Will wind farms pick up the tab for new nuclear in the UK ?  

Posted by Big Gav in , , ,

Business Green reports that British "Wind farm developers fear National Grid proposals designed to accommodate nuclear power plants will lead to a huge increase in backup costs" - Will wind farms pick up the tab for new nuclear?

Wind farm operators could see their overheads increase by millions of pounds a year as a direct result of plans to upgrade and reinforce the grid to cope with a new fleet of nuclear reactors.

A number of renewable energy developers are angry at National Grid's decision to retain the current charging regime it operates for providing backup power, despite the fact costs are expected to soar when new nuclear power plants come online towards the end of the decade.

National Grid released a consultation document in June detailing how the proposed development of six nuclear power stations would require the grid operator to increase the amount of backup power, known as "spinning reserve", that it has available to call on in the event of a large power plant failing, from 1,320MW to 1,800MW.

The company estimated that as a result, the annual cost of providing so-called Large Loss Response will rise from £160m a year to £319m.

The consultation looked at a number of approaches to charging energy firms to cover the increased cost, but in a letter to Ofgem National Grid commercial director for transmission Alison Kay said the company had decided to retain the current regime, whereby generators are charged an equal amount per megawatt they provide to the grid.

Wind farm operators are known to be furious at the decision, which they claim will see them face an unfair doubling in charges from National Grid, despite the fact the company concluded in its consultation that generators with less than 350MW of capacity, including all operational wind farms in the UK, "pose no additional loss risk to the system".

In contrast, nuclear developers, who argued that targeting the increased charges at larger power plants would jeopardise plans for a new fleet of reactors, are delighted at a decision that will see the increased cost of backup spread right across the energy industry.

0 comments

Post a Comment

Ads

Ads

Statistics


referer referrer referers referrers http_referer

Locations of visitors to this page

Ads

Books

Followers

News

Loading...

Blog Archive

Labels

australia (499) global warming (290) solar power (261) peak oil (258) electric vehicles (168) wind power (139) smart grids (137) geothermal energy (131) csp (127) solar thermal power (115) ocean energy (112) coal seam gas (109) nuclear power (103) tidal power (103) oil (102) iraq (101) green buildings (98) china (97) geothermal power (97) renewable energy (88) lng (87) agriculture (79) smart meters (71) biofuel (69) solar pv (68) energy storage (67) natural gas (66) oil price (63) energy efficiency (56) uk (56) wave power (53) electricity grid (49) google (49) big brother (46) coal (45) food prices (45) internet (42) thin film solar (39) bicycle (37) ocean power (37) biomimicry (36) new zealand (34) air transport (33) algae (32) water (32) canada (31) credit crunch (31) politics (31) queensland (31) concentrating solar power (30) bioplastic (29) scotland (29) population (27) resource wars (26) surveillance (26) batteries (25) california (25) censorship (25) cleantech (25) geoengineering (25) cogeneration (24) saudi arabia (24) shale gas (24) ctl (23) offshore wind power (23) bruce sterling (22) economics (22) woodside (22) coal to liquids (20) iraq oil law (20) drought (19) origin energy (19) ultracapacitor (19) brightsource (18) indonesia (18) ausra (17) rail transport (17) santos (17) arctic ice (16) carbon tax (16) lithium (16) ucg (16) buckminster fuller (15) collapse (15) psychology (15) concentrating solar thermal power (14) exxon (14) geodynamics (14) iceland (14) mapping (14) michael klare (14) biodiesel (13) carbon emissions (13) cellulosic ethanol (13) fertiliser (13) investment (13) limits to growth (13) tesla (13) ambient energy (12) atlantis (12) cities (12) electric bikes (12) ethanol (12) kenya (12) matthew simmons (12) public transport (12) victoria (12) al gore (11) biochar (11) brazil (11) energy policy (11) texas (11) desertec (10) goldman sachs (10) hybrid car (10) internet of things (10) shale oil (10) terra preta (10) tinfoil (10) volt (10) alaska (9) bees (9) biomass (9) carbon trading (9) cradle to cradle (9) gtl (9) pge (9) sweden (9) toyota (9) afghanistan (8) amory lovins (8) big oil (8) bucky fuller (8) chile (8) distributed manufacturing (8) eroei (8) esolar (8) fabber (8) fuel cells (8) gazprom (8) linc energy (8) lithium ion batteries (8) methane hydrates (8) relocalisation (8) us elections (8) western australia (8) antarctica (7) arrow energy (7) bloom energy (7) boeing (7) climategate (7) copenhagen (7) distributed generation (7) fish (7) floating offshore wind power (7) guerilla gardening (7) methane (7) nanosolar (7) otec (7) severn estuary (7) vinod khosla (7) apocaphilia (6) bolivia (6) ceramic fuel cells (6) cigs (6) four day week (6) jatropha (6) jeremy leggett (6) local currencies (6) natural gas pipelines (6) nigeria (6) pentland firth (6) somalia (6) stirling engine (6) t boone pickens (6) chp (5) futurism (5) ocean acidification (5) saul griffith (5) varanus island (5) airborne wind turbines (4) garbage (4) kevin kelly (4) low temperature geothermal power (4) oled (4) scenario planning (4) space based solar power (4) tim flannery (4) v2g (4) club of rome (3) global energy grid (2) norman borlaug (2) peak oil portfolio (1)