BT wind energy

[peter macdonald]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/19/bt_wind_farms/
PM

[j4bberw0ck]

The BT Director responsible was interviewed on Radio Orkney this morning; he whiffled on about low carbon footprints, environmental responsibility, lots of good stuff. Appealed to those in Orkney who might object on aesthetic grounds to windmills on the hill overlooking Kirkwall to think about it from a social responsibility standpoint.

Not once did he mention the substantial income from ROCs which, unless BT intends to put in its own version of the National Grid, or unless it can figure out a way to stamp this electron "BT" and that electron "others", is presumably the real reason why they're getting involved?

Always happy to be corrected where necessary :lol: . They must want their share of the £32 billion a year (of OUR MONEY) the government will be subsidising wind energy by, come 2020.

[Rheghead]

It's nice to see BT, a British hallmark company, diversifying into a worthwhile business sector. Good for business, better for the environment.


They must want their share of the £32 billion a year (of OUR MONEY) the government will be subsidising wind energy by, come 2020.

I was under the impression that it was energy consumers that was subsidising the renewable energy sector, not by direct taxation. Anyway, the transition to a low carbon economy is not going to be pain free. If energy costs are raised then consumers will have more incentive to reduce waste and manufacturers will improve efficiency of their products.

Less energy demand would then mean less windfarms, no?

[j4bberw0ck]

I was under the impression that it was energy consumers that was subsidising the renewable energy sector, not by direct taxation.

Yes, each household's electricity bill will be several hundred pounds higher than it would otherwise have been to provide the £32 billion to subsidise the windmill operators, who'll make some very nice sums of money, thanks.

If your electricity bill is hundreds of pounds higher specifically because that money is needed to provide ROC payments to operators, that's a direct tax. Whether it's called a tax or not.

If there were no ROCs involved in this, there'd be no windfarms. Ruinously uneconomical.

[Rheghead]

If there were no ROCs involved in this, there'd be no windfarms. Ruinously uneconomical.

Or any other type of renewable energy for that matter. If there was no ROCs then hopes of getting a low carbon economy off to a quick start would be impossible. It would be either ROCs or the other scheme that Ofgem proposed which would also push up costs to consumers.

We either pay higher energy prices now and get our low carbon economy under way or we pay higher bills when we get fined for not meeting our national obligations and then we'll have nothing to show for it in terms off meeting kyoto or its successor which will be mandatory.

Do we want to go 'low carbon' or not? If we do then we should stop whinging. No pain no gain....

[j4bberw0ck]

Do we want to go 'low carbon' or not? If we do then we should stop whinging. No pain no gain....

Well, there, you see, you're at the crux of my argument.

The politicians, on the basis of climate modelling that can't explain the observations past, present or future, have done their Kyotos and their conferences and decided that we should. Now they're paying academics to produce results which agree with the decision they, the politicians, have already made.

So £32 billion will come out of the public's earned income by 2020 to bolster a decision made years ago on the strength of some failed American presidential candidate who decided he had a whole new career as a doomsayer. If decision-making was being done more rationally, government would be spending money on researchers into anthropogenic warming AND the competitor theories, so that a better-informed decision could be taken.

Imagine how much good that £32 billion could do in other sectors of the economy! As it is, it'll swell the coffers at least in part, of BT.

It's not about climate change. It's about grabbing a chunk of the money that's sloshing about everywhere because politicians can't resist tinkering.

[Rheghead]

So £32 billion will come out of the public's earned income by 2020

Well thats £32 billion over 18 years (since the start of the RO) = £1.8 billion/year.

That's less than £30 per person per year. But a big chunk of that will be paid by business.

[ywindythesecond]

It's not about climate change. It's about grabbing a chunk of the money that's sloshing about everywhere because politicians can't resist tinkering.

Its not about climate change and its not about politicians tinkering. It started with Blair agreeing legally binding CO2 emission reductions at KYOTO, and instead of Government taking the responsibility of working out how to do it, put the burden on the generating industry and gave it our money as a sweetener to make it worth their while.

The reason for this was that no political party was prepared then to accept the hard fact that nuclear energy is the only reliable way of producing clean base load generation which is controllable, and under our control. Blair, on his way out, acknowledged this, but by and large, politicians still are unwilling to put their heads above the parapet.

An example of gross political fudge recently was the Scottish government's answer to too much emphasis on onshore wind, and not enough on marine renewables. It doubled our subsidy of marine renewables, not halved our subsidy of onshore wind. But we are no worse off. Nobody in their right mind would invest their money in an offshore windfarm when a cheap, easy and highly profitable onshore one is available.

[Rheghead]

Nobody in their right mind would invest their money in an offshore windfarm when a cheap, easy and highly profitable onshore one is available.

Offshore is already taking place. One thing is for sure, as the offshore wind sector matures, the cost of siting will come down and prospective investors will become more confident on a return for their money in order to take advantage of the better load factors that offshore demonstrates.

[j4bberw0ck]

Well thats £32 billion over 18 years (since the start of the RO) = £1.8 billion/year.

Uh, no. That's a couple of billion a year just now, increasing by 2020 to £32 billion a year.

Figure based on the UK Govt's commitment to renewable energy (20% by 2020) and the current level of ROC bribes inducements taxes payments.

Of course, by 2020 the windmills being built now will be reaching the end of their useful lives so we'll start again....... perhaps if we have to do this then someone will come to their senses and build a couple of nuclear power stations to supply reliable energy in large quantities.

[j4bberw0ck]

Its not about climate change and its not about politicians tinkering. It started with Blair agreeing legally binding CO2 emission reductions at KYOTO

Interesting information; thanks. However, I'll stick to my guns if you don't mind on politicians tinkering.

As for Kyoto, it's hard to think of a more ignored and more useless set of agreements; no one other than Britain appears to be making even a pretence of complying, so "legally binding" would seem to be in some doubt.

[Rheghead]

Uh, no. That's a couple of billion a year just now, increasing by 2020 to £32 billion a year.

Uh, no. I don't think so. It has only cost us £1.7 billion to the date of the Ofgem report (Jan 2007) since the scheme started back in 2002.


The existing RO scheme is forecast to cost customers £32bn over the life of the
scheme.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environmnt/Policy/Documents1/16669-ROrespJan.pdf

Since the cost is markedly less than your estimate, I'd imagine any reasonable person might be in favor of it now. I suspect not though....now what was that about tinkering?:)

[peter macdonald]

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1774674.0.0.php
Wind energy is being to look cheaper !!!

I see nuclear energy has entered the debate I wonder has anyone worked out truly the costs of that source???? including de-commisioning storage etc Clean ?? its really hard to know One thing is for certain if Dounreay has been the standard for clean up costs and effect on the local environment then lets just forget it
PM
ps I see the Swedes have solved their nuclear waste problem

http://www.thelocal.se/1849/20050806/
http://www.thelocal.se/1849/20050806/

[j4bberw0ck]

Wow. This took some finding. Rheggers, you don't half put out some postings.... I was off the air for a while and then away for some days.


Uh, no. I don't think so. It has only cost us £1.7 billion to the date of the Ofgem report (Jan 2007) since the scheme started back in 2002.

Yep. Good "gotcha" - I'd got the numbers wrong. Well, the period over which the number applies.

It's interesting, though, that at £32 billion total cost in subsidy we could have spent the money on 15 nuclear power stations and solved our power generation needs properly for a good many years.

Some fun to establish what an amount of money £32 thousand million is:
in £1 coins laid edge to edge, would extend to the moon and back

in £1 coins piled in columns one of top of another, columns placed so they're in contact with surrounding columns, and all columns equal to the height of the Empire State Building, you'd have 264,620 piles of coins, and a rectangular block measuring 38 feet x 38 ft x 1250 feet. It would weigh 304,000 metric tonnes.

is the money that runs Scotland for 1 year

runs the NHS for 4 months

give us all a year off for: Stamp duties, Tobacco duty, Vehicle excise duty, Beer & cider duties, Inheritance tax, Spirits duties, Insurance Premium tax, Capital gains tax, Wine duties, Customs Duties & levies, Betting & Gaming duties, Petroleum revenue tax, Air Passenger duty, Climate Change Levy, Land fill tax, and the Aggregates levy

give everyone earning under the National Average Wage several years off income tax

or it's the money transferred from the overtaxed British people in higher electricity bills to companies like BT who build pointless windmills which'll do nothing to save the planet over a 20 year period but it'll let the politicians play at having done something. Oh, and of course make some easy money....
Which would you all prefer, folks? Durrrr......... :lol::lol:

[j4bberw0ck]

I wonder has anyone worked out truly the costs of that source???? including de-commisioning storage

Decommissioning costs are about 9-15% of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power plant. But when discounted, they contribute only a few percent to the investment cost and even less to the generation cost. In the USA they account for 0.1-0.2 cent/kWh, which is no more than 5% of the cost of the electricity produced. (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm)

(Result of a quick Google. No doubt the figure will be controversial)

[Riffman]

The problem with all these 'renewable' wind farms, is that at the end of the day they are not a low carbon option, they are a means of meeting irrational targets set by the government.

Any half witted baboon can see that we will not be 40% renewable by 2050, but any half witted baboon can also see that now is a good time to make money from the 'green' faction.

If I wanted to make money I would build wind farms. If I wanted to make electricity I would make an CHP waste burning plant.

We dump huge amounts of rubbish in holes in the ground each year, yet we could burn it all to produce energy (both heat and power) and that would save us having to also run gas/coal fired power stations.

The advantages are obvious, but it would not been seen as 'renewable' and thus not meet these stupid targets that are totally impossible.

I'm afriad that any wind farms built too close to my house might suffer from critcal stress fatigue and suddenly keel over....

[Mr_Me19]

If I wanted to make money I would build wind farms. If I wanted to make electricity I would make an CHP waste burning plant.

The problem isn't a lack of electricity. It's the waste gases that are produced by burning fuels. Wind power is clean. CHP's, while very efficient and a great idea which I support, are not. Thats how the government sees it.

And just on a side note. All this may cost us a lot now, but it wont be a problem in the future. Only we can change the future. If we all sit around complaining about cost then it is only going to get worse.

[j4bberw0ck]

Wind power is clean.

No. Absolute garbage. Each wind farm needs thousands of tons of steel processed, copper and nickel mined and processed, hundreds of thousands of road miles driven, huge quantities of oil-sourced plastics and paints, miles and miles of roads made across sensitive environmental sites, ground dug up (releasing carbon dioxide sequestered there over thousands of years), thousands of tons of concrete transporting and casting to form the bases.

And then the thing needs replacing in 20 years and will work meanitime at an efficiency of about 20 - 30% of its rated capacity - with luck.

And because wind farms can't produce power on demand, other power stations idle along at lower efficiencies so that they're ready to top up the grid supply when East Enders finishes and everyone puts the kettle on.

And for this, the public will have £32 billion removed from their taxed income and paid to the wind farm owners. It's lunacy. Total lunacy.

[golach]

J4bber, we need do do something to save our planet, do you agree or not?
If you do what do you suggest?

[j4bberw0ck]

Golach, I've already answered that one. Yes is the answer, if we assume that there's something it needs saving from other than a natural warming and cooling cycle. I accept, by the way, that there's climate change going on.

Let me ask you this: If, one evening, you're sitting watching TV, enjoying a glass of Old Minger or whatever your favoured tipple is, and you notice a drip of water fall from the ceiling, to be immediately replaced by another, what do you do?

Do you:

(a) do nothing. Que sera, sera. You go back to your glass of Old Minger, muttering about shoddy building quality.
(b) look outside to see if it's raining?
(c) panic, and call the roofing company to replace the roof?
(d) call the plumber to replumb your house?
(e) make a careful inspection of the loft space to see if there's any obvious reason for a leak, and act only after a calm, logical appraisal of the situation has resulted in finding the cause?

As far as a gorbal worming simile is concerned, the politicians have done (b), (c) and (d).

The academics are the roofers, who, sniffing money and fame, are all over it like a rash making money while they can. They've never seen so much of it before and reckon they won't ever again, either.

What no one is doing is (e). It's been decided that the roof needs done, and now nothing else will do. Question is, will it stop the leak? Or was it just a leaky pipe joint all along?

[Rheghead]

No. Absolute garbage. Each wind farm needs thousands of tons of steel processed, copper and nickel mined and processed, hundreds of thousands of road miles driven, huge quantities of oil-sourced plastics and paints, miles and miles of roads made across sensitive environmental sites, ground dug up (releasing carbon dioxide sequestered there over thousands of years), thousands of tons of concrete transporting and casting to form the bases.

And then the thing needs replacing in 20 years and will work meanitime at an efficiency of about 20 - 30% of its rated capacity - with luck.

And because wind farms can't produce power on demand, other power stations idle along at lower efficiencies so that they're ready to top up the grid supply when East Enders finishes and everyone puts the kettle on.

And for this, the public will have £32 billion removed from their taxed income and paid to the wind farm owners. It's lunacy. Total lunacy.

How does that compare with all the CO2 that they mitigate though?:confused

[Rheghead]

Wow. This took some finding. Rheggers, you don't half put out some postings.... I was off the air for a while and then away for some days.



Yep. Good "gotcha" - I'd got the numbers wrong. Well, the period over which the number applies.

It's interesting, though, that at £32 billion total cost in subsidy we could have spent the money on 15 nuclear power stations and solved our power generation needs properly for a good many years.

Some fun to establish what an amount of money £32 thousand million is:
in £1 coins laid edge to edge, would extend to the moon and back

in £1 coins piled in columns one of top of another, columns placed so they're in contact with surrounding columns, and all columns equal to the height of the Empire State Building, you'd have 264,620 piles of coins, and a rectangular block measuring 38 feet x 38 ft x 1250 feet. It would weigh 304,000 metric tonnes.

is the money that runs Scotland for 1 year

runs the NHS for 4 months

give us all a year off for: Stamp duties, Tobacco duty, Vehicle excise duty, Beer & cider duties, Inheritance tax, Spirits duties, Insurance Premium tax, Capital gains tax, Wine duties, Customs Duties & levies, Betting & Gaming duties, Petroleum revenue tax, Air Passenger duty, Climate Change Levy, Land fill tax, and the Aggregates levy

give everyone earning under the National Average Wage several years off income tax

or it's the money transferred from the overtaxed British people in higher electricity bills to companies like BT who build pointless windmills which'll do nothing to save the planet over a 20 year period but it'll let the politicians play at having done something. Oh, and of course make some easy money....
Which would you all prefer, folks? Durrrr.........

A good 'gotcha' wasn't my intention, I was just wanted to show you that the cost is a small fraction to what you initially thought, a reasonable next thought would be to retract one's assertions that the renewable obligation is an expensive gimmick. But I am glad to see you acknowledge that stuff in black and white sometimes doesn't lie afterall.

So, anyway, that is ~£30 per person per year to kickstart a low carbon economy then?[lol][lol] Cheap at half the price!

[j4bberw0ck]

Rheggers, £32 billion is £32 billion, and it's an extraordinary amount of money. It's being transferred from the taxed income of ordinary people to the coffers of companies and some of the wealthiest individuals in the country.

I have no problem with wealth, with companies, with profits; far from it. They energise the economy.

I have a huge problem with incompetent government interference based on a complete lack of scientific proof.

Roof replacement, anyone?

[Rheghead]

Rheggers, £32 billion is £32 billion, and it's an extraordinary amount of money. It's being transferred from the taxed income of ordinary people to the coffers of companies and some of the wealthiest individuals in the country.

I have no problem with wealth, with companies, with profits; far from it. They energise the economy......based on a complete lack of scientific proof

Then you should support the Renewable obligation for energising a low carbon economy, no doubt these companies will pass on their profits to shareholders and/or reduce bills?

As for your aside comment about scientific evidence, I feel you aren't going to acknowledge the damning strength of it. Frankly, I do not quite understand what you don't understand about it? We've been here before though, and I am not going to go on and on with the science or the fact that even the real skeptic climatologists (Patrick Michaels et al)actually acknowledge that mankind is responsible for the majority of the climate change. You are actually on your own and being skeptical for being skeptical's sake.

[j4bberw0ck]

How does that compare with all the CO2 that they mitigate though?:confused

Quite a while ago now there was a thread about this when you argued that they were a wonderful technology and I argued that nowhere was it clear that when you took the "end to end" cost, cradle-to-grave as it were, of a windfarm in terms of carbon footprint, that the wind generators are a net benefit. I argued that these were the sort of figures we should have before charging off investing money in a redundant technology that cannot meet anything like our present and future power needs.

I argued then we need a "CO2 quantity per MW" figure for the different technologies - all of them "end to end" and including the construction, generating and decommissioning phases. I can't find that information; if it doesn't exist, then we're just, ah, urinating in the breeze - with a blindfold on.

I suppose though that if such figures don't exist, the £32 billion transferred from those least able to pay to those making serious dosh for no apparent environmental gain could be regarded as a tax on stupidity? :lol:

[j4bberw0ck]

Then you should support the Renewable obligation for energising a low carbon economy, no doubt these companies will pass on their profits to shareholders and/or reduce bills?

They will of course pass profits to shareholders so it can be argued many will benefit through our pensions and so on. Problem is you don't seem to be familiar with concepts like marginal rates of taxation; just like the way we work income tax, a levy on electricity disproportionately targets the poorest in society and so those least able to pay. So we get government-managed absurdities (again) where the poorest subsidise the wealthiest (because the poorest don't generally have pension and investment plans to benefit from a company's profits largesse).

Or do you believe the ends justify the means and to hell with victimisation?


Frankly, I do not quite understand what you don't understand about it? We've been here before though, and I am not going to go on and on with the science or the fact that even the real skeptic climatologists (Patrick Michaels et al)actually acknowledge that mankind is responsible for the majority of the climate change. You are actually on your own and being skeptical for being skeptical's sake.Unfortunately, I have to concur with the sentiment behind your first comment - but in my case it's that I don't understand why you don't understand about being certain it's the roof leaking before you replace the roof. I feel that what you have here is an illogical position based on faith; the proof being lacking, you have faith that so many people stating one position can't be wrong. I'm surprised you aren't deeply religious, too. We'll gloss over coprophagia and flies..... :lol:

Rheggers, the windmill question isn't about whether Man is responsible for some or all or none of climate change and it applies regardless of what I might think or not think.

It's about whether kneejerk reactions like subsidising a limp-wristed generating technology like wind power are actually worthwhile. Do they "save" any CO2, calculated end to end? Can they really make a difference? Can we store their power effectively? Are they really only 30% or less efficient? Is it right to decrease economic output by removing yet another multi-billion Pound sum from the population? And if so, for what result?

If we're serious then for heaven's sake let's get a nuclear power station program going.

[dozy]

Rheghead
Can you explain how Windturbines reduce Co2 levels ?
Plus China are bring a New Coal Fired Powerstation on line EVERY week for the next 2 years to forge the steel to built these machines.
China will also have 10 million new car on their roads this year alone and that is due to double by 2010 .
This country is trying to get people to stop driving on get on their bikes, but the Biggest biking national is doing the opposite.
You have no doubt read the report that peat extraction/disturbance during the Turbine installation process exceeds any CO2 saved over the life of the turbine,so the turbine is a CO2 producer NOT and saver ..

[j4bberw0ck]

You have no doubt read the report that peat extraction/disturbance during the Turbine installation process exceeds any CO2 saved over the life of the turbine,so the turbine is a CO2 producer NOT and saver ..

Dozy, that's a key part of the "end-to-end" calculation and if you have any sources of information for that I'd be very grateful. Nice one.

[Rheghead]

Rheghead
Can you explain how Windturbines reduce Co2 levels ?



You have no doubt read the report that peat extraction/disturbance during the Turbine installation process exceeds any CO2 saved over the life of the turbine,so the turbine is a CO2 producer NOT and saver ..

The National Grid say that they can make fossil fuel production redundant.

No, I haven't, any link to that report?

[dozy]

j4bberw0ck;
There was a small article in the P&J last week, but i got the whole study sent to me by e-mail as part of the Group .
What i find strange is that the WINDYS think they are always right .When engineers like myself who have worked in the power industry for 30 years and have been involved in the design/manufacture/installation and study of the energy returns from these things .Tell them they are WRONG.Turbines are just CASH cows for the few, paid for by the many..
They will never reduce CO2 levels,infact its the opposite .
They scar the landscape and destroy the Environment they are SAID to help protect..
I must therefore conclude the supporters these things must have some financial reason.
Its like the survey that was carried out in WICK and THURSO on the Dunbeath Turbines .Many people believe that the county supports Turbines, but infact the opposite is TRUE. The question asked by the folk with the clipboards was NOT do you want Turbines but" DO YOU SUPPORT RENEWABLE ENERGY" and thats why people signed ..It was a con from the start ,and if they are up to these types of tricks what else have they been up too.
I would have to doubt any Studies by developers and the EIS/EAS put forward for planning approval.
There is a paragraph in the Human Rights Bill that could put a death nail in these types of developments and would see Councillors and Developers in Big trouble .There is No hiding place for breaches of these rights...
Just do alittle digging the info is out there ..
Is there any place in Caithness were you cant see these MACHINES from shortly..

[Rheghead]

j4bberw0ck;
There was a small article in the P&J last week, but i got the whole study sent to me by e-mail as part of the Group .
What i find strange is that the WINDYS think they are always right .When engineers like myself who have worked in the power industry for 30 years and have been involved in the design/manufacture/installation and study of the energy returns from these things .Tell them they are WRONG.Turbines are just CASH cows for the few, paid for by the many..
They will never reduce CO2 levels,infact its the opposite .
They scar the landscape and destroy the Environment they are SAID to help protect..
I must therefore conclude the supporters these things must have some financial reason.
Its like the survey that was carried out in WICK and THURSO on the Dunbeath Turbines .Many people believe that the county supports Turbines, but infact the opposite is TRUE. The question asked by the folk with the clipboards was NOT do you want Turbines but" DO YOU SUPPORT RENEWABLE ENERGY" and thats why people signed ..It was a con from the start ,and if they are up to these types of tricks what else have they been up too.
I would have to doubt any Studies by developers and the EIS/EAS put forward for planning approval.
There is a paragraph in the Human Rights Bill that could put a death nail in these types of developments and would see Councillors and Developers in Big trouble .There is No hiding place for breaches of these rights...
Just do alittle digging the info is out there ..
Is there any place in Caithness were you cant see these MACHINES from shortly..

No link then?:roll:

[peter macdonald]

There is a paragraph in the Human Rights Bill that could put a death nail in these types of developments and would see Councillors and Developers in Big trouble .There is No hiding place for breaches of these rights...
Could you show me where you have evidence 1) of this paragraph and 2) where it has been enforced... Please

"I must therefore conclude the supporters these things must have some financial reason"
Maybe it might be that some people like windmills and see them as a thing of beauty it maybe they see them as being a symbol against dependence on middle eastern oil , it maybe that folks see them as an alternative to Nuclear energy
However if you are suggesting that councillors are being bought or on the take then i would like to see evidence and examples of that as well
PM

[Rheghead]

However if you are suggesting that councillors are being bought or on the take then i would like to see evidence and examples of that as well
PM

It was interesting to see that former councillor Mowat was encouraging others to vote 'yes' for the windfarm developments and he denied any involvement with the developers.

[dozy]

Mr Macdonald ;
All the information is out there if you take the time to look ,but you then have to verify it for your own piece of mind.I will only point the way .Thereafter its up to you .
I make NO suggestion that people are on the take.
What i do say is "When people in power have been given the WRONG or CORRUPTED information or bow down to pressure given from above that leads to a decision that is not wholly in the Public interest or if it favours individuals /companies that will profit from such developments .
We have the right to ask questions
If i ,you or others bring to these peoples attention facts that are in direct conflict with the developers and they do not take these facts onboard or fail to fully investigate before they make a diction .Then the failure is theirs alone .
We have a right to ask questions and the LAWS states that ignorance is No excuse
You see Mr Macdonald its always the people with the MONEY that want to build turbines.
Why do you think that is .

[j4bberw0ck]

The National Grid say that they can make fossil fuel production redundant.

The Grid say that? I thought their job was just to deliver electrons generated by others, from point A to point B? But they must surely refer to nuclear power to have any hope of no fossil fuel dependence?

[Rheghead]

The Grid say that?

Yes, they did say that.

[j4bberw0ck]

Then I can do no more than take your word for it, and wonder how the body charged with power distribution (but not generating) (http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/energyandservices) could achieve such a thing. Perhaps a course at Hogwart's?

I was glad I went to their website. It gave me the best laugh of the afternoon so far to see the section called "Current Vacancies". What else could they be? :lol::lol:

[Rheghead]

Then I can do no more than take your word for it

No need, I am being nice to you...:)

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/sys_06/default.asp?action=mnch4_17.htm&sNode=1&Exp=Y

[peter macdonald]

Very true Rheggers but he is a former councillor .What Im interested in is there any kick backs going on now or is this one of (as it said on the east coast of Caithness) the "Thur sayin" jobs
All best
PM

[Rheghead]

I argued then we need a "CO2 quantity per MW" figure for the different technologies - all of them "end to end" and including the construction, generating and decommissioning phases. I can't find that information; if it doesn't exist, then we're just, ah, urinating in the breeze - with a blindfold on.

I suppose though that if such figures don't exist, the £32 billion transferred from those least able to pay to those making serious dosh for no apparent environmental gain could be regarded as a tax on stupidity? :lol:

You weren't looking hard enough.

http://www.uic.com.au/ComparativeCO2.htm

Carbon emissions due to wind energy is minute compared to fossil fuel energy. Nuclear is comparable but recoverable uranium is a finite resource (and is fraught with environmental problems of recovery)and what happens then? We will have to take advantage of renewables with gusto sooner or later.

[dozy]

Rheghead;

See P&J 27th Oct 2007 "Warning over Windfarms' co2 Threat"
www.viewsofscotland.org/snp_conference (http://www.viewsofscotland.org/snp_conference)

[Rheghead]

Rheghead;

See P&J 27th Oct 2007 "Warning over Windfarms' co2 Threat"
www.viewsofscotland.org/snp_conference (http://www.viewsofscotland.org/snp_conference)

So windfarms are vindicated for mitigating carbon dioxide, payback in 3.5 years, that's great!! :) Though I do see some exagerations in the sums, I'm not arguing the toss over it, it still works out at ~60g/MWh using hostile data (eg he contests the 0.86tCO2/MWh mitigation figure so he arbitrarily decided to half it to 0.43tCO2/MWh, total biased unscientific fudge factor[lol] ).

[j4bberw0ck]

No need, I am being nice to you...:)

The strain must be getting to you. They're not talking about generating the power, they're talking about if there's enough of it, they can distribute it. Marvellous stuff, of course, but the necessary number of windmills to do that is enormous.

Why not just build a few nuclear power stations and do the job properly?


You weren't looking hard enough.
Carbon emissions due to wind energy is minute compared to fossil fuel energy. Nuclear is comparable but recoverable uranium is a finite resource (and is fraught with environmental problems of recovery)and what happens then? We will have to take advantage of renewables with gusto sooner or later.

Recoverable uranium is certainly finite, but not so's we'd notice for the next millennium or so. By then the whole gorbal worming thing will be over because the human race will have the skills and the wealth to deal with it; assuming nature itself hasn't sorted the problem, of course, by doing what nature likes and returning the the mean (or median, if you prefer).

As to the carbon "debt" of windfarms, I'll admit I'm impressed with the figures given (surprised to find you quoting figures from a source which clearly is shooting for increased nuclear, but there we go). The definition given of "end to end" may be something to look at - the source of the figures is partisan (as is the whole climate change lobby, when pro or anti) so when it talks about construction and decommissioning, personally (just for me because I wouldn't trust people with an agenda encompassing these huge sums of money any further than I could throw one of their damn windmills) I'd like to see some more detail in there defining the factors.

Nuclear power stations are likely, I'd have thought, to use more concrete, for instance, so more CO2; windfarms are likely to release more carbon from sequestration because of the area they cover and the type of area they tend to be built in. I'd like to see, for instance, whether release from sequestration is covered and the effect. And before you roll your eyes and say I'm just trying to avoid having to admit I'm wrong, how certain would you, personally, want to be about government spending thousands of millions of ££££ in your name, of your money, and whether it was doing any good. If you trust the government in this, you're not learning from other life experiences.....

Also, I'd have to point out for the third or fourth time that wind generation works only because of subsidies - no ROCs, no windmills. That simple. ROCs are a means of transferring money from the poor to the wealthy. That bit is hidden behind pious and self-serving political rhetoric. So why don't we let the market sort it out?

[Rheghead]

the source of the figures is partisan (as is the whole climate change lobby, when pro or anti) so when it talks about construction and decommissioning, personally (just for me because I wouldn't trust people with an agenda encompassing these huge sums of money any further than I could throw one of their damn windmills) I'd like to see some more detail in there defining the factors.

I had one or two problems in sourcing my info, I had to make it impartial or anti-wind info so you would find it harder to throw away, the nuclear industry sort of sufficed for that, given your pro-nuke sentiments. Also, Dozy's info from the P&J worked a treat to prove my point. Even with hostile data the carbon cost per MWh came out comparable to the worst case impartial data, eg ~60gCO2/MWh-48gCO2/MWh respectively, that is a match given the bias in the data. As for end to end, those figures do include decommissioning.

As for your comment about replacing any need for wind power with nuke and the finite resources of uranium, and whether we would feel the pinch of availability for a millennium or so, just doesn't seem logical to me. For me, the raison d'etre for renewable energy is to generate energy with a sustainable cost to the environment, the gradual introduction of renewables and the change to a low carbon economy will mean that the subsequent carbon footprint of further renewable developments will be reduced dramatically. Nuclear doesn't offer us sustainability over the time frames of climate change, which are of the order of millennia.

[Rheghead]

Also, I'd have to point out for the third or fourth time that wind generation works only because of subsidies - no ROCs, no windmills. That simple.

I will have to disagree, again. There are several windfarms that were built and operating pre 2002 when the RO came into being.

[oldmarine]

Certainly a lot of wind farms in the state of California, USA.

[dozy]

Rheghead ;
are all Windys looking through Rose tinted glasses or do they just cherry pick what they want to see or hear .
Would you and any other WIND TURBINE supporters sign up to a scheme that would only allow you/them to get electricity when the Turbines are turning.Its a small piece of equipment that will cut the supply if the wind drops below or exceeds safe operating speeds of the turbine.It would last for say 3 months over the winter DEC 07-MAR 08..

[KittyMay]

Rheghead ;
are all Windys looking through Rose tinted glasses or do they just cherry pick what they want to see or hear .

Dozy – reasons for windy support.

They’re lovely majestic structures.
They add character to an otherwise boring landscape.
Rather a wind farm than a nuclear power plant.
There’s a renewable energy target to meet.
They’re temporary structures and can easily be removed. (that one always gets me)
We’re running out of oil.
We’re running out of coal.
We’re running out of gas.
Uranium is a finite resource.
We must reduce our carbon emissions.
If releasing carbon from natural carbon sinks is required for developing wind farms, so be it.
They wouldn’t build wind farms if they didn’t work.
Onshore wind encourages the development of other renewable technologies.
Climate change.
Global warming.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Facts, you really can’t argue with. It’s just a pity that onshore wind won’t make a blind bit of difference to any of the above.

If you believed onshore wind was the answer to replacing our existing dirty (and nuclear) generators and reversing climate change you (and I) too would support it.

Now let us be grateful that we don’t actually depend on wind generated electricity on this extremely cold and windy day. It seems the Causewaymire turbines are having a day off.

[Rheghead]

If you believed onshore wind was the answer to replacing our existing dirty (and nuclear) generators and reversing climate change you (and I) too would support it.
For the ten millionth time, they aren't the answer, and they can't replace existing generators because they can't produce energy when the wind doesn't blow. They are part of broad ranging strategy answer to reducing CO2 emissions which includes increasing energy efficiency, reducing energy waste and other renewables, etc etc.:roll:


It’s just a pity that onshore wind won’t make a blind bit of difference to any of the above.

5 million tonnes of CO2 are already being mitigated. How is that not making a contribution to our strategy to combat climate change?

[KittyMay]

For the ten millionth time, they aren't the answer. They are part of the answer.:roll:

How many times do I have to refute the same old anti-windfarm myths before you start to learn?

Apologies Rheghead.

Should have said -
If you believed onshore wind was an effective part of the answer to replacing our existing dirty (and nuclear) generators and reversing climate change you (and I) too would support it.

You'll probably have to refute the same old anti-windfarm myths as often as the anti's have to refute the same old pro-windfarm myths. It's tiresome and tedious, I agree.

How big a 'part of the answer' are they?

[Rheghead]

Apologies Rheghead.

Should have said -
If you believed onshore wind was an effective part of the answer to replacing our existing dirty (and nuclear) generators and reversing climate change you (and I) too would support it.

You'll probably have to refute the same old anti-windfarm myths as often as the anti's have to refute the same old pro-windfarm myths. It's tiresome and tedious, I agree.

How big a 'part of the answer' are they?

I do think they are an effective part of the answer. The facts speak for themselves, already 5 million tonnes of CO2 emmissions per annum are being mitigated by the UK.

You only have the effective arguement whether they look nice or not. That is a valid arguement, but it doesn't have any effect on their effectiveness in combatting climate change. The only way aesthetic factors enter the debate is if they affect the impartiality of an expert on ecology and other 'experts' on assessing the performance and carbon payback of windfarms.

[dozy]

Kittymay;
NOT one of your statements holds water
They are Concrete ,Road metals,Steel,Carbonfibre/ Fibreglass,plastic, copper, aluminium plus all the cabling and infastructure
What boring landscape ,SOBER UP !.They destroy a prestine unspoilt landscape (If you can't see that you're No environmentalist)
Nuclear (theres good and bad in all )
Turbines DO NOT help in the renewable energy targets except on paper and propoganda spin
There roads and foundations are very permanent and the loss of peat is for hundreds off years if not forever
The oil and gas statement is a Yes! but they will last longer than the 25 year lifecycle of the turbines
The coal has reserves of over 125 years ..
They build Windfarms for the MONEY...NOT TO SAVE THE PLANET..
If you are in such favour of the Turbines ,why dont you let us install the unit that will cut off your electricity if the turbines stop turning ..
You cant save the POLAR CAPS BY INSTALLING FRIDGES ALL OVER THEM and leaving the door open .
Why do the WINDYS always miss the point .Why are you so blinkered ..
Is it because you dont what to make personal sacrifices AT HOME in energy saving and reduce your carbon footprint.
So you put all that guilt into projects that you think will blind people into believing that you are doing your bit for saving the planet. Thats being two faced ..
If we all changed a little there would be no need for Turbines and if you are "Green" get some in house energy saving equipment or RECYCLE those energy hungry appliances.
Why are we still building new houses with no solar ,P/v or passive heating .
WIND TURBINES ARE A CON and thats the TRUTH OF IT .
If you cant see that well its your children that will be the lossers.
In Thurso they have built a new 16/20 housing development which are all electric ,surely a small waste wood/cardboard/paper boiler would have been able to heat and provide hotwater for all...

[Rheghead]

but they will last longer than the 25 year lifecycle of the turbines.

After the expected 25 year lifecycle of any individual turbine, there are a number of options. The most likely would be a complete refurbishment of the nacelle and blades. The base and stem will be reused again pending corrosion issues. Thus the carbon impact will be absolutely minimal.


The coal has reserves of over 125 years ..


Global Coal reserves are of the order of 2000 years, so it is imperative that we find alternatives before we burn it up at a faster rate that the carbon sinks can take the emissions up.


Why do the WINDYS always miss the point .Why are you so blinkered ..

Possibly because no valid points are being made when they are closely impartially scrutinised. Do you really think that barmpots like the Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace would be encouraging wind farm propagation if they thought that they would damage the environment least of all they couldn't help solve our energy crisis? Where is their financial incentive? They are purely donation funded as far as I know.

[dozy]

Rheghead;
Do you think these things will still be standing in 25 years ,you must be a shareholder in a Windturbine Company .
The split second the subsides and ROC's dry up they will disappear with the huge bags of loot to the sunny tax free shores,and the taxpayer will have to foot the clean up bill .
The life of these machines is nowhere near 25 years ,YES! new ones but the bulk of the ones being installed are 6-10 years old so 12-14 is nearer.
Europe is laughing at the UK and are dumbfounded that we are installing equipment that they know to be inefficient and landscape destroying .
Thats why DEMMARK have hundreds of these secondhand machines lying on the quayside..

[Rheghead]

Rheghead;
Do you think these things will still be standing in 25 years ,you must be a shareholder in a Windturbine Company .

OK you can't win the arguement so you decided to attack me with a slur. For your information I do not have any invested interest in wind developers, least of all any company as a shareholder.


The split second the subsides and ROC's dry up they will disappear with the huge bags of loot to the sunny tax free shores,and the taxpayer will have to foot the clean up bill .

No that is/will not be the case, as I said before, windfarms were operating profitably well before the introduction of the RO.


The life of these machines is nowhere near 25 years ,YES! new ones but the bulk of the ones being installed are 6-10 years old so 12-14 is nearer.

I can't see your point here, so the the age and future adds up to ~25 years, so?:confused


Europe is laughing at the UK and are dumbfounded that we are installing equipment that they know to be inefficient and landscape destroying .
Thats why DEMMARK have hundreds of these secondhand machines lying on the quayside..

Have you any evidence that suitable qualified Europeans are laughing at us?

By the way, it is fallacious to compare the Denmark model to the British model due to the distribution problems and the differences in the levels of demand they were experiencing. If you look at the National Grid website, you will see that a complex balancing operation needs to be done to facilitate the introduction of an intermittent energy source. The Danes didn't get it quite right in some areas but the they are doing some work on their grid system to rectify the problem.

[dozy]

Rheghead ;
Should you be using your computer today since the turbines are having the day off,or is this a fossil fuel day .

[Rheghead]

Rheghead ;
Should you be using your computer today since the turbines are having the day off,or is this a fossil fuel day .

Are you sure they are having the day off? I don't know for sure. There are supposed to be gusts of around 90 mph today but each turbine design is different and they may shut down if the prevailing wind gets too excessive eg 40-80 mph depending on the circumstances.

[peter macdonald]

Denmarks windfarms

http://www.thewindpower.net/country-datasheet-6.php

No comment
PM

[KittyMay]

Dozy, the statements I made are a list of the pro-wind myths. The reasons why people genuinely believe we need to bang up as many windfarms as possible.

I'm NOT a believer, Dozy.

I think it's a disgrace that all electric houses are still being built. That there has been no encouragement for builders to install photovoltaics, passive heating and even small heat and power stations for larger housing developments. It makes a complete mockery of wind energy.

I abhor the practice of digging up our natural carbon sinks to line the pockets of windfarm developers and their shareholders. Dumping thousands and thousands of tons of concrete into the countryside to support these temporary structures. The turbines might be temporary but the rest is permanent. (We're not supposed to care about that coz it's meant to be all about the visual impact - another windy myth)

Sadly, onshore wind farm development is going to continue while ROC's are available to the developers. Politics and money.

[KittyMay]

I do think they are an effective part of the answer. The facts speak for themselves, already 5 million tonnes of CO2 emmissions per annum are being mitigated by the UK.

5 million tonnes - fact, really? Prove it. This is merely a figure on paper - a best case/fantasy scenario. Show me the statistics from the power stations recording the equivalent reduction in output.

[KittyMay]

Are you sure they are having the day off?

Quite sure - unless they can generate electricity whilst the blades are stationery.

[KittyMay]

Do you really think that barmpots like the Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace would be encouraging wind farm propagation if they thought that they would damage the environment least of all they couldn't help solve our energy crisis? Where is their financial incentive? They are purely donation funded as far as I know.

FOE and Greenpeace truly believe that support of wind energy will stop any future nuclear development. Security of supply and carbon reduction is not the priority. If it were they would be embracing nuclear and not wind. A bit of nuclear waste is far less damaging to the environment than carbon driven climate change.

[Rheghead]

FOE and Greenpeace truly believe that support of wind energy will stop any future nuclear development. Security of supply and carbon reduction is not the priority.

I nearly choked on my coffee when I read that.

[Rheghead]

5 million tonnes - fact, really? Prove it. This is merely a figure on paper - a best case/fantasy scenario. Show me the statistics from the power stations recording the equivalent reduction in output............
I abhor the practice of digging up our natural carbon sinks to line the pockets of windfarm developers and their shareholders.

Go have a look at Dozy's link. The Whinash windfarm would mitigate ~90,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide p.a. and will payback its carbon debt in 3.5 years. The sequestration of carbon over the land on which the windfarm is situated is ~220 tonnes of carbon per annum.

Your job is now to reason which of those can solve the global warming crisis in a coherent way. Or is Dr Hill now on the list of misinformation spreaders?

[KittyMay]

I nearly choked on my coffee when I read that.

So reducing carbon emissions is the priority for FOE & Greenpeace is it? Why then are they not supporting new nuclear? When our old nuclear stations are retired our carbon emissions are going to soar. Onshore wind can't replace nuclear. What's the plan, Stan?

[Rheghead]

So reducing carbon emissions is the priority for FOE & Greenpeace is it? Why then are they not supporting new nuclear?

Because they think they can make up the shortfall with a whole range of renewables, they aren't the ones that are obsessed by the aesthetic issues of onshore wind.

Already, 75 wind farms, the equivalent of 6% of the UK's energy supplies are stuck in the planning process. They believe that if the government gave developers of all renewable schemes the political framework, we could meet our 2020 target easily. It may require some steamrolling over the opinions of some very vocal nimbys but it will all come good in the end.

Plus nuclear energy has environmental problems which are not on the Caithnessian doorstep.

I don't agree with FoE or Greenpeace on this but I do accept their arguement. I believe nuke has a role to play, but it is only in the short term as uranium reserves last which is very uncertain, 50-200 years but could be 2000 years, fast breeding notwithstanding.

[KittyMay]

The Whinash windfarm would mitigate ~90,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide p.a. The sequestration of carbon over the land on which the windfarm is situated is ~220 tonnes of carbon per annum.

Your job is now to reason which of those can solve the global warming crisis in a coherent way. Or is Dr Hill now on the list of misinformation spreaders?

No Rheghead your job is to prove it. I'm not convinced by these figures. Now that we've got such a robust wind energy sector (we're told) it shouldn't be too difficult to provide the factual evidence of displacement by wind energy in traditional generators quarterly/annual reports. Only then can we be certain what levels of carbon have been mitigated.

I believe the 32 billion pounds ear marked for onshore wind could achieve far greater reductions in carbon if spent on energy conservation/efficiency. Instead of handing out financial rewards to the likes of E.on etc they should be forced to clean up and make more efficient their existing generators or pay the penalty in carbon taxes. Forget this ridiculous off-setting nonsense.
We're going to be reliant on our traditional generators for decades to come. Wind isn't going to replace them so let's clean them up.

The title of this thread is BT Wind Energy. BT are jumping aboard this lucrative bandwagon. No wonder just take a look at the financial reward. Where does it stop? What about all the other utilities, are they going to jump aboard as well? Buses, trains, haulage. Why not? They can all offset their carbon emissions by building windfarms. Much easier than actually reducing their own emissions. We'll be tripping over wind turbines. It's nonsense.

Let's get rid of the ROC's for onshore wind - it's a proven technology. That would control unscrupulous development. Use the money saved for investment in energy conservation, carbon zero housing, efficiency measures etc, etc.

Surely you would support that. You would still have your windfarms but there would be 32 billion available for investment in other carbon reducing measures.

[Rheghead]

You would still have your windfarms but there would be 32 billion available for investment in other carbon reducing measures.

Given the right political framework, we could meet our targets. Renewable energy developers are set to invest £45 billion over the RO programme, how is this profitteering if they intend to make capital investment which is above the cost of the RO for a period beyond the RO? Isn't that what the RO was intended for?

I don't have to prove anything, I am not an engineer. I am happy to take advice from people infinitely more qualified to talk on their subject than me. If I tried to prove it then I would only get it wrong.

If Dr Hill believes his findings then I believe him, he isn't associated with the wind industry, he is anti wind btw.

I suspect you won't believe any research that doesn't support your nimby ideals.

[KittyMay]

Because they think they can make up the shortfall with a whole range of renewables, they aren't the ones that are obsessed by the aesthetic issues of onshore wind.

And this range of renewables (that doesn't exist yet) are also going to replace coal and gas as well?? Coal and gas stations are the ones spewing out the carbon emissions. Not nuclear. But they want to replace the only clean alternative to renewable that we currently have.

How much carbon do we mitigate if we displace nuclear with wind?

[Rheghead]

I believe the 32 billion pounds ear marked for onshore wind could achieve far greater reductions in carbon if spent on energy conservation/efficiency.

Absolutely wrong!!

The RO is intended for all renewable energy sources that are grid connected. Currently, onshore wind ROCs account for only 20% of the mix and will rise to an expected 30% of the total subsidy.

[Rheghead]

And this range of renewables (that doesn't exist yet) are also going to replace coal and gas as well??

Some but not all. FoE recognise that some fossil fuels are needed. They advocate in following the scientific advise regarding how much carbon the Earth can take up and live in a sustainable way. Do you see the logic in that?:confused

[KittyMay]

Given the right political framework, we could meet our targets. Renewable energy developers are set to invest £45 billion over the RO programme, how is this profitteering if they intend to make capital investment above the cost of the RO for a period beyond the RO?

I don't have to prove anything, I am not an engineer. I am happy to take advice from people infinitely more qualified to talk on their subject than me. If I tried to prove it then I would only get it wrong.

If Dr Hill believes his findings then I believe him, he isn't associated with the wind industry, he is anti wind btw.

I suspect you won't believe any research that doesn't support your nimby ideals.

You already know what I think about the renewable target this government so foolishly set. I don't care if we never meet that particular target. Let's meet a carbon reduction target not a renewable energy one.

I will believe the proof when it's finally made available. Research predicts outcomes and is dependant on which side of the fence you sit.

You know the old saying - the proof of the pudding is in the pie!

BTW why do you constantly bring up aesthetics? I fear you've been reading too much pro-wind propoganda.

[Rheghead]

BTW why do you constantly bring up aesthetics? I fear you've been reading too much pro-wind propoganda.

Because I do not want to see Caithness inundated with windfarms, I believe that increasing energy efficiency, reducing waste and creating a smart political framework which will encourage a whole range of renewable energy technology will reduce overall energy demand and prevent the aforementioned from happening.

[KittyMay]

Absolutely wrong!!

The RO is intended for all renewable energy sources that are grid connected. Currently, onshore wind ROCs account for only 20% of the mix and will rise to an expected 30% of the total subsidy.

You're absolutely right. I always confuse renewable wih onshore wind. And I forgot that hydro stations have screwed back their clean, non carbon emitting generation in order to qualify for ROC's.

Whose in line to receive the remaining 70% by 2020?

[KittyMay]

Because I do not want to see Caithness inundated with windfarms, I believe that increasing energy efficiency, reducing waste and creating a smart political framework which will encourage a whole range of renewable energy technology will reduce overall energy demand and prevent the aforementioned from happening.

Rheghead I completely agree with this statement. Two problems and they're big ones - 'a smart political framework' ain't going to happen. And without that happening there's little chance of preventing the aforementioned.

[Rheghead]

Whose in line to receive the remaining 70% by 2020?

It is a long time till 2020 but I am sure the makers of Pelamis and the venture capitalists that are interested in tidal energy in the Pentland firth would be most interested in the remainder, not to mention the offshore wind developers. I believe various animal and domestic waste to energy schemes will qualify for it and the hydro(though I doubt if any more valleys will be flooded fpr large scale schemes again).

But it is not just about the RO. We need to extend existing grant schemes (not robbing peter to pay paul) to make energy saving measures and domestic renewables more affordable, not just to buy but to install as well which will be a boon to our aged citizens who need their warmth most of all and need bills to be more affordable.

[Rheghead]

Two problems and they're big ones - 'a smart political framework' ain't going to happen. And without that happening there's little chance of preventing the aforementioned.

You could be right to a certain extent if politicians won't embrace the change to a low carbon economy fully with all its warts and all, frankly we won't know for sure unless we try, and doing nothing isn't really an option.

[KittyMay]

You could be right to a certain extent if politicians won't embrace the change to a low carbon economy fully with all its warts and all, frankly we won't know for sure unless we try and doing nothing isn't really an option.

There's trying and pretence at trying. IMO we're currently pretending.

You think 12 years is a long time for the research, development and production of electricity from wave and tidal.

I think it's a blink.

As for offshore wind the technology is already available. Developers are not quite so keen though - less profit. The worry for developers is not about the threat from climate change and reducing emissions it's about keeping the shareholders happy and solvent. Can't argue with that - it's business. In the meantime every tom, dick and harry will be building windfarms to offset their emissions. The other renewables had better be quick or there'll be nothing left in the pot.

But you see that's where it all falls flat. No organisation or government body has put the threat from climate change as the priority item on the agenda. There are ulterior motives in abundance.

I don't consider removing the ROC's from onshore wind as robbing Peter to pay Paul. I consider it a much more productive and effective use of a large sum of money in the fight to reduce carbon emissions. The onshore wind developers don't need it they make enough profit without ROC's. Take the ROC's from onshore wind and offshore becomes a little more attractive.

The change to a lower carbon economy is going to cost. That's all the more reason why we should demand value (reduction in carbon) for money.

You wonder why I don't believe a lot of this stuff. They're trying to promote the idea of off-setting as a valuable tool in reducing carbon. Do they not realise the whole world is affected and not just Britain. How on earth does global off-setting work?

[Rheghead]

I don't consider removing the ROC's from onshore wind as robbing Peter to pay Paul. I consider it a much more productive and effective use of a large sum of money in the fight to reduce carbon emissions.


Again, I cannot see your point. There is no £32 billion. It doesn't exist yet except on paper as a forecast based on the performance of the actual renewable generators. There is no stack of money waiting to be spent. So how can you use it if it doesn't exist?


And incidentally, the research technology has already been done for all the major methods of renewable. What is really holding us back (non onshore wind) is confidence in the underwriting of venture capitalism in the renewable energy market. It is largely unproven as yet. But the RO is set to address that problem.

And yes, the renewable energy developers are all complaining that there is a lot of Government pretending being done. Should the Government extend the RO programme for another ten years?

[KittyMay]

Again, I cannot see your point. There is no £32 billion. It doesn't exist yet except on paper as a forecast based on the performance of the actual renewable generators. There is no stack of money waiting to be spent. So how can you use it if it doesn't exist?


And incidentally, the research technology has already been done for all the major methods of renewable. What is really holding us back (non onshore wind) is confidence in the underwriting of venture capitalism in the renewable energy market. It is largely unproven as yet. But the RO is set to address that problem.

And yes, the renewable energy developers are all complaining that there is a lot of Government pretending being done. Should the Government extend the RO programme for another ten years?

My point is that at the moment we're subsidising onshore windfarms (by paying more for our electricity) and this is set to increase as more and more windfarms come online. I and many others would rather that money did NOT go to onshore windfarm developers. As I said, a low carbon economy is going to cost us. As long as those people who need assistance are helped I have no problem with an energy efficiency subsidy/tax.

I would extend the RO for tidal and wave - just long enough to get them off the ground. There's not going to be a rush/rash of tidal/wave developers. Only the serious contenders will enter the ring. If renewable energy stands any chance of success it's going to have little or nothing to do with onshore wind - which can hardly scratch the surface. Tidal and wave can make a difference - if they can get the technology right.

Do you believe hydro and onshore wind should receive subsidies?

[dozy]

What do you think of the idea to make every lamp post a small renewable energy producer with a small standard turbine design on the top and 3 helix turbines placed around the post Total 8.3kw .All the cabling is in place and the post would have two functions..
No need to destroy the countryside and the council would get the revenue for the rent of Public property Good idea or what ???

[Rheghead]

Do you believe hydro and onshore wind should receive subsidies?

I do think that onshore should receive subsidies as the money will be more effectively used for capital investment. Hydro is a different case. Small scale hydro like hill run off should receive RO subsidy. However, the capital investment to dam and flood any spare valleys for large scale hydro would not, imo, benefit from RO subsidy and it may end up going into making profits for the hydro companies.

As renewable energy takes off, the ROC market price will drop and energy prices will drop.

[ywindythesecond]

[quote=KittyMay;294479]
"The onshore wind developers don't need it they make enough profit without ROC's. Take the ROC's from onshore wind and offshore becomes a little more attractive."

Sorry KittyMay, I can't agree with this. If onshore wind was profitable and productive, we would have had it years ago. Regarding offshore wind, ROCs, or even Double ROCs, would not make deep or hostile water(that is all we have here) attractive to investors.
The minute you work in water, your construction costs soar, and your financial risk is huge. Beatrice Field had £34m subsidy to go ahead. The weather changed before the second turbine could be erected, the huge floating crane was booked elsewhere so went away and had to come back later. Who paid for that? If you were an investor, would you have thought that was a worthwhile risk without subsidy?
My idea is to offer half ROCs to nuclear generation and sit back and watch the queues grow.

[Rheghead]

If wind developers were denied RO subsidy now after contributing so much to the UK's renewable targets then the government would face several legal challenges from the wind energy sector which Gordon Brown knows only too well that the government would lose.

As I said earlier ywindy, several onshore wind companies were running profitable businesses before the RO, but the RO allows them to make capital investment in further developments in a much shorter time.

[KittyMay]

[quote=KittyMay;294479]
"The onshore wind developers don't need it they make enough profit without ROC's. Take the ROC's from onshore wind and offshore becomes a little more attractive."

Sorry KittyMay, I can't agree with this. If onshore wind was profitable and productive, we would have had it years ago. Regarding offshore wind, ROCs, or even Double ROCs, would not make deep or hostile water(that is all we have here) attractive to investors.
The minute you work in water, your construction costs soar, and your financial risk is huge. Beatrice Field had £34m subsidy to go ahead. The weather changed before the second turbine could be erected, the huge floating crane was booked elsewhere so went away and had to come back later. Who paid for that? If you were an investor, would you have thought that was a worthwhile risk without subsidy?
My idea is to offer half ROCs to nuclear generation and sit back and watch the queues grow.

So you're saying that onshore wind is indeed the only renewable that's feasible. Oh well, bring on the turbines.

I may not agree with the Renewable Energy target but now that it exists government and developers have to make an effort to meet it.

Nuclear is required but it's not going to meet a renewable energy target, is it?

And if, as you say, onshore wind is our only renewable option you can hardly blame them for going down that route especially while it's such a lucrative route. If there's no point in directing ROC's toward marine renewables I suppose onshore wind will benefit handsomely.

[Rheghead]

If there's no point in directing ROC's toward marine renewables I suppose onshore wind will benefit handsomely.

Marine renewables need the RO to attract capital investment, it is vital to gain confidence in the energy market.

[KittyMay]

Marine renewables need the RO to attract capital investment, it is vital to gain confidence in the energy market.

How many onshore windfarms are necessary before the market gains confidence and attracts investment for marine renewables?

Are you also saying that it matters not that onshore wind can never play a viable role in securing our electricity supply or reducing our emissions just as long as it generates revenue.

Why, oh why did our stupid government have go down the electricity generating renewable energy route? I suppose it required little thought. Onshore wind was available.

It would have been so much more empowering and awareness raising to have set targets for reducing emissions through households, communities, industry, heat, power and transport. Instead we have a single industry calling all the shots.

I fear Rheghead that we will see Caithness covered in turbines before the market is 'confident'.

[Rheghead]

How many onshore windfarms are necessary before the market gains confidence and attracts investment for marine renewables?

The question is meaningless.

The two forms of energy generation are largely unrelated both commercially(though some companies have marine and wind divisions, nonetheless, they are run as separate companies) and technologically.

Because the technological and commercial 'risk' in marine renewables is much greater, the RO is required to mitigate much of the financial concern in the minds of the men in grey coats. That is just the way of things.

If a marine energy developer has an idea for a product and can put a business case together to harness marine energy and the banks etc will underwrite the venture, so how will that have anything to do with onshore wind?:confused

[KittyMay]

Marine renewables need the RO to attract capital investment, it is vital to gain confidence in the energy market.

So what did your statement mean then? I hadn't realised you were just stating the obvious?

Obviously marine renewables need the RO and as I already said the scheme will have to be extended to allow marine renewables to get off the ground. Onshore wind does not.

You also stated 'I do think that onshore should receive subsidies as the money will be more effectively used for capital investment. Capital investment in what? More onshore wind?

So why don't we call a halt to any further development of onshore wind, direct 'the necessary' subsidy to marine renewables that'll successfully attract the investment?

[Rheghead]

So what did your statement mean then? I hadn't realised you were just stating the obvious?

Obviously marine renewables need the RO and as I already said the scheme will have to be extended to allow marine renewables to get off the ground. Onshore wind does not.

You also stated 'I do think that onshore should receive subsidies as the money will be more effectively used for capital investment. Capital investment in what? More onshore wind?

So why don't we call a halt to any further development of onshore wind, direct 'the necessary' subsidy to marine renewables that'll successfully attract the investment?

Yes, I was stating the obvious, I'm glad that you can see the obvious now.

Yes, capital investment means more onshore wind. Onshore wind companies are set to invest £45 billion over the life of the RO, the RO is still needed, it doesn't even come close to recouping the capital investment out of their 30% of that £32 billion.

[KittyMay]

Yes, I was stating the obvious, I'm glad that you can see the obvious now.

Yes, capital investment means more onshore wind. Onshore wind companies are set to invest £45 billion over the life of the RO, the RO is still needed, it doesn't even come close to recouping the capital investment out of their 30% of that £32 billion.

Hold your horses.

Why do we give a hoot that onshore wind companies are set to invest £45 billion over the life of the ROC? They just invest less in fewer windfarms and subsequently recoup less - obviously.

As the marine technologies are going to demand a higher level of subsidy than onshore wind (a proven technology that pays for itself without ROC's) we pay the extra on our electricity bills for the wet renewables instead of wasting our money on any additional onshore wind. Easy.

Rheghead, do you have any idea how many windfarms are in the planning system across the country. This is one supremely confident industry.

You may want to see windfarms all over the place so that our dumb government can appear to be trying to meet their useless target but not everyone agrees Rheghead.

[Rheghead]

Hold your horses.

Why do we give a hoot that onshore wind companies are set to invest £45 billion over the life of the ROC? They just invest less in fewer windfarms and subsequently recoup less - obviously.

You aren't making any sense again. You claimed that onshore doesn't need any RO subsidy for capital investment , or that was what seemed to me. I then pointed out that the RO subsidy doesn't even come close to meeting the capital investment that the wind industry has planned to meet the 2020 targets. This means that they plan more windfarms with less money from the RO, not less. I think it is expected that 5000 onshore wind turbines in the projected mix of renewables will be needed to be sited across the whole of the UK to meet the 2020 target. This can be achievable given the correct political framework, but with so many applications being stuck in the planning process, it is as much the fault of Government for the problem as antiwind protestors.

Parliamentary Briefing
Queen's Speech
Tuesday 6 November 2007

The UK is facing a looming power crisis. Over the next 15-20 years up to a third of our domestic electricity supply capacity will have to be retired as the older generation of nuclear and fossil fuelled power stations reach the end of their lives. The new EU target of sourcing 20% of all energy supplies from renewables by 2020 provides a firm deadline, but as yet there is no clear route map for achieving it.

Only renewable energy, and in particular wind, wave and tidal power has the capacity to meet the looming energy gap within the required time span. Nuclear will take too long to build and an expansion of gas would increase dependence on imports from the former Soviet states and risk substantially increasing the UK's carbon emissions.

The wind industry is confident that it can generate around 27% of anticipated electricity demand in 2020, from the installation of up to 34,000 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity. Up to now, the UK wind industry has installed more than 2,000 MW of capacity, but there is almost 6,000 MW either under construction or soon to 'break ground', including the 1,000 MW from the recently consented London Array, the world's largest offshore wind farm. However, a further 10,000 MW (7.5% of UK electricity demand) remain in the planning system awaiting determination and there are a number of major policy obstacles which are undermining the industry's ability to deliver large scale wind energy generation in the UK:

The planning system is not dealing effectively with wind energy. Over 200 planning applications for onshore wind farms are currently stuck in the planning system, some for over 4 years. This represents 8,000 MW of capacity, over half of which is in Scotland, and which is equivalent to 6% of the UK's current electricity supply.
The current system of offshore site awards and consents is too lengthy and uncertain, discouraging investment. The next round of Government site awards will not happen until 2010 (the last was in 2003), with the Strategic Environmental Assessment process likely to take at least two years, while the current consents procedure adds delay and confusion to the process.
Planning for connection to the grid is disjointed from planning for generation. The National Grid cannot currently invest in upgrading connection and cabling for new wind farms until generators are able to underwrite its costs, potentially delaying planning for connection for over 6 years. Delays in the planning system can mean that even after connection is agreed it can take up to 10 years to win approval and then build the necessary transmission lines. BWEA supports a synchronised applications and consents process for inclusion in the Planning Bill to expedite the decision making process for both the renewable energy projects and the necessary grid connection and grid infrastructure consents that are required to allow project delivery.
The Renewable Obligation is due to end in 2027. This will cause investment to tail off after 2015, so it is imperative that new arrangements are made for the sector rather than have the RO end suddenly. Given the huge boost to UK renewable electricity targets that the EU 20% target should bring, the RO will need extension in any case; the UK Government should make plain its intention in this regard at the earliest opportunity.

[Pink Lippy]

Nucular fusion,
Is just an illusion,
Say friends of the earth,
In the town of my birth.

But I think they're wrong,
To bang the wind gong,
And sully the earth,
Near the town of my birth.

Deuterium and tritium,
We need just a bittie'em,
To power the earth,
From Pentland to Perth.

[ywindythesecond]

[quote=Rheghead;294897]

Parliamentary Briefing
Queen's Speech
Tuesday 6 November 2007

Where did you get this from!

[KittyMay]

[quote=Rheghead;294897]It's not so difficult really. What doesn't make any sense to you is how anyone could possibly not support building thousands of turbines across the country while there's a target to meet.

You/the BWEA suggest 5000 (2 MW?) turbines onshore, the wind industry are quoted in the briefing as suggesting 34 GW installed capacity (on and off shore). There's already 18000 MW either built, under construction, consented or in the planning system - most of it onshore.

Let's hope offshore takes off quickly or your 5000 turbines could treble to 15,000.

Just this once can you be unbiased and comment honestly on this statement from the briefing.

Only renewable energy, and in particular wind, wave and tidal power has the capacity to meet the looming energy gap within the required time span. Nuclear will take too long to build and an expansion of gas would increase dependence on imports from the former Soviet states and risk substantially increasing the UK's carbon emissions.

[KittyMay]

Nucular fusion,
Is just an illusion,
Say friends of the earth,
In the town of my birth.

But I think they're wrong,
To bang the wind gong,
And sully the earth,
Near the town of my birth.

Deuterium and tritium,
We need just a bittie'em,
To power the earth,
From Pentland to Perth.

Superb prose Pink Lippy.

[Rheghead]

There's already 18000 MW either built, under construction, consented or in the planning system - most of it onshore.

Can you substantiate this please with a link perhaps?

I also think you have miss quoted me. Please correct/tidy it up a bit.

[Rheghead]

Only renewable energy, and in particular wind, wave and tidal power has the capacity to meet the looming energy gap within the required time span. Nuclear will take too long to build and an expansion of gas would increase dependence on imports from the former Soviet states and risk substantially increasing the UK's carbon emissions.

Not only do I think it is an accurate statement but I also think it is accurate for beyond 2020. Not just for climate change but also for security of energy supplies. Twice the reason to go for renewable energy.

How long do you think global uranium reserves are going to last even if the lead time was shorter?

According to wikipedia, they will last 80 years at current consumption rates and conventional/economical viable reserves. If we boost nuke energy to 40 percent to take up what wind will provide, then assuming all other countries will do the same if they thought wind was rubbish then global uranium reserves are down to less than 40years, at a conservative estimate.

Do you think this is a good energy policy?:confused Is it sustainable, or are you only wishing for a turbine-free horizon for while you are still alive?

[dozy]

What are ROCs ??????

[Rheghead]

What are ROCs ??????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewables_Obligation