One of Britain’s biggest wind farms was handed £65m to slash its output by nearly three quarters last year, amid warnings that the country’s “staggeringly inefficient” power grid is pushing up household bills.
The Seagreen offshore wind farm in the North Sea – the largest of its kind in Scotland – had its output curtailed for 71pc of the time it was due to operate in 2024, grid data show.
This meant that of 4.7 terawatt hours of power its turbines generated, 3.3 terawatt hours were effectively discarded – with owner SSE paid by grid operators each time this happened.
SSE also owns the Viking wind farm in the Shetlands, which had 57pc of its output curtailed last year at a cost of £10m. It was only switched on in August.
The current argument is that this could be solved with zonal pricing. Which is one of those systems that would be worse. Upcoming CapX piece on that…
It’s that sort of economics that make me think the government are genuinely insane. The Prime Minister deciding to get an HIV test just to show the world that the glorious NHS can do it “with just a little prick” really just confirms it…
It is lunacy, isn’t it? Building windfarms when there’s no way of distributing the electricity they produce to where it’s needed.
It needs a Trumpian solution. Just cancel the contracts & retrospectively cancel the construction permits. Then prosecute those involved for fraud. Politicians & business people. Stripped of their wealth & lengthy sentences.
Well, the fact that windmills are paid for NOT providing power does explain why electricity is so expensive these days.
Perhaps one of these days, they’ll go back to just paying generators for actually providing us with power.
“It needs a Trumpian solution. Just cancel the contracts & retrospectively cancel the construction permits. Then prosecute those involved for fraud. Politicians & business people. Stripped of their wealth & lengthy sentences.”
Not going to work. The courts wouldn’t let you. And even Trump isn’t going to be able to do all of the above either. All he’s doing is turning the money off, because he can. And Parliament can also do that via the tax system if necessary, without the courts being involved. Put a special business rate on wind turbine and solar farms, that sort of thing. Would kill the entire renewables ‘industry’ stone dead. No need to legislate it out of business, just turn the money off and it dies naturally.
Not going to work. The courts wouldn’t let you.
Theoretically no, Jim. In the UK Parliament is supreme so the courts should do what they’re told. So it would depend on what laws are passed. And Parliament does now have precedent for passing retroactive legislation.
“In the UK Parliament is supreme ”
One would like to think so. I don’t think the courts will go quietly into the night that easily though. On the basis you want to get sh*t done rather than involve yourself in a massive Constitutional fight with the Judiciary and God knows what other international legal entanglements the UK has signed itself up for, its probably better to save that fight for another day. No court is going to tie a Government’s hand with regards to what it can tax, to do so would be an existential threat to government itself. And courts know which side their bread is buttered when push comes to shove. They won’t give every taxpayer a precedent that allows them to question Parliament’s power to tax. So they’ll keep well out of tax matters.
It needs a Trumpian solution. Just cancel the contracts & retrospectively cancel the construction permits. Then prosecute those involved for fraud. Politicians & business people. Stripped of their wealth & lengthy sentences.
Much as I’d like to see Dale Vince in the dole queue trying for a job at ‘Spoons, I can’t see a fraud prosecution succeeding against him. Milibrain OTOH …
Chris. It’s a fraudulent enterprise. It was known before it started they could not deliver the product to the consumer.
And Jim. There’s no prospect of a constitutional fight. UK doesn’t have a constitution. The judiciary serve to apply the law of the land. And the law is decided in Parliament. It simply requires Parliament to have the resolve to legislate. I don’t suppose Jug Ears would be too keen but we keep axes for that sort of mischief.
Isn’t this what Trump has done? Done an end run around the courts using EOs & Congress? Most of the federal departments he’s shutting down or restricting were set up by EOs in the first place. So the judges don’t have a say. They may try. But THAT would be unconstitutional.
Local NHS hospital, owns some scrubby hard standing from a care home demolished long ago, has applied to put 1500 ground mounted solar panels on it. “To help meet our internal Carbon reduction targets” the application says. But central government says the grid will be zero carbon anyways soon, so how does reducing something that will be zero work. And why does an NHS trust have a CRT anyway when there’s a clear core function? I can’t explain any of this away rationally.
“ Isn’t this what Trump has done? Done an end run around the courts using EOs & Congress? Most of the federal departments he’s shutting down or restricting were set up by EOs in the first place. So the judges don’t have a say. They may try. But THAT would be unconstitutional.”
Some were subsequently brought in to law by congress, or at least that’s the case for USAID AFAIAA.
What I find odd is the insistence in some quarters that if Congress sets money aside for something POTUS has to spend it. I suppose the founding fathers never envisaged a politician who wouldn’t want to spend money.
“There’s no prospect of a constitutional fight. UK doesn’t have a constitution. The judiciary serve to apply the law of the land. And the law is decided in Parliament. It simply requires Parliament to have the resolve to legislate. ”
The courts could tie up a Trumpian UK government for years, way beyond its 5 year term. Constant cases brought by aggrieved parties, which then spend years wending their way through the various courts. And guess what, the Supreme Court wouldn’t bother to expedite any of them (unlike Brexit of course), while staying all government action until the cases have been fully litigated. There’s just far too many interlocking national and international legal obligations the UK government has signed itself up to over the years, which would take decades to untie without shooting ourselves in the foot over and over again. Tax is the one thing the courts will not want to get involved in. Its the Alexandrian sword thats needed to cut through the modern State’s bureaucratic and legislative Gordian knot.
BiND, you would be astonished at the second-order effects of the was Congressional spending authorisations work. I was at a large base in Afghanistan which for which Congress allotted money to build 2 new entry points. By the time the first had been built it was tactically obvious that not only did we not need the second, it would be a positive menace. It had to be built, and was, and just became an additional 2km of unused perimeter we had to secure. Saving $$$, as well as time, effort snd, potentially, lives was out of the question.
Bloke in Powys,
No not astonished, I’m ex military and I’ve worked as a subject matter expert for the government on a mobile infrastructure project.
I’d only be astonished if the money wasn’t spent.
@Jim
I’m by no means a constitutional expert but I suspect Parliament could legislate anything it wanted to. It could legislate the judiciary out of existence if it wanted. It’s more of a case of what the assoles in Westminster would actually vote for. The problem with Brexit wasn’t with the Supreme Court. It was Parliament legislating in a way let the Supremes interfere.
UK has the same problem as other countries. Those who rule (not necessarily elected politicians) wish to protect their own interests. And their influence projects deep & wide. I really would not be surprised to see Labour do a Germany. Try to make Reform an illegal party like Krauts seem to be trying to do to AfD.