Posted by: @scalextrix

↑

As far as I can tell it's not really infrastructure upgrades to cope with renewables or recent CfDs that are driving the costs.

I hear what you say about the levies which are loaded onto the electricity bills.

But I still think the infrastructure upgrades are the biggest problem in the long term.

1: Government could at any stage delete or remove those levies, and our bills will fall.

But if National Grid spends £30bn on grid upgrades, then we're still required to pay that back over 10+ years and we can't get out of that commitment.

The moment that electricity prices soared was Spring '22.
That coincides with the Ofgem Decision to reduce the costs of grid-connections for generators - the Access and Forward-Looking Charges.

Ofgem not only issued the Directive to put a greater proportion of the infrastructure costs onto consumers, but also approved the steep rise in bills which the Electricity Suppliers needed.

2: There's no effective 'brake' in place to halt (foreign owned) companies adding yet more renewable generation and storage to our GB grid.

They have no obligation to first supply British consumers, but can use marine interconnectors to export anywhere across the Europe-wide 50Hz grid.

I can provide examples if required.

3: I'm amazed that 'Government' still suggest lower bills as a reason for implementing yet another strategy.

I keep waiting for that moment when the Secretary of State eventually realises that his staff have no idea of how to achieve that goal.

Posted by: @jeff

↑

There are a lot of additional costs coming in the next few years that may make the social policies look like peanuts. 

Without getting too much into politics, given that the fossil fuel lobby is always very quick to try to shield behind cries that the transition is not affordable for the less well off (and for fairness), something needs to be done. But is this not what general taxation would be aimed at?

Perhaps it is actually cheaper to invest in grid upgrades than to hope that most people will be changing consumption habits and spend much time to understand the ins and outs of various technologies. And the growing percentage of households renting. with less influence on what is made available to them also needs to get a fair deal. 

Innovation is continuing for sure. Personally, being able to learn and play with this is great (other markets are much more closed to it), but the major decisions are also needed. That helps most consumers to be free to just consume. 

The thought of politicians getting very close to what seems to be an agreement that x increase in cost is needed to deliver y like grid upgrades frightens me. How many of them have any background to understand the science and contracts required to maintain electricity on tap? And how many are willing to push the rules for the transition which will also turn key players into marginal, with different roles? A free market economy is not expected to give those players guaranteed income. The consumer being defended, for it to even out, fossil fuel based generators have to give something up..

Posted by: @batpred

↑

Perhaps it is actually cheaper to invest in grid upgrades than to hope that most people will be changing consumption habits [....]

Have you calculated the likely cost of grid upgrades to support the Offers to Connect which had been issued by NGET up to May'25?

Those are companies which want to get their electricity onto the 400kV Transmission Grid.
They can then sell it across Europe via the marine interconnectors.

That strategy is legal, but of very little benefit to British consumers.

We simply have to pay for the upgrades required to allow that much excess capacity,
whilst the overseas investors take their profits beyond the reach of the Chancellor.

On the other hand, the vast majority of the electricity grid is at the 11kV level.
That accounts for almost all the overhead lines strung between poles across the countryside.

But it's capacity on the 11kV level which is the main constraint looming larger as we electrify our domestic heating and transport.

The costs to upgrade (add capacity to) all the grid levels would make the HS2 overspend look like a trivial miscalculation.

It's a figure far higher than could be supported by our GDP...
... and effectively a tax without representation.

In effect, it's political suicide.

Currently we are a net importer of electricity, and one of the largest in Europe. 

We sit at 33.4 TWh in 2024 so would be second on the list below. 

https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/10/17/electricity-trade-in-europe-who-imports-and-who-exports-the-most?utm_source=Newswav&utm_medium=Website

This is expected to increase in a future net zero environment I think? Are some of the grid upgrades going to make it easier to import for us to reach net zero? Will this mean cheaper electricity as we are not so reliant on expensive alternatives?

This year looks like a record year for imports 

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/record-breaking-dependence-on-electricity-imports-heralds-growing-need-for-nuclear-17-10-2025/

Also a record year for curtailment as grid upgrades were not done at the same time as new generation came online. This is expected to get worse as gird upgrades are being delivered too late

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/octopus-energy-greg-jackson-wind-farms-climate-b2828421.html

Posted by: @transparent

↑

[...] companies which want to get their electricity onto the 400kV Transmission Grid.
They can then sell it across Europe via the marine interconnectors.

That strategy is legal, but of very little benefit to British consumers.

We simply have to pay for the upgrades required to allow that much excess capacity,
whilst the overseas investors take their profits beyond the reach of the Chancellor.

I broadly understand these arguments. Just that I would not have enough data in mind beyond the one you present to have a strong view. 

I seem to remember by the way arguments even people this side of the channel were making a few years back. It was whether EDF was risking too much government money with some of their investments abroad. And it follows these taxpayers could also insist on taking risk with more local ventures? 

It is a complex financial setup I am sure, but the greater good sets one direction I think..

The way any significant infrastructure so easily becomes burdened with expensive paperwork seems a big risk for that 11kv disruptive upgrade. It is obvious that funding comes from "nearby" . As these "local"  players would loose if they do not find a way to protect the limited cash from those parasitical forces. Unfortunately as HS2 shows, something fundamental needs to be different to guarantee delivery.

Posted by: @transparent

↑

It's a figure far higher than could be supported by our GDP...
... and effectively a tax without representation.

In effect, it's political suicide.

I am not sure these politicians showed they understand electrons. And do they really want change? And real climate change avoidance action? Politicians are expected to look after their own constituency. Perhaps they would just channel the money that way, be it for grid or to pay for expensive consultations. 

Getting to what it seems to me is the core of this renewables change, and considering wind and solar are too unpredictable, they cannot really be leveraged at national grid scale. The UK offshore farms already have too much capacity for it to be consumed locally. Same goes for solar farms production in sunnier "regions". It cannot all be consumed 'locally'. 

If there is much reluctance to put the inevitable excess capacity to use with 400kv upgrades onshore, would the grid engineers not push for undersea cables to be used? It sounded that the goal of the two major north-south lines was to facilitate more use of the wind electrons in the UK (and conversely to import specially in the early months of the year)? 

@jeff 

Many questions. We all know it is now a quickly growing cake of energy needs with the hungry data centres, not a zero sum game.

Nature will allow production from wind and solar when it feels like. Whoever can harvest and deliver it to who needs it when they need it, should get a share of the benefit. Risk taking has to be rewarded..

To someone external to the ins and outs of what has not been happening, it feels that the lag to build infrastructure is causing undesirable unintended effects .. 

I would hazard a guess that it has not been analysis paralysis for the last year but other factors like the revered right of any few individuals to just block change. 

I keep experimenting with these things at home as I see the prices going up too much. I am confused how the bounty of offshore wind is not trickling down! 

It will not take too much to work out how to best take my  next small steps to decarbonise. But to go far, even if slower, need to go together... 

Great forum! 

Posted by: @jeff

↑

Currently we are a net importer of electricity, and one of the largest in Europe. 

... but that's not evenly spread across the country.

Consumers in Scotland, Cornwall and half of Devon are living with excess generation...
... none of which gets used to assist households in energy poverty.

Posted by: @jeff

↑

Also a record year for curtailment as grid upgrades were not done at the same time as new generation came online.

Very true.

NESO would like to implement a strategic plan for electricity resources and transportation.

But they are thwarted by HMG and Ofgem whose regulatory framework still incentivises companies to install yet more generation from renewable sources
in areas where it's not required, nor has the grid infrastructure to move the power elsewhere.

Simply upgrading grid capacity ad infinitum is definitely not strategic!

Posted by: @batpred

↑

We all know it is now a quickly growing cake of energy needs with the hungry data centres

So why do you think the present government promotes the corridor between Oxford, Cambridge and Milton Keynes as data-centre Golden Triangle?

That's not naturally an energy-rich area.
Electricity has to brought into the Golden Triangle from the far-flung reaches of the British Isles.

The figures in boxes are MW being carried in the 400kV Transmission Grid.

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Electricity has to brought into the Golden Triangle from the far-flung reaches of the British Isles.

East Anglia grid strengthening should bring a decent amount of wind, solar, interconnects and (if it ever gets finished) nuclear to the Cambridge side of the triangle, as well as Kent.

Though I'm not sure if Twinstead Tee remains at 132 or 400kV @transparent ?

The NSIP Application for Twinstead upgrades in April'25 was from National Grid Group, rather than the DNO.

National Grid's own website description mentions new cabling and a new Grid Supply Point (which infers operation at 400kV)

I doubt that much of that power would get as far as the data centres however.
It'll be used by London itself en-route.

@transparent 

So many reasons to have data centers as far north as possible.. water, electricity, temperature, space 

It would have helped to have cheaper electricity there..

The consequence of the decision is the grid has to cope, more expense.. 

Posted by: @transparent

↑

I doubt that much of that power would get as far as the data centres however.

Might free up some of that power currently flowing North/South though?