kieranmaine

They will help reduce costs by reducing:

1. Wind generation being curtailed.

2. Gas generation used to replace the curtailed wind (referred to as turn-up).

Based on the GB Transmission Constraints site data the costs as of Oct 2026 curtailment costs 257.96 £m and turn-up is 1,378.91 £m.

The article "Transmission Network Unavailability – the Quiet Driving Force Behind Rising Curtailment Costs in Great Britain" [3] article provides a good analysis.

> had in mind that electricity demand should decrease

Does this mean the speaker wanted demand to decrease? The UK forecasts from the Future Energy Scenarios [1] show demand increasing (see page 21).

> intermittent availability of power.

I'm assuming this was related to demand side response. Page 37 of the Future Energy Scenarios pdf contains an overview of this.

I worked at an EV smart charging start up (Kaluza) between 2019-2022 and my experience doesn't line up with a couple of your points:

> You won't be able to wash your clothes when you feel like

During my time at Kaluza the customer could charge their EV whenever they wanted.

> you will have to adapt to when there is spare power,

The customer set their minimum state-of-charge (0-100%) and we would always have it charged to that amount by a specified time, irrespective of demand. We aimed to charge the customer's EV when demand was low (there are UK markets we can sell this ability to - these markets may have changed since I was there), which would save them money, but meeting the minimum SoC was the most important thing.

> This is just a regression in technological progress

Reducing peak demand reduces the amount of infrastructure you need and makes better use of what you have. IMO it's a good upgrade that makes much better use of the assets on the grid.

Vehicle-to-Grid (or Home) charging takes this up a level by feeding power back to the grid. This "What’s next for Vehicle-to-Everything?" PDF [2] is 4 years old now, but has some good data on V2G and the benefits it brings.

There's a 200MW/3,600MWh project which has planning permission and also a 400MW/7,200MWh proposal [2].

This is the maximum amount of power it can dispatch. I think they use it intentionally so they can compare it to other generation sources.

For example this spreadsheet [1], with data for 2023, contains figures for "power capacity megawatts" and "energy capacity megawatthours".

> As of April 1, 2026, renewable energy’s share of total US utility-scale (>1 MW) generating capacity was 33.6%. EIA projects this to grow to 36.6% by March 31, 2027. Utility-scale solar will add 42,626.1 MW, expanding its share from 12.8% to 15.7%, while wind will grow by 14,157.4 MW (including 4,155.0 MW of offshore wind), increasing from 13.0% to 13.6%. The mix of other renewables (hydropower, biomass, and geothermal) will add 297.1 MW.

> The capacity of battery storage was 42 GW at the end of 2025 and is expected to double and reach 85 GW by the end of 2027.

In terms of the general population or politicians, some more than others. This is also with an administration that is irrationally hostile to renewables.