Merry xmas baillie windfarm!!!

[ywindythesecond]

MERRY XMAS BAILLIE WINDFARM!!!

Baillie Windfarm has now clocked up £500,728 in payments since 28th June 2013 to NOT generate electricity in periods when there is not sufficient capacity on the grid to take it.

When it is generating normally, it will earn roughly £50 per MWh for electricity and £50 in subsidy which is paid for partly through our electricity bills and partly through everything we buy (because there is an electricity cost in the price of everything).

When National Grid asks Baillie to shut down generation at times of oversupply, it pays Baillie for the electricity it has been unable to sell. But Baillie also loses out on its £50 subsidy, and because NG at that point has the stark choice of paying Baillie what it asks for or cutting off electricity supply to Caithness, NG has little choice but to pay Baillie what it asks for and that is £149 per MWh (to compensate for the loss of £50).

Before any of the usual trolls say it, NG pays all sorts of generators to either turn off production or step up production to maintain grid stability, and yes it is a lot more than is paid in total to wind. This is an essential service for grid balancing, but a gas generator for example will be compensated for the electricity is has been unable to sell at around £50, and will then give NG a refund for the fuel it has saved.

NG only asks wind to shut down when it has exhausted all its other options. Wind generation is shut down to maintain grid stability, not as an act of grid balancing.

If the proposed Spittal Hill Windfarm had been operational in that period it would have clocked up another £200,291 to NOT generate electricity. If we don’t need Baillie’s electricity, we certainly don’t need Spittal Windfarm.

[Tubthumper]

So now anyone that disagrees with your obsessions or who points out the truth is a troll? You're not just nuts, you're quite a nasty piece of work.

[orkneycadian]

Fortunately, now that he is on the ignore list, I can't see what he is nuts about this time! I have half an idea though! :D

[ywindythesecond]

So now anyone that disagrees with your obsessions or who points out the truth is a troll? You're not just nuts, you're quite a nasty piece of work.
Thanks Tubs. Can I take it that you are happy to pay your share of Baillie Windfarm's windfall payment of £500K to not generate electricity since 28th June 2013?

[cptdodger]

Thanks Tubs. Can I take it that you are happy to pay your share of Baillie Windfarm's windfall payment of £500K to not generate electricity since 28th June 2013?

It is not a case of being happy or not being happy about it. Exactly what option do any of us have, but to pay our share ?

[Tubthumper]

Bearing in mind the subsidies we're lashing out to farmers, fishermen, nuclear decommissioners and researchers in various guises, it's pretty insignificant so I'm happy enough.

Can anyone remember what the 'Dounreay Obligation' was, that used to be identified on the old Hydro electricity bills back in the 1990s?

[Tubthumper]

Also it's hardly a 'Windfall' payment is it? It's part of the agreement.

[ywindythesecond]

[QUOTE=Tubthumper;1061789]Also it's hardly a 'Windfall' payment is it? It's part of the agreement.[/QUOTE
What agreement would that be Tubs?

[spurtle]

I'm told that Baillie and Camster cannot operate in optimum conditions at the same time, as they overload the system One or other of them, in these circumstances, must shut down. Do they have an arrangemnet together?
Financially, it is obviously much more interesting to them not to operate, and that is the real scam.

[Rheghead]

Sounds like that improved transmission capacity needs to be a priority. But then Ywindy was against that as well. Oh the irony...

[Tubthumper]

[QUOTE=Tubthumper;1061789]Also it's hardly a 'Windfall' payment is it? It's part of the agreement.[/QUOTEWhat agreement would that be Tubs? I'm not a windfarm obsessive so I wouldn't know. How much is being given to Sellafield for decommissioning?

[ywindythesecond]

[QUOTE=ywindythesecond;1061804] I'm not a windfarm obsessive so I wouldn't know. How much is being given to Sellafield for decommissioning?
It's just that you sounded as if you knew what you were talking about when you posted "Also it's hardly a 'Windfall' payment is it? It's part of the agreement."
But apparently not.

[Tubthumper]

Sorry if I disappointed you Ywindoid. Some of us just have to make do with being ordinary. We have to leave the specialist parts to those of you with sound knowledge of the subject. And an unbiased point of view.

[weezer 316]

ywindy my friend, why do you spend so much time on such a small amount of money being paid as a subsidy? You subsidised the banks of the UK by about £8000 (along with every other ax payer) to the tune of almost £500bn, which utterly dwarfs the ENTIRE uk energy sector, never mind the subsidies. Why havent I seen you post on this? Are you being paid to post this?

[mi16]

The bank bailouts were loans not subsidy

[ywindythesecond]

You are right weezer, £500K is a small sum to pay for a subsidy for something worthwhile, but one third of that already is the subsidy, the rest is simply the transfer of money from consumers to fortunate developers and generators who can benefit from the disastrous "Connect and Manage Regime" put in place by the last Labour Giovernment and extended by the Coalition in the very early days of its rule and clearly with no understanding of the consequences. Google Connect and Manage and look for NG's quarterly report finishing 30th June 2013. http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/093614C6-E56B-43C6-BAE0-4B8CBB5FE0D2/61872/ConnectandManageQuarterlyReport010413to300613v10.p df. £17 million had been paid out to generators of 600MW capacity over the three month period. It tells us that NG has signed contracts for 36.5GW of generation to be connected to the grid on average 5 years before the infrastructure is in place. The simple sum is if 600MW C&M generation gives rise to £17million pointless cost over one quarter, then 36.5GW of generation connected 20 quarters before the transmission is in place will cost us £20.7bn. For no gain, for no public benefit, for no reduction is carbon emissions, for no saving in GHGs. Simply to transfer wealth from consumers to generators and their shareholders etc. And it is being allowed to continue because no politician has the guts to tell us what a mess they have put us in. Let me just ask you weezer, if Stadtkraft, the owners of Baillie had sent some nice representative round every door in Scotland and insisted that each person give him 10p just to make the company richer, how much do you think he would have got? How much would you have paid him. (£500,000x100p/5,000,000 people =10p.) And, by the way he is due another visit for the next installment.
Baillie is only one of many wind farms benefitting in this way, and it is increasing daily. Also, other technologies will also come into play.
Please look at http://www.ref.org.uk/constraints/index.php and read the links.

Anyone seriously interested in learning more or even challenging what I am saying in private without being hijacked is more than welcome to pm me.

And weezer, we didn't know we were being shafted by the banks at the time. We have only ourselves to blame for being shafted by Connect and Manage and all the other fine scams masquerading as saving the planet, it is being done under our noses.

[Tubthumper]

Whatever Wendy. it's becoming a very worn record.
I wonder how much subsidy the new tidal power that's being developed will get. Obviously there will have to be incentives to encourage people to invest and build the things.
Question is, will our resident wind buffoon get on his high horse about that? Or is it just onshore wind he does?

[2little2late]

MERRY XMAS BAILLIE WINDFARM!!!

Baillie Windfarm has now clocked up £500,728 in payments since 28th June 2013 to NOT generate electricity in periods when there is not sufficient capacity on the grid to take it.

When it is generating normally, it will earn roughly £50 per MWh for electricity and £50 in subsidy which is paid for partly through our electricity bills and partly through everything we buy (because there is an electricity cost in the price of everything).

When National Grid asks Baillie to shut down generation at times of oversupply, it pays Baillie for the electricity it has been unable to sell. But Baillie also loses out on its £50 subsidy, and because NG at that point has the stark choice of paying Baillie what it asks for or cutting off electricity supply to Caithness, NG has little choice but to pay Baillie what it asks for and that is £149 per MWh (to compensate for the loss of £50).

Before any of the usual trolls say it, NG pays all sorts of generators to either turn off production or step up production to maintain grid stability, and yes it is a lot more than is paid in total to wind. This is an essential service for grid balancing, but a gas generator for example will be compensated for the electricity is has been unable to sell at around £50, and will then give NG a refund for the fuel it has saved.

NG only asks wind to shut down when it has exhausted all its other options. Wind generation is shut down to maintain grid stability, not as an act of grid balancing.

If the proposed Spittal Hill Windfarm had been operational in that period it would have clocked up another £200,291 to NOT generate electricity. If we don’t need Baillie’s electricity, we certainly don’t need Spittal Windfarm.


Thanks for this info Ywindy. I am totally against windfarms. I knew they aren't feasible but i did not realise this is what we are paying for in our energy bills. Many thanks for posting.

[Rheghead]

Are you being paid to post this?

Yes, he does have financial interests with objecting to wind farms. That is his main incentive.

[ywindythesecond]

Yes, he does have financial interests with objecting to wind farms. That is his main incentive.

Please post details of my financial interests and main incentive. Otherwise people might think you just have a grudge.
I'll say it again. Please post details.

[ywindythesecond]

Whatever Wendy. it's becoming a very worn record.
I wonder how much subsidy the new tidal power that's being developed will get. Obviously there will have to be incentives to encourage people to invest and build the things.
Question is, will our resident wind buffoon get on his high horse about that? Or is it just onshore wind he does?

You don't need to wonder Tubs. The subsidy for new tidal power is already settled. Why don't you know that?

And while you check out the things you don't know about wind, wave, and tidal power subsidy, ask yourself the questions.

What happens when there is no wind?
What happens when there are no waves?
What happens when the tide is turning?

And what happens when you can't boil your kettle?

[ywindythesecond]

/
It is not a case of being happy or not being happy about it. Exactly what option do any of us have, but to pay our share ?
Good question cpt. We don't actually have any option. If we deduct an amount from our bills that we don't want to pay, we end up in court. So we have to pay. We can still badger our politicians and tell them that we don't want to give our money away for no good reason. And make it clear to them that if they dont think our way, they won't get our vote next time.

The big question is what are we paying for when Baillie Windfarm gets all the extra money?

[RIR]

Not just windfarms:

http://www.orcadian.co.uk/2013/12/serco-northlinks-full-subsidy-during-refit-is-absurd-mcarthur/ (http://www.orcadian.co.uk/2013/12/serco-northlinks-full-subsidy-during-refit-is-absurd-mcarthur/)


Ian.

[orkneycadian]

Fortuitously, with the Ignore List doing its stuff, I can't see what he is on about this time. Judging by the the thread title, and the responses from others, I could hazard a guess that its the same old drum being banged about windfarms being paid not to produce.

Now, if he is actually what he says he is, then this self appointed guardian of the public purse, going around righting wrongs with subsidies, will notice that the huge level of subsidy that will be paid to Serco (see link in posting above) to not run a ferry service for 2 and a half weeks next month will likely be many times more than whatever windfarm gets paid what for when its not producing. If he were truly concerned about subsidies, and their payment for non delivery of contracted service, then he will switch his attention from the minor to the major.

If he doesn't start investigating the Serco subsidy, and start posting on here on a regular basis about how much its costing the Caithness taxpayer to subsidise a ferry that doesn't run to Orkney, then we will know where his true colours lie. Heaven forbid, if he remains silent on the Serco subsidy racket, then it might even show that he is simply someone who doesn't like windmills, and all this "supporting evidence" is nothing other than bluster.

I might even temporarily take him off the Ignore List to see what happens in the next, crucial, 24 hours!

[RagnarRocks]

I can't remember which paper I read it in but there was an article which was about the ferries around the islands and how much money they recieve ( calmac if I recall correctly ? ) basic premise was the amount of subsidy recieved by the company currently providing the service, buying expensive ships etc was sufficient for another potential operator to provide the service for free if they recieved the same subsidy.If this is the case I'm amazed how these subsidies are abused for nothing more than profit of shareholders. The same would go for wind farms if it doesn't benefit the public instead of shareholders why are they being paid and who is giving out the contracts. These are areas which need reforming as it means that we the public are not getting value for money and the state is complicit in this charade.

[orkneycadian]

Its worse than that Ragnar Rocks. The subsidised company doenst need the subsidy to buy the expensive ships. They are provided. Probably at a lease cost, but still provided. All the subsidised operator needs to do is rock up to the ferry terminals (already there), operate the ships (already there) and carry the traffic (was already there, but dwindling away to a shift to other operators)

Unlike windfarms, there is already an operator on the Pentland Firth carrying the majority of the traffic, without any subsidy. This makes the situation even more of a charade, and I am honestly very surprised that our local Subsidy Guardian appears to have done nothing about it as yet. Particularly since it is the case that hundreds of millions of subsidy have been poured into the Pentland Firth and Northern waters over the last decade or so. Last I saw a post from Ywindy, he was bemoaning a couple of hundred thousand. I think thats about the same as Serco get in a few days.

[ywindythesecond]

Headline from the Mail today
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2529297/Title-goes-here.html
"£30 million for wind turbines that don't work when it's windy: Cost is £25 million higher than last year and paid for by household bills

National Grid is unable to cope with extra power produced"
£5million for the whole of 2012.
£4.65million in December 2013 so far.
£1.63million since I started this thread, but none of it to Baillie.

Every windfarm, every small single turbine, every toy solar panel and every field of solar panels added makes the problem worse.

If your medicine makes you worse, you stop taking the medicine!

[orkneycadian]

Anyone seen any posts from Ywindy, expressing his outrage about subsidy that will be paid to Serco to not run a ferry service to Orkney for 2 and a half weeks in January? By my estimations, that will amount to just short of £200k per week. Almost exactly 10 times the level of subsidy that Ywindy gets his knickers in a twist about that gets paid to his favourite windfarm per week because the grid is not yet strong enough to cope.

One would have though that, as our self appointed Subsidy Guardian, he would have been on the case of this right away. There must be a right lot of Caithness taxpayers who are seriously disappointed to find out that they are contributing 10 times more to a ferry that doesn't sail, than they do to a a windfarm that doesn't turn.

[ywindythesecond]

Anyone seen any posts from Ywindy, expressing his outrage about subsidy that will be paid to Serco to not run a ferry service to Orkney for 2 and a half weeks in January? By my estimations, that will amount to just short of £200k per week. Almost exactly 10 times the level of subsidy that Ywindy gets his knickers in a twist about that gets paid to his favourite windfarm per week because the grid is not yet strong enough to cope.

One would have though that, as our self appointed Subsidy Guardian, he would have been on the case of this right away. There must be a right lot of Caithness taxpayers who are seriously disappointed to find out that they are contributing 10 times more to a ferry that doesn't sail, than they do to a a windfarm that doesn't turn.
As I was apparently on your ignore list at the time this thread started you seem unaware that this thread is not about subsidy, it is about the cost of the Connect and Manage regime of which payments to Baillie Windfarm are the small tip of the iceberg.

Please revisit posts # 1 and #16, and if you have anything to contribute to the topic of this thread, I will be happy to engage with it. Unlike you, (#Now, if he is actually what he says he is, then this self appointed guardian of the public purse, going around righting wrongs with subsidies,) I am not prepared to enter into discussions about things which I am not familiar with, so I have nothing to say about Serco subsidies and which was not my reason for starting this thread.

It was to try to raise awareness of the massive and pointless cost of Connect and Manage, of which Baillie is a visible and familiar example.

[orkneycadian]

As I mentioned above Ywindy, I would temporarily take you off the ignore list in order that we could see your views on subsidies 10 times that of Baillie windfarm being spent on a ferry that doesn't sail. So yes, I have read your postings above, and they do fall into the expected category.

You state above that the thread is not about subsidy, but opened it with a post that mentioned subsidy twice, then mentioned it a further twice in #16

And now you state that you have no interest in what happens with subsidies far greater than the one you started off the thread with.

All this gives a truer picture, and I think it goes something like;

Ywindy doesn't like windmills. Fair enough - Everyone is entitled to their opinion
Ywindy told some others that he doesn't like windmills, expecting support and sympathy
Ywindy was disappointed to find that the majority of others didn't share his view, and either liked windmills or had no strong opinion either way
Ywindy then looked for other information to try and support his view that he doesn't like windmills, in order to try and sway the opinions of others
Ywindy starting posting information on matters that he wasn't really concerned about, providing it appeared to bolster his own opinion.

It appears then that all this concern about how the public and bill payers money is being spent is hollow. If you have no concern about 10 times the subsidy being spent on a ferry that doesn't sail, then you might as well come clean and just tell us that you don't like windmills. Plain and simple. If you have no concern about how public money is spent, then don't try to cloud issues by making out that you do. Its that kind of hypocrisy that got you on the ignore list in the first place, and your temporary emergence from it has confirmed that the same hypocrisy is still present in these threads.

[ywindythesecond]

[QUOTE=orkneycadian;1062326]As I mentioned above Ywindy, I would temporarily take you off the ignore list in order that we could see your views on subsidies 10 times that of Baillie windfarm being spent on a ferry that doesn't sail. So yes, I have read your postings above, and they do fall into the expected category.

You state above that the thread is not about subsidy, but opened it with a post that mentioned subsidy twice, then mentioned it a further twice in #16
QUOTE]

There is more from okc, read #30.

The use of the word “subsidy” in a post does not mean that that is the topic of the post. The opening line of #16 is:

“You are right weezer, £500K is a small sum to pay for a subsidy for something worthwhile, but one third of that already is the subsidy,”

This opening line is followed by about 500 other words, none of which is “subsidy”.

Your infantile vendetta against me is taking precedence over fact, but I have to thank you for the opportunity to restate my case here so that viewers of this post can see what the purpose of the thread is without having to backtrack through all the diversions.

In #1 used the word “subsidy” twice but it would have been better if it had actually been used three times:

“Baillie Windfarm has now clocked up £500,728 in payments since 28th June 2013 to NOT generate electricity in periods when there is not sufficient capacity on the grid to take it.

When it is generating normally, it will earn roughly £50 per MWh for electricity and £50 in subsidy which is paid for partly through our electricity bills and partly through everything we buy (because there is an electricity cost in the price of everything).

When National Grid asks Baillie to shut down generation at times of oversupply, it pays Baillie for the electricity it has been unable to sell. But Baillie also loses out on its £50 subsidy, and because NG at that point has the stark choice of paying Baillie what it asks for or cutting off electricity supply to Caithness, NG has little choice but to pay Baillie what it asks for and that is £149 per MWh (to compensate for the loss of subsidy worth only £50).”

The red highlighted words have been inserted by me, other parts are in bold to draw attention to the context in which “subsidy” is used.

Back to #16, it includes the following which illustrates my motivation for starting this thread:

“Google Connect and Manage and look for NG's quarterly report finishing 30th June 2013. http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonl...o300613v10.pdf (http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/093614C6-E56B-43C6-BAE0-4B8CBB5FE0D2/61872/ConnectandManageQuarterlyReport010413to300613v10.p df). £17 million had been paid out to generators of 600MW capacity over the three month period. It tells us that NG has signed contracts for 36.5GW of generation to be connected to the grid on average 5 years before the infrastructure is in place. The simple sum is if 600MW C&M generation gives rise to £17million pointless cost over one quarter, then 36.5GW of generation connected 20 quarters before the transmission is in place will cost us £20.7bn. For no gain, for no public benefit, for no reduction is carbon emissions, for no saving in GHGs. Simply to transfer wealth from consumers to generators and their shareholders etc. And it is being allowed to continue because no politician has the guts to tell us what a mess they have put us in.”
(My emphasis).

Viewers, please visit #1 and 16 for their full context.

[orkneycadian]

Ywindy, if you don't like windmills, just say so. We don't need all the smoke and mirrors.

Now, wheres that Ignore List re-activation button....

[RagnarRocks]

I don't mind the windmills can't say I'm so favourably inclined towards the subsidies.

[mi16]

Fortuitously, with the Ignore List doing its stuff, I can't see what he is on about this time. Judging by the the thread title, and the responses from others, I could hazard a guess that its the same old drum being banged about windfarms being paid not to produce.Now, if he is actually what he says he is, then this self appointed guardian of the public purse, going around righting wrongs with subsidies, will notice that the huge level of subsidy that will be paid to Serco (see link in posting above) to not run a ferry service for 2 and a half weeks next month will likely be many times more than whatever windfarm gets paid what for when its not producing. If he were truly concerned about subsidies, and their payment for non delivery of contracted service, then he will switch his attention from the minor to the major.If he doesn't start investigating the Serco subsidy, and start posting on here on a regular basis about how much its costing the Caithness taxpayer to subsidise a ferry that doesn't run to Orkney, then we will know where his true colours lie. Heaven forbid, if he remains silent on the Serco subsidy racket, then it might even show that he is simply someone who doesn't like windmills, and all this "supporting evidence" is nothing other than bluster.I might even temporarily take him off the Ignore List to see what happens in the next, crucial, 24 hours!Orkney, if you have windy on ignore why do you feel the need to post on his threads?

[mi16]

I don't mind the windmills can't say I'm so favourably inclined towards the subsidies.I have no problem with windmills It's those ruddy great wind turbines I have issues with

[ywindythesecond]

It's not just me that is banging on
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10542388/Wind-farms-handed-5-million-to-switch-off-turbines-as-thousands-of-homes-left-without-power.html

[orkneycadian]

Orkney, if you have windy on ignore why do you feel the need to post on his threads?

Och, don't worry - He's back on the Ignore List again. Unfortunately, it doesn't suppress the baffled or annoyed postings by others, who he has tried to mislead, and at some point, you wonder what syrup he is feeding them this time.

We know now that when he posts about the costs, the pounds, shillings and pence, its not the money he is worried about. He's just looking for support for his "I don't like windmills" club. Keep that in mind, and you won't go far wrong.

[susie]

Do you know that Baillie wind farm is owned by the Norwegian government? Aren't Norwegians better off than all of us, with their huge pension schemes etc? Do we get anything in return?