IS it Legal to charge US for the Windfarm Feed In Tariff?

HalloweenJack

reading all your posts , there is still no evidence at all

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/utilities/2011/06/british-gas-boss-defends-energy-price-rises

is the article you linked to - and nothing about 37% or wholesale electric prices mentioned, or even `Government Environmental Contribution`


so , again - where do you get the figure of 37% from?

grahamc2003

HalloweenJack wrote: »

reading all your posts , there is still no evidence at all

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/utilities/2011/06/british-gas-boss-defends-energy-price-rises

is the article you linked to - and nothing about 37% or wholesale electric prices mentioned, or even `Government Environmental Contribution`


so , again - where do you get the figure of 37% from?

How very perverse. From the article ..

British Gas supplied us with an illustration of what costs go into a £100 bill. Click on the gas bill or electricity bill examples to find out.

HalloweenJack

and agani - using your own example - thats £13 out of £100 biill


which isnt 37% by anyones math

grahamc2003

HalloweenJack wrote: »

and agani - using your own example - thats £13 out of £100 biill


which isnt 37% by anyones math

Has anyone said £13 out of a £100 bill is 37%?

HalloweenJack

yes you have stated , on a number of times that the figure is 37% - which quite obviously it isnt.

grahamc2003

HalloweenJack wrote: »

yes you have stated , on a number of times that the figure is 37% - which quite obviously it isnt.

Then could you provide a link to one of them please? (Be careful, and read before what you copy before you copy it). For some reason, you are getting terribly mixed up, and I don't know why.

magyar

bob_a_builder wrote: »

But aren't those extra costs (to us) in addition to the massive subsidy that wind farm owners are already claiming via the feed in subsidy

Most wind farms don't qualify for the Feed-In Tariff, which is designed for smaller, privately-owned systems like solar PV on roofs and that sort of thing.

They are indeed extra costs, but they're not a subsidy because they're not specific to wind farms, they're specific to transmission-connected generators (which includes almost all coal, gas and nuclear stations and in fact very few wind farms).

And they're not in addition to any subsidy because the wind farm would receive no ROCs when they weren't generating.

Whilst I'm not going to argue about the semantics of the word 'subsidy', it should be remembered that these payments merely make it economic to build wind farms (which they wouldn't be without it). So it's not like wind farm generators are making super-huge profits. They make a profit, but returns are typically around 10%.

magyar

PeterZ wrote: »

I'm all for more renewables, and that includes wind turbines. Have you not noticed that we are increasinly having to import our energy from abroad?

We don't have to import energy from abroad very often, it's just cheaper. France has lots of nuclear power stations which are all fully-depreciated and run at huge operating profits and thus can afford to undercut almost anyone.

However since Germany has chosen to turn a sizeable number of its nuclear power stations off in case they ...er, get hit by a tsunami... and are thus having to import lots of ...er, French nuclear electricity... then these 'cheap imports' will probably disappear.

magyar

Blueparrot wrote: »

Kittie, you would not love them if you had to put up with the noise.

Noise? What noise? They usually have a planning condition which means they can't go more than about 5dB above ambient noise. A single car driving past would drown them out completely.

magyar

Blueparrot wrote: »

I object to this because I hate the misery that onshore turbines cause in small rural communities. There is nothing green about these companies, they would not do it unless we pay them to produce electricity at ridiculously subsidised prices. This is not legal!

Yes it is completely legal, and the electricity companies are required to charge these costs under the Energy Act. In fact it would be illegal not to charge it.

I would challenge your point about 'there's nothing green about these companies'. Why would someone invest in wind farms at modest returns when they could invest in far safer options, if they didn't care about being green?

As to 'the misery that onshore turbines cause in small rural communities', the majority of people support wind farms, and not just those who don't live near them. This study http://www.bwea.com/ref/lambrigg.html of local residents found that 74% of people support the wind farm, with only 8% opposing it.

Like any new development, people are scared of the impact they think it will have, but usually they find it has far less impact than they expected.