Energy scheme scanadal

qwert_yuiop

I wouldn't think it'll be that easy. This is serious money.

Old_Git

If £490 million was misused in a bank the PSNI would be investigating ,but its Arlene (or whoever ) in Stormount ,then its oops sorry I cant be expected to know everything .

Yankees

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

Now, how will deti get out of these contracts?

There is obviously some blatant abuse of the non-domestic scheme as reported in the Northern Ireland Audit Office report but overall this seems quite minimal. Something like 14 sites identified as fraud. These should be stopped immediately. There is another 100 or so that have questions around them, depending on the extent of the issues some of these could be stopped or reduced etc.

But the problem is that there are almost 2000 in the scheme. And the vast majority of these are genuine applicants who have invested sizeable capital on the understanding that this will be recovered. The problem is the volume of applicants in the scheme (all those late entrants due to the politicians being slow to close the scheme).

The cost of the scheme is now approx[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] £1b, so to reduce the overspend costs need to be reduced by approx 40%.
So using some very basic assumptions to get the scheme back on budget, either
1/ reduce everyone's payments by 40%, or
2/ a backdated closure ie remove the last 40% of entrants into the scheme

Neither are great options and personally I would be extremely p'ed off if there was a 40% cut as I would be struggling to even cover my initial capital cost (on the domestic scheme).



[/FONT]

Yankees

I would be interested to hear if there was anyone out there who is in the non-domestic scheme. Under the domestic scheme my RHI payments are capped and there is no incentive for me to burn more fuel etc.

Perhaps (under the anominity of this forum) a user of the non-domestic scheme could provide an insight into their numbers; how long until their capital is covered etc etc?

qwert_yuiop

Yankees wrote: »

There is obviously some blatant abuse of the non-domestic scheme as reported in the Northern Ireland Audit Office report but overall this seems quite minimal. Something like 14 sites identified as fraud. These should be stopped immediately. There is another 100 or so that have questions around them, depending on the extent of the issues some of these could be stopped or reduced etc.

But the problem is that there are almost 2000 in the scheme. And the vast majority of these are genuine applicants who have invested sizeable capital on the understanding that this will be recovered. The problem is the volume of applicants in the scheme (all those late entrants due to the politicians being slow to close the scheme).

The cost of the scheme is now approx[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] £1b, so to reduce the overspend costs need to be reduced by approx 40%.
So using some very basic assumptions to get the scheme back on budget, either
1/ reduce everyone's payments by 40%, or
2/ a backdated closure ie remove the last 40% of entrants into the scheme

Neither are great options and personally I would be extremely p'ed off if there was a 40% cut as I would be struggling to even cover my initial capital cost (on the domestic scheme).



[/FONT]

Presumably this would involve the likelihood of a breach of contract case, with the equivalent of a class action through a large number of complainants. Any lawyers on here this evening?

The point is that the extreme cases are not actually fraud. It's all perfectly legal. Mad, but legal.

almillar

If more calories are used in their production than are released in their combustion

Now there's a big 'IF' if ever I've seen one. Any evidence this is the case?

Why burn wood pellets? Because they come from trees. You can grow, cut down, grow, cut down trees as much as you like if there's enough land. Fossil fuels require millions of years to form and they're running out.
Wood (inc pellets) is sustainable. Fossil fuels aren't.

since the manufacturing process must demand huge oil or gas consumption

Another huge assumption. You need to research before making such claims.

No point in speculating, folks. We need the numbers

You're the one throwing the accusations round. Go find the numbers. Preferably not from a climate change denier.

Ah, thanks joefizz - that all looks great.

If it's anything like the American ethanol from corn program

Looks like it's not, if you would just ready joefizz's post #39

Look up the term straw man argument.

You're making a 'straw man argument' against wood pellets. You've literally provided no evidence that anything is wrong with it, but you're very worried that there is something wrong.

three phase electricity at high power to run massive brutes of compressors off less than several hundred acres of solar panels?

Are you familiar with these 'brute' machines, or do you just assume they're three phase brutes consuming massive kW of electric. joefizz says primarily from solar. For him not to technically be a liar, that's >50%.

qwert_yuiop

almillar wrote: »

Now there's a big 'IF' if ever I've seen one. Any evidence this is the case?

Why burn wood pellets? Because they come from trees. You can grow, cut down, grow, cut down trees as much as you like if there's enough land. Fossil fuels require millions of years to form and they're running out.
Wood (inc pellets) is sustainable. Fossil fuels aren't.


Another huge assumption. You need to research before making such claims.


You're the one throwing the accusations round. Go find the numbers. Preferably not from a climate change denier.

Ah, thanks joefizz - that all looks great.



Looks like it's not, if you would just ready joefizz's post #39



You're making a 'straw man argument' against wood pellets. You've literally provided no evidence that anything is wrong with it, but you're very worried that there is something wrong.



Are you familiar with these 'brute' machines, or do you just assume they're three phase brutes consuming massive kW of electric. joefizz says primarily from solar. For him not to technically be a liar, that's >50%.

We've already been through all this. The state of Georgia department of agriculture website gives all the calculations in BTU and suggests a return of five to one. The variable is of course the water content of the wood. You'd imagine that might be fairly high in Fermanagh.

The diesel usage is of course the major component of the fossil fuel use involved, at approx one fifth of final energy availability.

Wood does of course grow on trees. However the point was pellets do not, and the amount of fossil fuel required in their production means they may be indeed a net energy source but are only as sustainable as your source of diesel (compared to a hand saw or axe and ordinary firewood.)

What this has to do with climate change denial, I have no idea.

By the way, how do you add a picture to a comment here?

waltsalt

It should be noted that the RHI scheme covered other renewable heating solutions as well, not just biomass boilers. I'm not saying that the alternatives are better or worse. Just another variable.

CEON44

From Sky News:
A study shows that 41% of the power used in UK homes on Christmas Day came from wind, sun, hydro-power and biomass. Andy Koss, chief executive at Drax Power, said: "These Christmas figures show that the UK energy system really is changing".

"Renewables are increasingly vital to the UK's energy mix as we decarbonise and move away from coal. Drax has switched half of its coal-fired power stations in Yorkshire to burn wood pellets and wants to move towards more biomass-generated energy."

joefizz

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

The diesel usage is of course the major component of the fossil fuel use involved, at approx one fifth of final energy availability.

I didnt understand this part of your original quote so looked up the Georgia stats myself. I couldnt understand why the diesel usage was so high. Yes you do need oil to maintain the cutters etc but that can be used cooking oil and other such (small plants can use used cooking oil for firing the dryers as well).
In the US they dont use wood pellets for fuel so the dryers are actually diesel dryers. Hence the discrepancy. Here they reuse part of the product (or as mentioned solar/wind/mains electric) for the dryers.

Thats why the US figures are so high. Typical of the US though to use diesel (which is cheaper there) rather than the sustainable product they produce, to maximise their profit of course.
Also a bit stupid using them as a supply for europe with all those travel miles.