On June 23 Britain’s grid came close to collapse. Despite energy minister Michael Shanks calling claims ‘scaremongering’, new whistleblower information shows the grid had indeed been pushed past safe operating limits. A leaked National Energy System Operator (NESO) document said that ‘system constraints were breached and system security was compromised’ – a damning indictment of a system increasingly sensitive to wind and solar fluctuations.
Therein lies the problem. Put simply: the higher the share of intermittent power on the grid, the more backup capacity is needed for when the wind or sun fail to deliver. During the heatwave of late June, a miscalculation of available wind generation, combined with higher demand than expected, nearly sent the grid offline.
The sheer cost of balancing the grid should convince even sceptics that we must invest more in firm power
In a series of five separate constraint breaches, worrying trends emerged. Between 5pm and 6pm, a NESO whistleblower reported that 1,500MW of electricity was bought through international cables but only 262MW was received. Later, orders to import emergency power from France and stop exporting energy to the Netherlands were put through to keep the grid stable. Despite all of this, grid frequency dropped below the NESO internal operational range of 49.8Hz to 50.2Hz to as low as 49.67Hz. While this sounds like a small drop in frequency, a larger one could force the system operator to disconnect homes from the grid to stop a wider collapse.
A clear driver of this system malfunction is just how much of our grid is dependent on the weather. If the wider European grid is dependent on wind and solar for power, could a continent-wide lull render supply insufficient? NESO must consider whether relying on electrical imports could prove a shaky strategy for the grid’s future.
While NESO denies that the grid was made unstable by the penetration of intermittent renewables, a steady stream of whistleblower accounts continues to undermine the credibility of senior leadership. While the NESO CEO, Fintan Slye, maintains that the grid was never at risk of a breach, leaked internal documents indicate exactly the opposite. To maintain trust in the grid, politicians and grid operators must be transparent with the public. Only with a resilient grid can we insulate ourselves from the threat of blackouts or cyber-attacks.
As grid integration costs are forecast to increase from £8 billion in 2024-5 to £25 billion in 2030-1, we must ask whether increased reliance on intermittent renewables, and their backup costs, is really good for billpayers. The system already appears to be creaking, thanks to the speed at which at how quickly we have decarbonised our power system. We shouldn’t be accelerating as we get closer to 2030. Claire Coutinho, Richard Tice and energy analyst Kathryn Porter are imploring NESO to be upfront about future risks posed by intermittent generation capacity – we should heed their collective warning.
In setting an aggressive, politically motivated target for a net zero power sector by 2030, the government has left bodies like NESO scrambling to confront a reality that is, however disastrous, unavoidable. It should now be clear that relying on backup power through imports does not solve the problem of intermittency outright. To make a large amount of intermittent power supply feasible, we should have sufficient domestic backup through natural gas and nuclear energy.
The sheer cost of balancing the grid should convince even sceptics that we must invest more in firm power rather than intermittent generation with hidden costs. Feigning virtue by importing fossil-fuel generated power from abroad rather than using domestic resources only drives up costs for hardworking Britons and increases the odds of even more industry being offshored. Keeping the grid secured by investing heavily in nuclear, either in small modular reactors or more large power stations, as well as domestic gas development, is the best way of always keeping the lights on and supply stable.
With geopolitical tensions so high, maintaining a balanced grid isn’t just important for keeping the country working, but also for keeping it secure. Just a few months ago, a Russian vessel was spotted close to offshore UK windfarms, likely mapping offshore grid infrastructure. In the event of another supply shortfall, Russian sabotage of one or more of our offshore wind farms could tip the grid into blackout.
The further we go down the path of Clean Power 2030, the less stable our grid will become even with costly backup from domestic gas generators and interconnectors. If Britain wants a grid built for growth, the government must acknowledge the trade-offs involved with decarbonising too fast. At present, large manufacturers feel Britain’s power problem most acutely: they must either reduce electrical demand or pay through the nose for sufficient power. Neither is sustainable nor desirable.
Nobody ever built a wind farm with wind. An energy transition is always a project that uses its current energy source to build its replacement while keeping everyone fed and warm. Every turbine, panel, pylon and battery is made, moved, installed and replaced with the help of cheap oil. The question under the plan for […]
A century ago you had to be rich to get any kind of choice over your clothes. And if you weren’t in the upper echelons of society you could forget going on a foreign holiday. Today, mass production ensures there is an abundance of clothes to choose from at all budgets, and cheap flights have […]
The UK only has 13 days worth of natural gas storage capacity, and it’s about to be cut in half. Britain needs gas storage now, and it will need it as North Sea extraction declines. Otherwise, we’re badly exposed to another energy crisis. Centrica has seemingly given us an easy out by offering to regenerate […]
