View Full Version : The wind farm debacle gets ridiculous
This (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/7840035/Firms-paid-to-shut-down-wind-farms-when-the-wind-is-blowing.html) from the Daily Telegraph.
. . . . and we’re paying for it! :confused
ywindythesecond
20-Jun-10, 08:41
This (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/7840035/Firms-paid-to-shut-down-wind-farms-when-the-wind-is-blowing.html) from the Daily Telegraph.
. . . . and we’re paying for it! :confused
No big deal Gronnuck. All the time wind energy is being used we pay for a fossil fuel generator not to supply its electricity but to keep the boiler stoked for when the wind drops.
When demand is so low that National Grid has nothing left to turn off without putting the system into chaos, then it will have to stop the wind power which the government says it must take. So it pays compensation to wind plants, and the more we have of them the more will be paid, and the more often.
Overall, we pay for the fossil fuel generator, the wind generator and the subsidy all the time anyway.
Sorry, not all the time, only when the wind blows.
When there is no wind we enjoy cheap reliable controllable electricity.
And yet in Caithness forums we have people say they do not supply power :confused
Who do you believe. I think you need to take the report for what it is another anti group behind it ;)
ywindythesecond
20-Jun-10, 09:49
And yet in Caithness forums we have people say they do not supply power :confused
Who do you believe. I think you need to take the report for what it is another anti group behind it ;)
Keep an open mind Scout, that was a rather Reggy-esque answer.
We are dealing with facts.
When demand is high and there is no wind and we are committed to relying on it for a high proportion of our energy, we have a problem.
When demand is low, and we have a large amount of wind and contracts in place with power suppliers to supply power, something has to be turned off.
When the government says that you must take wind energy but you can't without putting the distribution system in jeopardy, you have to ask the wind generator to stop sending you power.
Like every other power generator, wind generators have a contract with National Grid. If either side breaks its contract, there is a penalty to pay. If the grid cannot take the wind power which Government obliges it to do, then it is only right that the wind energy supplier is compensated for it.
In a free market, this would not happen, because no wind generator would contract to supply a given amount of power at any date in the future for fear of the penalties it would face, and National Grid would not commit itself to a power source which was not inherently reliable.
The two things which are basically wrong are a) the requirement on National Grid to take wind energy any time it is available, and b) the ROC subsidy which has to be paid if wind energy is used and also when wind energy cannot be used because there is no demand for it.
All facts Scout. Delve into OFGEM and National Grid websites for yourself.
Facts are chiels that winna ding.
Tubthumper
20-Jun-10, 10:25
I suppose the ROCs are needed to convince private investors to gamble with windpower. What would be a viable alternative, assuming of course that we actually need alternative power sources?
The more I read, the more I try to follow the debate, the more money I pay for the electricity I use the more I'm convinced I'm being conned!
In other parts of the world a new generation of coal fired power stations are regularly commissioned.
In other parts of the world a new generation of nuclear power stations are being built.
Are we the only country trying to save the world? If so, why?
As I see it we all share the same atmosphere whichever way the wind blows. So why is it so necessary for Britain to try to change the way we generate electricity? If man made pollution is a global issue then surely what is needed is a global response?
Sara Jevo
20-Jun-10, 13:40
It looks like the grid also pays coal and gas not to produce electricity when their system cannot cope.
And don't forget the idiocy of nuclear contracts that obliged suppliers to buy the energy regardless of whether they needed it.
Maybe we are not as clever as we thought, if we cannot find a more efficient way to generate and store electricity.
All of them have their drawbacks.
ywindythesecond
20-Jun-10, 14:41
It looks like the grid also pays coal and gas not to produce electricity when their system cannot cope.
And don't forget the idiocy of nuclear contracts that obliged suppliers to buy the energy regardless of whether they needed it.
Maybe we are not as clever as we thought, if we cannot find a more efficient way to generate and store electricity.
All of them have their drawbacks.
National grid has a wide range of contracts with a wide range of generators. With some of them, nuclear and most gas, and some coal generators that contract will be for power at all times except maintenance shutdown. Others will have contracts which will only cover daytime demand etc, and others, those who are part of the Balancing Mechanism (as in bmreports) will generate when called on by National Grid and will be "constrained off" when required when there is more power being generated than there is demand for. Most of the balancing is taken care of by market forces with the grid doing as little as possible to maintain the grid in balance. When generators are constrained off, they are paid compensation by the grid which goes onto the cost of using the grid and which we pay for ultimately in our electricity bills.
When Dounreay was generating, the grid was obliged to take the power like you said. The reason was that it was experimental, not commercial.
The grid is obliged by government to take wind energy whenever it is being generated. The reason is as I said, in a free market, the grid would not choose windpower for a large part of its portfolio, and by obliging NG to take it, it guarantees that developers get the ROCs subsidy without which there would be no windfarms.
NG would only constrain off wind energy when there was no other generator available that it was possible to constrain off because in the compensation cost there is the value of the ROC, currently around £50 a MW. This puts the constraint cost of wind instantly £50 a MW higher than any other option, and the Grid has top balance its books as well.
As more wind energy is connected to the system, NG's balancing options get proportionately smaller and the effect of low demand and high wind events will make it necessary to constrain off wind regularly. Curiously, our bills will not rise much just because of this, because we pay for wind energy, ROCs subsidy, and fossil fuel constraint costs all at the same time at the moment.
Our bills will rise every time a new windfarm is connected and the proportion of our electricity which carries this triple whammy increases.
peter macdonald
20-Jun-10, 17:18
Look on the bright side ...at least you can have the debate without being social outcasts as this idiot put it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/wind-farms-opposition-ed-miliband
Sara Jevo
20-Jun-10, 19:26
I recognise that the growth in wind energy comes from political direction of the market, just as it did in the days of nuclear.
Politically, the country has set goals to reduce or constrain the environmental impact of electricity production. Greater use of renewables is one way of doing this.
Of course, it could be argued that curbing energy consumption might be more effective than simply changing the mix.
Look on the bright side ...at least you can have the debate without being social outcasts as this idiot put it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/wind-farms-opposition-ed-miliband
Fortunately, this idiot won't be in government for at least another 4 or 5 years
The more I read, the more I try to follow the debate, the more money I pay for the electricity I use the more I'm convinced I'm being conned!
In other parts of the world a new generation of coal fired power stations are regularly commissioned.
In other parts of the world a new generation of nuclear power stations are being built.
Are we the only country trying to save the world? If so, why?
As I see it we all share the same atmosphere whichever way the wind blows. So why is it so necessary for Britain to try to change the way we generate electricity? If man made pollution is a global issue then surely what is needed is a global response?
Interesting remarks.
Could it just be you haven't looked for the answers?
ywindythesecond
20-Jun-10, 22:03
I recognise that the growth in wind energy comes from political direction of the market, just as it did in the days of nuclear.
Politically, the country has set goals to reduce or constrain the environmental impact of electricity production. Greater use of renewables is one way of doing this.
Of course, it could be argued that curbing energy consumption might be more effective than simply changing the mix.
In 2009 National Grid consulted with the Electricity Industry on
“Operating the system beyond 2020.”
This the briefing note at the start of the process.
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/A54F1220-7BAA-43C5-B2F7-C45C54409089/35114/FactSheet2020SO1.pdf (http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/A54F1220-7BAA-43C5-B2F7-C45C54409089/35114/FactSheet2020SO1.pdf)
EU rules say we must close down about 16GW of dirty oil and coal generation in 2016. Some nuclear will close and some nuclear will be built by 2020.
16GW of coal and oil may be replaced by 32GW of wind and 12GW of new gas generation in NG’s 2020 scenario.
The wind comes when it wants and the gas comes if the people we get it from are still friendly to us or don’t get a better offer from someone else with more money.
It is not National Grid’s idea of how to run a power system. NG are just trying to make work what our leaders decree must happen, sensible or not.
And yes, curbing consumption is by far the best way to reduce emissions.
Interesting remarks.
Could it just be you haven't looked for the answers?
Oh I've looked. With so many conflicting views I can't see the wood for the trees. :confused
Oh I've looked. With so many conflicting views I can't see the wood for the trees. :confused
What is conflicting about seeing that other countries are also going renewable to answer your own question?
Are we the only country trying to save the world?
EU directives and the Copenhagen agreement are good places to look.
Your question about nuke power, we are building new nukes as well, so not just in other countries and the tories have ring-fenced any political interference by the lib dems, that is another question answered.
What is conflicting about seeing that other countries are also going renewable to answer your own question?
EU directives and the Copenhagen agreement are good places to look.
Your question about nuke power, we are building new nukes as well, so not just in other countries and the tories have ring-fenced any political interference by the lib dems, that is another question answered.
Thanks for that Reghead. But does that mean the EU is cutting back European greenhouse gas emissions so that China, India and the USA can carry on emitting greehouse gases unhindered? :confused
:eek: I thought this was a global issue not just a European one.
Of course, it could be argued that curbing energy consumption might be more effective than simply changing the mix.
Amen to that but...
How/why could/should an energy company encourage us to use less energy when it profits from that energy and rewards cheaper rates for bigger users. Using less energy is just a non-starter. Why do we waste energy when we know it costs us?
Thanks for that Reghead. But does that mean the EU is cutting back European greenhouse gas emissions so that China, India and the USA can carry on emitting greehouse gases unhindered? :confused
:eek: I thought this was a global issue not just a European one.
That is not true China are taking there part in Greenhouse gas emissions. There are a few big wind farms being built in china and more on the way. Tidal power as well. There is also a lot more electric power mopeds being sold as well. I know they have a lot more to do but don't knock a country that is trying.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.