View Full Version : Minus 3 degrees and not a breath of wind
ywindythesecond
12-Feb-08, 08:30
That's it. Off to put the kettle on.
ywy2
neepnipper
12-Feb-08, 08:46
...........and not a cloud in the sky!
like a summers morning if it wasnt as cold :)
highlander
12-Feb-08, 09:43
Thurso bay this morning was a beautiful deep blue, with a powder pink sky, fantastic to look outside and feel the crispness in the air, all i could see was calfs dancing around thier mums, a buzzard sitting pretty looking around to see any prey. It makes a real good, feel good, start for the day.
cuddlepop
12-Feb-08, 10:44
Gorgeous over here too,Spring has sprung.:D
Away with the camera and the dogs........
Yep sun is shining and the grass is white with frost..Even the dogs dont want to sit down outside.Cant wait to get out into the garden...
We all popping round to ywindythesecond for a brew as they got the kettle on....
Yep sun is shining and the grass is white with frost..Even the dogs dont want to sit down outside.Cant wait to get out into the garden...
We all popping round to ywindythesecond for a brew as they got the kettle on....
Wait for me Justine, wait for me, i want to come too, i love a cuppa and a really good natter. ;)
xx_chickie
12-Feb-08, 12:59
It's lovely weather! Just what we all need: some sunshine with a dose of vitamin D to cheer us all up :D
Have a great day, everyone!
Fantastic down here in Central as well..about to head to Linlithgow for a walk around 'The Peel', feed the birds and take some pics!:D
Wait for me Justine, wait for me, i want to come too, i love a cuppa and a really good natter. ;)
I am waiting for you nanoo...Sounds a good idea for a brew and a natter Ive got the kettle on to, although i make a yeuky brew, the offer stands...:)
Its great weather aint it ?
Just rode the bike home from Aberdeen today, glorious weather the whole way and could even feel some heat from sun on way up. Only place i felt a little chill was Huntly but by Fochabers it was fine again, the run from Inverness was lovely ! :D
ywindythesecond
12-Feb-08, 19:09
Its great weather aint it ?
Just rode the bike home from Aberdeen today, glorious weather the whole way and could even feel some heat from sun on way up. Only place i felt a little chill was Huntly but by Fochabers it was fine again, the run from Inverness was lovely ! :D
Where's home?? And what were you riding?
That's it. Off to put the kettle on.
ywy2
Will that be using electrickery generated elsewhere then?.....[lol]
It was indeed a motorbike and home is Caithness. I dont think my knee's could take a bicycle ride from Aberdeen , mind you they cant take a cycle ride from the bottom of the street !!! :confused
Alice in Blunderland
12-Feb-08, 20:39
:lol:
Will that be using electrickery generated elsewhere then?.....[lol]
Gosh after all the kids Ive had my bladder control aint so good. I nearly wet myself laughing at that quick witted reply
oldchemist
12-Feb-08, 20:50
Yeah - a good test for the windmills - freezing cold and no wind. I'm just away to throw another peat on the hearth.
Was -1.0 in Kirkwall this morning as I left to catch the morning ferry,cold but crisp and clear with the sun just rising and calm seas, then drove to Deviot,via Inverness and back to Caithness, all the while beautiful warm sunshine and temp up to 13.5, wonderful clear scenary and blue seas, a wonderful day for travelling. :)
Was there ever a more glorious day than the one today in Scotland's north? I managed to get the car and its tourist passengers as far as Dornoch. We sat at the beach for a picnic lunch. This wasn't February! This was heaven!
I cried a bit when I passed the Struie Hill junction. But I knew that Thurso and Wick and Caithness would still be there for another visit.
glorious day in Aberdeen so warm Aboyne hit the highest temp wise
felt like May today the garden just blooming with all the bulbs long may it continue
ywindythesecond
13-Feb-08, 09:16
Still minus 3 degrees and still not a breath of wind. Hope there's lots of water in the dams!
Pray for rain Alex Salmond, and Gordy B, don't pick today to fall out with Putin!
Don't think I'll risk putting the kettle on today.
ywy2
Green_not_greed
13-Feb-08, 09:33
Almost minus 4 when I got up. Kettle suitably boiled and central heating working hard. Forss turbines as still as they were yesterday!
Thank God for the Highland's hydro power!
GNG
Oh well, the wind is back at the weekend, so fossil fuels can be saved for another day.
I see the tidal turbines are only 35% efficient and will almost come to a standstill twice daily. It is a good job we have all these wind turbines to back them up.
Gosh, I really was tired when I got home last night. This thread isn't about the weather, it is about renewable energy! Sorry I missed the point of it all.
As an aside, the hydro dams looked pretty full and flowing when we drove along the A83. So there is power being generated somewhere even if the wind isn't blowing. Kettle should be fine for another day!
ywindythesecond
14-Feb-08, 08:52
7.45 am, 4 degrees, still a bit nippy and not a breath of wind. This is one of the longest spells of cheap reliable electricity we have had in a long time. Any idea since when Tuggs?
ywindythesecond
14-Feb-08, 14:33
For the last two-and-half days, a thermal power station somewhere has been selling electricity to the distributors to make up for the Causeymire not working because of no wind, at about 3p per kwh.
In the last half hour, a National Grid controller in Pitlochry has asked that power station to stop supplying electricity to the grid, and National Grid has started paying the power station about 2p per kwh for the electricity it is no longer producing.
National Grid is reconnected to the Causeymire which is now selling electricity to the distributors at about 9p per kwh including subsidy.
The cost of raw electricity today is 9p+2p=11p per kwh
Yesterday it was 3p.
And the thermal power station is simmering away ready for the wind to drop again.
ywy2
It's nice and still down here too - my local wind factory is at a standstill too.
Here they stand in their stationary splendour - not a single one stirring...
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/797/naewindpv7.jpg
Cinderella's Shoe
14-Feb-08, 17:31
[QUOTE=MadPict;339252]It's nice and still down here too - my local wind factory is at a standstill too.
Here they stand in their stationary splendour - not a single one stirring...
What a complete waste of all that public money.......
For the last two-and-half days, a thermal power station somewhere has been selling electricity to the distributors to make up for the Causeymire not working because of no wind, at about 3p per kwh.
In the last half hour, a National Grid controller in Pitlochry has asked that power station to stop supplying electricity to the grid, and National Grid has started paying the power station about 2p per kwh for the electricity it is no longer producing.
National Grid is reconnected to the Causeymire which is now selling electricity to the distributors at about 9p per kwh including subsidy.
The cost of raw electricity today is 9p+2p=11p per kwh
Yesterday it was 3p.
And the thermal power station is simmering away ready for the wind to drop again.
ywy2
Can you back up these figures ywindy? If they are true then as far as I can see wind farms are a complete rip off...!
highlander
15-Feb-08, 15:11
Oh come on!!! why spoil this thread about windmills, i thought this was soposed to be a "feel good factor" about the weather. so GRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrr cut it oot!
Oh well, the wind is back at the weekend, so fossil fuels can be saved for another day.
I see the tidal turbines are only 35% efficient and will almost come to a standstill twice daily. It is a good job we have all these wind turbines to back them up.
Please explain how tidal turbines are only 35% efficient. Yes, they may almost come to a standstill twice a day but tides are predictable unlike wind and if a network of tidal schemes was in place round the coast the slack periods would be covered wouldn't they?
Oh come on!!! why spoil this thread about windmills, i thought this was soposed to be a "feel good factor" about the weather. so GRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrr cut it oot!
I think if you look at ywindy's first post Highlander it is obvious it was about wind power and not just the fantastic weather we are having. Excuse me for 'spoiling' your day but I wont be cutting it oot!!
highlander
15-Feb-08, 17:47
ywindythesecond i do apologize that your thread had been hijacked by sun worshipers, so i stand corrected LOL
Please explain how tidal turbines are only 35% efficient. Yes, they may almost come to a standstill twice a day but tides are predictable unlike wind and if a network of tidal schemes was in place round the coast the slack periods would be covered wouldn't they?
Predictability is irrelevent, when the power drops twice daily then the energy still needs to be backed up. It can't be relied upon for a steady source of power.
I am quite sure that you know or don't doubt or make great capital on the fact that wind turbines are also suffer from poor load factors. So the principle still applies to tidal turbines.
The principle that tidal energy generators want to 'cash in' on the ROCs is still the same as windturbines.
The principle that tidal energy needs to be backed up by fossil fuel generators still applies, same as wind.
The principle that that energies are lost via transmission is the same.
The principle that they are a hazard to wildlife is the same.
I could paint a bad and dismal picture of tidal energy and folks will nod their heads, but I won't, same as wind.
http://www.tocardo.com/?Projects:Master_Plan_P.Firth:Pre-Feasibility
I'm da Mamma
15-Feb-08, 20:11
Predictability is irrelevent, when the power drops twice daily then the energy still needs to be backed up. It can't be relied upon for a steady source of power.
I am quite sure that you know or don't doubt or make great capital on the fact that wind turbines are also suffer from poor load factors. So the principle still applies to tidal turbines.
The principle that tidal energy generators want to 'cash in' on the ROCs is still the same as windturbines.
The principle that tidal energy needs to be backed up by fossil fuel generators still applies, same as wind.
The principle that that energies are lost via transmission is the same.
The principle that they are a hazard to wildlife is the same.
I could paint a bad and dismal picture of tidal energy and folks will nod their heads, but I won't, same as wind.
http://www.tocardo.com/?Projects:Master_Plan_P.Firth:Pre-Feasibility
Hold on, hold on - i'm confused. Two questions for Rheghead:
1. Is it not the case (as in wind) that spacial separation is put into place? So if there are lots of tidal generators across a large expanse of water, ie across the Pentland Firth and in other locations around the British Isles, energy will always be produced. I also thought that you can predict when the tide changes, but maybe i'm wrong and not quite understood the whole picture.
2. Are you against the RoC system? "tidal energy generators want to 'cash in' on the ROCs". It just sounds as if you are.
Sorry to be a pain, but I do need to know the finer details. Cheers.
Cinderella's Shoe
15-Feb-08, 20:49
I see the tidal turbines are only 35% efficient and will almost come to a standstill twice daily. It is a good job we have all these wind turbines to back them up.
Whats the source of your 35% figure. I have trouble believing it.
According to the wind industry, wind turbines are about 25% efficient - up and down a bit depending where you put them in the country - but 25% isnt far off. Thats dependent on the wind blowing and takes down time into account. Tidal turbines are reliable for 12 hours out of every 12.5 hour tide. Day in, day out. Either tidal turbine efficiency is higher than 35%, or the windies have been upping their figures.
Whats the source of your 35% figure. I have trouble believing it.
Try reading the feasibility study from the link that I posted. It is from the horses mouth. Incidentally, the Causeymire has a load factor above 35% and the Baillie Windfarm is expected to have a higher load factor.
1. Is it not the case (as in wind) that spacial separation is put into place? So if there are lots of tidal generators across a large expanse of water, ie across the Pentland Firth and in other locations around the British Isles, energy will always be produced. I also thought that you can predict when the tide changes, but maybe i'm wrong and not quite understood the whole picture.
Yes you are quite correct in theory, in that geographical diversity will give some measure of baseload capability both with tidal and with wind. However, the Pentland firth has over 50% of the UK's tidal energy resource, the other major tidal is the Severn estuary. With such big lumps of tidal resource in just two areas, there isn't much scope for geographical diversity and hence baseload I'm afraid.
The principle is much easier for windfarms though.
Could someone who really understands these things please explain exactly what is meant by a 'load factor'? :confused:
Could someone who really understands these things please explain exactly what is meant by a 'load factor'? :confused:
It is a measurement of how well an energy generator works in relation to its maximum design power rating.
Each generator is rated at a specific wattage depending on size and design.
For an example, if our turbine is rated at a maximum design wattage of 100kW and it runs at 100kW 24/7 then its load factor is 100%.
If it runs at 75kW for 50% of the time and runs at 25% for the other half of the time, then its load factor is 50%, etc etc.
Thank you Rheghead.
One more question...
Is this 35% an 'in principle' factor or a practical one?
ywindythesecond
16-Feb-08, 08:52
Thank you Rheghead.
One more question...
Is this 35% an 'in principle' factor or a practical one?
Hi Moi x
I'm not an engineer but neither are Reggy and GnG. "Load factor" and "efficiency" mean specific things to engineers but different things to ordinary mortals.
The load factor for any generating plant as explained is the percentage of its theoretical maximum output that it generates.
Efficiency is part of this, and nothing is 100% efficient. Wind turbines when working are pretty efficient, as are wave, tidal,hydro, gas coal and nuclear etc. I am deliberately avoiding figures here so engineers can’t pick holes.
Load factor also depends on how long the plant operates for. A nuclear plant might be 80% efficient when running, but needs servicing every few years and sometimes breaks down, so will have a lower load factor than efficiency rating.
Hydro is great. Turn on the tap, get electricity. But hydro depends on a reserve of water. Once you have used it, it is gone until it rains again. Hydro therefore is used for specific purposes. Hydro power is only used as a result of a conscious decision. So hydro has a low load factor.
You can see from this that load factor is not a good measurement to compare technologies. Much better is reliability and controllability. And in this I find myself in the same camp as Reggy. Tidal is predictable and therefore reliable in that respect, but not in respect of the energy it will produce, and it is not controllable. I disagree when he says the same for wind.
Wind ticks none of the boxes. It is not predictable, reliable, nor controllable. Wind power's low load factor is a result of the intermittent and unpredictable nature of wind itself. And through political interference, it is a hugely expensive source of electrical power that we have no control over.
For almost three days this week, there was not a breath of wind in Caithness. And not much of a sea running.
Lights stayed on though.
Ywy2
Green_not_greed
16-Feb-08, 09:53
Almost minus 4 when I got up. Kettle suitably boiled and central heating working hard. Forss turbines as still as they were yesterday!
Thank God for the Highland's hydro power!
GNG
Ywindy - the above is my single contribution to this thread. Hardly engineering, is it? Not sure where you are coming from.
[COLOR=black]Wind ticks none of the boxes. It is not predictable, reliable, nor controllable.
I would disagree with you there up to a point.
Wind is predictable via weather forecasting and it is reliable over the long term, iow we are guaranteed of so much wind. The wind is uncontrollable but there is some measure of controllability of how much wind energy is generated.
And btw, I have a mechanical engineering background.
ywindythesecond
16-Feb-08, 18:46
Can you back up these figures ywindy? If they are true then as far as I can see wind farms are a complete rip off...!
Rupert, the best way to get an idea of how subsidies affect the cost of our electricity is to go to the Non Fossil Purchasing Agency Website. (NFPA) http://www.nfpa.co.uk/index.cfm?pid=1 (http://www.nfpa.co.uk/index.cfm?pid=1)
Here is an extract:
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3783/nffoge2.jpg
MIW is Municipal and Industrial Waste (Incineration). Power from MIW is cheaper than the other technologies because although it is non-fossil, it is not a renewable so doesn’t attract ROCS. See the current sale price of a ROC!!.
The NFPA website is really interesting, and the people there are very patient and helpful if you phone them.
One of the things you can find is that the Novar Windfarm at Alness is funded under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation. NFFO is a forerunner of RO and ROCs. Reggy once pointed out that windfarms were being developed before RO, and I seem to remember him saying that was an indication that they were viable without ROCs. Well, this shows that they also were subsidised, and apparently to the same extent as today’s ones are.
I will tell you about “constraining off” generation in another post.
Ywy2
ywindythesecond
16-Feb-08, 18:50
I would disagree with you there up to a point.
Wind is predictable via weather forecasting and it is reliable over the long term, iow we are guaranteed of so much wind. The wind is uncontrollable but there is some measure of controllability of how much wind energy is generated.
And btw, I have a mechanical engineering background.
Beg pardon about the mechanical engineering background.
"Some measure of controllability" and "over the long term" is no use when the national grid has to be balanced second by second.
ywindythesecond
17-Feb-08, 11:54
Ywindy - the above is my single contribution to this thread. Hardly engineering, is it? Not sure where you are coming from.
Sorry, I was working from memory, and sometimes I forget to remember to never trust my memory.
Rupert, the best way to get an idea of how subsidies affect the cost of our electricity is to go to the Non Fossil Purchasing Agency Website. (NFPA) http://www.nfpa.co.uk/index.cfm?pid=1 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.nfpa.co.uk/index.cfm?pid=1)
Here is an extract:
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3783/nffoge2.jpg
MIW is Municipal and Industrial Waste (Incineration). Power from MIW is cheaper than the other technologies because although it is non-fossil, it is not a renewable so doesn’t attract ROCS. See the current sale price of a ROC!!.
The NFPA website is really interesting, and the people there are very patient and helpful if you phone them.
One of the things you can find is that the Novar Windfarm at Alness is funded under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation. NFFO is a forerunner of RO and ROCs. Reggy once pointed out that windfarms were being developed before RO, and I seem to remember him saying that was an indication that they were viable without ROCs. Well, this shows that they also were subsidised, and apparently to the same extent as today’s ones are.
I will tell you about “constraining off” generation in another post.
Ywy2
Thanks for all that info ywindy. Sorry to be thick here - but can you tell me how much one wind turbine will produce in income for a developer and of that how much is being paid for by us the taxpayer? I've a horrible suspicion that we are all lining the pockets of a few landowners under this system and ending up with more expensive electricity.
I've a horrible suspicion that we are all lining the pockets of a few landowners under this system and ending up with more expensive electricity.
You are right that landowners are wanting to cash-in on the RO system.
However, the truth of the matter is that electricity prices are linked into the market price of oil and other fuels. As the eastern economies grow, those fuel prices will rise as demand will outstrip supply. And electricity prices will increase. This has already been the cause of the recent price increases in gas, coal, and electricity.
With the RO system, we will pay a higher premium for our electricity prices, however, as the obligation increases, the market price of the ROC should fall as supply outstrips demand. And fuel prices will be more immune to the effects of international markets so in the end we will pay less for our energy. This isn't going to happen in the short term but it should happen.
I think it is rather ironic that the government is often slated for thinking too much in the short term for political reasons but when it has finally come out with a longterm strategy to 2050 to change our dependence on fossil fuels then it gets no credit for it.
ywindythesecond
17-Feb-08, 18:51
Thanks for all that info ywindy. Sorry to be thick here - but can you tell me how much one wind turbine will produce in income for a developer and of that how much is being paid for by us the taxpayer? I've a horrible suspicion that we are all lining the pockets of a few landowners under this system and ending up with more expensive electricity.
Hi Rupert
For every megawatt generated by a wind turbine, the owner gets a Renewable Obligation certificate (ROC), which as you see from the NFPA website is currently worth £49.92.
So for a single 2.5MW turbine working 24 hours a day 365 days a year at a load factor of 30%, the value of ROCs earned each turbine in a year is £327,974.40p.
It is actually more than this because around another fiver a megawatt comes from the climate control levy exemption, and there is also a shareout of fines imposed on generators who don't have enough ROCs. Please don't ask me to explain that bit.
But it is not taxpayers money that subsidises it, it is electricity consumers who pay for it. You and me, in other words.
And of course the owner has about £200K's worth of electricity to sell as well.
ywy2
Landowners don't do as well as owners, they only get about £10K a year eack turbine.
So with the selling of the electricity as well as the ROCs an owner could be getting over £500,000 per turbine per year? My goodness, no wonder windfarms are springing up all over the place! I notice that the subsidies are much more than the amount of electricity that it produces - that seems ridiculous. Whoever had the bright idea to make the subsidies so large? What makes me really angry is the fact that there are many people struggling to pay their electricity bills as it is - pensioners to name but one group - and it looks like they are going to have to pay even more in the future while a very few get awfully rich very quickly. Crazy!!!
I calculated that a 2.5MW turbine operating at 30% and selling electricity at 10.6p/kWh and ROCs@£49.00 will make £1,024,394 per year. Which means that the subsidy is actually about half as much as the sales in electricity.
Have I miscalculated or used the wrong data?:confused
I think it is rather ironic that the government is often slated for thinking too much in the short term for political reasons but when it has finally come out with a longterm strategy to 2050 to change our dependence on fossil fuels then it gets no credit for it.
The government would only deserve credit if they had introduced a system that truly produced a long term strategy that would work. As it is we have a system that benefits the few to the detriment of everyone else and still wont provide the answer to this country's energy needs nor will it slow up global warming one little bit.
The government would only deserve credit if they had introduced a system that truly produced a long term strategy that would work. As it is we have a system that benefits the few to the detriment of everyone else and still wont provide the answer to this country's energy needs nor will it slow up global warming one little bit.
OK, Let us suppose that a 60% reduction in fossil fuel useage doesn't slow down climate change and that the big subsidies do not give the developers an incentive to build renewable energy generators:roll:, how would you do it then if you were in charge of it?:confused
I calculated that a 2.5MW turbine operating at 30% and selling electricity at 10.6p/kWh and ROCs@£49.00 will make £1,024,394 per year. Which means that the subsidy is actually about half as much as the sales in electricity.
Have I miscalculated or used the wrong data?:confused
So my estimate of £500,000+ is way off the mark!! These figures are obscene. If you are right Rheghead why do they need so much in subsidy? The community benefit that is being offered is a pittance compared to what the owners get and so is the estimated £10,000 rental paid to the landowners.
OK, how would you do it then if you were in charge of it?:confused
I have no idea - I'm not that clever. But I know one thing I certainly wouldn't have a system that enables some to get very rich to the detriment of the poorest in society.
I have no idea - I'm not that clever. But I know one thing I certainly wouldn't have a system that enables some to get very rich to the detriment of the poorest in society.
I'm afraid that is capitalism and not just the RO per se and it is the system that we are stuck with, we weren't going to have a communist energy system just for the benefit of the very poorest in our society.
But if you really want a communist way of doing renewable energy things for the benefit of the masses then you just have to look at the China model where they are bulldozing their poorest in society out of their homes to make way for renewable energy schemes without any word of representation from the locals. They wouldn't even know or tolerate the word NIMBY, I don't even think there is a translation in Chinese! :)
nice clear moon tonight .and a small reflection over the moray firth.
I'm afraid that is capitalism and not just the RO per se and it is the system that we are stuck with, we weren't going to have a communist energy system just for the benefit of the very poorest in our society.
But if you really want a communist way of doing renewable energy things for the benefit of the masses then you just have to look at the China model where they are bulldozing their poorest in society out of their homes to make way for renewable energy schemes without any word of representation from the locals. They wouldn't even know or tolerate the word NIMBY, I don't even think there is a translation in Chinese! :)
I'm certainly not advocating a communist system but there surely has to be some sort of compromise? We'll be talking about the 'fat cats' of the windfarm industry soon.
Regarding the Chinese way of going on - I agree, totally appalling - there are many aspects of life in China that are truly dreadful.
Now then, lets not go down the 'Nimby road' - when it is used up here to describe locals against windfarm developments it is quite clearly meant as an insult.
I'm certainly not advocating a communist system but there surely has to be some sort of compromise? We'll be talking about the 'fat cats' of the windfarm industry soon.
So the conundrum you have to face (as minister for energy) is to make an incentive for people and business to go out and make renewable energy in preference to fossil fuel energy either for themselves or for others that won't push up fuel prices and still be profitable or cost-effective. But not too profitable so as to make fuel poverty a reality for the poorest in our society.
Hmmm, toughy that one.
Admittedly, the Renewable Obligation isn't perfect, but it sure is providing an incentive for business as the announcement from last week of the tidal turbines just proves. This is what we want, no?
The downside of the RO is that the system doesn't take into account the problems of getting developments through the planning stages. Because so many renewable energy schemes are stuck in the planning procedures by people objecting etc, as time ticks on, the obligation increases and the market price of the ROCs increase. One remedy would be to push these outstanding developments through quicker so that there will be more ROCs on the market and the cost to the energy consumer will be less. The reason the price of the ROCs is so high is because businesses are obligated by law to buy them and they are paying over the odds for them.
As for fuel price increases, the international markets are paling the costs of the renewable obligation into relative insignificance. As we generate more of our own energy from renewable sources then the fuel prices will fall in relative terms, which will be good for fuel poverty.
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but Ormlie Renewables are looking at a renewable energy scheme which will generate ROCs and end fuel poverty for the people of Ormlie. Anyone know how that is going?
Oh for goodness sake you lot I thought this was a thread about the lovely weather we are getting. Just enjoy it and long may it last. I am now walking on top of the ground rather than sinking in it and not had to dry my jacket infront of the fire for days. Just be happy and enjoy the weather while it lasts.
ywindythesecond
18-Feb-08, 00:56
Oh for goodness sake you lot I thought this was a thread about the lovely weather we are getting. Just enjoy it and long may it last. I am now walking on top of the ground rather than sinking in it and not had to dry my jacket infront of the fire for days. Just be happy and enjoy the weather while it lasts.
Hi Wellies,
Be happy with this lovely spell of weather and be comforted that other folks are looking after the difficult bits.
ywy2
ywindythesecond
18-Feb-08, 01:02
I calculated that a 2.5MW turbine operating at 30% and selling electricity at 10.6p/kWh and ROCs@£49.00 will make £1,024,394 per year. Which means that the subsidy is actually about half as much as the sales in electricity.
Have I miscalculated or used the wrong data?:confused
----------------------Yes
----------------------Yes
Cryptic response, but can you enlighten me where I have miscalculated please?
The downside of the RO is that the system doesn't take into account the problems of getting developments through the planning stages. Because so many renewable energy schemes are stuck in the planning procedures by people objecting etc, as time ticks on, the obligation increases and the market price of the ROCs increase. One remedy would be to push these outstanding developments through quicker so that there will be more ROCs on the market and the cost to the energy consumer will be less.
As far as I can see, one of the main reasons these developments are stuck, as you call it, in the planning system is because they are applying to build them in totally inappropriate places. It is becoming a complete free-for-all. Have land - stick up a windfarm and to hell with the neighbours, wildlife etc. Just because you own a piece of land, or can rent such from your neighbours, does not mean it is the right place for a windfarm. The planning system with its checks and balances is there for a reason - to only allow appropriate developments in appropriate places and thank God for that.
ywindythesecond
18-Feb-08, 22:27
Cryptic response, but can you enlighten me where I have miscalculated please?
Under the NFFO, the generator is allowed to add the value of the ROC to the price of the electricity, so the 10.6p includes electricity, and possibly the climate control levy exemption as well as the value of the ROC. Cuts out the middleman.
The 10.6 p is the raw cost of electricity, Add to that transmission, infrastructure, repair and maintenance, metering, running the grid, sales, accounts, shareholders profits etc etc then you get the true cost to the consumer.
My electricity bill has just come in. I am on something called a "Airmiles super standard" tariff, and the true cost per unit is 9.36p ex vat. This 9.36p includes transmission, infrastructure, repair and maintenance, metering running the grid, sales, accounts, shareholders profits etc etc and is still over a penny a unit cheaper than wind at the turbine. (And it has already been upped due to the thankfully small % of windpower in the mix so far)
Now it is easy to see this under the NFFO, but not so under the RO, so here is a challenge Reggy.
Find out the current sale price of electricity under the RO or SRO where applicable at the point of generation for wind, gas , coal, hydro and nuclear. Find out exactly how much ROCS and the Climate levy thing changes this. Work out how much the handling and delivery of the energy costs adds per unit.
Add the cost of the Scottish Government's lunatic plan for a "supergrid" to collect all our renewable energy, and report back on the true cost of wind power.
How about it Reggy, you are good at that sort of thing. Oh and don't forget to add the back-up generation into the calcs.
ywindythesecond
18-Feb-08, 23:00
As far as I can see, one of the main reasons these developments are stuck, as you call it, in the planning system is because they are applying to build them in totally inappropriate places. It is becoming a complete free-for-all. Have land - stick up a windfarm and to hell with the neighbours, wildlife etc. Just because you own a piece of land, or can rent such from your neighbours, does not mean it is the right place for a windfarm. The planning system with its checks and balances is there for a reason - to only allow appropriate developments in appropriate places and thank God for that.
So how well has it worked at Lochluichart Rupert?
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4692/17turbinelochluichartwiic5.jpg
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4692/17turbinelochluichartwiic5.jpg (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4692/17turbinelochluichartwiic5.jpg)
Well it obviously hasn't, has it!!! You've just shattered my faith in the system - although the recent planning hearing for the Baillie proposal restores it somewhat.
Under the NFFO, the generator is allowed to add the value of the ROC to the price of the electricity, so the 10.6p includes electricity, and possibly the climate control levy exemption as well as the value of the ROC. Cuts out the middleman.
The 10.6 p is the raw cost of electricity, Add to that transmission, infrastructure, repair and maintenance, metering, running the grid, sales, accounts, shareholders profits etc etc then you get the true cost to the consumer.
My electricity bill has just come in. I am on something called a "Airmiles super standard" tariff, and the true cost per unit is 9.36p ex vat. This 9.36p includes transmission, infrastructure, repair and maintenance, metering running the grid, sales, accounts, shareholders profits etc etc and is still over a penny a unit cheaper than wind at the turbine. (And it has already been upped due to the thankfully small % of windpower in the mix so far)
Now it is easy to see this under the NFFO, but not so under the RO, so here is a challenge Reggy.
Find out the current sale price of electricity under the RO or SRO where applicable at the point of generation for wind, gas , coal, hydro and nuclear. Find out exactly how much ROCS and the Climate levy thing changes this. Work out how much the handling and delivery of the energy costs adds per unit.
Add the cost of the Scottish Government's lunatic plan for a "supergrid" to collect all our renewable energy, and report back on the true cost of wind power.
How about it Reggy, you are good at that sort of thing. Oh and don't forget to add the back-up generation into the calcs.
Thanks for putting me straight over that.
As far as I can see, the costs will be the same if we had a renewable energy policy without onshore wind. So if I did calculate all those things, it doesn't necessarily just apply to wind generation, it will apply to tidal, offshore wind, etc as well.
But I do agree that the costs of renewable energy are greater than conventional generators but the point must be made that as former public utilities they have hidden subsidies that often gets overlooked in any calculations, not to mention the costs that should be incurred for carbon sequestration which needs to be done. So it is all swings and roundabouts, but in the end, energy will increase in cost if we do nothing, energy costs will increase if we went 'renewable' much sooner. I think that is the pragmatic way to look at our energy problems, our energy is too cheap already because there are no inbuilt obligations to protect the environment.
If we did nothing then there is an ecological as well as an economic cost to all of us. The Stern Report showed in economic terms this cost. Yes this report has been criticised but I think it still has a lot of merit, nobody except the most demanding critics were expecting the report to be an 'exact science'.
ywindythesecond
19-Feb-08, 00:32
Reggy said"
But I do agree that the costs of renewable energy are greater than conventional generators but the point must be made that as former public utilities they have hidden subsidies that often gets overlooked in any calculations, not to mention the costs that should be incurred for carbon sequestration which needs to be done. So it is all swings and roundabouts, but in the end, energy will increase in cost if we do nothing, energy costs will increase if we went 'renewable' much sooner. I think that is the pragmatic way to look at our energy problems, our energy is too cheap already because there are no inbuilt obligations to protect the environment.
If we did nothing then there is an ecological as well as an economic cost to all of us. The Stern Report showed in economic terms this cost. Yes this report has been criticised but I think it still has a lot of merit, nobody except the most demanding critics were expecting the report to be an 'exact science'."
Me now
It is not the cost of "renewable energy" which bothers me, but people need to know the extent to which they are being robbed. I agree we need to pay more for our energy, and I will be very happy to pay for energy. I am livid that I pay excess profit to landowners, shareholders of generation companies etc for a myth which destroys communities, ruins our landscape, and doesn't deliver measureable benefits.
As regards renewable technologies other than onshore wind,they exist only in theory at present as viable commercial entities, and are likely to do so for a long time to come. The experimental Beatrice field turbines took at least £34M in public subsidy, and the job went wrong when the weather turned bad. I don't think the actual cost has been published.
And as for the "Destroy Scotland to Save the World" Party,
I just froth at the mouth!!!
ywy2
Below is a link to a piece published in the Scotsman yesterday by Nigel Hawkins, Chief Executive of the John Muir Trust. It makes interesting reading. I thought the comment by one guy about 'noses in the trough' very appropriate, how right he is!
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Carbon-commitment-is-fine-but.3786638.jp (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Carbon-commitment-is-fine-but.3786638.jp)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.