Latest news with #Ed Miliband
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Ed Miliband eyes battery bonanza to cut wind farm costs
Ed Miliband will plough hundreds of millions of pounds into battery storage technology as the cost of ordering wind farms to shut down spirals out of control. GB Energy, which is backed by the taxpayer, will use a chunk of its newly minted budget to invest in energy storage systems as households and businesses are forced to foot the bill to prevent the creaking power grid from getting congested. More than £700m has been spent so far this year on switching off wind farms to avoid overloading the grid as well as firing up alternatives to keep the lights on. This is up from about £450m over the same period in 2024, with the money ultimately coming from energy bills. Officials are also keen to ensure clean power remains reliable during periods of high demand. An industry source said: 'How do you get around the fact that the wind blows one day, doesn't blow the next? They have to keep switching off the turbines because they can't store the energy. GB Energy think they've got a role to play in trying to fund the innovation.' The Energy Secretary is presiding over the drive as part of a £4bn push by GB Energy into emerging technologies. The push into battery storage technology is understood to be one of GB Energy's three big priorities, with half its £4bn innovation budget being deployed to bring more of the UK's net zero supply chain onshore. The Government is hoping to create hundreds of new jobs in areas such as Scarborough, North Yorkshire, which is reinventing itself as a service hub for the offshore wind industry. Experts say large amounts of energy storage will be needed for net zero, as countries move away from readily dispatchable gas or coal-fired power stations to intermittent sources such as wind and solar farms. More storage on the grid should also help to prevent situations where grid operators are forced to pay wind farms to switch off when the network is too busy to accept their power. Instead, battery operators would be able to snap the electricity up cheaply and store it for later. There is particular need for so-called long-duration storage that can be deployed over weeks rather than days to counter periods of 'dunkelflaute', when cloudy skies and stagnant wind conditions reduce the output of renewables. Under Mr Miliband's plan for a clean power system by 2030, the amount of long-duration energy storage is expected to rise from about three gigawatts today to between four and six gigawatts – enough to power millions of homes. Traditional lithium ion batteries are not ideal for this owing to their high cost and relatively short-term output, as well as degradation over time and the large numbers that would need to be built. Possible alternatives include 'flow' batteries, which store energy in liquid electrolytes, pumped hydro storage, compressed air storage, heat storage such as thermal bricks or molten salt, and caves that can be used to store hydrogen. The push into battery storage technology comes after Mr Miliband abandoned controversial plans to charge southern households more for electricity than those in the North amid a backlash from wind farm owners. Advocates claimed that zonal pricing would also have cut bills for all households overall by removing the need for £27bn of grid upgrades and axing the payments made to wind farms to switch off. Wind turbines have been built faster than grid capacity over the past decade, leaving Britain's infrastructure struggling to move electricity from Scottish wind farms to where it is needed in the South. A spokesman for GB Energy said: 'Long-duration energy storage is vital to a clean, secure, and affordable energy future for the UK. 'GB Energy sees opportunity to invest in both proven technologies like pumped hydro and emerging innovations such as flow batteries and liquid air storage. By stepping in early, we can unlock private capital, accelerate delivery, and back British supply chains.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Ed Miliband eyes battery bonanza to cut wind farm costs
Ed Miliband will plough hundreds of millions of pounds into battery storage technology as the cost of ordering wind farms to shut down spirals out of control. GB Energy, which is backed by the taxpayer, will use a chunk of its newly minted budget to invest in energy storage systems as households and businesses are forced to foot the bill to prevent the creaking power grid from getting congested. More than £700m has been spent so far this year on switching off wind farms to avoid overloading the grid as well as firing up alternatives to keep the lights on. This is up from about £450m over the same period in 2024, with the money ultimately coming from energy bills. Officials are also keen to ensure clean power remains reliable during periods of high demand. An industry source said: 'How do you get around the fact that the wind blows one day, doesn't blow the next? They have to keep switching off the turbines because they can't store the energy. GB Energy think they've got a role to play in trying to fund the innovation.' The Energy Secretary is presiding over the drive as part of a £4bn push by GB Energy into emerging technologies. The push into battery storage technology is understood to be one of GB Energy's three big priorities, with half its £4bn innovation budget being deployed to bring more of the UK's net zero supply chain onshore. The Government is hoping to create hundreds of new jobs in areas such as Scarborough, North Yorkshire, which is reinventing itself as a service hub for the offshore wind industry. Experts say large amounts of energy storage will be needed for net zero, as countries move away from readily dispatchable gas or coal-fired power stations to intermittent sources such as wind and solar farms. More storage on the grid should also help to prevent situations where grid operators are forced to pay wind farms to switch off when the network is too busy to accept their power. Instead, battery operators would be able to snap the electricity up cheaply and store it for later. There is particular need for so-called long-duration storage that can be deployed over weeks rather than days to counter periods of 'dunkelflaute', when cloudy skies and stagnant wind conditions reduce the output of renewables. Under Mr Miliband's plan for a clean power system by 2030, the amount of long-duration energy storage is expected to rise from about three gigawatts today to between four and six gigawatts – enough to power millions of homes. Traditional lithium ion batteries are not ideal for this owing to their high cost and relatively short-term output, as well as degradation over time and the large numbers that would need to be built. Possible alternatives include 'flow' batteries, which store energy in liquid electrolytes, pumped hydro storage, compressed air storage, heat storage such as thermal bricks or molten salt, and caves that can be used to store hydrogen. The push into battery storage technology comes after Mr Miliband abandoned controversial plans to charge southern households more for electricity than those in the North amid a backlash from wind farm owners. Advocates claimed that zonal pricing would also have cut bills for all households overall by removing the need for £27bn of grid upgrades and axing the payments made to wind farms to switch off. Wind turbines have been built faster than grid capacity over the past decade, leaving Britain's infrastructure struggling to move electricity from Scottish wind farms to where it is needed in the South. A spokesman for GB Energy said: 'Long-duration energy storage is vital to a clean, secure, and affordable energy future for the UK. 'GB Energy sees opportunity to invest in both proven technologies like pumped hydro and emerging innovations such as flow batteries and liquid air storage. By stepping in early, we can unlock private capital, accelerate delivery, and back British supply chains.'
The Guardian
22-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
A ‘golden age' for nuclear power? Sizewell C must hit budget first
Welcome to 'a new golden age' for nuclear power, said Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, as he signed off the £38bn (if we're lucky) Sizewell C mega-plant in Suffolk. It will certainly look golden from the point of view of Centrica. The owner of British Gas is investing £1.3bn for a 15% equity stake in Sizewell on terms that look attractive for it. Centrica's explanation of the mechanics behind Sizewell's financing were more helpful than the government's because it demonstrated how far ministers have had to go to attract private investors for a project that was once advertised to cost £20bn. In short, Centrica reckons it will make an internal rate of return above 12% if Sizewell arrives at £40bn (all the numbers being in 2024 prices). But the revealing part was what happens if costs overrun and the construction bill ends up at £47.7bn. In that case, the company's rate of return will still come in above 10%. That is in nominal terms, so one has to knock off inflation, but it's still a decent number. And – critically – it is as low as it could go. After £47.7bn, taxpayers or billpayers are on the hook. Chris O'Shea, Centrica's chief executive, called the terms 'acceptable' and the stock market agreed. Centrica's shares rose 4% and analysts at Jefferies noted 'robust protections'. The Canadian group, La Caisse, with a 20% stake, and the UK's Amber Infrastructure (7.6%) are the other investors alongside the state itself (44.9%) and French developer EDF (12.5%). It is hard to believe HM Treasury imagined even a couple of years ago it would have to be quite so generous to attract private sector investors. That, unfortunately, is the reality of higher government borrowing costs. It all flows into the financing of big projects. So does the experience of overruns and delays at Hinkley Point C, the plant in Somerset that is due to come on stream in the 2030s. So does the need to lock in investors for years. The option of carving out private investors entirely at Sizewell was a nonstarter: you need somebody to be incentivised to hold management's feet to the fire in the hope of landing close to the headline £38bn. Centrica, as the 20% owner of the UK's nuclear fleet, is as good as any for that task (even if it's not clear what La Caisse and Amber offer). It's just that the private sector has said, in effect, that it would accept some of the risk of cost overruns – but not too much and not to a degree that would seriously eat into returns. Meanwhile, the state is providing most of the debt, which is the greater part of the overall funding package, to the tune of £36bn to be channelled through the misleadingly named National Wealth Fund. In essence, this is a big heave from the government to make Sizewell happen. What does it mean for consumers? Well, a £1-a-month charge on electricity bills from this autumn for a decade, for starters. That is how the 'regulated asset base' model works. But the mystery – still – is what we'll pay for Sizewell's electricity eventually. Here is the government's less-than-clear claim: the project 'could' create savings of £2bn a year versus the alternative of relying on renewable sources, mainly onshore and offshore wind. That is because Sizewell's higher capital costs are 'outweighed by the benefits of reduced network, interconnector and balancing costs'. In other words, nuclear power is easier to connect to the grid and its output is firm. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Put that way, there is still an argument for doing more nuclear. But the 'could' reflects the risk of cost overruns, which, if they become severe, will have to be recouped in bills. The 'golden age' depends on Sizewell's ability to hit its budget.
Telegraph
22-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
If one green energy plant costs £36bn, there's no hope for net zero
It is reliable, safe, and while it is not one hundred per cent carbon-free once you factor in the impact of mining for all the minerals, it is about as green as you can possibly get. There are plenty of strong arguments for increasing Britain's supply of nuclear energy, and the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has made the right decision today in approving the Sizewell C power station. There is just one catch. The cost has doubled over the last five years, and will double again before its reactors are switched on. In reality, Miliband and the Green Commissars around him are allowing red tape and bureaucracy to drive the cost of the green transition to astronomical levels – and that will destroy the whole project. It will at least help make sure we have enough power to keep the lights on when the wind turbines aren't working. The Sizewell C nuclear power plant will generate enough power for about six million homes once it is finished. The Government will own a majority stake, but the British Gas-owned Centrica, France's EDF, along with some investment funds, have been strong-armed into taking stakes, while the taxpayer-financed National Wealth Fund will provide much of the finance. 'It is time to do big things and build big projects in this country again,' boasted Miliband as he announced the project. Here's the problem, however. The plant will cost £38bn, almost double the £20bn that was estimated when it was first under discussion five years ago. If anyone believes it will actually get delivered at anything close to that figure I have a 'pre-loved' windmill I would like to sell them. Given the atrocious cost overruns that plague every major infrastructure project in the UK the final cost will be well over £60bn and perhaps as high as £80bn. It is going to be an incredibly expensive piece of kit. It does not have to be this way. Nuclear power plants can be built at far lower cost. In France, a new plant costs an estimated €11-12bn euros, and even the Flamanville Plant, which suffered significant cost overruns, only came in at €13bn euros. Sure, costs vary according to their size, and type of reactor. But Britain Remade, a think tank, estimated Britain has the second highest costs in the world behind only the United States (which prefers to focus on its abundant fracking industry). In this country, nuclear costs an estimated £9.4bn per megawatt to build, compared with £4.4bn in France, and £2.2bn in South Korea. Given that upfront capital costs are the major expense with nuclear power – once it is up and running it is very cheap – that means energy bills will be two or three times higher for homes than they would be if we could build at the same price as South Korea. We all know the reason why. Britain has allowed the cost of building even a minor pedestrian bridge, never mind something as controversial as a nuclear power station, to be smothered in red tape. Planning reports run to tens of thousands of pages, legal challenges are allowed at every step of the way, and every form of wildlife is prioritised over the long-suffering British taxpayer. If Miliband was serious about hitting his net zero targets he would ruthlessly slash red tape until we got down to South Korean levels. If he could do that, we could take the cost of Sizewell C down to £10bn. And yet, the harsh truth is this. Miliband and the Green Commissars care even more about rules, regulations and state control than they do about saving the environment. If Miliband let the market work he could deliver green energy on time, at reasonable cost – but none of us should hold our breath waiting for that to happen.
The Guardian
22-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
More than 100 Labour MPs urge Ed Miliband to explore radical energy bills overhaul
Ed Miliband has been urged by more than 100 Labour MPs to explore radically overhauling UK energy bills to cut costs for the those who use the least power. The energy secretary is understood to be considering a number of options for more progressive energy pricing, with changes to the standing charge and discounts for the least intensive consumers – known as rising block tariffs – all being reviewed. The push is the first in a number of policies set to be presented to ministers by a new caucus of MPs pushing the government to do more to focus on the cost of living. The Living Standards Coalition, convened by Loughborough MP Dr Jeevun Sandher said Miliband should look closely at a major overhaul of the standing charge, saying that lower-income households with lower energy use were being unfairly penalised with higher bills than more intensive users. 'Getting living standards rising is core to our Labour values and is the number one issue on which voters will judge this government,' Sandher said. 'Getting these bills down quickly will make families better off. It's why our party was founded, it is why we were elected last year.' In the letter to Miliband, the 103 MPs said British families were facing 'some of the highest energy bills in Europe' and the government must go further with policies that would reduce bills quicker. 'We strongly support policies that will get energy bills down immediately so our constituents will feel the benefits of a Labour government as quickly as possible. Our constituents rank getting energy bills down as the No 1 way to improve their cost of living,' it said. 'For the poorest households, £1 in every £10 goes on paying their energy bills.' It said Miliband should urgently examine a more progressive pricing system to reduce costs for low- and middle-income households, starting with changing the standing charge, which costs lower-income households more as a proportion of their income. The letter said the government could examine moving to a system of rising block tariffs, where the cost per unit of energy increases with higher levels of consumption, encouraging conservation and usually translating to cheaper bills for lower-usage households. The system can disproportionately affect larger households and is complex to administer but the letter said it was a change that would deliver cuts to bills to those most in need of them without cost to the Treasury. The group, which launched with a letter to the prime minister last week, has said it is a strong backer of net zero policies, though a small number of Labour MPs have begun to question the party's commitment to no new oil and gas licences. Two Labour MPs, Henry Tufnell and Melanie Onn of the Commission for Carbon Competitiveness group, last week called for the government to rethink green levies on business. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion But the Basingstoke MP, Luke Murphy, a founding member of the Living Standards group who is also on the energy and net zero select committee said the answer was not more fossil fuels. 'The high energy costs which we inherited from the Conservatives are a barrier to higher growth and living standards. Yet the Conservatives and Reform want to make us more reliant on fossil fuels, which are the main cause for high and volatile energy bills,' he said. 'The government must instead continue to drive towards clean energy 2030, which will lower bills for good and focus on reforms that will also bring bills down in the near term. This should include looking at the role of smart energy market reform, a social tariff, reforming standing charges, and reforming regressive levies.' The intervention is the second in 24 hours from groups of influential Labour MPs urging the government to step up the pace of change. In an article for the New Statesman, the Labour Growth Group said the government needed 'an extra injection of radicalism' on issues such as housing and infrastructure to take on the threat of Nigel Farage potentially becoming prime minister. It said the government should do more to ensure long-term growth took precedent over local objections to new homes – voicing disappointment in concessions in the planning bill last week that had been sought by environmental groups – and that mayors should be given tax-raising powers.
