Longannet V Wind Employment figures.

[Rheghead]

I was reading a webpage on the BBC regarding the closure of Longannet power station. I found it thrilling to find out that Longannet supplies enough energy for over 2,000,000 homes and employs about 270 people. According to information online, (google it if you are interested), the average UK home uses 4700KWh, or 4.7MWh, so Longannet produces 9.4 million MWh. That is incredible, that is approximately 3% of the UK's energy needs. But I was also intrigued how many units of energy were generated per person employed in the coal energy business and it works out that 35,000MWh. That is quite a lot but how does that compare with renewable energy?
Well, I heard it said at a wind farm public enquiry that one person will be employed on average for every 15MW of installed turbines. But how much energy will be produced by 1 person in the wind energy business? It is simple to work out, 15MW X 8760 X 0.27% =35,478MWh!! Almost exactly the same. This to me dispells the notion that wind farms do not provide the same amount of employment as conventional generation. Interesting!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...iness-32016538

[gerry4]

The question you should be asking is why power stations in Scotland have to pay millions to connect to the grid, while similar power stations in S. England & Cornwall are paid to link to the grid.

Under the current westminster system, no gas or coal power station will be built in scotland because of this charge to link into the grid. This is according to the power companies themselves.

[theone]

Under the current westminster system, no gas or coal power station will be built in scotland because of this charge to link into the grid. This is according to the power companies themselves.

"National" grid is a private company, out to follow its legal obligation to try to make money for it's shareholders. Blaming the 'current westminster system' for no power plants in Scotland is overly simplistic.

If we're blaming governments for blocking power generation in Scotland, it's worth adding that it is under the current holyrood system that no new nuclear builds will be sanctioned.

[theone]

This to me dispells the notion that wind farms do not provide the same amount of employment as conventional generation. Interesting!

Interesting indeed. But as with most analysis that rely on statistics, it's very easy to hide the reality behind the numbers.

Longannet consumes 4.5 million tonnes of coal per year. 50% of that coal comes from Scotland. Scotland produces around 5.6 million tonnes of coal per year, so Longannet consumes 40% of Scotland's coal production.

Scotland's biggest mining company has 500 employees here so, even excluding other mining companies, 200 people are employed mining the coal solely for Longannet.

Adding those 200 to the 270 at the power plant, and the MWh per person suddenly becomes 20,000, not 35,000.

So the wind farm operation sustains 57% of the Scottish jobs (per MWh) of the coal plant.

Interesting indeed!

[Rheghead]

It is still a hefty proportion of employment in the wind industry. And still, I doubt the reasoning of allotting coal workers to the calculation mix because I think it is highly probable that in the absence of Longannet, the British mines would find other UK customers for their coal at the expense of foreign imports.

[theone]

It is still a hefty proportion of employment in the wind industry.

Indeed. Although I don't doubt you heard the 15MW/person figure at a public enquiry, do you know if that is supposed to be operational or does it include the construction phase? I find it hard to believe there are 3 people in full time employment solely to look after the causeymire wind farm at 48MW. What's the total generation capacity of Caithness and how would this equate to jobs at 1 per 15MW?

And still, I doubt the reasoning of allotting coal workers to the calculation mix because I think it is highly probable that in the absence of Longannet, the British mines would find other UK customers for their coal at the expense of foreign imports.

I would hope so too. But it highlights the issue of supply chain and spin-off employment.

[Rheghead]

Yes 1 person per 15MW on full time maintenance was what was mentioned and from what I've heard since that is about correct.

[gerry4]

"National" grid is a private company, out to follow its legal obligation to try to make money for it's shareholders. Blaming the 'current westminster system' for no power plants in Scotland is overly simplistic.

If we're blaming governments for blocking power generation in Scotland, it's worth adding that it is under the current holyrood system that no new nuclear builds will be sanctioned.

It maybe a private company but regulated by the government. If the government said change the way charge is done, then it would happen. Why is a power station in Cornwall being paid to put its electricity into the grid but power stations in Scotland have to pay to put its electricity into the grid?

[theone]

It maybe a private company but regulated by the government. If the government said change the way charge is done, then it would happen. Why is a power station in Cornwall being paid to put its electricity into the grid but power stations in Scotland have to pay to put its electricity into the grid?

Simply because transporting electricity from where it is generated to where it is required is expensive.

Also, the further it has to travel the more inefficient it becomes. The energy is effectively lost. The simple fact is the vast majority of the population, and electricity usage of the country, is a long way away from Longannet. Power stations in the north of England have the same problem.

Power stations are paid by the MWh for what they feed in. If a significant amount of that is that is lost in transmission, the power station is effectively getting paid for producing a product that cannot be used.

Why should the consumer (bill payers like you and me) pay a power station to do that?

[Rheghead]

Simply because transporting electricity from where it is generated to where it is required is expensive.

Also, the further it has to travel the more inefficient it becomes. The energy is effectively lost.

That doesn't make sense. It is the generator that takes the hit on energy losses. Customers pay for their energy at the point of consumption. Why would the grid charge generators more for a loss that doesn't affect them?

[scoobyc]

That doesn't make sense. It is the generator that takes the hit on energy losses. Customers pay for their energy at the point of consumption. Why would the grid charge generators more for a loss that doesn't affect them?

So you think the "generators" pay for these losses out of the goodness of their hearts? No, it is factored into your unit price.

[Rheghead]

So you think the "generators" pay for these losses out of the goodness of their hearts? No, it is factored into your unit price.

Even if that were true, why does the grid have to charge Scottish generators more when it isn't their loss to make up?

[gerry4]

It now means that power will have to be imported from england to scotland because a scottish power station has been closed. This therefore means that the power did not have that far to travel, especially to the central belt. Far less distance than power generated in say cornwall coming to Thurso but the power station in Cornwall is paid to put power into the grid. No real logic in it and needs to be rethought. It seems this costing system was only implemented in the '90's by the then labour government.

[theone]

That doesn't make sense. It is the generator that takes the hit on energy losses. Customers pay for their energy at the point of consumption. Why would the grid charge generators more for a loss that doesn't affect them?

I agree, it doesn't make sense.

But it's true.

Energy put into the grid is metered at the power station. The power station then gets paid the going rate per unit for what it has produced.

Energy taken out of the grid is metered at the point of use. The consumer pays the going rate per unit of what they use.

But the fact is there's a big difference between what is produced and and what is paid for.

So what's the best way to make up this difference?

You could pass the cost difference directly on to the consumer. Fix the price per unit to make everybody pay more. This way you could subsidise inefficient power stations. The owners of the power companies would get the same reward regardless of much energy is wasted. But how much effort would they put into building efficient stations, on expensive land, in areas of high population density, with more objections and obstructions? Very little I would guess.

Or you could do what is done now. "Punish" the companies that build their stations in locations that result in the most losses, whilst rewarding those that don't. Give them an incentive not to waste energy.

Although I'm sure the people in Longannet won't agree, the current system is good for keeping prices down for the consumer, and good for the environment by limiting waste.

[theone]

It now means that power will have to be imported from england to scotland because a scottish power station has been closed. This therefore means that the power did not have that far to travel, especially to the central belt. Far less distance than power generated in say cornwall coming to Thurso but the power station in Cornwall is paid to put power into the grid. No real logic in it and needs to be rethought. It seems this costing system was only implemented in the '90's by the then labour government.

Not really true.

Scotland is a net exporter of energy.

Yes, there will be times when the wind isn't blowing that we have to import energy, but the fact is over the course of a year we will produce more than we use.

And just to be clear, Longannet isn't being shut down due to competition from Cornwall. Peterhead powerstation has won the contract to supply the demand.

[gerry4]

[QUOTE=theone;1114336

And just to be clear, Longannet isn't being shut down due to competition from Cornwall. Peterhead power station has won the contract to supply the demand.[/QUOTE]

Yes Peterhead won the contract but the Scottish Power manager/ceo (or what ever) said that if they had the same payments as those down south have they it would of remained open even without the contract. They have been having talks for a year or 2 to try to get these charges changed without success.

The basic problem according to Scottish Power & other power companies who generate in Scotland is that power stations in scotland have to pay to join the grid, those down south don't have to.

[theone]

The basic problem according to Scottish Power & other power companies who generate in Scotland is that power stations in scotland have to pay to join the grid, those down south don't have to.

So what would you propose to be the best solution? Do nothing to discourage inefficient power generation with the resulting costs to the consumer and the environment?