Why be angry at scottish power raising energy prices??

grahamc2003

HalloweenJack wrote: »

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

?

Not sure what you are saying here. The payment when the windmills are constrained off is a payment for them not to generate, i.e. a payment while not generating, or a payment in compensation for not generating when they otherwise could (strange that the payment for wind is sometimes far in excess of the value of the generation if they were allowed to generate, but that's just the bidding process).

magyar

grahamc2003 wrote: »

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'.

We agree on something! (provided it's accepted that you could also write "...some windfarms as with all other transmission connected generators are sometimes paid not to produce...")

grahamc2003 wrote: »

For example, off-shore windfarms have capital grants for their construction (therefore by definition a subsidy paid when not generating).

The capital grant programme does not apply any more although you're correct that some early Round 1 offshore wind farms did receive capital grants of up to £10m. It was only done so that these otherwise uneconomic sites would be built.

However since ROC-banding was introduced in 2008, any site which wanted to receive the higher 'offshore' band of 1.5 x ROCs/MWh had to repay the capital grant.

I personally think it's stretching the description to describe that as a subsidy, but I do accept that in principle it's money received by the generator irrespective of generation.

grahamc2003 wrote: »

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.

I don't accept this is a subsidy to wind. A nuclear or coal station also cannot 'instantly become available uninstructed' and so in what way is this not also subsidising nuclear and coal stations?

grahamc2003 wrote: »

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.

Is that available online? Because you can do some fairly simple maths and demonstrate it's way, way off the mark.

An onshore wind farm costs about £1.6m / MW to build. Whilst this is very simplistic, the average return on investment for the wind farm owner over the asset life will be about 10% so let's say this effectively costs the consumer £1.8m.

Using UK average load factor of 28% and a lifespan of 20 years you will get a total of 49,000 MWh for a 1MW wind farm, thus a total price per MWh of 1,800,000 / 49,000 = £36.69 / MWh.

Whilst I'm sure you can do some alternative analysis, it would have to be pretty creative to suggest that instead of £36, it's £1000.

grahamc2003

MAGYAR, Please don't accept my non-response as an acceptance of anything you may post, it's just that I don't care to enter into further discussion with you.

magyar

HalloweenJack wrote: »

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

I would say that John Constable is a well-known anti-wind farm activist and not quite who he presents himself as being (the very name 'Renewable Energy Foundation' is hugely disingenuous for a body that does everything it can to undermine renewable energy). However that is by the by.

Constable may be many things but he is not stupid, and therefore I find it hard to believe he means it when he says 'it is not clear why this should be the case' because it is. As grahamc2003 says above, the RO payments are paid under a completely different mechanism to the bid/offer system for grid constraint.

HalloweenJack

why not? sticking your head in the sand is a !!!! poor responce to anything - REF have stated that constraint payments are not the same subsidies - they are contacted payments for turning the system off ,hydro and gas also have a similar system in place, as does coal and nuclear ; in fact coal stations to get turned down if needed - Dr Constable says so himself in the link i gave.

magyar

grahamc2003 wrote: »

MAGYAR, Please don't accept my non-response as an acceptance of anything you may post, it's just that I don't care to enter into further discussion with you.

Which is a great shame because I am very much enjoying this thread and am happy to defend my position.

You seem to think I am being arrogant in my approach. I really don't mean to be. I simply am fed up with the right-wing press having an absolute vendetta against wind farms, and this is purely because they know it's what their NIMBY readers want to hear.

This happens to be the industry I work in and just as with most professions, the reality is that the press never report it accurately (even when they intend to, let alone when they don't...) I am not some eco-mentalist; I wouldn't defend wind farms if I didn't think they were defensible.

And they're not perfect. If you were arguing that they will increase the cost of energy because of increased intermittency, I'd agree - I'd probably only agree it will push prices up by a max of 15-20% - however I'd also argue that power prices have risen in the last 10 years by nearly 100% and that's been entirely down to oil price.

If you were arguing that we are overselling the potential 'green jobs' created by offshore wind, I'd totally agree with you. If you thought that the RO was an expensive way of subsidising renewables, I'd agree with you - the German and French systems are far better.

All I'm doing is correcting what I know are factual errors in things people are saying.

magyar

HalloweenJack wrote: »

why not? sticking your head in the sand is a !!!! poor responce to anything - REF have stated that constraint payments are not the same subsidies - they are contacted payments for turning the system off ,hydro and gas also have a similar system in place, as does coal and nuclear ; in fact coal stations to get turned down if needed - Dr Constable says so himself in the link i gave.

I'm not sure I follow your point, in fact surely it proves my point. All sorts of generators occasionally get paid not to generate - including wind farms.

The reality is that someone thought they could make a good story about this, when there simply isn't one.

HalloweenJack

magyar wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow your point, in fact surely it proves my point. All sorts of generators occasionally get paid not to generate - including wind farms.

The reality is that someone thought they could make a good story about this, when there simply isn't one.

we replied at the same time - wasnt for you . was for the previous poster who doesnt wish to reply to you, vocal discussion is one thing but ignoring someone is totally different ofc.

grahamc2003

HalloweenJack wrote: »

why not? sticking your head in the sand is a !!!! poor responce to anything - REF have stated that constraint payments are not the same subsidies - they are contacted payments for turning the system off ,hydro and gas also have a similar system in place, as does coal and nuclear ; in fact coal stations to get turned down if needed - Dr Constable says so himself in the link i gave.

Just seen this was for me.

Again, I'm not sure of your point. We are all saying the same thing on this point.

(As to the first comment - I'm not 'sticking my head in the sand', I'm just refusing to talk with a person who called me a liar.).

HalloweenJack

name calling and stubbornness aside - these are contracted payments when a power generation facility is asked to set *down/off* to reduce whats flowing into the national grid, and all facilities have a similar framwork - its just that the payments for wind is quite alot more than those for coal; its not a subsidy