Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Chinese pay toxic price for a green world
Options
Comments
-
Spread over what time frame?
The ROCs are applicable all the time.All the time?
I believe so, why why should Denmarks' neighbours pay more for elecricity than it costs them to produce it themselves.
If you doubt my original statements, it would be helpful if you could provide counter evidence to them.0 -
In the UK, but your description of how they work is inaccurate:Chloe Pink wrote: »The ROCs are applicable all the time.
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Pages/RenewablObl.aspxThe RO is the main support scheme for renewable electricity projects in the UK. It places an obligation on UK suppliers of electricity to source an increasing proportion of their electricity from renewable sources.
A Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC) is a green certificate issued to an accredited generator for eligible renewable electricity generated within the United Kingdom and supplied to customers within the United Kingdom by a licensed electricity supplier. One ROC is issued for each megawatt hour (MWh) of eligible renewable output generated.
...
The Orders place an obligation on licensed electricity suppliers in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to source an increasing proportion of electricity from renewable sources. In 2005-06 it was 5.5 per cent (2.5 per cent in Northern Ireland). In 2006-07 the obligation is set at 6.7 per cent (2.6 per cent in Northern Ireland).
Suppliers meet their obligations by presenting sufficient Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs). Where suppliers do not have sufficient ROCs to meet their obligations, they must pay an equivalent amount into a fund, the proceeds of which are paid back on a pro-rated basis to those suppliers that have presented ROCs. The Government intends that suppliers will be subject to a renewables obligation until 31 March 2037.
Do you have any evidence to support this belief?Chloe Pink wrote: »I believe so...0 -
In the UK, but your description of how they work is inaccurate:
Are you disagreeing with this statement "...but the Renewables Obligation, a complex subsidy paid to generators but drawn indirectly from bills, adds a further £1.4bn, more than doubling the cost to the British consumer."
and if so please would you provide the evidence?
http://www.ref.org.uk/images/PDFs/sharman.ice.pt2.pdfDo you have any evidence to support this belief?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUsun3hIT0
Would you provide evidence along with the relevant costs please to support your original statement "Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels."?0 -
Yes.Chloe Pink wrote: »Are you disagreeing with this statement "...but the Renewables Obligation, a complex subsidy paid to generators but drawn indirectly from bills, adds a further £1.4bn, more than doubling the cost to the British consumer."
I just did – the renewables obligation is effectively paid by consumers to other consumers.Chloe Pink wrote: »and if so please would you provide the evidence?
I’ve just scanned through this document (admittedly rather quickly) and I’m not seeing any statement to support your belief that Denmark sells wind power at a loss all of the time.Chloe Pink wrote: »
I’m in work and can’t watch videos right now, but I’m pretty sure you posted that video in another thread and claimed it to be “from the heart of Denmark’s wind industry”, which it clearly is not. Is there a particular statement made in the video that you wish to draw attention to?Chloe Pink wrote: »
You can qualify it with “If the sale price exceeds the production price”.Chloe Pink wrote: »Would you provide evidence along with the relevant costs please to support your original statement "Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels."?0 -
Everything has some kind of environmental impact associated with its production. I’d still be pretty confident that the environmental impact of a wind farm is low relative to alternative forms of power generation.
It’s not wind turbines that are wreaking havoc with natural habitats in China, it’s China’s approach to, well, pretty much anything really – their environmental record is pretty abysmal.
Gas would be one of my preferred options too, but does the construction of a gas-fired power station not have a pretty significant ecological impact? For example, a gas-fired power plant contains turbines, doesn’t it?
Everything is relative and the best policy is energy use mitigation in the first place.
Having said that please look at your comment blaming China over their environmental record. The real fact of the matter (and I am not one for PC talk usually) is that anybody who buys an item at lower cost from China is contributing to this and multinationals AND Chinese companies and the Chinese government AND Western governments all share blame.
Western consumers and companies can wash their hands with pollution that is unseen and 'over the border'. It's like the case of Sweden and Denmark proudly proclaiming how they cut greenhouse gas emissions without mentioning that most of their polluting industry and manufacturing simply moved to China!
Green energy is only feasible with economic pricing, but economic pricing can sometimes only be acheived with environmental degradation and large energy input from dirty fuels.
This subject is very important to discuss..all parts of a process need to be looked at and understood without saying 'wind good, fossil fuel bad'.
Overall I'm in favour of renewable technologies but the greens don't do themselves any favours pulling the curtains over their own eyes. Nuclear energy but from outside the state, wind power but with foreign environmental degradation and unreliable supply.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes.
I just did – the renewables obligation is effectively paid by consumers to other consumers.
Can you quote the words that say this?
Can you explain how I get back the money I have paid through an unitemised charge on my electricity bill?
Who are you referring to when you say "consumer"?
Do I have to have my own renewable generator to get money back from the ROCs system?0 -
Yes.
You can qualify it with “If the sale price exceeds the production price”.
Thank you for the qualification; so you're saying:
"Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels, if the sale price exceeds the production price."?
Can you provide evidence of examples where the sale price has exceeded the production price please?0 -
From a quick look at the posting of the certificate scheme it looks like a shared 'loss' subsidy among European countries. It does not actually improve the economics as far as I can see.0
-
I’m not in disagreement with any of that at all. What I am saying is that, just because this is the way things are done at present, and just because China is pretty lax in her approach to manufacturing at present (and/or the West is overlooking this), that doesn’t mean that this is the only way. There’s no reason why China cannot introduce more stringent regulations for environmental protection (and yes, it may take pressure from the West to achieve this) and, in so doing, produce more environmentally friendly turbines (for example). This will of course make said turbines more expensive and this, of course, should be factored into decisions to build more wind farms. However, as I said already in the thread, were China to improve her environmental record, I suspect it would result in just about everything produced there becoming more expensive.Everything is relative and the best policy is energy use mitigation in the first place.
Having said that please look at your comment blaming China over their environmental record. The real fact of the matter (and I am not one for PC talk usually) is that anybody who buys an item at lower cost from China is contributing to this and multinationals AND Chinese companies and the Chinese government AND Western governments all share blame.0 -
Yes it would make things more expensive ...hard to predict what that would do overall to environmentally but certainly wind power would be less feasible in the near term.
It's happening right now actually. Between inflation in China, the rising yuan and the pressure to clean up it's environment things are going to change...inflation is going to feed into the rest of the world and have some knock-on effects. I think the days of getting ever cheaper stuff are finished especially with a rising Asian middle class demanding material goods.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes.
I’ve just scanned through this document (admittedly rather quickly) and I’m not seeing any statement to support your belief that Denmark sells wind power at a loss all of the time.
I’m in work and can’t watch videos right now, but I’m pretty sure you posted that video in another thread and claimed it to be “from the heart of Denmark’s wind industry”, which it clearly is not. Is there a particular statement made in the video that you wish to draw attention to?
Regarding Hugh Sharman's Telford Gold Award winning paper, the first paragraph on page 2 makes reference to the point in question and on the video, Hugh Sharman says "we invariably export it at a lower price than we paid for it".
I urge you not to allow any description I may have attached to the video, to destract you from the value of it's content and apologise if this occurred; Hugh Sharman has a wealth of experience in the energy field.
(Apologies for answering in a few posts but am inbetween doing other things)0 -
Does it? Again, I’m not seeing anything clearly stated about Denmark consistently exporting wind power at a loss. I would however draw your attention to the introductory paragraph on the first page, in which it is stated that the author concludes that wind power should be exploited as fully as possible. Not that this, in isolation, really means all that much.Chloe Pink wrote: »Regarding Hugh Sharman's Telford Gold Award winning paper, the first paragraph on page 2 makes reference to the point in question...
And yet, if we consult the list of references at the end of the paper referred to above, we see, at the top of the list, “Why wind power works for Denmark”, by one H. Sharman. Hmmm – I call shenanigans on the part of the video’s producers.Chloe Pink wrote: »...and on the video, Hugh Sharman says "we invariably export it at a lower price than we paid for it".
What value is this? The video has quite clearly been heavily edited to provide an extremely biased view of the subject. Besides, I’m not really all that interested in what someone says or does not say in a video.Chloe Pink wrote: »I urge you not to allow any description I may have attached to the video, to destract you from the value of it's content...0 -
Does it? Again, I’m not seeing anything clearly stated about Denmark consistently exporting wind power at a loss. I would however draw your attention to the introductory paragraph on the first page, in which it is stated that the author concludes that wind power should be exploited as fully as possible. Not that this, in isolation, really means all that much.
And yet, if we consult the list of references at the end of the paper referred to above, we see, at the top of the list, “Why wind power works for Denmark”, by one H. Sharman. Hmmm – I call shenanigans on the part of the video’s producers.
What value is this? The video has quite clearly been heavily edited to provide an extremely biased view of the subject. Besides, I’m not really all that interested in what someone says or does not say in a video.
If you're "not really all that interested in what someone says or does not say in a video", then why did you write "Is there a particular statement made in the video that you wish to draw attention to?"?
In his report, Hugh Sharman writes "Denmark is able to support a high degree of wind penetration—24% of consumption— because it is inter-connected with much larger power systems, two of which have a high component of hydropower, the flexibility of which makes it the perfect balancing partner’ for wind. Indeed, Danish wind is in effect stored, sometimes at a high cost to Denmark, by the curtailment of hydropower."
In the video he expands on the cost of this export to Norway and Sweden (the 'much larger power systems' he refers to).
Anyway rather than making unfounded accusations, could you provide evidence on the matter in question please that contradicts the points raised and could you respond to msgs 37 and 38 when you get chance please (my apologies that these appeared a little earlier in the thread)?0 -
I already did:Chloe Pink wrote: »Can you quote the words that say this?Suppliers meet their obligations by presenting sufficient Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs). Where suppliers do not have sufficient ROCs to meet their obligations, they must pay an equivalent amount into a fund, the proceeds of which are paid back on a pro-rated basis to those suppliers that have presented ROCs.
Stop being facetious please.Chloe Pink wrote: »Can you explain how I get back the money I have paid through an unitemised charge on my electricity bill?
Who are you referring to when you say "consumer"?
Do I have to have my own renewable generator to get money back from the ROCs system?
The cost to produce electricity from wind generation is about €0.04 per kWh. The cost of electricity in Ireland right now is about €0.16 per kWh.Chloe Pink wrote: »Can you provide evidence of examples where the sale price has exceeded the production price please?
If you have a video of someone providing some clear figures on the economics of wind power, great - let’s see it. However, I’m not terribly interested in unqualified sound-bites.Chloe Pink wrote: »If you're "not really all that interested in what someone says or does not say in a video", then why did you write "Is there a particular statement made in the video that you wish to draw attention to?"?
Can you be a little more specific – what exactly is your point? You stated quite categorically that Denmark always exports power at a loss – you have not shown anything that supports this statement.Chloe Pink wrote: »In his report, Hugh Sharman writes "Denmark is able to support a high degree of wind penetration—24% of consumption— because it is inter-connected with much larger power systems, two of which have a high component of hydropower, the flexibility of which makes it the perfect balancing partner’ for wind. Indeed, Danish wind is in effect stored, sometimes at a high cost to Denmark, by the curtailment of hydropower."
In the video he expands on the cost of this export to Norway and Sweden (the 'much larger power systems' he refers to).0 -
@djpbarry
The installed wind capacity in Ireland has grown steadily to about 1900MW in last few years and is projected to grow (in a strangely pulled out of someone rears) in a linear fashion for foreseable future as per eirgrid
Then if wind is really so much cheaper you should have no issues producing a graph of electricity prices showing a corresponding and correlated decrease in electricity prices.
Have fun finding such a graph/data, the one I found (attached) on electricity prices between 07-09 shows the clear correlation in prices between gas and electricity lowering prices (which of course were not allowed to be passed on in order to subsidise wind) and also shows the imports via interconnector
of course there is no evidence of wind leading to lower prices and the increased reliance on imports from UK is worrying, so much for "independence"
Oh and it seems Eirgrid will need 2.1 billion before 2015 to spend on the grid due to wind. As shown on recent RTE Primetime the head of Eirgrid doesnt know how much it will cost to meet the government targets, makes you wonder what he gets paid for.0 -
My point djpbarry is that you write (without any supporting evidence) that: “Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels.”
I point out that this can only happen if the cost of wind generated electricity is less than the amount it can be sold for. I provide three links to support the unlikelihood of such a scenario.
You on the other hand have provided one link (to OFGEM) which is fine except that you seem to be confusing the term ‘supplier’ and ‘consumer’.
This link may help:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldsctech/161/6032904.htm
“Q55 Lord Jenkin of Roding: Could I ask a supplementary on that, because I moved an amendment when we had the Energy Bill which called on the Government to require the electricity suppliers to include on customers' bills an amount representing the cost of the Renewable Obligation, because, as I said earlier, it is not the Government that pays that, or the taxpayer; it is the consumer that pays that, and we carried that amendment.”
You also write “The cost to produce electricity from wind generation is about €0.04 per kWh.”.
Please would you provide a link to support this figure?
Figures of 5.6p/kWh for on-shore wind and 10p/kWh for off-shore wind are shown here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/8060304.htm
And at point 252 at this link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19510.htm
“On the evidence submitted to us, renewable electricity is clearly more expensive than fossil fuel-fired and nuclear generation and leads to higher energy bills for consumers and businesses.0 -
The following paper shows that, unless fossil fuel prices remain low in the future (which seems unlikely), investing in wind will result in cheaper electricity prices in Ireland, provided increased connectivity with Britain is put in place:The installed wind capacity in Ireland has grown steadily to about 1900MW in last few years and is projected to grow (in a strangely pulled out of someone rears) in a linear fashion for foreseable future as per eirgrid
Then if wind is really so much cheaper you should have no issues producing a graph of electricity prices showing a corresponding and correlated decrease in electricity prices.
http://10.1093/oxrep/grp0220 -
I’ve already qualified that statement.Chloe Pink wrote: »My point djpbarry is that you write (without any supporting evidence) that: “Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels.”
And I’ve already pointed out that electricity generated from wind is, right now, selling at a profit in Ireland (and probably the UK too).Chloe Pink wrote: »I point out that this can only happen if the cost of wind generated electricity is less than the amount it can be sold for. I provide three links to support the unlikelihood of such a scenario.
Am I? Who pays the suppliers?Chloe Pink wrote: »You on the other hand have provided one link (to OFGEM) which is fine except that you seem to be confusing the term ‘supplier’ and ‘consumer’.
And your point is?Chloe Pink wrote: »I This link may help:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldsctech/161/6032904.htm
“Q55 Lord Jenkin of Roding: Could I ask a supplementary on that, because I moved an amendment when we had the Energy Bill which called on the Government to require the electricity suppliers to include on customers' bills an amount representing the cost of the Renewable Obligation, because, as I said earlier, it is not the Government that pays that, or the taxpayer; it is the consumer that pays that, and we carried that amendment.”
Fine, let’s go with 5.6p/kWh. What price is electricity currently being sold for in Ireland?Chloe Pink wrote: »You also write “The cost to produce electricity from wind generation is about €0.04 per kWh.”.
Please would you provide a link to support this figure?
Figures of 5.6p/kWh for on-shore wind and 10p/kWh for off-shore wind are shown here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/8060304.htm
And where’s the supporting evidence? Any reports I have seen (such as this one) show wind generation to be competitive with gas and nuclear.Chloe Pink wrote: »And at point 252 at this link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19510.htm
“On the evidence submitted to us, renewable electricity is clearly more expensive than fossil fuel-fired and nuclear generation and leads to higher energy bills for consumers and businesses.0 -
The following paper shows that, unless fossil fuel prices remain low in the future (which seems unlikely), investing in wind will result in cheaper electricity prices in Ireland, provided increased connectivity with Britain is put in place:
http://10.1093/oxrep/grp022
invalid url?0 -
Your evidence pleaseAnd I’ve already pointed out that electricity generated from wind is, right now, selling at a profit in Ireland (and probably the UK too).
The consumer (for the hundreth time)Am I? Who pays the suppliers?
That the consumer pays the supplierAnd your point is?
I don't know but remember to add the price of the ROCs to this 5.6p/kWh figureFine, let’s go with 5.6p/kWh. What price is electricity currently being sold for in Ireland?
I disagree that this shows wind generation to be competitive with gas and nuclear.And where’s the supporting evidence? Any reports I have seen (such as this one) show wind generation to be competitive with gas and nuclear.
Even though it includes a 'carbon cost'.
It doesn't include the cost to the consumer of the ROCs.
Here's another one: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/05/12/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/0 -
Advertisement
-
Sweet Jesus, what an article! That is truly awful! So to appease OUR need for green these villagers and farmers will have their health ruined, the lively hood ripped apart and the possibly the potential for their future generations to be born with deformities!
So the need for green isn't as green as we have been led to believe. How do we as consumers help put the pressure on big companies? Boycotting the products just doesn't seem like enough!0 -
-
Again? We’ve already established that the cost of generating electricity via wind is of the order of 5p/kWh, right? The cost of electricity in Ireland right now is significantly higher than that, is it not?Chloe Pink wrote: »Your evidence please
Great. Glad we’ve cleared that up.Chloe Pink wrote: »The consumer (for the hundreth time)
Indeed. Wasn’t that my point?Chloe Pink wrote: »That the consumer pays the supplier
Or subtract it, depending on the supplier (in the UK, that is).Chloe Pink wrote: »I don't know but remember to add the price of the ROCs to this 5.6p/kWh figure
What a surprise.Chloe Pink wrote: »I disagree that this shows wind generation to be competitive with gas and nuclear.
That report cites the US Energy Information Administration as the source of its data. Yet, when I consult the EIA’s website, I find the following (which is somewhat at odds with the Institute for Energy Research’s report):Chloe Pink wrote: »
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo10/images/figure63-lg.jpg0 -
What that the consumer pays the supplier?Indeed. Wasn’t that my point?
No it wasn't, in msg 35 you wrote "I just did – the renewables obligation is effectively paid by consumers to other consumers."
Make up your mind or explain yourself.
More utter drivelOr subtract it, depending on the supplier
And your point is?That report cites the US Energy Information Administration as the source of its data. Yet, when I consult the EIA’s website, I find the following (which is somewhat at odds with the Institute for Energy Research’s report):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo10/images/figure63-lg.jpg0 -
Your feigned ignorance is growing tiresome. Last time:Chloe Pink wrote: »What that the consumer pays the supplier?
No it wasn't, in msg 35 you wrote "I just did – the renewables obligation is effectively paid by consumers to other consumers."
Make up your mind or explain yourself.
So, if a supplier is required to pay a fee for not having a sufficient number of ROC’s, that charge is likely to passed on to consumers. However, if a supplier is in receipt of RO funds, logic dictates that said supplier will be in a position to offer cheaper electricity to its customers.Where suppliers do not have sufficient ROCs to meet their obligations, they must pay an equivalent amount into a fund, the proceeds of which are paid back on a pro-rated basis to those suppliers that have presented ROCs.
This is really getting off-topic at this stage – the purpose of this thread is not to discuss the pros and cons of the UK’s renewable obligation scheme, as it is (a) specific to the UK and (b) not specific to wind generation. I suggest you start another thread on the subject if you wish to discuss it further.
The data published by the EIA, which was supposedly used as the basis for the Institute for Energy Research’s report that you linked to, does not support said report from the Institute for Energy Research.Chloe Pink wrote: »And your point is?
By the way, I’m still waiting for you to support your claim that Denmark exports power at a loss all the time.0 -
this is a report from 2004, about Denmark and renewable energy,
it does deal witht he selling at low prices,
source http://www.dartdorset.org/pdf/West%20Danish%20wind%20power%20lessons%20for%20the%20UK.pdf
Exports and importsIt is evident that exports currently play a key role in balancing and protecting the West Danish2004).
grid against big surges in power generation. More than 60% of all electricity produced in the
region is sold on The Nordic Power Exchange (NordPool). In fact, in recent years close
relationships have existed between the amount of wind power produced and net exports of
electricity (see Nissen, 2004; and Sharman, 2004). These exports have often been sold at low
or give-away prices, and have recently been costing Danish consumers about DKK 1 billion a
year (Sharman, 2004). The power is exported via inter-connectors (c. 2,760 MW; i.e. capacity
equivalent to 73% of peak load in 2003), these being large enough to accommodate most of
the total output of the region’s current wind carpet. Both Norway and Sweden can absorb
Danish wind power by rapidly reducing their output of hydro electricity or using imported
power to pump water to elevated reservoirs for the later generation of electricity (White,
0 -
“This is really getting off-topic at this stage – the purpose of this thread is not to discuss the pros and cons of the UK’s renewable obligation scheme, as it is (a) specific to the UK and (b) not specific to wind generation. I suggest you start another thread on the subject if you wish to discuss it further.”
I disagree and ask you to reconsider please (although as Board Moderator, l will have to take your guidance on this if you insist)
a) because Renewable Obligations apply to Northern Ireland as well
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Pages/RenewablObl.aspx
“The Renewables Obligation, the Renewables Obligation Scotland and the Northern Ireland Renewables Obligation are designed to incentivise renewable generation into the electricity generation market. These schemes were introduced by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish Executive and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment respectively and are administered by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (whose day to day functions are performed by Ofgem).”
http://www.detini.gov.uk/deti-energy-index/deti-energy-sustainable/northern_ireland_renewables_obligation_.htm
b) because they are specific to renewable (“green”) technologies, the topic of this thread
http://www.detini.gov.uk/niro_2010_banding_levels_table.pdf
c) because wind turbines are the renewable generators being most developed at the moment under the ‘incentivisation’ of the ROCs scheme
http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/156/rb.jc.ref.roc.05.09.08.pdf
d) because you introduced the cost of wind generated electricity in post 25
e) and because as pointed out by maninasia in post 36, ‘Green energy is only feasible with economic pricing’, and “This subject is very important to discuss..all parts of a process need to be looked at and understood”.
This is the second time you have made personal (and presumptuous) comments:
And post 45“Your feigned ignorance is growing tiresome.”
The third point under the section “How to be better poster” states “Comment on the post not the poster.”“Stop being facetious please.”
Marvellous, and this part of your hypothesis is supported in this document:“So, if a supplier is required to pay a fee for not having a sufficient number of ROC’s, that charge is likely to passed on to consumers.”
http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/186/REF%20ROO2011%20Consultation.pdf
“We remind DECC that the RO is classified by HMT as a tax, and that the very considerable revenues transferred to generators are classified as public expenditure.”
So is this statement OK now please?
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/3639/full
"Britain is obtaining only a fraction of its electricity from renewable sources, just under 7 per cent in 2009-2010. The wholesale price of that quantity of electricity would be approximately £1bn, but the Renewables Obligation, a complex subsidy paid to generators but drawn indirectly from bills, adds a further £1.4bn, more than doubling the cost to the British consumer."
Unfortunately I can’t find anything to support the second part of your hypothesis, in fact we're being told quite the opposite, namely that electricity bills are rising so I’m not holding my breath on this one. It is after all, the £250,000- to £500,000- per turbine per year (depending on the site and the ROCs market), and additional to the selling price of the electricity, that has led to the prolific number of planning applications for wind turbine sites.“However, if a supplier is in receipt of RO funds, logic dictates that said supplier will be in a position to offer cheaper electricity to its customers.”
But you said earlier“The data published by the EIA, which was supposedly used as the basis for the Institute for Energy Research’s report that you linked to, does not support said report from the Institute for Energy Research.”
Could you supply the link to the full report that this chart belongs to: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/...igure63-lg.jpg - it may help put it into context.“That report cites the US Energy Information Administration as the source of its data.”
Please note that the words "all your time" are not mine.“By the way, I’m still waiting for you to support your claim that Denmark exports power at a loss all the time.”
When asked about "all the time", I responded that I believed so; this was not an assertion and I think indicates a level of openess to the case being otherwise. The evidence I provided certainly suggested most of the time, for example the use of the word 'invariably'.
Perhaps djpbarry, you could provide evidence to show wind generated electricity exported by Denmark (or any country for that matter) at a profit.
Meanwhile Robtri has found an interesting report that refers to Denmarks export of wind generated electricity. Thank you Robtri.0 -
The cost to produce electricity from wind generation is about €0.04 per kWh.
ah will you stop :rolleyes: the above figure is plain wrong and does not account for all the costs, (and definitely does not take into account viability of wind without being subsidised)
I am looking at an eirgrid document from few months ago in front of me, which is very interesting..
0 -
Please see Lord Reay's informed speech, it's at "4.40pm" (just before "11 Jan 2011 : Column GC131") at this link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110111-gc0001.htm
And Lord Lawson of Blaby at 4:25pm on 2 Nov 2010 around Column 1584:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...10110262000457
Just more reasons to look closely at "green" technologies0 -
Advertisement
-
Please do not discuss moderation in-thread. If you have an issue with a moderator’s actions, PM the moderator in question.Chloe Pink wrote: »I disagree and ask you to reconsider please...
They’re not personal – I asked you to stop doing something. If you consider them personal, use the report post function.Chloe Pink wrote: »This is the second time you have made personal (and presumptuous) comments:0
Advertisement