Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

NigeWick

Martyn1981 said:

 the Gov is 'poised' to lift the near-ban on on-shore wind.

And with enough thrust, pigs can fly.

Exiled_Tyke

NigeWick said:

Martyn1981 said:

 the Gov is 'poised' to lift the near-ban on on-shore wind.

And with enough thrust, pigs can fly.

Apparently it's going to the commons today. I may even hold my breath!  

Martyn1981

Exiled_Tyke said:

NigeWick said:

Martyn1981 said:

 the Gov is 'poised' to lift the near-ban on on-shore wind.

And with enough thrust, pigs can fly.

Apparently it's going to the commons today. I may even hold my breath!  

Don't hold it for too long!

Looks like the old arguments of losing land / nature / views / etc etc etc, are still be used to oppose PV and onshore wind farms.

Given the fact (as reported a while back) that tory voters seem to support wind and PV, then we have the weird situation, where the Gov may be pandering to a minority of MP's and voters. I may be misunderstanding this, but the majority want(?) more PV and onshore wind. Perhaps, the party doesn't fear losing their support either way, but are scared of losing the more objectionable members (IYSWIM)? Bit baffling.

Plus of course, whilst offshore wind is amazing, having more PV and onshore wind, helps with the distribution of RE leccy, minimizing curtailment issues.

Tory tussles over energy bill put progress on net zero at risk

Britain’s energy security and progress to net zero are under threat as the energy bill enters the Commons again.

Warring factions of the Tory party have tabled amendments to the bill including relaxing rules on onshore wind permissions, banning certain types of solar developments and softening a ban on oil boilers.

As ever, there is a tussle between those Conservative MPs who believe new renewable energy is crucially important for economic growth, and those who are more concerned about the impact of wind and solar farms on the countryside view.

Sunak appeared to be in the latter camp when he made his pitch to be prime minister last year, saying at the time: “Wind energy will be an important part of our strategy, but I want to reassure communities that as prime minister I would scrap plans to relax the ban on onshore wind in England, instead focusing on building more turbines offshore.”

After pressure from the 150 MPs in the Conservative Environment Network, he caved in and consulted on lifting the ban. Stringent planning rules have created a de facto ban on onshore wind developments in England. Twenty onshore wind turbines have received planning permission since 2015 – just 2.7% of the number granted permission between 2009 and 2014, before the planning restrictions were put in place.

However, the government suggested on Tuesday that it will not lift the effective ban despite a popular amendment laid by the former Cop26 president Alok Sharma and signed by Liz Truss, which would relax the rules on onshore wind.

Grumpy_chap

I hope my query is appropriate for this thread.

I just found we have SKY NEWS available on the telly and the first piece I have watched there happened to be a fairly long discussion about wind power.  Apparently, the rules for onshore wind are changing - there is some discussion of this on the SKY website:
https://news.sky.com/story/onshore-wind-farms-ban-to-be-eased-following-backbench-tory-pressure-12955304

My question is about the rather long "magazine" type interview on the TV. 
One of the contributors was referencing various concerns and reservations about onshore wind power. 
Amongst which he linked having developed diabetes to the wind turbines.  Now, I can see that wind power will have some downsides and even that some of those downside may affect health in some way (perhaps, possibly).  It is just I cannot see how a wind turbine in the area can cause an individual to develop diabetes.  So, my questions:
1. Is there any science that links wind turbines to developing diabetes?
2. If there is none, why was this claim given the air time during peak evening news magazine programme on a fairly major platform?

QrizB

Grumpy_chap said:

So, my questions:
1. Is there any science that links wind turbines to developing diabetes?
2. If there is none, why was this claim given the air time during peak evening news magazine programme on a fairly major platform?

1. No.

2. There are many possible reasons, but the common ones are poor moderation and/or a misguided sense of "balance".

michaels

Sad news but not unexpected:
UK offshore wind auction set to flop - BBC News

Basically the price ceiling at £44 (similar to the lowest recent bids) is no longer economical given raw material price rises (and probably competition from other countries who are all ramping up wind generation).  I think the £44 is 2010 (?) money terms so covers inflation in theory but steel for example is up about double average price increases.

I guess the reason for having a max was to stop people wasting their time bidding at a level that was not acceptable but setting the max too low has made the auction redundant and will be seen as a set back which will encourage the deniers

zeupater

michaels said:

Sad news but not unexpected:
UK offshore wind auction set to flop - BBC News

Basically the price ceiling at £44 (similar to the lowest recent bids) is no longer economical given raw material price rises (and probably competition from other countries who are all ramping up wind generation).  I think the £44 is 2010 (?) money terms so covers inflation in theory but steel for example is up about double average price increases.

I guess the reason for having a max was to stop people wasting their time bidding at a level that was not acceptable but setting the max too low has made the auction redundant and will be seen as a set back which will encourage the deniers

Hi

Again it's an issue with how the UK energy market works & there are two major, but related, areas of concern regarding wind ...

Bid for a wind-power contract at or below the ceiling and you're effectively committed to receive no more & no less revenue than the bid no matter how the energy market prices move (caveat - allowable inflationary adjustments) .... when a supply bid is made from wind generation there's no marginal production cost, therefore as long as the bid is low enough it should almost guarantee inclusion, therefore, knowing that there isn't enough zero margin generation to saturate the market, the potential supplier may just as well bid zero most of the time knowing that they'll actually receive the contract bid price anyway ...

Silly isn't it ... some reading may disagree with the above, but in a nutshell that's how it works & this is how ....

Firstly, the energy supply market works on a time-slice bidding process where suppliers are requested to tender a price & supply quantity for various periods of time during the day, some number crunching happens & supply contracts are awarded, mainly related to bid prices (lowest first), but with some consideration to supply risk (wind, solar etc), the outcome from which is that all bidders actually get paid the unit price awarded to the highest successful bid (any chance of market manipulation here?) .... this is the incentive for zero marginal cost suppliers to bid really low (or zero) prices as they know that they'll be paid the highest successful bid anyway ...

Secondly, there's the effect of the UK renewables (wind) auction pricing and how this is interrelated with the above .... The price set at the successful bid for building generation capacity is effectively a CFD price award against a guarantee, if market conditions for a particular supply time-slice set a price for the supply of wind (as per above) which is higher than the awarded contract pricing then the difference is paid into a (theoretical) government slush fund, if lower the fund pays out .... 

Anyone have any ideas why the government would be incentivised to set price ceilings as low as possible on long term supply contracts yet ?  ... if I were to make a tin foil hat and wear it, I'd probably hint at electrification and the effect on the taxation of the oil sector revenue stream being the major influence, closely followed by similar decisions on the way the nuclear CFD awards would necessarily work when in competition with the likes of wind & solar, after-all, the illusion of not subsidising nuclear must somehow be maintained, maybe someone will eventually apply a description such as 'energy sector cross-fertilisation funding' whenever subsidy is raised!  ... <tin foil hat must already be on then!> ....    

HTH - Z     

michaels

Against that the auctions seem to be a one way bet (free option in market terminology), those who end up having bid too low can simply opt not to develop their winning bid.  So companies could bid at the max level in the hope that turbine prices fall again before they have to build but with no obligation to do so if they haven't.

WE also had wind generation that was ready and generating but they held of actually activating the CfD until the last allowable moment to benefit from market prices in excess of the CfD price....

QrizB

zeupater said:

 ...the difference is paid into a (theoretical) government slush fund, if lower the fund pays out ....

I think it's a literal fund, not a theoretical one?

See:

https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/

zeupater

QrizB said:

zeupater said:

 ...the difference is paid into a (theoretical) government slush fund, if lower the fund pays out ....

I think it's a literal fund, not a theoretical one?

See:

https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/

Hi

Theoretical fund as in there's likely no physical account holding a real monetary balance ... like everything else related to government schemes, every expenditure and every receipt is effectively pooled, therefore the fund and any balance attributed to it doesn't really exist as a standalone entity, it only exists in theory as an accounting exercise within the treasury books ....

HTH - Z