et al and chernobyl n fukushima and..
well unless immediate area hit fuel or farmland basically..it would seem to be BUGGER ALL really.. a whole LOT landing in one area ? bit different but still ..hmm maybe dont eat it if it glows in the dark in the cupboard?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
April 27, 2026 8:03 am

Ah. The “felon” card to divert and redirect from the topic at hand.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 24, 2026 4:20 am

I am interested in how fossil fuels moving through Strait of Hormuz has such a drastic effect on energy prices. I thought renewables were going to provide cheap energy to all. I wonder how many more windmills and solar panels are needed in Britain to make the Strait an afterthought. Please tell us how not using fossil fuels, because they are not available, raises the price of renewable energy.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 24, 2026 9:26 am

Maybe Britain could rent France to get the land area needed?

Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 24, 2026 4:53 pm

“I am interested in how fossil fuels moving through Strait of Hormuz has such a drastic effect on energy prices.”

Hmmmm . . . ever heard the adage “The market climbs a wall of fear.”

Reply to  ToldYouSo
April 24, 2026 6:12 pm

You don’t recognize sarcasm very well do you.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 25, 2026 7:40 am

Is your last comment meant to be sarcastic?

Reply to  ToldYouSo
April 25, 2026 11:59 am

Actually the whole thread. If renewables are cheaper than ff, one would expect the price for electricity to fall as high cost ff were eliminated for whatever reason.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ToldYouSo
April 27, 2026 8:03 am

Nice snippet. Change the context. Avoid the point actually being made.

Sophistry.

John XB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 24, 2026 5:21 am

45% of UK gas is piped from UK fields in the North Sea direct on-shore to GB where it must stay since we have no liquefaction plants. Its price is not affected by the situation in Hormuz. Most of the rest of UK’s gas is LNG from USA – which doesn’t come through the Strait of Hormuz, and LNG prices are currently low compared with other years.

It is not truthful to say closure of Hormuz has caused the price of electricity to go up. Currently wholesale gas-generated electricity is in the range of £65 to £75 per MWh which is lower than early 2025.

Furthermore, UK retail electricity prices are capped, and the cap was reduced in April so prices CANNOT go up and in fact have come down. I speak as a UK consumer of electricity, so I know.

Petey Bird
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 24, 2026 8:00 am

This Iran was is a perfect opportunity for the UK to begin exporting its surplus free green energy.
The world needs it.
Turn up the windmills and solar panels to meet the demand!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Petey Bird
April 27, 2026 8:05 am

Shovel those photons into plastic beach buckets. Go Green! Erm, sunshine is yellow. Oops.

April 23, 2026 2:33 pm

Preview for Net Zero. Should be interesting.

cgh
April 23, 2026 2:41 pm

So, the question is how long will it be before Starmer is forced to see reality and flush Mad Ed and his Green insanity? Even the Germans have been admitting that their nuclear shutdown was insane. They’re not doing much of anything about it. But even Germany’s leadership is recognizing that their energy policy initiated by Merkel was a failure.

Or are is Green lunacy intrenched too deep in Labour to allow a change?

KevinM
Reply to  cgh
April 23, 2026 4:59 pm

Can Starmer flush his Secretary of State for Energy without conceding his own post?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  KevinM
April 24, 2026 6:49 am

For some inexplicable reason Mad Ed is very popular with Labour MPs. So the answer to your question is NO!

John Hultquist
April 23, 2026 3:08 pm

 This is a bit beyond befuddling. A 70% increase in recent years may be a result of policies other than green energy. Or the price rise could be entirely a result of green energy policies. In either case, what does the Strait of Hormuz have to do with that 70%?
What does the start of the war in Iran refer to? Is it June 24, 2025 or February 28, 2026. Or choose another date. Perhaps November 4, 1979!
The UK debt is 3,137,457,300 £, increasing at a blurring pace, and tops 110% of GDP. Interest on the debt has to be paid — I think.
Then this: “Telecoms companies are now calling on support from the government …” Where is the government getting the support (money)?
How will rationing a phone network reduce energy (electricity ?) needs. The voltage can’t be dropped, but the system could be clsoed entirely every other hour. Or can it?
So: color me befuddled.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Hultquist
April 23, 2026 3:25 pm

Britain buys their Green Energy supplies from China and China gets the energy they need to transport it (affecting pricing) from Saudi, Iraq and Iran…through the strait.

Curious George
April 23, 2026 3:21 pm

It feels strange. I don’t think that power is a major expense for mobile phone operators, or that they would save a lot by limiting bandwidth.

KevinM
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 23, 2026 5:02 pm

You don’t need a data center to run the telecom side. The data centers are needed by Google/Amazon/Facebook types.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 24, 2026 4:30 am

It isn’t so much the speed of light as it is the digital multiplexing adds delay. You read in the data, process it, remultiplex it, and send it on to the next stage. That occurs in every repeater along the way and every router encountered.

It been several years ago in my telecom days that the higher ups decided rather than supporting local computers, we should connect every Directory Assistance terminal directly to a central computer. Save a lot of money you know. Whoops. We found out that using T-carrier systems over hundreds of miles added more delay (more operators you know) than what was saved.

Blinding electronic speed doesn’t mean light speed!

Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 24, 2026 5:01 pm

It isn’t so much the speed of light as it is the digital multiplexing adds delay using electrons over conductive wiring that consumes energy via electrical resistance and electrical induction losses, at source generation, in transmission, and in end use.

Speed of transmission of information has little to do with it.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
April 24, 2026 6:08 pm

Learn to read. Here is what I was answering.

because otherwise the speed of light slows down their trades too much

Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 25, 2026 7:53 am

You posted:

“You read in the data, process it, remultiplex it, and send it on to the next stage. That occurs in every repeater along the way and every router encountered.”

In fact, “repeaters” do NOT remultiplex data.

“It isn’t so much the speed of light as it is the digital multiplexing adds delay.”

Also, “the speed of light” cannot possibly be seen as delaying anything since NOTHING physical can travel faster than that speed. Physics 101.

Learn to write (facts).

Reply to  ToldYouSo
April 25, 2026 12:14 pm

In fact, “repeaters” do NOT remultiplex data.

You have no idea what repeaters are.

Building a Robust Network Infrastructure with Digital Fiber Optic Repeaters-Quanzhou L-TEL Communication Equipment Co., Ltd.

3. The Role of Repeaters in Network Performance

3.1 What Are Digital Fiber Optic Repeaters?

Digital fiber optic repeaters are devices that regenerate and amplify signals traveling through fiber optic cables. As light signals degrade over distance, repeaters help maintain signal strength and clarity, ensuring that data is transmitted accurately over long distances. They are particularly useful in expansive networks where signal loss can significantly impact performance.

3.2 How Do Repeaters Work?

Repeaters operate by receiving incoming signals, processing them, and then retransmitting them at a higher intensity. This process involves converting optical signals back into electrical signals, amplifying them, and then converting them back into optical signals for continued transmission. This cycle ensures that the integrity of the data remains intact, even over vast distances.

The situation I outlined occurred many years ago. Processing speeds have increased dramatically so I would expect the delays to be smaller. However, tune up Speedtest and check the details for how fast your pings are at distant hosts. If I remember correctly, our delays were in the 0.2 – 0.4 second range. But, you have to remember that this was in the days of T1 multiplexers along with DOS, and UNIX operating systems.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 24, 2026 9:34 am

Back in the days of landlines and Ma’ Bell, if the power went out the phone usually still worked. Why? The phones didn’t use much power and operated at a low voltage. A generator at a main junction could keep the phones powered.

KevinM
Reply to  Gunga Din
April 24, 2026 1:05 pm

“Old landline telephones (POTS – Plain Old Telephone Service) typically operate on -48V DC (ranging between -42V to -56V) when on-hook (idle). When ringing, the line carries an additional 90V AC (20 Hz) signal to trigger the bell.”

“Cell phones typically use Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries with a nominal voltage of 3.7V to 3.85V, which operate within a range of ~3.0V (empty) to 4.4V (fully charged). While internal components often run on lower voltages (e.g. for logic), chargers supply to (fast charging) to the phone’s power management system, which steps down the voltage to charge the battery.”

Eng_Ian
Reply to  Curious George
April 23, 2026 4:08 pm

George,
Does your handset get warm when you have been chatting on it for a while?

If you’ve noticed, then you may have realised that the extra heat is caused by usage. The extra energy consumption occurs at both ends of the ‘line’.

With a phone, the transmission energy goes up from a standby level as does the processor usage. Same at the transmitter end. More users, more data flow, more power.

Simples.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Eng_Ian
April 23, 2026 4:48 pm

Simples.”

A typical phone battery stores about 10 watt-hours. Even if you recharge it from zero every day, that is an average use of about 400 milliwatts. For 40 million phones, about 16 megawatts. Peak UK demand is over 40,000 megawatts. Mobile phone power use is negligible.

KevinM
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2026 5:05 pm

Yes. Twice in one thread, Stokes is on target.
(From someone who once made cell phone transceivers and power amplifiers).
THe base stations use a little power, but the handsets? Less than watching TV or running a microwave, and by a lot.

Eng_Ian
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2026 6:19 pm

Nick,
Now add in the base stations and the electronics behind the transmitter. The point I was making was that USING the device consumes more power than just letting it idle.

I’m also certain that the owners of the transmitters are NOT concerned about how much power a user consumes. It is THE power use at their end that they are worried about.

Once again Nick shows that he can calculate the WRONG number.

The point I was making to George was that USING the device, (and hence the total bandwidth consumed), uses power. You missed that bit, by choice or by ignorance.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 24, 2026 4:33 am

The power usage comes from the switching machines that take all that digital data, process it, and send it on its way. The power from the radio systems, while not overly large, is not small either.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 27, 2026 8:10 am

Switching between power and energy. Simple.

KevinM
Reply to  Eng_Ian
April 23, 2026 5:04 pm

Eng_Ian

At 5v (really 3.2v or less) and 1a (really less because transmit duty cycle is low) a cell phone uses less than 10% the power of an old school lightbulb.

Eng_Ian
Reply to  KevinM
April 23, 2026 6:28 pm

Again, the point was that USING the phone consumes power. Are you a friend of Nick?

And to extend upon your point, the power consumed is so low that you may as well turn it off. Go on. I dare ya.

KevinM
Reply to  Eng_Ian
April 23, 2026 8:17 pm

I think you hit the motivation for this angle. The thought of “turn it off. Go on. I dare ya.” is terrifying.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Curious George
April 27, 2026 8:06 am

What about the cell towers?

KevinM
April 23, 2026 4:53 pm

That’s a load of s&^&^$. About 30 seconds of vacuum cleaner use uses more power than a day’s worth of cell phone use.

MattS
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 23, 2026 6:08 pm

I think that the complaints have more to do with being left out of a government subsidy than actual energy usage.

abolition man
April 23, 2026 7:38 pm

If you believe that wind and solar Ruinables ever will make electricity cheaper, and that limitless fusion is just around the corner; welcome, you have entered the GULLIBLE ZONE!

observa
April 23, 2026 7:39 pm

Telecoms companies are now calling on support from the government with growing frustration at Labour’s decision to exclude them from a recent support package.

Hey what about us? I get where you’re coming from but the problem is the handouts in the first place to try and solve everything that goes bump in the night. It’s what free markets are all about and we don’t get to privatise the gains and socialize the losses. When will we ever learn why Gummint is drowning in red ink and resorting to the printing press.

April 23, 2026 7:51 pm

Hey wait there..

I thought wind and solar powered everything in the UK.. and its FREE.

As someone said elsewhere.. wind and solar don’t come through the strait of Hormuz..

… so there shouldn’t be any disruption or price increase in the FREE energy from wind and solar.

April 23, 2026 9:12 pm

From the article

A Virgin Media O2 spokesman said: “Mobile and broadband networks are critical national infrastructure that almost every consumer and business relies on, yet despite their importance, telecoms companies have been excluded from support offered to other energy-intensive sectors.

“If the Government wants growth, productivity and resilience, it cannot overlook the digital networks the country depends on.”

This is transparently politics.

Bob
April 23, 2026 9:48 pm

You just can’t get dumber than government.

Andrew St John
Reply to  Bob
April 24, 2026 12:57 am

Are you talking about the Australian Government? Spot on!

April 24, 2026 12:07 am

Renewables save Europeans money:

Wind and solar cut EU electricity prices by 24% – but gas still rules market

But he warns that gas still sets power prices in many EU markets most of the time, leaving consumers exposed to price shocks that grow more likely the longer the Strait of Hormuz remains closed.

Gas is the problem. As volatile fossil fuels always are.

Derg
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
April 24, 2026 12:26 am

If Europe wants to continue nut zero, then I am all for it. Have at it Europe.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
April 24, 2026 1:13 am

Should take my own advice and ignore trolls.

But the simple one line answer to this nonsense is: look at the latest UK Contract for Difference pricing. Gas is not the problem. The problem is the cost of wind and solar.

But its also not simply the cost of generation. Its also all the other costs associated with trying to use wind and solar generation, like transmission from the north coast of Scotland to the UK Midlands and South East. And the constraint payments. And the other part of the system, the gas plant. Which is commonly but quite wrongly referred to as ‘backup’. Its not backup at all, its the basis of the system. Current systems using wind and solar are best seen as hybrids, based on gas, but where supplementary wind and solar have been added in the effort to reduce fuel costs. Or something. Maybe to please the Weather Gods?

If trying to use wind and solar, you have to have a parallel gas system in addition – its the only technology which can be flexed to accommodate the fluctuating weather. Then you have to pay constraint payments when the weather produces peak output and there is no demand.

[You could do without constraint payments and only pay for what you can use, but the result would be that the CfD prices would rise. Because what the CfD and constraint payment regime is covering up is that the capacity factor of both is far lower than is being reported. Get realistic about production, and billable hours will fall and so the price will have to rise to generate returns for the operators.]

Then you have to build an expensive new transmission network which is only needed because you built your wind farms where there is no demand, like off the north coast of Scotland..

Add it all up and gas price volatility is a far smaller problem – especially because you cannot get away from using gas anyway. In fact, running the gas part of the mix intermittently its not clear you can even reduce gas consumption.

If you want to know what the real problem with this is? Its not technology at all, its human stupidity, and a political elite incapable of connected thought and with no exposure to business or engineering discipline.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  michel
April 24, 2026 7:08 am

And building that transmission network to accommodate unreliables has cost over £5bn and is expected to reach £7bn by 2027. NESO (Grid Operator) estimated the cost by 2050 will be £3trillion. More recent reports imply that cost could be as high as £7 trillion

leefor
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
April 24, 2026 1:47 am

“That is the central finding of a analysis published by Positive Money, a Brussels-based advocacy group for financial reform.”

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
April 24, 2026 5:36 am

As volatile fossil fuels always are.

Unlucky timing. I came across this post just as the “Wind” contribution to the GB electricity grid was reaching its lowest output for the year so far.

URL : https://gridwatch.co.uk/Wind

Screenshot of graphs up to 12:00 GMT today attached, note the “minimum” (10-minute average) numbers underneath the left-hand set of graphs … then look at the “maximum – minimum” ranges for the bottom 4 (monthly + annual) graphs.

NB : The grid operator (NESO) chooses to ramp CCGT output up and down as required for “demand following”.

They have to respond to wind (and solar) weather-dependent output variations in order to avoid “grid failure / blackouts” (see : Spain and Portugal one year ago).

Now, what was that about fossil-fuel powered (CCGT) generation being “volatile” ?

GB-grid_Wind_240426-12-00
April 24, 2026 1:56 am

The country is in real trouble. The mad energy policy is only part of it. There is a cultural malaise which has infected almost all social institutions. The country is one step away from a bond market strike and fiscal crisis. Its headed for a real political earthquake. Watch for May 7, the local elections, this may be the first tremor.

All you have to do to register the signs is read the UK press. Endless stories of events which would have been inconceivable 20 years ago. You want a particular example, take the anti-semitic attacks which are now a weekly occurrence, and probably even with that very much under reported. This is just an example, there’s a ton more on different subjects. But its a key symptom.

There is probably now the greatest split between the political class and the voters for at least 100 years. But it goes a lot further than that, its also between the civil service and the population as a whole, and between the educational establishment and the mass of the population.

Starmer seems increasingly likely to fall in the next couple of months. But what replaces him will be the truly lunatic left, and after that? Well, after that, the deluge.

Reply to  michel
April 24, 2026 3:38 am

That is too horrible to up-vote, though I suspect you are on the right track

Reply to  worsethanfailure
April 24, 2026 7:00 am

Its very dangerous to provoke the English beyond a certain point, and we seem bent on going way beyond that as fast as possible. Remember, in the UK it only takes a single majority vote to change the constitution.

Petey Bird
Reply to  michel
April 24, 2026 8:20 am

I think it will get a lot worse before it gets better. Same with most western nations.

Kevin Bailey
April 24, 2026 2:55 am

JD Vance discusses EU high energy costs, the across the pond divide.

John XB
April 24, 2026 5:10 am

It has nothing to do with the war in Iran (currently all ills in the UK are blamed on the Iran conflict instead of the true cause, our disastrous so-called Government).

Wholesale gas-generated electricity prices for April 2026 are between £65 to £75 per MWh – snapshot yesterday was £70. This compares with early 2025 prices of £75 to £100 per MWh.

Gas sets the wholesale price for about 90% of the time.

Latest CfD for wind is £128 per MWh, so wind selling wholesale receiving the “gas price” of £70 per MWh, gets an additional £58 per MWh from NESO (grid operator) which is passed on to consumers. It is invisible, so when wind is setting the price, even £0, it still gets £128 per MWh, but the invisibility of that payment allows Net Zeroids to claim it’s cheaper than fossil fuel.

Reply to  John XB
April 24, 2026 6:58 am

Yes, and that £128 does not cover the cost of getting it to where its needed, nor the cost of replacing it when there is a calm, nor the cost of constraint payments. When you add it all up, as Paul Homewood has tried to do, its bankrupting the country. And for what?