Comment posted Pilots concerned on wind farm generated air turbulence by HansBlix.
For one who has written so much on the subject, you seem to know remarkably little. The ROC value in 2010/11 was £51.34 and is the sum of 2 components: the government buy out price of £36.99 and the non-payment or recycle payment of £14.35.
Your context is wrong, completely so. Fuel consumption will never increase in the way that generation of electricity by wind farms is planned to. The Tiree Array alone would add £400m in ROC subsidy. You will get to well over £1.5bn in Scottish ROC wind subsidy quite quickly.
Fortunately, none of this will happen. Nobody, not even the clowns in the City of London, will invest in offshore wind given the problems that beset more than half of the current wind farms which are half the (turbine) capacity of future installation.
Your other context, post-independence, is another ‘aspiration’. There is every reason to suppose the UK consumer will oppose having to pay for constrained wind power in Scotland whilst paying for rUK wind power. You are asking them to pay twice for heavily subsidised electricity. Nor is there any reason for Scotland’s surplus wind power to be purchased at anything greater than at the margin.
HansBlix also commented
- I’m finding it quite difficult to get the replies to correspond …
Doc DM: ROC’s are, of course, bought and sold. I was away wandering …
The important point with UK demand is that it is falling. A 3% drop is 2 big power stations knocked off peak demand. More than one Scottish gov minister has assumed that rUK would need our power but that can not be taken for granted.
Tim M: It isn’t only “some” windfarms that are experiencing trouble. More than half have grout problems and half (6 out of 15) have Siemens 3.6MW turbines which have corroded bearings. There are about 200 of these in the field and it can not be coincidence that the Gunfleet farms produced virtually nothing last year. The loss for just these two is £60m. SSE are suing Fluor for £300m over Gabbard’s mono-piles and that farm has still not produced anything. For perspective, the banks have all but taken over Vestas for Euro 300m to keep them afloat so the financial and reputational damage done to Siemens is considerable in a market which doesn’t have far to seek its troubles.
That destroys the business case for scaling up.
The one bright spot is the Beatrice Demonstrator Project. 2 x 5MW Siemens’ turbines on completely conventional 4 leg jackets – just looks like a drilling platform – in 40mtrs on the Smith Bank in the North Sea. 4 piles hammered into each leg of a jacket made in Methil with the Siemen’s turbine and pillar put together at Nigg in 2007. Nice sandy bottom … 42m cost with some saving from using the Beatrice AP platform for routeing the power ashore.
Other than SSE planning a 1GW farm near Smith Bank using either 3.5 or 7MW turbines instead of 5MW, the Demonstrator Project seems a success from beginning to end … a bit expensive maybe.
- I’ve not heard of it as a ‘nominal’ price before. It is the actual and is rather important.
What I thought you were saying was that the value of ROC in Scotland was negligible when compared with, say, the recently delayed fuel escalator. This is patently not true in the future when the subsidy will rise very rapidly. If this is not what you were saying, you might like to do some elucidating yourself.
You misrepresent the position of offshore farms. It isn’t a market failure. It is a technical failure. They aren’t reliable.
You have (at least) 2 problems with Scottish demand and supply: firstly the average temperature of the UK has risen and electricity consumption dropped 3% last year and secondly, to be relevant, you have to turn on the wind supply between 4 and 6pm; any other time, forget it. The rise in temperature is also, I presume, occurring in Europe and is bound to impact gas prices and even those coupled to oil prices must be dropping – or should.
If you’re experienced in International law and believe that then I can’t argue the matter but ROCs aren’t bought so I’m not sure there either.
We would make a dreadful mistake if we were to trust he power companies to even tell the correct time of day. SSE have publicly made their position clear and you can safely assume that applies to all others. There are 2 ways of looking at what they’re saying; the easy and I believe incorrect view is that they’re taking a swipe at Salmond and independence. This misunderstands what drives them. For example, the regulated side of SSE’s business is huge. They intend that the uncertainties over Scottish independence be used to extract a higher price for their regulated business from Ofgem. Investment in their liberalised business will continue, why shouldn’t it, but not for the long haul stuff like offshore.
- To both you and the Doctor, Malcolm is about right. ROC wind subsidies to Scotland are running at £400m pa. Your figure of value per ROC is wrong (there are 2 components which vary but are typically £50 per MWhr in total) and your 0.1 ROC? I can’t understand where that figure comes from. Other than the 2 Robin Rigg farms which together receive over £40m in ROC, there are no other offshore farms in Scotland.
- It’s the bit at the end of that piece which suggests ALL the UK consumers will happily pay for all this wind nonsense.
By the way, re the subsidy. When the first gov climate change levy was announced in 2000, I asked Scottish Hydro from whom we were buying more than £m of power how they felt about being a tax collector (especially as it appeared to be the fossil fuel levy by another name). We agreed that there was sod all we could do about it.
- Negative? The wind industry is doing that fine themselves without any help from anyone on here.
And the airport’s in the centre of he island with the main runway aligned NE SW almost directly downstream of the wind farm
Recent comments by HansBlix
- Cameron correct not to enter into personal debate on Scottish independence
Scottish pensions and life companies would have to consider moving to England after independence to avoid the “absolute nightmare” created by cross-Border red tape, the president of the Insurance Society of Edinburgh has said.
I’ve known for some time that we could not tolerate a pension or assurance dispute arising in England being determined under Scottish law (especially given Salmond’s contempt for the Scottish judiciary) and was surprised why no Scottish cpy seemed able to voice such an opinion.
It’s game over for Salmond.
- The Galley of Lorne and the terrorism of serial planning applications
Would I be the only one who has eaten there and over many years? It appears with a few exceptions, I might be. The standard of food there has improved since the new owners took over of which I had no idea. The Craignish view isn’t so wonderful but if ever the standard of food preparation was to drop, then they would have a problem. I just hope that the owners put this aside and continue to do the things they have been doing so well.
- Landowners’ failure to sign off on community wind farm brings disappointment to Rosneath peninsula west
In England a railway preservation society has been operating with visitor limitations. That is, with the expenditure of some money they could increase the attractiveness of the site and thus footfall but they don’t own the site and the owner Network Rail has refused to increase the tenure from annual to 50 years until recently. With 50 year tenure the banks will lend and the lottery have agreed to consider funding the project. They now easily pump over £0.5m into the local economy.
So, how is it that this Trust was given £0.25m without control of the land? I know we want to do things differently but this is the sort of elementary mistake that should never have been allowed to happen. The consequences for the Trust are serious and unlikely ever to be forgotten or forgiven particularly as they provided the legal advice to the land owners.
- Davids strike Goliaths in the battle of wind at all costs
Pat Swords deserves praise, far more than I can offer.
Here is a post by Pat Swords in the bishophill blog “Hearing rules against UK renewables programme”. She has won the consultation issue and had accepted that there is a case regarding CO2 emissions.
The ruling on the failure of the National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) to comply with Article 7 of the Convention was directed at both the UK and the EU.
There are some complex and emerging legal issues here, but essentially one can have strategies, planning policies, etc, which are somewhat instruments of soft law. However, a plan with defined objectives to be delivered in terms of infrastructure is a different matter, in particular as the NREAP was adopted through the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 2009/28/EC on renewable energy without the necessary provisions for public participation being implemented by the EU and other Member States, such as the UK.
One could certainly point out that planning consent of any further developments to implement the content of the NREAP would be legally invalid, until such time as the NREAP is fully compliant with the requirements defined under National and Community law and International Treaty Arrangements with regard to environmental democracy and public participation.
In reality the planners will continue to seek to ignore this and plough on regardless, a failing of the planning process I will highlight in a later post. This would leave one with having to seek an injunction to stop the further continuation of the plan, e.g. planning consents, funding arrangements, until the necessary provisions of public participation are complied with for the adoption of the NREAP. These include not only Article 7 of the Convention, but also the more specific Community Law provision of Strategic Environmental Assessment. Currently I’m embroiled in this in the Irish High Court with regard to the Irish NREAP.
However, I would recommend that readers do actually have a look at the UK NREAP.
On pages 152 and 153, is the expected installed capacity of renewable generation, which by 2020 reaches 34,150 MW of installed onshore wind energy and 44,120 MW of offshore wind energy. As regards the rest of the document, the NREAP decided what was to be built to achieve the 15% target and then in its own words provided the financial and administrative model to deliver it.
In times to come (if not now), people will wonder what the hell the people who came up with this were smoking. At no stage was it worked out where all of this stuff (some 30,000 wind turbines) was to be built, what were the impacts on the environment, such as landscape, human beings, biodiversity, etc. What were the protection measures. What exactly were the objectives in terms of real CO2 savings given the horrendous inefficiencies on the grid? What were the alternatives to achieve those objectives and what was the likely evolution of the environment without implementation of the plan? All of these are key aspects of the Strategic Environmental Assessment process before such a plan can be adopted.
In fact these issued were never assessed prior to the adoption of the NREAP, as the clear philosophy was that the plan would be adopted first, there being no time to do otherwise, and these environmental assessment would be completed at a later phase. However, the Convention is quite clear, in that environmental considerations have to be incorporated into decision-making and as such public authorities have to be in possession of accurate, comprehensive and up-to date environmental information. Furthermore, public participation is mandatory under Article 7 of the Convention for such plans and programmes related to the environment and also has to take place when all options are open. In this process the public has to be provided with the necessary information to enable them to participate effectively in the decision-making, as to what is to be built around them.
Not only was this necessary information for the public not available, but the legally required public participation step on the National Renewable Energy Action Plan was by-passed. As a result a deluge of planning policies and planning consents resulted to deliver the targeted infrastructure in the plan, without the plan itself ever being subjected to the legally required environmental assessment and public participation.
Neither, for that matter, did the Renewable Energy Strategy which predated the NREAP even attempt to assess those impacts on landscape, population, etc. So was the UK public provided with the necessary information? The answer is No. Neither did the NREAP itself undergo a formal public participation step.
Instead, it was all rushed through and set in motion, which, as can be seen in a multitude of cases, has lead to real problems, which will become increasingly apparent and inevitably result that people will have to turn to the Courts.
- Vintage tractor mechanic wanted by Auchindrain for 1950s Fergie
Puzzled … The National Museum of Scotland runs the Museum of Rural Life at Kittochside which is a preserved farm run almost exactly as it would have been 70 years ago. The museum attached to the farm has a comprehensive collection of farm equipment of that period and I can tell you that there are some very experienced mechanics (particularly the one who got the Glasgow Single Sleeve valve engine working) who have salvaged this equipment. I would have thought that Auchindrain must know of Kittochside’s existence?
powered by SEO Super Comments