24 Aug 2010
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.
Writing in her letter to Ofgem, Kay revealed that the decision to retain the current charging regime was driven in part by fears that changes would delay the new nuclear build programme.
LATEST STORIES ABOUT LEGISLATION
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
LATEST JOBS
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
HIGHLIGHT
BIS initiative aims to shift government and corporate procurement towards low carbon goods and services
INSIGHT
NEWSLETTER
INSIGHT
This new handbook explores practices that allow organisations to overcome their technological limitations and traditional office-culture challenges - freeing employees to do more with less from wherever they want to.
The centralised printers used in many businesses are wasteful, unreliable and expensive to run - just as their suppliers intend
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment
This is a joke
This article is a joke. Wind is intermittent, and thus one must have enough backup power available to accommodate periodic situations where the total wind generation drops to near zero, often during hot weather and peak demand. With 6 new nuclear plants, one is concerned about having one or at most two plants down at any given time. In the U.S., the current nuclear forced outage rate is 2%. The remaining 8% is for scheduled refueling outages, conducted during periods of low seasonal demand (e.g., Spring and Fall). Having the wind industry complain about backup power for nuclear is a complete joke.
Posted by Jonathan Meeker, 24 Aug 2010
Another attempted subsidy for uncommercial nuclear power
I should state first that I'm not a supporter of Onshore Wind - rigging the planning consent process to impose by far the most intrusive of land-based renewable options onto the most rural of locations and communities is generating far more opposition to renewables overall than the potential yield is worth to low-carbon targets - That said, the imposition on all minor commercial renewable facilities of costs reflecting one of nuclear power's disbenefits is plainly a covert subsidy for the latter, and would be obstructive of the renewables' rate of deployment. If DECC are serious about causing nuclear power to demonstrate whether it is viable without government subsidy, then Offgem will be required to review this wrong-headed proposal.
Posted by Lewis Cleverdon, 24 Aug 2010
Wind & Cognitive Dissonance
There are a range of reports (UMIST 2001 Network Security & Future of UK electricity system) which demonstrate that WTs once wind variability is removed tend to have reliability equal to or exceeding large-scale generation. Which will have more impact a 6MW WT dropping out of the system or a 500MW turbo-generator set. NG seem to be on wobbly ground on this one. Perhaps Ofgem will "help" them.
Posted by Mike Parr, 24 Aug 2010