View Full Version : Bhlaraidh Windfarm and rising constraint costs
ywindythesecond
09-Dec-12, 19:47
On Tuesday 11th December the Highland Council South Planning and Appeals Committee will meet to decide whether to support or oppose the Bhlaraidh Windfarm proposal (Invermoriston- one of the so-called "Ring of Steel" windfarms around loch Ness). Planning officials recommend that the Council supports it. If the Councillors decide to oppose it, there will be a public inquiry.
In Highland we are suffering from that old-fashioned Planning Term “overprovision”. There is already too much wind energy connected to be managed at reasonable cost to customers. We only have a handful of large windfarms connected in Highland to date and a total of at least 243 turbines over 17 windfarms with a capacity of 569MW have planning consent but are not yet operational. In addition we have dozens if not hundreds of smaller single turbines built, consented, or in the system, all adding to the problem of overprovision.
Scotland-wide the problem of the Scotland/England border connection restriction is already severe in spite of recently having been increased by around 50% of its capacity, and current grid expansion plans will not resolve that problem.
As windfarms currently operational are constrained off from time to time it follows that any additional windfarms connected to the grid will also require to be constrained off from time to time. The average cost of windfarm constraint across Scotland to date is £176/MWh. It will cost £100,144 an hour to constrain off the consented but not yet operational major windfarms in Highland. Bhlaraidh Windfarm if consented will add a further £19,008 an hour.
ywindythesecond
11-Dec-12, 23:17
Today Highland Council South Planning and Appeals Committee resolved to not oppose Blaraidh Windfarm at Invermoriston. It will not be visually intrusive unless you are a hillwalker and anyway the Scottish Government has left so few planning reasons for refusal that the Committee had no choice.
What is ludicrous about this is the fact that there is not the capacity on the grid to deal with existing windfarms never mind consented but not yet constructed windfarms and we still add more. The cost of dealing with unwanted wind energy is many times the cost of having to take heavily subsidised (by the consumer) wind energy. On 9th December, two days ago, Scottish windfarms were paid £395K to NOT generate electricity for the reasons stated.
Even more ludicrous is the fact that at the very time the Committee was making its decision, the 5301MW of windpower which National Grid meters was producing only 79MW out of 5301MW possible.
Put another way, equal to about 75% of the output from the single windfarm not opposed today.
Every cloud has a silver lining and the good thing today was our electricity was cheap because there was effectively no wind.
What is even more ludicrous and disturbing is that Highland Council decided that a site visit for this monstrous development was not necessary. Two councilors spoke of the need and 6 voted for a visit - 8 against. Following that an unanimous vote to not object. How? What happened to the 6 that wanted the site visit? The Scottish Government will probably now rubber stamp this through. No objection. No public inquiry. No place safe. Should someone wish to build an extension or conservatory and their neighbours object, Highland Council will probably go and take a look before making a decision. Apply to build a massive factory needing miles of infrastructure, thousands of tonnes of concrete and a site visit is 'not necessary'. Have the council no funds to go and take a look and see what will be in the landscape for a generation? Do they not want a public inquiry? They cannot afford a public inquiry more like. With planning fees at £15k and a two week public inquiry £67k (confirmed) - how democratic, robust & fair can they afford to be?
The cost of subsidies for wind farms is expected to top a billion pounds this
year for the first time.
According to an analysis of official figures by the think-tank Renewable Energy
Foundation (REF), the total annual subsidy for onshore and offshore wind farms
has, for the first time, topped £1billion. REF estimates that on current
renewable energy targets – and with only modest cuts – the energy companies will
have received £100 billion in subsidies by 2030
REF said it expects 10 companies, between them, to pocket £800million through
subsidies over the next 12 months.
The biggest winner is Dong Energy, a Danish energy company £156 million in subsidies.
The next highest earner is Vattenfall a Swedish company £128 million.
Only two of the companies are British-owned – Centrica, which will receive £58
million in subsidy and SSE, which is due £53 million.
The remaining energy companies that make money out of British wind farms and
British consumers are based in Germany, Norway, Spain and Italy.
The cost of subsidies for wind farms is expected to top a billion pounds this
year for the first time............The remaining energy companies that make money out of British wind farms and
British consumers are based in Germany, Norway, Spain and Italy.
I wish people would provide the reference when they copy complete sections of text from a website:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9400147/Wind-farm-subsidies-to-top-1bn-this-year.html
I wish people would provide the reference when they copy complete sections of text from a website:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9400147/Wind-farm-subsidies-to-top-1bn-this-year.html
I did not copy a complete section only a few parts to keep it short.
What a fantastic development, another wind farm in the right place. No objections, everyone happy except the irrationally obsessed.
What a fantastic development, another wind farm in the right place. No objections, everyone happy except the irrationally obsessed.
Irrationally obsessed I take it you are describing yourself[lol]
No not happy. Tired of fighting, demoralised, out of time and money to keep objecting to the applications that are flooding in. There were objections - more than support. Not a fantastic development, not the right place, not a viable, affordable energy source. Yet another symbol of the massive mistake being made by this government. Quoting Thatcher won't make it right. Campaigners are fighting for future generations.
No not happy. Tired of fighting, demoralised, out of time and money to keep objecting to the applications that are flooding in. There were objections - more than support. Not a fantastic development, not the right place, not a viable, affordable energy source. Yet another symbol of the massive mistake being made by this government. Quoting Thatcher won't make it right. Campaigners are fighting for future generations.
Have you ever thought if you were fighting on the wrong side? Not just economically, technically, environmentally but morally as well? And that is the reason why you think it is futile?
If you haven't already noticed but just about every environmental group that represents the health and well being of the Earth and climate scientist is screaming at world leaders for more renewable energy to get us off fossil fuels that are destroying the planet.
As I see it there is only one person here that is 'irrationally obsessed.' What is the point of covering the country with wind turbines when the grid doesn't have the capacity to cope with the power being generated? Someone somewhere is pocketing a hefty wedge in subsidies and then pocketing another hefty wedge when their turbines have to be ‘switched off.’ Rheghead you are obviously a person with adequate financial resources and happy to pay these 'green levies.' Many more people are at their wits end trying to cover their energy bills - but I guess you're all right Jack.
Have you ever thought if you were fighting on the wrong side? Not just economically, technically, environmentally but morally as well? And that is the reason why you think it is futile?
If you haven't already noticed but just about every environmental group that represents the health and well being of the Earth and climate scientist is screaming at world leaders for more renewable energy to get us off fossil fuels that are destroying the planet.
There are just as many scientists saying the opposite just because some scream the loudest does not mean they are correct
How many of the media put across both side's s of the story
115. Views differ on the extent to which CO2 emissions are reduced through greater penetration of renewable forms of generation. This is because the thermal generation necessary to back up supply is made to run at part load, producing lower efficiencies
“A variety of studies have been done, one is the ‘The Bentek’ study and another study based on real data from the Irish National Grid59 (http://forum.caithness.org/#_ftn59), shows that there is actually a slight increase in CO2 emissions as wind energy contributions increase.”(note the words real data)
The Institution of Engineering and Technology was also concerned, stating: “at the extreme, the resulting overall emissions from a combination of renewable sources and inefficient or high carbon sources deployed on the margin for balancing, it potentially could exceed those which might be generated from conventional carbon-based plant such as CCGT”.61 (http://forum.caithness.org/#_ftn61)
Duncan Burt, National Grid disagreed with these views, arguing that—
“Wind power reduces the carbon intensity of the grid. That is not just a National Grid view; it is entirely consistent with the view of the Committee on Climate Change”.62 (http://forum.caithness.org/#_ftn62)
119. And WWF Scotland, during oral evidence, cited work by Garrad Hassan, which predicted that “if we meet the 100 per cent target, we will save about 13 million tonnes of CO2…which represents about 21 per cent of all the emissions from 1990”.63 (http://forum.caithness.org/#_ftn63) (note the word predicted)
The Committee is satisfied that wind power reduces the carbon intensity of the grid. What a surprize
This was an extract taken from a Scottish parlament report.
As I see it there is only one person here that is 'irrationally obsessed.' What is the point of covering the country with wind turbines when the grid doesn't have the capacity to cope with the power being generated?
It is purely a temporary issue. The grid is getting upgraded to cope with it all.
There are just as many scientists saying the opposite just because some scream the loudest does not mean they are correct
How many of the media put across both side's s of the story
115. Views differ on the extent to which CO2 emissions are reduced through greater penetration of renewable forms of generation. This is because the thermal generation necessary to back up supply is made to run at part load, producing lower efficiencies
“A variety of studies have been done, one is the ‘The Bentek’ study and another study based on real data from the Irish National Grid59 (http://forum.caithness.org/#_ftn59), shows that there is actually a slight increase in CO2 emissions as wind energy contributions increase.”(note the words real data)
The Institution of Engineering and Technology was also concerned, stating: “at the extreme, the resulting overall emissions from a combination of renewable sources and inefficient or high carbon sources deployed on the margin for balancing, it potentially could exceed those which might be generated from conventional carbon-based plant such as CCGT”.61 (http://forum.caithness.org/#_ftn61)
Duncan Burt, National Grid disagreed with these views, arguing that—
“Wind power reduces the carbon intensity of the grid. That is not just a National Grid view; it is entirely consistent with the view of the Committee on Climate Change”.62 (http://forum.caithness.org/#_ftn62)
119. And WWF Scotland, during oral evidence, cited work by Garrad Hassan, which predicted that “if we meet the 100 per cent target, we will save about 13 million tonnes of CO2…which represents about 21 per cent of all the emissions from 1990”.63 (http://forum.caithness.org/#_ftn63) (note the word predicted)
The Committee is satisfied that wind power reduces the carbon intensity of the grid. What a surprize
This was an extract taken from a Scottish parlament report.
I'm glad that the National Grid support the truth that wind power reduces carbon emissions, good governance requires the best technical and scientific findings.
If wind didn't reduce carbon emissions or even increased CO2 then I will be the first to say they were useless.
Many more people are at their wits end trying to cover their energy bills - but I guess you're all right Jack.
It is my firm opinion that decarbonising our energy is the only way to stabilise energy prices. The main reason why the price of energy is rising is because of the price of coal and gas.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.