Better days again for poor old Baillie Windfarm!

[ywindythesecond]

Poor old Baillie Windfarm has had to make do with getting paid for generating electricity for about six weeks now, and that is tough when it is only twice as dear as proper electricity.

Good news is that over the last couple of days its electricity has not been needed and it has gone back to the good times of getting paid four times the value of its electricity not to produce it.

On 27th January, it got £68K for losing about £22K of subsidy, and about £22K for losing the sale of about £22K worth of electricity, and we paid a gas coal or nuclear generator about £22K for the electricity we actually needed and used.

It cost us £112K for £22K worth of electricity. If there was no Baillie Windfarm, that would have cost us £22K.

It wasn’t Baillie’s best day so far though. On 30th September 2013 it cost us £165K for £33K worth of electricity. If there was no Baillie Windfarm, that would have cost us £33K.

Since 28th June 2013, we have paid Baillie Windfarm about £777,000 not to supply about £197,000 worth of electricity which we have bought elsewhere.

Is everyone happy with that?

http://www.ref.org.uk/constraints/detailbywf2.php?bmunit=E_BABAW-1

[weezer 316]

Yawn yawn yawn

Your still wrong

[Niall Fernie]

I found this article on constraint payments interesting...

http://www.scottishenergynews.com/national-grid-to-publish-breakdown-of-all-payments-for-not-generating-electricity/

L (http://www.scottishenergynews.com/national-grid-to-publish-breakdown-of-all-payments-for-not-generating-electricity/)ooking forward to the full report.

[Tubthumper]

Thanks for that Niall. Unfortunately it doesn't comply with ywindy's established facts re wind farms being bad and therefore we can say, with absolute certainty, that the National Grid are wrong. Indeed they may even be part of the great wind power lies machine.

[ywindythesecond]

Yawn yawn yawn

Your still wrong
In what way am I wrong weezer? Have you read National Grid's Quarterly report on the Connect and Manage Regime ending 30th June 2013?
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/093614C6-E56B-43C6-BAE0-4B8CBB5FE0D2/61872/ConnectandManageQuarterlyReport010413to300613v10.p df

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background to Connect & Manage (C&M)
Following consultation on models for improving grid access, the Department of Energy and ClimateChange (DECC) introduced the enduring C&M regime in July 2010 with an implementation date of 11August 2010. Under this access regime, generators are offered connection dates based on the timetaken to complete a project’s ‘enabling works’, i.e. ahead of the completion of any wider transmissionsystem reinforcements required under the security standards. Connecting generators ahead of thecompletion of wider works may result in additional constraints on the National Electricity TransmissionSystem. Under the C&M regime any costs arising from the management of these constraints are socialised

"Socialised" means spread among the other consumers.

[weezer 316]

Yawn again!

Quoting the linke above....

"A spokesman for National Grid said: “In the last financial year, £28 million was paid out to wind energy generators in constraint payments, whilst in total £138 million in constraint payments was paid out to coal, gas and other generators – almost six times as much. "

Now answer me WHY aren't you going nuts about the 6x as much that went to fossil fuel generators??

Infct dont bother, we all know why, your a luddite likely on the payroll of some anti-climate change mob/oil company.

[Tubthumper]

Careful weezer, he'll be threatening legal action on you! (After a bottle or two)

[weezer 316]

Oh no, legal action! Might as well admit I own about 10 turbines and I am sitting in the bahamas right now at the world wind farm conspiracy conference, planning world domination by , faster, less used turnbines, getting grapes fed to be by some buxom masseur, all at YOUR expense! Cheers suckers

[Tubthumper]

I'm alaays baffled why the costs of decommissioning the UK nuclear power fleet never get considered by blinkered clods like ywindy. I know he ignores the facts about coal , oil & gas constraint payments so he can maintain the myth of wind power baaad, but ignoring the huuuuge subsidies handed to the nuclear industry while constantly whining about legit payments to the nasty wind turbines seem a bit, well, silly.

[LMS]

I'm alaays baffled why the costs of decommissioning the UK nuclear power fleet never get considered by blinkered clods like ywindy. I know he ignores the facts about coal , oil & gas constraint payments so he can maintain the myth of wind power baaad, but ignoring the huuuuge subsidies handed to the nuclear industry while constantly whining about legit payments to the nasty wind turbines seem a bit, well, silly.I would think that the difference is that wind farms generally line the pockets of a few whereas Dounreay lines the pockets of thousands of Caithness families.

[vanman1]

think you need to get a life ywindy, take it you get free energy with the amount o hot air coming out your mouth

[ywindythesecond]

think you need to get a life ywindy, take it you get free energy with the amount o hot air coming out your mouth
Would you like to add something intelligent?

[ywindythesecond]

Oh no, legal action! Might as well admit I own about 10 turbines and I am sitting in the bahamas right now at the world wind farm conspiracy conference, planning world domination by , faster, less used turnbines, getting grapes fed to be by some buxom masseur, all at YOUR expense! Cheers suckers


I'm alaays baffled why the costs of decommissioning the UK nuclear power fleet never get considered by blinkered clods like ywindy. I know he ignores the facts about coal , oil & gas constraint payments so he can maintain the myth of wind power baaad, but ignoring the huuuuge subsidies handed to the nuclear industry while constantly whining about legit payments to the nasty wind turbines seem a bit, well, silly.

It astonishes me that you two will go to great lengths to not open your minds. Everything I post on this matter is backed up by hard fact. I point you to facts and where you can get the hard information, mostly from National grid itself, but you do not go and check it out.

Tubs, I am particularly disappointed in you because I used to think you had a balanced viewpoint but you haven't been displaying it recently. I don't expect you to agree with me but I do expect reasoned argument for why you do not, not mudslinging.

I am also astonished that you both seem to be happy to have your money squandered in increasing sums and for no benefit to you or consumers anywhere.

Tubs. Try starting off by explaining to the readers how the "legit payments to the nasty wind turbines" come about and why they are massively inflated over payments to coal oil and gas generators.

And I agree that the payments to windfarms are "legitimate" because that has been put in place by Government.

That does not make them morally right, commercially viable, or affordable. The payments are only there because of very bad decision making in Government. Read about "Connect and Manage". That is my grouse, and only when enough people know how they are being stuffed, will Government take note.

[ywindythesecond]

I found this article on constraint payments interesting...

http://www.scottishenergynews.com/national-grid-to-publish-breakdown-of-all-payments-for-not-generating-electricity/

L (http://www.scottishenergynews.com/national-grid-to-publish-breakdown-of-all-payments-for-not-generating-electricity/)ooking forward to the full report.

Niall. This is the article which prompted Scottish renewables to go whingeing to national grid.22620 The Scottish Times Newspaper published it. National Grid did not dispute it. NG said it doubted the sums but did not offer any alternative sums. Scottish Renewables did not even attempt to discredit me about it. Don't you think if I was wrong about it they would just have shredded me once and for all?

[Tubthumper]

I don't think, windy, that you're in any position to criticise anyone about refusing to accept information provided by others! And precisely who do you think you are, to be 'disappointed' in me? I swallowed a lot of your self-serving garbage before I went looking for myself, even down to giving poor old rheggy a hard time. Mudslinging? Hah, at least I haven't descended to threatening legal action (then cunningly pretending it never happened).And I notice that as usual you've ignored the point I was making ie your unwillingness to comment on the subsidies lashed at the nuclear industry - that's paid for by all of us as well. So why no great song and dance about that for balance?

[ywindythesecond]

[QUOTE=Tubthumper;1067419]I don't think, windy, that you're in any position to criticise anyone about refusing to accept information provided by others! QUOTE]
What information have you provided Tubs please?
As regards nuclear, if you want to talk about it start your own thread. This one is about windfarm constraint payments.

[Tubthumper]

I don't think I'll bother putting any information forward. Oh wait a minute, here's some information:
You used to claim a number of 'facts' regarding wind turbines which have turned out to be wrong. Or fibs. Or disinformation.
The only thing you can cry about now is the constraint payments made to wind generators which are (a) legit (b) reasonable in comparison to those made to other energy sources. But whenever anyone points out this fact you ignore them and return to the only song you have left.
Regarding my nuclear question - you wanted balance, well why not try to wheedle some sympathy for the poor taxpayer shelling out billions to clean up the residue of that energy source. Too hard for you is it?
You have an obsessive hatred of onshore wind generation. And you can't bring yourself to change your state of mind. That, as I've said before,is a dangerous place to be.
You need help.
Is that enough information for you?

[ducati]

Here is a very basic question to the fans of, well, all renewables really.

Given that conventional generation requires a massive industry with huge expensive equipment to generate, and then has to buy fuel from another massive industry with huge expensive equipment to extract or mine the fuel (then refine some of it), and renewables is a massive industry with huge expensive equipment but generates without having to buy the fuel, why isn't renewable energy several magnitudes cheaper?

[ywindythesecond]

You used to claim a number of 'facts' regarding wind turbines which have turned out to be wrong. Or fibs. Or disinformation.

Such as?

The only thing you can cry about now is the constraint payments made to wind generators which are (a) legit (b) reasonable in comparison to those made to other energy sources. But whenever anyone points out this fact you ignore them and return to the only song you have left.


How is it reasonable to pay Baillie four times the base cost of electricity to not generate eletricity when coal oil or gas get paid about the cost of electricity to not generate when required and hand back a rebate for the fuel saving? Incidentally, many other Highland windfarms also get constrained off from time to time but take a much smaller payment for the loss of a £50 ROC.

Baillie £149 total so far £580,013
Beinn Tharsuinn £74 £2,100,950
Edinbane £99 £1,626,083
Farr £96 £6,061,053
Gordonbush £77 £2,738,916
Kilbraur £86 £3,794,351
Millenium £81 £4,944,845
TOTAL in Highland £21,846,211

Simple transfer of wealth because the wind industry persuaded politicians to make National Grid connect windfarms years before the transmission arrangements were in place. Connect and Manage. Google it. The facts are all there.

[ywindythesecond]

Here is a very basic question to the fans of, well, all renewables really.

Given that conventional generation requires a massive industry with huge expensive equipment to generate, and then has to buy fuel from another massive industry with huge expensive equipment to extract or mine the fuel (then refine some of it), and renewables is a massive industry with huge expensive equipment but generates without having to buy the fuel, why isn't renewable energy several magnitudes cheaper?

Good question Ducati, but as I don't expect you will get an answer from them it is because of ROCS, FITS, Connect and Manage, inflated strike prices, and of course the massive cost of reversing our grid system to take power generated from remote and dispersed places to the centres of population somewhere south of Birmingham.

[Rheghead]

[/U]TOTAL in Highland [U]£21,846,211


All that song and dance about a socialised cost per capita of 36p.

You scaremongered it could cost £20 billion over 5 years.:roll:

[ywindythesecond]

All that song and dance about a socialised cost per capita of 36p.

You scaremongered it could cost £20 billion over 5 years.:roll:

I didn't scaremonger anything. This is my full paper. Anyone taking part in this thread should read it before posting.

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/SY Briefing Note.pdf


I took National Grid's own figures and asked the question:

“On the basis of the NG figures, which show that 13 projects with a connected capacity of 600MW* generated £17m of constraint payments in the three months ending 30th June 2013, what total value of constraint payments can we expect from a contracted connection of 36.5GW on average five years#ahead of the system being capable of transmission?

A simplistic calculation is (36,500MW/600MW) x £17m x 20 quarters = £20,700,000,000 (£20.7bn). There is not, so far, any other calculation to dispute this.

That’s TWENTY POINT SEVEN BILLION POUNDS.”

The Times Newspaper, Scottish Edition, picked up the story and as you will have read gave National Grid the opportunity to comment. NG did not think the cost would be so great, nor did it offer any other calculation to dispute my presentation of its own figures.

The editor of the Times decided the item was newsworthy and published it, and if you think I have any influence over editorial content in the Times you are up a gumtree.

[Rheghead]

The Times Newspaper, Scottish Edition, picked up the story and as you will have read gave National Grid the opportunity to comment. NG did not think the cost would be so great, nor did it offer any other calculation to dispute my presentation of its own figures.

So you are right and the National Grid are wrong.

Did it ever occur to you that your calculation was so stupid that it didn't warrant a refutation?

[ywindythesecond]

So you are right and the National Grid are wrong.

Did it ever occur to you that your calculation was so stupid that it didn't warrant a refutation?

Read it again Reggy, Post 22
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?219367-Better-days-again-for-poor-old-Baillie-Windfarm!/page2