Merry xmas baillie windfarm!!!

[ywindythesecond]

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

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

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

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

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

[ywindythesecond]

/

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

Good question cpt. We don't actually have any option. If we deduct an amount from our bills that we don't want to pay, we end up in court. So we have to pay. We can still badger our politicians and tell them that we don't want to give our money away for no good reason. And make it clear to them that if they dont think our way, they won't get our vote next time.

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

[RIR]

Not just windfarms:

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


Ian.

[orkneycadian]

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

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

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

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

[RagnarRocks]

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

[orkneycadian]

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

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

[ywindythesecond]

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

• National Grid is unable to cope with extra power produced"

£5million for the whole of 2012.
£4.65million in December 2013 so far.
£1.63million since I started this thread, but none of it to Baillie.

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

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

[orkneycadian]

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

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

[ywindythesecond]

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

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

As I was apparently on your ignore list at the time this thread started you seem unaware that this thread is not about subsidy, it is about the cost of the Connect and Manage regime of which payments to Baillie Windfarm are the small tip of the iceberg.

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

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

[orkneycadian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ywindythesecond]

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

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

There is more from okc, read #30.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[orkneycadian]

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

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

[RagnarRocks]

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

[mi16]

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

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

[mi16]

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

I have no problem with windmills It's those ruddy great wind turbines I have issues with

[ywindythesecond]

It's not just me that is banging on
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...out-power.html

[orkneycadian]

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

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

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

[susie]

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