Why be angry at scottish power raising energy prices??

undaunted

I don't think it's necessarily prices going up - but the margin they go up by,that they are largely perceived to go up but not down with the wholesale market, that energy companies are perceived to be greedy & making a fortune in a market we cannot do without whilst customers struggle etc etc which causes so much resentment.

Margaret Thatcher was trying to improve the customers lot by introducing competition. Sadly it hasn't worked because we have such useless regulators & energy companies seem able to do as they like. To blame her for problems today is however surely unfair. Have the 3 Labour Governments & two Tory Governments since she was in power not had enough time to change anything they disliked?

bikeman

undaunted wrote: »

Have the 3 Labour Governments & two Tory Governments since she was in power not had enough time to change anything they disliked?

They did put their efforts into changing the things they didn't like; 1. they revised their constituency boundaries to create safe seats and 2. they made more of the electorate beholden to them through a strategy of employing them in the public sector or getting them reliant upon tax credits.

Unfortunately like everything Labour did - they cocked it up.

magyar

C_Mababejive wrote: »

On the subject of wind farms,,here is the kind of stupidity that goes on in this fractionated industry...

http://www.ecoseed.org/wind-energy/onshore-wind/article/56-onshore-wind/9649-national-grid-pays-six-scottish-wind-farms-for-unused-electricity

Explain why that is stupidity? Would you rather we paid MORE than that to upgrade the system? It's simple cost-benefit.

magyar

HalloweenJack wrote: »

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/renew_obs/renew_obs.aspx


they are called RO`s or Renewables Obligation , and are subsidised whether they produce power or not , and wind is not the only tecnology funded in this way


or does the governments OWN link not evidence enough for you?

Let me copy and paste from the link you have posted...

The RO is administered by Ofgem, which issues Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) to renewable electricity generators. Previously, 1 ROC was issued for each megawatt hour (MWh) of eligible generation, regardless of technology. As of 1 April 2009, the reforms introduced mean new generators joining the RO now receive different numbers of ROCs, depending on their costs and potential for large-scale deployment. For example, onshore wind continues to receive 1 ROC/MWh, offshore wind currently receives 2 ROCs/MWh, and energy crops 2 ROCs/MWh.

'renewable energy generators' refers to any eligible technology, and not just wind. It applies to small-scale hydro power, biomass, wave, tidal and landfill gas, too.

And as the link states, for an onshore wind farm, you receive one ROC per megawatt hour (MWh) so the more you generate, the more you get. If you generate nothing, you get nothing.

HalloweenJack

i would highly suggest you go and re read that website - especially the section regarding obigations regarding the support of the technologies.

magyar

HalloweenJack wrote: »

i would highly suggest you go and re read that website - especially the section regarding obigations regarding the support of the technologies.

I apologise for seeming a little condescending, but I really do know the RO inside out.

If you have something which you think supports the idea that wind farms are subsidised even when not generating, then please point to it and I will explain why it's not the case.

HalloweenJack

too many terms and late night postings , may i apologise - and after reading around (far too many acronyms used for various different things) - RO`s are paid when they are producing power - its the entire level of constraint payments which the renewable energy foundation has issue with;

other electricity producers can also be asked to constrain output - coal/gas powered stations are paid £28 mw/h or so BUT they are under cintract so the money goes back into teh system. The problem is that the wind farms can be paid up to £1000 mw/h when constrained - and they keep this - whereas under the RO payemtsn (when generating power) they are paid £55 mw/h - its the level of constained payment which the main issue - WHY are they getting so much to `power down`.

also the national grid should look at other options - why turn off the wind farms , when others offer to constrain - without charge

The National Grid report demonstrates that there was a limited range of power stations capable of reducing output on request in early April, and that the costs of paying these generators to reduce their output covered a substantial range. The most economical plant was coal-fired, which offered to pay £28 per MWh not to run.

Due to these limited options National Grid was obliged to pay wind farms to reduce output. The offer prices which the various Scottish wind farms set for such a reduction ranged from £150 per MWh to £1,000 MWh. Fossil-fuelled power stations routinely pay into the system when asked to reduce output because they still receive their contracted payments, but also make savings on the fuel they have not had to burn.

Conversely, wind farms, when asked to reduce output, forego subsidies worth approximately £50-£55 per MWh, from the Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) and Levy Exemption Certificates (LECs), so require payment so as not to be out of pocket

so, when asked to constrain out put wind farm get alot more money than when producing - so in a way ARE paid when not making electricity .

but the REF biggest issue is the amount (as other producers get paid to turn off as well); if the level of payments were in line with the money recieved when producing power then the system is balanced.


btw i emailed the REF and they sent me a link and a really good reply.

grahamc2003

HalloweenJack wrote: »

so, when asked to constrain out put wind farm get alot more money than when producing - so in a way ARE paid when not making electricity .
.

There's no doubt whatsoever that windafrms are paid not to produce - the argument was about whether such payments (and as you have shown, are sometimes massive) can be called 'subsidies'.

Whether or not the RO pays subsidies to non-generating windfarms is not the whole story though. Windmills have other market advantages which I would say there's no doubt that the word 'subsidy' describes. For example, off-shore windfarms have capital grants for their construction (therefore by definition a subsidy paid when not generating). A further example is the extra primary reserve windpower necessitates whether generating or not, because they introduce instability whether they generate or not merely by being connected. The costs of that extra reserve (and I mean primary reserve, instantly and automatically available uninstructed) are not borne by windfarms, but by a general markup to NGC on all generation. These are examples of indirect and generally hidden obscure subsidies windpower enjoys - and I'd bet there are plenty more.

In any case, call the payments and market advantages what you will - a professional report I read a few months ago gave the total cost to the consumer of windpower at approaching £1000/MWh, against a typical market rate of around £40/MWh.

magyar

HalloweenJack wrote: »

other electricity producers can also be asked to constrain output - coal/gas powered stations are paid £28 mw/h or so BUT they are under cintract so the money goes back into teh system. The problem is that the wind farms can be paid up to £1000 mw/h when constrained - and they keep this - whereas under the RO payemtsn (when generating power) they are paid £55 mw/h - its the level of constained payment which the main issue - WHY are they getting so much to `power down`.

also the national grid should look at other options - why turn off the wind farms , when others offer to constrain - without charge


so, when asked to constrain out put wind farm get alot more money than when producing - so in a way ARE paid when not making electricity .

The answer is because that was a commercial decision taken by National Grid. As I mentioned earlier, this is a bid/offer arrangement, i.e. coal station says I will power down if you pay me £[x] and wind farm says I will power down if you pay me £[y].

Taking wind farms off is indeed an expensive option for National Grid. The reality is that wind farm operators bid in the region of £100s/MWh because they didn't expect to be called, it was a case of "we would never be asked to curtail, but in the unlikely event we do, we'll bid a high price".

If the earlier comment I took objection to was "power plants occasionally get paid not to produce power in order to maintain grid control", I would have no issue - it is true. What I had issue with was 'wind farms get subsidised even when they're not generating' because they're not. These payments are available to any transmission connected operator.

The simple answer to the question of why did NG take those wind farms off at £700-1000/MWh instead of a far cheaper coal station is they had no choice: there was no coal station which could be curtailed and still solve their problem.

The alternative to paying relatively small sums of money to generators in this way is to upgrade the transmission system, which cost far more - so this is a simple cost/benefit exercise.

HalloweenJack

The email is receieved was from Dr John Constable

and he said:

When wind farms are constrained off (i.e. they could generate but are told not to) they are paid for not generating. The interesting point here is that the constraint payments greatly exceed the Renewables Obligation subsidy lost (one Renewables Obligation certificates is issued for each MWh generated, and is worth about £50). It is not clear why this should be the case

more is at

http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/231-high-rewards-for-wind-farms-discarding-electricity-5th-6th-april-2011

and tbh there is nothing at all about being paid when not generating , only about the payments under RO and the payments when constrained OFF