# General > General >  Bailie Windfarm has been paid £268,617  NOT to generate electricity since 28th June.

## ywindythesecond

Since 28th June, Baillie Windfarm has been paid £268,617 NOT to generate electricity when it was either not needed or the Grid couldn't cope. £98,826 was last Monday 30th September. Is everybody happy about this? It gets added to our electricity bills.
http://www.ref.org.uk/constraints/indexbywf.php

----------


## joxville

But think of the benefits they provide to the environment :-/

----------


## mi16

That's just the way the system works, hardly news worthy

----------


## scoobyc

> That's just the way the system works, hardly news worthy


imho it is, maybe puts into perspective the money involved in a site we all see?

----------


## sids

> That's just the way the system works, hardly news worthy


Yeah but this involves locals whom we can envy.

----------


## Southern-Gal

I suppose this will happen until all the new systems are in place to take all the electric they are capable of producing? Once everything is in place it will hopefully then not happen. Or am I wrong thinking that?

----------


## Big Gaz

Taking the opposite view,  whats going to happen if there is no wind for months? will electricity bills soar due to the demand for electricity that cannot be generated? sooner the 25 year life-span of these turbines is up, the sooner we see what the real truth is.

----------


## mi16

I guess it is cheaper than the damage caused by overloading the grid system.

----------


## Alrock

> Taking the opposite view,  whats going to happen if there is no wind for months?


Come on.... This is Caithness we're talking about here... Months of no wind... What planet are you on?

----------


## Big Gaz

> Come on.... This is Caithness we're talking about here... Months of no wind... What planet are you on?


lol Alrock, it was a hypothetical question  :: . Though you are right about the wind in Caithness, seems to be a shed load of it (most of it hot) coming from the org at the best of times.

----------


## Liz

I can see a few wind farms when out for a walk and half of the turbines haven't been working on days of high winds so seems to defeat the purpose!  :Frown:

----------


## ywindythesecond

> That's just the way the system works, hardly news worthy


  We pay three times as much for no electricity as we do for electricity and you think it is "hardly news worthy"?

----------


## Gronnuck

Sounds very much like Hobin Rood at work, robbing the poor to feed the rich.  God help those who are being pushed into fuel poverty.

----------


## mi16

> Sounds very much like Hobin Rood at work, robbing the poor to feed the rich.  God help those who are being pushed into fuel poverty.


Not really, the payments will be within the terms of the contract agreed by the supplier and purchaser.No robbing at all going on

----------


## ducati

The easiest way to mitigate this kind of ripoff is to go off grid and generate your own electricity. I'm not talking about gouging your neigbours with feed in tarrifs, just generate what your household needs. ::

----------


## Rheghead

It is no different when applied to a gas or coal power station. They also get compensated when they are told to shut down for whatever reason. 



> Balancing up the costs
> 
> There is a cost in this balancing activity, but it is very low for consumers - *no more than a few pence a year on a typical electricity bill.* As part of a ‘balancing mechanism’, each power station makes a ‘bid’ that reflects what they are willing to be paid – or to pay – to be taken off or moved on to the network.
> 
> In 2012/13, the total cost of balancing the network was £803million which makes up　around 1 per cent of consumer bills. Ofgem regulates these balancing costs and gives us incentives to keep them down.
> 
> The balancing costs are made up of a number of elements and one of these is constraint costs.
> 
> The total cost of constraints in 2011/12 was £324million. Of this amount, £31million was for wind constraints.
> ...


This means, proportionally, wind power companies received fewer constraint payments than other energy generators.  The truth is out there....


http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Elect...g+the+network/

----------


## orkneycadian

So l let me get this right....

In 2012/2013 the cost of constraints was down from 324 million the year before to 170 million, or very roughly, half
In the same period, the cost of wind constraints was down from 31 million to 7 million, or very roughly, a quarter
The driver for all this is grid upgrades
The driver (in these parts at least) for grid upgrades, is wind power projects, with a tinge of marine power.

So in summary, as a result of all the new windfarms, the electricity network is getting more efficient and less constrained?

Thats good to know.

----------


## Rheghead

> So l let me get this right....
> 
> In 2012/2013 the cost of constraints was down from 324 million the year before to 170 million, or very roughly, half
> In the same period, the cost of wind constraints was down from 31 million to 7 million, or very roughly, a quarter
> The driver for all this is grid upgrades
> The driver (in these parts at least) for grid upgrades, is wind power projects, with a tinge of marine power.
> 
> So in summary, as a result of all the new windfarms, the electricity network is getting more efficient and less constrained?
> 
> Thats good to know.


You've hit the nail on the head.  It just goes to show that if one's _real_ concern was constraint payments pushing up fuel bills then investment in wind energy is the way to go to keep fuel bills affordable.

----------


## weezer 316

I posted this on my facebook earlier, I thought I would just post I here today, Copy and paste job

######################################

I think I must be the only one that doesnt go  mad about energy prices. Reading on the BBC this morning the average  bill is £1300 a year, and the average profit per person is £65 per year.  

 That means for £1235 someone finds gas in Siberia,  mines it, transports it here, pumps it to you through a huge national  infrastructure, set up a support and billing mechanism and makes sure  its all kept running. Oh that that includes your usage.

 And for their service, £65 a year is what they charge. 

 I've spent more in skins in one night. #firstworldproblems

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24238708

----------


## Green_not_greed

> Since 28th June, Baillie Windfarm has been paid £268,617 NOT to generate electricity when it was either not needed or the Grid couldn't cope. £98,826 was last Monday 30th September. Is everybody happy about this? It gets added to our electricity bills.
> http://www.ref.org.uk/constraints/indexbywf.php


As has already been said, this practice is not new and has been debated on the forum before.

However I have recently been told that the payments received were MORE than Baille would have received if it had generated electricity at the time.  I'm not up to speed on the actual payments system or mechanism so have no idea how much more Baillie received than they would have if running as usual. If indeed that was the case.  Perhaps Rheghead has the answer - I don't know.

Whatever, consumers paying any electricity generator MORE than they would normally receive if they were generating normally really doesn't sound right.  If that is the case then something is very wrong with the system.

GNG

----------


## Rheghead

> As has already been said, this practice is not new and has been debated on the forum before.
> 
> However I have recently been told that the payments received were MORE than Baille would have received if it had generated electricity at the time.  I'm not up to speed on the actual payments system or mechanism so have no idea how much more Baillie received than they would have if running as usual. If indeed that was the case.  Perhaps Rheghead has the answer - I don't know.
> 
> Whatever, consumers paying any electricity generator MORE than they would normally receive if they were generating normally really doesn't sound right.  If that is the case then something is very wrong with the system.
> 
> GNG


I don't know either.  But one thing is for certain, asking wind farms to shut down must be a last resort.  

If you were the national grid operator and you need to balance the grid, you have the choice of shutting down a wind farm or a carbon dioxide belching coal power station, what would you choose?  It would be easy to turn the wind off so something has to persuade you to turn off a coal power plant.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I don't know either. But one thing is for certain, asking wind farms to shut down must be a last resort. 
> 
> If you were the national grid operator and you need to balance the grid, you have the choice of shutting down a wind farm or a carbon dioxide belching coal power station, what would you choose? It would be easy to turn the wind off so something has to persuade you to turn off a coal power plant.


Turning off windfarms *is* a last resort. National grid has to balance its books as well as the grid and as it is 3 or 4 times more expensive to turn off windfarms it shuts down coal plant first until it runs out of them, and then as a last resort it uses our money to shut down the windfarms, which caused the problem in the first place.

----------


## Rheghead

> Turning off windfarms *is* a last resort. National grid has to balance its books as well as the grid and as it is 3 or 4 times more expensive to turn off windfarms it shuts down coal plant first until it runs out of them, and then as a last resort it uses our money to shut down the windfarms, which caused the problem in the first place.


When are you going to start legal proceedings against me or are you all talk and no action?

----------


## ywindythesecond

When I have to, but meantime can we stick to the thread? I have answered your question. Normally you would now argue your point. That is how civilised debate is conducted. Please continue.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> When are you going to start legal proceedings against me or are you all talk and no action?


He has to read the Big Red Book of Legal Action for Schoolboys before he can contemplate that.  ::

----------


## golach

> When I have to, but meantime can we stick to the thread? I have answered your question. Normally you would now argue your point. That is how civilised debate is conducted. Please continue.


Yawn, here we go again!!!

----------


## Rheghead

> When I have to, but meantime can we stick to the thread? I have answered your question. Normally you would now argue your point. That is how civilised debate is conducted. Please continue.


You're all talk and no action then.

Why should I take you seriously when you make legal threats that you don't intend to follow up?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Turning off windfarms *is* a last resort. National grid has to balance its books as well as the grid and as it is 3 or 4 times more expensive to turn off windfarms it shuts down coal plant first until it runs out of them, and then as a last resort it uses our money to shut down the windfarms, which caused the problem in the first place.


Anyone care to argue with that?

----------


## Rheghead

> Anyone care to argue with that?


Yes I care, we can go back to our robust discussions but there is the matter of you making legal threats.

An apology would get us back to normal.

----------


## ywindythesecond

I accept your apology for repeatedly accusing me of lying and I look forward to a vigorous debate.

So, moving on,  I said:

_"Turning off windfarms is a last resort. National grid has to balance its books as well as the grid and as it is 3 or 4 times more expensive to turn off windfarms it shuts down coal plant first until it runs out of them, and then as a last resort it uses our money to shut down the windfarms, which caused the problem in the first place."_

----------


## Rheghead

> I accept your apology for repeatedly accusing me of lying and I look forward to a vigorous debate.
> 
> So, moving on,  I said:
> 
> _"Turning off windfarms is a last resort. National grid has to balance its books as well as the grid and as it is 3 or 4 times more expensive to turn off windfarms it shuts down coal plant first until it runs out of them, and then as a last resort it uses our money to shut down the windfarms, which caused the problem in the first place."_


Come on, you must apologise to me for making legal threats. I know anyone can get a little angry at times and blurt out something that they regret.  I'm really understanding in that respect.  It is up to you or you'll force me to stifle any debate that you'd like to start.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> It is up to you or you'll force me to stifle any debate that you'd like to start.


Reported to mods.

----------


## Rheghead

> Reported to mods.


Report away.  Are you going to apologise for making legal threats?  Even your supporters would respect you more for doing so.  Sorry is the hardest word.

----------


## ywindythesecond

Now up to £269,906.

----------


## mi16

> Report away.  Are you going to apologise for making legal threats?  Even your supporters would respect you more for doing so.  Sorry is the hardest word.


 you are beginning to look like the end of a bell

----------


## Rheghead

> you are beginning to look like the end of a bell


 Do you think it is ok for ywindy to make legal threats to me for exposing him for having a financial interest (a business) out of objecting to wind farms?  Also for saying that that he goes on jollies to wind farm inquiries?

----------


## mi16

> Do you think it is ok for ywindy to make legal threats to me for exposing him for having a financial interest (a business) out of objecting to wind farms?  Also for saying that that he goes on jollies to wind farm inquiries?


I couldn't give a monkeys, in my opinion you are as bad as each other.You would be better sorting your differences in the traditional manner.

----------


## Rheghead

> I couldn't give a monkeys, in my opinion you are as bad as each other.You would be better sorting your differences in the traditional manner.


And the traditional manner is an apology.

----------


## mi16

> And the traditional manner is an apology.


or a debate, duel, swordfight, jousting, bare knuckle fight, wrestling bout anything but boring the world with your online he said / she said nonsense

----------


## Rheghead

> or a debate, duel, swordfight, jousting, bare knuckle fight, wrestling bout anything but boring the world with your online he said / she said nonsense


What like you are doing now?

----------


## orkneycadian

From the information that Ywindy has provided us with, it would seem that these contraints are on the way out anyway, thanks to all the grid upgrades that have arisen from all the windfarms being built.  With the wind constraints being less than a quarter this year than they were last year, it looks like next year, they could be so insignificant to not even be worth worrying about.  At £7 million per year for wind constraints, spread over 63 million of a population, thats 11.1p for each of us.  I think I can live with that, and it seems a very small price to pay for the grid upgrades that are making our electricity network so much more efficient.

Thanks for the information Ywindy.  Its good that you can put it into such vivid perspective for us.

----------


## ywindythesecond

Now up to £269,906.

----------


## Rheghead

> Now up to £269,906.


so less than £1300 in 18 days.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> so less than £1300 in 18 days.


It jumped to £283,264 on 23rd October, making it an average of £1953.54 every day from 28th June to 23rd October.

----------


## Rheghead

As I said earlier, more constraint payments were paid to other generators pro rata.  

If your real concern was constraints payments pushing up fuel bills then you would be supporting wind energy.  But no, you are a professional anti-wind campaigner who only has the size of your wallet as your priority.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> As I said earlier, more constraint payments were paid to other generators pro rata. 
> 
> If your real concern was constraints payments pushing up fuel bills then you would be supporting wind energy. But no, you are a professional anti-wind campaigner who only has the size of your wallet as your priority.


*"If your real concern was constraints payments pushing up fuel bills then you would be supporting wind energy." 

*Can you explain that to me please.

----------


## Tubthumper

Ignore him, he's bonkers.

----------


## ywindythesecond

Baillie Windfarm has now been paid £451,973 *NOT* to generate electricity since 28th June.
Baillie windfarm was paid £105,187 *NOT* to generate electricity over Friday to Sunday last weekend.
*You* pay for this.

----------


## mi16

not trying to burst your ball here windy but if you must update us each week on what they have been paid not to supply the grid with juice it would be benificial if you could provide a comparison with other forms of elelctricity generation (of a similar KW) that have received payments for non production.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> not trying to burst your ball here windy but if you must update us each week on what they have been paid not to supply the grid with juice it would be benificial if you could provide a comparison with other forms of elelctricity generation (of a similar KW) that have received payments for non production.


This is a useful starting point from todays Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...wind-farm.html

It includes this : _"A National Grid spokesman said constraint payments to wind farm companies totalled £7 million in 2012/13, adding that this represented only four per cent of the £170 million given to all electricity generators." 

_*Since last Friday*, total Constraint payments were £895,226. *One eighth of the total paid in all of 2012/13, paid out over one weekend. (Of which £440,798 was to 7 Highland Windfarms).* £27,026,009 has been paid *to windfarms* since 1st April 2013.

----------


## orkneycadian

£27,026,009 / 63,000,000 = 43p for my contribution.

Paid.  Happily.  No fuss.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> £27,026,009 / 63,000,000 = 43p for my contribution.
> 
> Paid. Happily. No fuss.


A contribution is normally made to a worthy cause. What worthy cause are you happy to have contributed to?

----------


## Tubthumper

You just can't see it can you?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> You just can't see it can you?


Not sure what I can't see, but please persuade me how paying windfarms lots of money to not generate electricity is good for me.

----------


## Rheghead

> £27,026,009 / 63,000,000 = 43p for my contribution.
> 
> Paid.  Happily.  No fuss.


And if the average household energy bill is approximately £1200 then constraint payments amount to 0.03% 

It's not even worth a stamp, ink and a bit of paper to make a written protest to your MP with...

----------


## ywindythesecond

> £27,026,009 / 63,000,000 = 43p for my contribution.
> 
> Paid. Happily. No fuss.


£7million over 365 days is £19178 a day. £27,026,009 over 217 days is £124,543 a day.  A 649% increase.

----------


## ducati

I'd have thought the real issue is the prolifaration of windfarms, paid for by us. (I was looking on ebay and you can buy a second hand single turbine for a million £s) I would wonder how long a single turbine takes to pay for itself. They can't possibly be value for money because there are many people/businesss making money before they turn one revolution. 

Then we have the issue discussed here that when they are turning they cost us money, when they are not turning they cost us money.

My feeling is, they are popular because they are visible and an obvious proof of us addressing obligations we have made for green energy.

----------


## Rheghead

> Then we have the issue discussed here that when they are turning they cost us money, when they are not turning they cost us money.


They are under contract to supply the grid that is why they get paid if they're told to shut down.  It is no different for other contracts.  For example when a parent uses a registered babysitter, they get paid even if the child is ill and the child stays at home.

----------


## Green_not_greed

> My feeling is, they are popular because they are visible and an obvious proof of us addressing obligations we have made for green energy.


Well they're not very popular in rural areas which have to live with them, surveys show those living in cities are marginally in favour.  Of course it depends on what questions are being asked!

These are true "ivory towers" in every meaning of the word.  A statement or symbol which looks impressive but is in fact wholly ineffective.

----------


## weezer 316

Who gives a damn if they are popular? Build them because they are the right thing to do and will give us clean and plentiful power. The ignorance of not worrying about tomorrow in these matters, and infact in many matters, from the baby boomers, has got us in a right mess. Ignore them and get one with it.

----------


## scoobyc

> Build them because they are the right thing to do and will give us clean and plentiful power.


but only when its windy......
Or do you/we only use electricity when there's a wind blowing?

----------


## Rheghead

> but only when its windy......
> Or do you/we only use electricity when there's a wind blowing?


Can you make any reference to where it says that is the only option?

----------


## orkneycadian

> A contribution is normally made to a worthy cause. What worthy cause are you happy to have contributed to?


I am not entirely sure I could claim that 100% of my tax and national insurance contributions go to worthy causes.

----------


## scoobyc

See my quote from weezer above - clearly says build them because they provide plentiful power - when talking about supplying power from a source we have NO control over, this should always be followed by a statement saying only when it is windy until such a time as we have a sufficient way of "storing" the electricity, or develop a way to control the wind!  :Wink:

----------


## orkneycadian

> ...when talking about supplying power from a source we have NO control over...


Of course, this is very different from Russian gas and Chinese owned nuclear power stations!

----------


## scoobyc

So we've now gone from Bailie Windfarm to Nuclear power plants on the other side of the world....... good effort ::

----------


## Rheghead

> So we've now gone from Bailie Windfarm to Nuclear power plants on the other side of the world....... good effort


Your view will depend on whether you want your energy generated by people from your community or from large faceless money grabbing corporations by use of nuke, coal and gas.  Yes, the large energy companies are trying to get into wind, only because they have to, not because they want to and they can because they have the money to do so. There are plenty of local landowners who want to diversify into the wind energy market but are faced by fierce local opposition.  In the end, it is the local schemes that suffer because big business can afford the lawyers to get their schemes through.  The pragmatic view is to get behind the local wind developments instead of objecting to every wind farm.

And let us be clear, the real money is still in fossil fuels and nuclear.

----------


## scoobyc

Take a well done the pair of you, I made one statement and asked one question, I clarified my statement in response to your question and between you both we've now ended up with your opinions about old nuclear power plants and faceless energy companies. Plenty of people are willing to debate against your views, which you both generally appear to think everyone should agree with no matter what, but it's things like this that puts people off and they just decide to forget about it, all imho  :Smile:

----------


## ywindythesecond

> £27,026,009 / 63,000,000 = 43p for my contribution.
> 
> Paid. Happily. No fuss.


Looks like your 43p will fall just a bit short okc

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/442140/10BN-ENERGY-BILLS-RIP-OFF-Salmond-wind-farm-obsession-cost-British-families-2-860

----------


## Rheghead

> Looks like your 43p will fall just a bit short okc
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/442140/10BN-ENERGY-BILLS-RIP-OFF-Salmond-wind-farm-obsession-cost-British-families-2-860


Is this the same Stuart Young that falsely accused Caithness Councillor Willie Mackay of letting his business interests affect his impartiality when considering planning applications for farmer's wind turbines?

A little bit rich of Stuart Young who has financial interests in helping antiwind action groups in opposing wind farms. 

The irony... :: 

Those who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Looks like your 43p will fall just a bit short okc


Well, the ~£27 million was your quoted figure, and the 63 million is the UK population.  As the population figure is fairly accurate, if the 43p calculation for constraint is inaccurate, then it can only be down to your figures being wrong.  Is this the case that you have been mis-stating numbers?  If so, how often have you mis-stated numbers in this debate?

So is it ~£27 million for wind constraints or not?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Well, the ~£27 million was your quoted figure, and the 63 million is the UK population. As the population figure is fairly accurate, if the 43p calculation for constraint is inaccurate, then it can only be down to your figures being wrong. Is this the case that you have been mis-stating numbers? If so, how often have you mis-stated numbers in this debate?
> 
> So is it ~£27 million for wind constraints or not?



The £27m is indeed accurate. It comes from this document from National Grid. http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonl...o300613v10.pdf
The £27m is reported on page 7
 


The astonishing fact that National Grid has entered into contracts to allow generators to connect to the transmission system before the system is capable of handling the generation to the tune of 36.5GB on average 5 years before the system is capable of handling it appears on page 13.



On the basis of the NG figures which show that 13 projects with a connected capacity of 600MW generated £17million in constraint payments in the three months ending 30th June 2013, what total value of constraint payments can we expect from a *contracted* *connection of 36.5GW on average five years ahead of transmission availability?*

My calc is (36,500MW /600MW )x £17m x 20qtrs= £20,700,000,000 (£20.7bn).
That is £16.40 per person per quarter over the piece, not 43p. £39.40 per quarter for the average family for five years.

If you read the Report in more detail you will find that National Grid has a maximum budget of £591 to cover £20.7 billion of windfall payments to generators that are allowed to connect to a grid system which is not capable of handling the load. And before you say "well the grid needs to be upgraded", it is in the process of being upgraded at a cost of £110billion. £1746 per man woman and child, just to use renewables and we still need new nuclear and gas generation because the wind frequently absents itself, waves are made by wind, and tides vary and stop twice a day every day.

Please check my calcs Reggy Sis and okc.

----------


## RagnarRocks

Well with all these figures I'm totally confused but if they are paying them not to produce because they can't get the power down south maybe it would be better to let them generate and give us cheap power seems to make more sense than paying for nothing.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Is this the same Stuart Young that falsely accused Caithness Councillor Willie Mackay of letting his business interests affect his impartiality when considering planning applications for farmer's wind turbines?
> 
> A little bit rich of Stuart Young who has financial interests in helping antiwind action groups in opposing wind farms. 
> 
> The irony...
> 
> Those who live in glass houses should never throw stones.


I will respond to this once and only once as all the information that is needed for a reasonable person to form an opinion is set out below. In future, if pressed on the matter I will simply refer to this post.

Councillors are bound by the Councillors Code of Conduct. The key paragraphs are:
5.2 It is your responsibility to make decisions about whether you have to declare an interest or make a judgement as to whether a declared interest prevents you from taking part in any discussions or voting. You are in the best position to assess your personal circumstances and to judge how these circumstances affect your role as a councillor in regard to a particular matter. You can, of course, seek advice from appropriate Council officers or from other sources which may be available to you. *In making decisions for which you are personally responsible you are advised to err on the side of caution.
* 
5.3 You may feel able to state truthfully that an interest would not influence your role as a councillor in discussion or decision-making. *You must, however, always comply with the objective test (the objective test) which is whether a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would reasonably regard the interest as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your discussion or decision making in your role as a councillor.

*Against these paragraphs, Councillor Marion Thurso was debarred from taking part in Windfarm planning meetings simply because her husband had expressed a view.

Councillor Andrew Baxter was advised by Highland Council officials that he could not take part in windfarm planning meetings because he was a member of John Muir Trust. Councillor Baxter demanded that Highland Council seek a ruling from the Standards Commissioner on this matter and the Commissioner ruled, astonishingly perversely in my view, that simply by being a member of JMT a person _would reasonably regard the interest as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your discussion or decision making in your role as a councillor_.

In the knowledge of these incredibly tight restrictions, I invite all readers to look at the following two webcasts and judge for themselves whether Councillor Mackay ought to have declared an interest.

*NPAC 21st May 2013* http://www.highland.public-i.tv/core...ractive/104589
6.2 Applicant: R R Mackay and Company Limited - 12/03638/FUL (Dunnet turbine)

*NPAC 18th June 2013* http://www.highland.public-i.tv/core...ractive/105580 
6.2 Applicant: Messrs D B Angus - 12/01234/FUL (Mey turbine)

----------


## Rheghead

> On the basis of the NG figures which show that *13 projects with a connected capacity of 600MW* generated £17million in constraint payments in the three months ending 30th June 2013, what total value of constraint payments can we expect from a *contracted* *connection of 36.5GW on average five years ahead of transmission availability?*
> 
> My calc is (36,500MW /*600MW* )x £17m x 20qtrs= £20,700,000,000 (£20.7bn).
> That is £16.40 per person per quarter over the piece, not 43p. £39.40 per quarter for the average family for five years.
> 
> If you read the Report in more detail you will find that National Grid has a maximum budget of £591 to cover £20.7 billion of windfall payments to generators that are allowed to connect to a grid system which is not capable of handling the load. And before you say "well the grid needs to be upgraded", it is in the process of being upgraded at a cost of £110billion. £1746 per man woman and child, just to use renewables and we still need new nuclear and gas generation because the wind frequently absents itself, waves are made by wind, and tides vary and stop twice a day every day.
> 
> Please check my calcs Reggy Sis and okc.


You've deliberately made it worse than what it is.  I accept that modelling the future is fraught with difficulty but you've certainly gilded your own lily to maximum.

1) The 13 projects that received £17m _just happened_ to have a grid connected capacity of 600MW, the amount paid is not derived from a function using 600MW.  Nor is 600MW a threshold over and above which payments should be paid to additional projects.   You've deliberately used the 600MW as a function in your calculation.

2)It is safer to say that the £17m is derived from a) a function of the whole generating capacity in the geographic areas that are affected by bottle necking of the existing grid, b) the shortcomings of the grid, c) demand/supply at the times.  Your 36.5GW says nothing about where these projects are to be built.  You make the assumption that the extra projects have the same bottleneck constraints as those that received payments.

The current total capacity is ~9000MW.  So the £17m would be more accurately linked to that as a function.
ie (9000MW/9000MW) x £17m =£17m   or in the case of 36.5GW, (36500MW/9000MW) x £17m = £69m 

or £1.14 per person per quarter.

Since not all that 36.5GW (I assume that is the government target) is north of the great north/south bottle neck then the true figure, ie 43p per quarter is more realistic.

----------


## Rheghead

> I will respond to this once and only once as all the information that is needed for a reasonable person to form an opinion is set out below. In future, if pressed on the matter I will simply refer to this post.
> 
> Councillors are bound by the Councillors Code of Conduct. The key paragraphs are:
> “5.2 It is your responsibility to make decisions about whether you have to declare an interest or make a judgement as to whether a declared interest prevents you from taking part in any discussions or voting. You are in the best position to assess your personal circumstances and to judge how these circumstances affect your role as a councillor in regard to a particular matter. You can, of course, seek advice from appropriate Council officers or from other sources which may be available to you. *In making decisions for which you are personally responsible you are advised to err on the side of caution.
> * 
> 5.3 You may feel able to state truthfully that an interest would not influence your role as a councillor in discussion or decision-making. *You must, however, always comply with the objective test (“the objective test”) which is whether a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would reasonably regard the interest as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your discussion or decision making in your role as a councillor.”
> 
> *Against these paragraphs, Councillor Marion Thurso was debarred from taking part in Windfarm planning meetings simply because her husband had expressed a view.
> 
> ...


Then you falsely accused him with no evidence to support your fantasy.

The irony in all this is 'How much are your business interests likely to prejudice your discussion or decision making on this forum?' How do we know it isn't your financial greed speaking?  Because seemingly the most logical arguments don't seem to register with you so I guess it is your greed.

----------


## orkneycadian

> or £1.14 per person per quarter.
> 
> Since not all that 36.5GW (I assume that is the government target) is north of the great north/south bottle neck then the true figure, ie 43p per quarter is more realistic.


So not the £2,860 per household as stated in the article in the Daily Express?

43p and £1.14 seem to be in similar ball parks.  £2,860 isn't.  So which one is it?

----------


## Rheghead

> And before you say "well the grid needs to be upgraded", *it is in the process of being upgraded at a cost of £110billion*. *£1746* per man woman and child, just to use renewables and we still need new nuclear and gas generation because the wind frequently absents itself, waves are made by wind, and tides vary and stop twice a day every day.
> 
> Please check my calcs Reggy Sis and okc.


More smoke, mirrors and scaremongering.

You've just lumped together the cost of the grid upgrade, £30 billion with the cost of additional generation (including nuclear and low carbon generation) required to decarbonise the electricity system and then gone on to attribute that cost to renewables.  That is some twisting of figures.

----------


## Rheghead

> So not the £2,860 per household as stated in the article in the Daily Express?
> 
> 43p and £1.14 seem to be in similar ball parks.  £2,860 isn't.  So which one is it?


That £2860 was for 7 years per household or equivalent to £42 per person per quarter. 

Stay with the 43p per person per quarter and you can't go wrong.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Then you falsely accused him with no evidence to support your fantasy.
> 
> The irony in all this is 'How much are your business interests likely to prejudice your discussion or decision making on this forum?' How do we know it isn't your financial greed speaking? Because seemingly the most logical arguments don't seem to register with you so I guess it is your greed.


See #74 at  http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...14#post1055914

----------


## orkneycadian

> More smoke, mirrors and scaremongering.


I suspected as much.

Much as Ywindy has been entertaining at times, especially when he told us about the time he tried to electrocute himself when trying to fix an immersion heater, its looking more and more like the ignore list for him.  He gives us figures one day, then over-rides them the next, when, after putting them in prespective, they seem quite irrelevant.  £27 million sounded a lot, and I guess we were meant to be shocked.  But when that gets translated to 43p per person, id doesnt sound that bad to me.  Heck, we've even apparantly paid £80 per person to learn Gaelic.  I think I would rather have electricity than be able to speak funny!

----------


## ywindythesecond

> More smoke, mirrors and scaremongering.
> 
> You've just lumped together the cost of the grid upgrade, £30 billion with the cost of additional generation (including nuclear and low carbon generation) required to decarbonise the electricity system and then gone on to attribute that cost to renewables. That is some twisting of figures.


Cant find the actual letter Ed Davey sent to the Holyrood EET Committee on its final report on renewables targets but the URL will confirm that this is a genuine transcript. 

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4...ATE_CHANGE.pdf

Here are extracts with the not-twisted figures.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 
Thank you for your letter regarding the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee's inquiry into the achievability of the Scottish Government's renewables targets and for the opportunity to respond to the paints raised.

Alongside this support for low carbon generation, *I am committed to ensuring the necessary network infrastructure is in place to carry increasing levels of green power to customers.* *So I am pleased that the billions* being invested in our networks will strengthen Scottish generators' access to the wider GB market while helping to increase the overall efficiency of the system.


We have a close working relationship with the Scottish Government across the full 
spectrum of energy matters. In particular, I _very_ much welcome its support for electricity market reform (EMR) and the Energy Bill currently passing through the Westminster Parliament. *The Energy Bill is designed to unlock up to £110 billion investment energy infrastructure across the UK.*

----------


## Rheghead

> Cant find the actual letter Ed Davey sent to the Holyrood EET Committee on its final report on renewables targets but the URL will confirm that this is a genuine transcript. 
> 
> http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4...ATE_CHANGE.pdf
> 
> Here are extracts with the not-twisted figures.
> 
> DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 
> Thank you for your letter regarding the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee's inquiry into the achievability of the Scottish Government's renewables targets and for the opportunity to respond to the paints raised.
> 
> ...


But that £110bn includes the costs for new generation like new nuclear and other low carbon generation.  The actual grid upgrades merely cost £30bn.  But even so, renewables are only the reason for part of that £30bn as new nuclear will cost a substantial amount to connect to the grid.

You put that £110bn directly to upgrading the grid because of renewables like wind etc which was totally erroneous.




> And although some of the sites identified
> for new nuclear stations have existing connections
> to the electricity transmission system, we will need to
> carry out substantial reinforcement of the system to
> take the higher output from the new, more efficient
> designs of nuclear station.

----------


## Green_not_greed

A little off topic, but IMO the best response to Nick Cleggs "Tell me why you're green" campaign

http://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-cleggs-letter-from-the-leader-tell-me-why-youre-green-37122.html

is the one which says

"Because nature made me that way"

Posted by Kermit the Frog

 :Smile:

----------


## ywindythesecond

> You've deliberately made it worse than what it is. I accept that modelling the future is fraught with difficulty but you've certainly gilded your own lily to maximum.
> 
> 1) The 13 projects that received £17m _just happened_ to have a grid connected capacity of 600MW, the amount paid is not derived from a function using 600MW. Nor is 600MW a threshold over and above which payments should be paid to additional projects. You've deliberately used the 600MW as a function in your calculation.
> 
> 2)It is safer to say that the £17m is derived from a) a function of the whole generating capacity in the geographic areas that are affected by bottle necking of the existing grid, b) the shortcomings of the grid, c) demand/supply at the times. Your 36.5GW says nothing about where these projects are to be built. You make the assumption that the extra projects have the same bottleneck constraints as those that received payments.
> 
> The current total capacity is ~9000MW. So the £17m would be more accurately linked to that as a function.
> ie (9000MW/9000MW) x £17m =£17m or in the case of 36.5GW, (36500MW/9000MW) x £17m = £69m 
> 
> ...


That is brilliant Reggy.  First time I read that I thought maybe he has a case to answer!!. But no, you dont, so lets look at it bit by bit.

We seem to agree that;
There were 13 projectsWith a capacity of 600MWWhich got paid £17mover a three month periodbecause they had been connected to a transmission system which had not been upgraded to take their output.
National Grid tells us that
It has firm contracts with 36.5GW (36,500MW or just under 61 times 600MW) of generation capacity to connect to the transmission systemon average 5 years before the transmission system is capable of accepting its output and maintain grid security without commercial intervention
Now if in three months 600MW connected under the *Constraint and Manage Regime* generates £17,000,000 and the generation is 61.5 times as great and the length of time of constraint is 20 times as long, then it is unlikely that it will only cost us 43p a quarter.

£17,000,000 x 61 x 20 ÷ 63,000,000 people = £329 per person or £790 per average household of 2.4 people.

I do agree that modelling the future is fraught with difficulty  and my sums wont be exact, but facts are chiels that winna ding, and to conclude that we each only need to look forward to an increase on our personal bills of 43p per quarter due to Connect and Manage Constraint costs is perverse, flies in the face of reason, ignores reality, and is an insult to .orgers intelligence.

----------


## ywindythesecond

Reggy, 
"But that £110bn includes the costs for new generation like new nuclear and other low carbon generation. The actual grid upgrades merely cost £30bn. But even so, renewables are only the reason for part of that £30bn as new nuclear will cost a substantial amount to connect to the grid."

What is the breakdown? Do you know it? I presume you do because you sound so sure of "The actual grid upgrades merely cost £30bn." What do you mean by "the actual grid upgrades"?

----------


## Rheghead

> Reggy, 
> "But that £110bn includes the costs for new generation like new nuclear and other low carbon generation. The actual grid upgrades merely cost £30bn. But even so, renewables are only the reason for part of that £30bn as new nuclear will cost a substantial amount to connect to the grid."
> 
> What is the breakdown? Do you know it? I presume you do because you sound so sure of "The actual grid upgrades merely cost £30bn." What do you mean by "the actual grid upgrades"?


You can merely google it.  I did.  I advise anyone to do the same if they disagree with anything they read on this forum.

----------


## Rheghead

> That is brilliant Reggy.  First time I read that I thought “maybe he has a case to answer!!”. But no, you don’t, so lets look at it bit by bit.
> 
> We seem to agree that;
> There were 13 projectsWith a capacity of 600MWWhich got paid £17mover a three month periodbecause they had been connected to a transmission system which had not been upgraded to take their output.
> National Grid tells us that
> It has firm contracts with 36.5GW (36,500MW or just under 61 times 600MW) of generation capacity to connect to the transmission systemon average 5 years before the transmission system is capable of accepting its output and maintain grid security without commercial intervention
> Now if in three months 600MW connected under the *Constraint and Manage Regime* generates £17,000,000 and the generation is 61.5 times as great and the length of time of constraint is 20 times as long, then it is unlikely that it will only cost us 43p a quarter.
> 
> £17,000,000 x 61 x 20 ÷ 63,000,000 people = £329 per person or £790 per average household of 2.4 people.
> ...


What is more likely?  You and you alone have discovered a gaping hole in the economics of the energy market, or, you have simply got your sums wrong by over an order of magnitude?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> You can merely google it. I did. I advise anyone to do the same if they disagree with anything they read on this forum.


Post a link. It is only polite to .orgers who might want to know.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> What is more likely? You and you alone have discovered a gaping hole in the economics of the energy market, or, you have simply got your sums wrong by over an order of magnitude?


What is more likely? 

*A.  I  control  
*1. what National Grid publishes, 
2. Renewable Energy Foundation publishes, 
3. OFGEM publishes . 
. the Sunday Express publishes, 
. and so on or;

*B. They* 
1. do it independently because they are in possession of the facts which I simply point you to.

----------


## Rheghead

> What is more likely? 
> 
> *A.  I  control  
> *1. what National Grid publishes, 
> 2. Renewable Energy Foundation publishes, 
> 3. OFGEM publishes . 
> . the Sunday Express publishes, 
> . and so on or;
> 
> ...


You didn't answer the question.....again.

It is your interpretation of facts that I have an issue with.  I have never met anyone that can twist information so corrupt as you.   I accept the NG and Ofgem info.  

Please point to me where any of them above support your claims, other than the Express which is just happy to publish any idiot's wacky anti-wind claims.  If you are wrong then they get some cheap editorial bias against wind farms because that is all they're interested in and you get your 15 minutes of fame, your name in the paper which you always want.  Absolutely shameful piece of journalism. 

You've completely made up this calculation which has no basis in reality.

----------


## scoobyc

> You didn't answer the question.....again.
> 
> It is your interpretation of facts that I have an issue with.  I have never met anyone that can twist information so corrupt as you.


Hello Mr Kettle, this is Mr Pot and you look very black lol.

----------


## Rheghead

> Hello Mr Kettle, this is Mr Pot and you look very black lol.


Sorry?  Come again?  I am only Mr Kettle if you don't like wind farms.

----------


## scoobyc

I have nothing against wind farms, especially since we have such an abundant supply of wind in Caithness.....
I just appreciate they are in no way the be all and end all solution to our energy concerns, just as nuclear has positives and negatives, and I don't like the way you consistently rubbish other peoples opinions (allegedly backed up because you've googled it, even though 27.43783% of things on the internet are made up  :Wink: ) purely because they don't agree with your dedicated faith to wind energy. All imho.

----------


## Rheghead

> I have nothing against wind farms, especially since we have such an abundant supply of wind in Caithness.....
> I just appreciate they are in no way the be all and end all solution to our energy concerns, just as nuclear has positives and negatives, and I don't like the way you consistently rubbish other peoples opinions (allegedly backed up because you've googled it, even though 27.43783% of things on the internet are made up ) purely because they don't agree with your dedicated faith to wind energy. All imho.


Let's get this straight.  I am not dedicated to wind farms though I do see them as part of a mixed energy policy.  I'm even not that enamoured with how they look.  But I am dedicated to honest debate, honest facts, you know, that stuff that stands up to close scrutiny?  If ywindy's propaganda doesn't stand up to scrutiny then I will have a go at it like I have a go at other opinions on other topics that fail as well.  This is a discussion forum where we debate stuff afterall.....

----------


## scoobyc

> I am not dedicated to wind farms


I know you too well to do anything other than lol at that statement 

Regards Scott.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> What is more likely? You and you alone have discovered a gaping hole in the economics of the energy market, or, you have simply got your sums wrong by over an order of magnitude?


I think that is the question you want me to answer.  It is extremely unlikely that I would discover the gaping hole, and it is not only likely that I could get my sums wrong by an order of magnitude, I actually did it recently. However, the sums I have presented here are the corrected and triple-checked-by-others ones.

One reason why I have faith in my sums is that, aside from okc's pitiful 43p calc, neither he nor SiS have waded in with proper numbers to support your attack on me, and neither are shy at having a potshot at me. 

I may have opened Pandora's Box, (no cheap jokes please) but lets have sums not insults. 

I have said it before and no doubt will say it again Reggy, you have a fine brain. You should use it constructively.

----------


## Rheghead

> I think that is the question you want me to answer.  It is extremely unlikely that I would discover the gaping hole, and it is not only likely that I could get my sums wrong by an order of magnitude, I actually did it recently. However, the sums I have presented here are the corrected and triple-checked-by-others ones.
> 
> One reason why I have faith in my sums is that, aside from okc's pitiful 43p calc, neither he nor SiS have waded in with proper numbers to support your attack on me, and neither are shy at having a potshot at me. 
> 
> I may have opened Pandora's Box, (no cheap jokes please) but lets have sums not insults. 
> 
> I have said it before and no doubt will say it again Reggy, you have a fine brain. You should use it constructively.


As i said, you have not taken into account of the geographical distribution of further developments that are in areas that don't have a bottleneck, you have purposefully made it look as if all the future wind farms will always have the same constraints under bottleneck conditions.

You take no account of further upgrades in your calculation.

The constraints will inevitably be paid at peak generation ie when output is maximum when the wind is up.  This is the exception, most generation happens at none-storm levels.  If you double the total amount of wind generation in an affected area then you approximately double the amount of constraint.  

You've got the amount of constraint payments as a function of the total amount of wind generation divided by the total output generation of those wind farms that you claim to be in the constraint management agreement in 2013.  It doesn't make one bit of sense either operationally or economically, unless you want to exaggerate the costs of wind by smoke and mirrors.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> As i said, you have not taken into account of the geographical distribution of further developments that are in areas that don't have a bottleneck, you have purposefully made it look as if all the future wind farms will always have the same constraints under bottleneck conditions.
> 
> You take no account of further upgrades in your calculation.
> 
> The constraints will inevitably be paid at peak generation ie when output is maximum when the wind is up. This is the exception, most generation happens at none-storm levels. If you double the total amount of wind generation in an affected area then you approximately double the amount of constraint. 
> 
> You've got the amount of constraint payments as a function of the total amount of wind generation divided by the total output generation of those wind farms that you claim to be in the constraint management agreement in 2013. It doesn't make one bit of sense either operationally or economically, unless you want to exaggerate the costs of wind by smoke and mirrors.


Putting up a great fight Reggy. When is the cavalry going to ride over the horizon to help you out?

----------


## Tubthumper

He's right ywindy. Your obsession has blinded you. You can no longer see anything that doesn't agree with your perception of how the world needs to be.

----------


## Keyser_soze

Are you just jealous your not A. a shareholder in Baillie or B. the owner of said farm ??

I smell sour grapes, at your lack of judgement to buy shares in land & plant one of these wind mills on it & make a tasty packet for you & your family.

How much has the government forked out on other rubbish in the last 10 years ? How much do the government squander daily at yon nuclear place west of Thurso ? I bet it isnt much less & I bet its been squillions more since the plant was commisioned, no one complains as much as you either.

----------


## Rheghead

> Putting up a great fight Reggy. When is the cavalry going to ride over the horizon to help you out?


I'm never afraid to get stuck into debunking all your bunkem.  Others are free to post as they wish.

It is rather ironic that you said that because about 3 years ago, you sent me a pm by mistake which was obviously meant for someone else who was in CWIF.  The contents was basically telling them to keep me occupied with the usual anti-wind BS as you were too busy yourself with preparing for a wind farm inquiry.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> He's right ywindy. Your obsession has blinded you. You can no longer see anything that doesn't agree with your perception of how the world needs to be.


What is wrong with my sums Tubs and does the National Grid Quarterly Report of the Constraint and Manage Regime not exist?

----------

