Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Meanwhile, my Bet is looking good.
Dong has won projects with their subsidy free bids for Offshore Wind project. i.e. Market Rate.
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/04/13/germany-accepts-first-subsidy-free-offshore-wind-auction-bid/Dong has won projects with their subsidy free bids for Offshore Wind project. i.e. Market Rate.
"Germany’s Bundesnetzagentur has selected three offshore wind projects by DONG Energy and one project by EnBW in the first auction for grid connections and funding for existing offshore wind farm projects, with at least one of the developers offering the lowest price bid of 0.00 Euro cents per kilowatt-hour.
The agency selected four offshore wind projects with a combined capacity of 1,490MW, including EnBW’s 900MW He Dreiht, and DONG’s Borkum Riffgrund II West, Gode Wind 3, and OWP West offshore wind farm.
The average award price was 0.44 Euro cents per kWh, and the highest price accepted was 6.00 Euro cents per kWh. All four projects are in the North Sea.
"Successful projects are entitled not only to funding under the Renewable Energy Sources Act, but also to grid connection – financed through the network charges by the electricity consumers – and the possibility to operate the wind farms for 25 years. This, too, involves a considerable amount of funding"
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/04/14/dong-explai...
"Also, developers were not bidding for the grid connection in the German auction, which means that grid connection is not included in the bid price."
So not quite zero subsidies hey? And the zero bid was not the awarded price if I read this correctly. PR exercise?
XM5ER said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Meanwhile, my Bet is looking good.
Dong has won projects with their subsidy free bids for Offshore Wind project. i.e. Market Rate.
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/04/13/germany-accepts-first-subsidy-free-offshore-wind-auction-bid/Dong has won projects with their subsidy free bids for Offshore Wind project. i.e. Market Rate.
"Germany’s Bundesnetzagentur has selected three offshore wind projects by DONG Energy and one project by EnBW in the first auction for grid connections and funding for existing offshore wind farm projects, with at least one of the developers offering the lowest price bid of 0.00 Euro cents per kilowatt-hour.
The agency selected four offshore wind projects with a combined capacity of 1,490MW, including EnBW’s 900MW He Dreiht, and DONG’s Borkum Riffgrund II West, Gode Wind 3, and OWP West offshore wind farm.
The average award price was 0.44 Euro cents per kWh, and the highest price accepted was 6.00 Euro cents per kWh. All four projects are in the North Sea.
"Successful projects are entitled not only to funding under the Renewable Energy Sources Act, but also to grid connection – financed through the network charges by the electricity consumers – and the possibility to operate the wind farms for 25 years. This, too, involves a considerable amount of funding"
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/04/14/dong-explai...
"Also, developers were not bidding for the grid connection in the German auction, which means that grid connection is not included in the bid price."
So not quite zero subsidies hey? And the zero bid was not the awarded price if I read this correctly. PR exercise?
wc98 said:
XM5ER said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Meanwhile, my Bet is looking good.
Dong has won projects with their subsidy free bids for Offshore Wind project. i.e. Market Rate.
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/04/13/germany-accepts-first-subsidy-free-offshore-wind-auction-bid/Dong has won projects with their subsidy free bids for Offshore Wind project. i.e. Market Rate.
"Germany’s Bundesnetzagentur has selected three offshore wind projects by DONG Energy and one project by EnBW in the first auction for grid connections and funding for existing offshore wind farm projects, with at least one of the developers offering the lowest price bid of 0.00 Euro cents per kilowatt-hour.
The agency selected four offshore wind projects with a combined capacity of 1,490MW, including EnBW’s 900MW He Dreiht, and DONG’s Borkum Riffgrund II West, Gode Wind 3, and OWP West offshore wind farm.
The average award price was 0.44 Euro cents per kWh, and the highest price accepted was 6.00 Euro cents per kWh. All four projects are in the North Sea.
"Successful projects are entitled not only to funding under the Renewable Energy Sources Act, but also to grid connection – financed through the network charges by the electricity consumers – and the possibility to operate the wind farms for 25 years. This, too, involves a considerable amount of funding"
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/04/14/dong-explai...
"Also, developers were not bidding for the grid connection in the German auction, which means that grid connection is not included in the bid price."
So not quite zero subsidies hey? And the zero bid was not the awarded price if I read this correctly. PR exercise?
Gandahar said:
LongQ said:
Worse still it seems there is no evidence that the river was wearing a Hi-Viz jacket when it undertook this work.
I am starting to think you should change your name from LongQ to ShortIQ having read a few posts on here from you.Never mind, I'm sure you will write something that I might find amusing eventually - not that it matters one way or another.
This is an excerpt from an open letter to potus, TM could do with a read. The full text is over at ICECAP.
Letter said:
The Paris Climate Treaty requires regulations that will force Americans to pay more and more for energy. Higher energy costs hurt hardworking American families, destroy jobs, and put our nation at a competitive disadvantage.
The Paris Agreement is a treaty. According to the Constitution, treaties require a two-thirds supermajority vote by the U.S. Senate.
The Paris Climate Treaty process was dishonest and unconstitutional. Congress has voted repeatedly against energy-rationing climate legislation time and again. A Senate vote against ratification will re-affirm this position.
The Paris Agreement is a treaty. According to the Constitution, treaties require a two-thirds supermajority vote by the U.S. Senate.
The Paris Climate Treaty process was dishonest and unconstitutional. Congress has voted repeatedly against energy-rationing climate legislation time and again. A Senate vote against ratification will re-affirm this position.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
XM5ER said:
I think you'll find that bookies are all about the detail, numb nuts.
Charming.Who are you agreeing with ?
And if having a pop at me - may I address you as Cockstand? - you know, just to remain on even ground.
Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Wednesday 19th April 22:44
kknuckle comment, how disappointing. I prefer fkknuckle as it feels more virile, vital if you will. Look old chap, if you bandy the insults around, you'll get some back. How about addressing your misleading assertions about the zero cost contract instead of having a tantrum when somebody finds you out.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
XM5ER said:
How about addressing your misleading assertions about the zero cost contract instead of having a tantrum when somebody finds you out.
Glossing over the puerile.What is there to address ?
I am not misleading anyone about anything - but said (repeating for the benefit of doubt) MY BET IS LOOKING GOOD.
I know clearly that the German regime is different to the UK, the French, the Dutch, the Amer..... get the point ?, and I know that Tennet (in this case) / Grid connections are not all things equal across those markets. The factor normally allowed to 'compare apples with apples etc'
appreciate the other jibe about 'not built until 2024' and all I have ever said it is heading in the right direction and will be subsidy free before long.
99% of the gloating goaders on this thread dispute(d) that.
Is the consumer about to benefit from lower prices for electricity? Or maybe the prices will plateau for a few years?
Or will they just do up having become "the norm" for such to happen in the energy market around Europe?
I still wonder how this Brave New Industry can promote the idealism of creating "a hundred thousand jobs", the implication being NEW jobs, without mentioning that there has to be an increase in recurring costs to support the expense year after year.
Something seems to be missing.
It's an interesting gambling parallel though.
Suck the punters in until giving money away becomes normal and the losses are quietly forgotten while every "win" becomes a reason for celebration.
Very addictive. Not often a good lifestyle choice.
The "smart money" will make the concept pay by supporting legislation that mandates putting money in their bank accounts. Never out of the accounts.
With all this talk of costs coming down, there's still no sign of certain turbine-related costs where very few details make the light of day. The following costs per UK turbine should be available to well-informed insiders as opposed to the rest of us outsiders. Costs per offshore and onshore separately would be ideal but a chicken soup average would do nicely. If any costs are unavailable for whatever reason then the notion of turbine cost - as opposed to electricity cost - remains risible given that the 'experts' can't answer such a basic question.
- construction cost including extraction and all allied processes and workforce costs up to installation
- installation cost
- grid connection cost
- location-specific capital cost
- lifecycle usage cost in full including maintenance, repair
- social / health / environmental impact costs e.g. infrasound and human health;, property prices for onshore; widespread and large-scale deaths of birds of prey and bats where a WTP approach must surely have been used at some time
- back-up cost from reliable conventional power
- cost associated with reduced reliability of the grid
- decommissioning cost
If a cost per turbine isn't known, then either nobody knows, or those involved in the industry at whatever level are being kept in the dark, or the information is being suppressed, Anywhichway it would be a massive fail involving ignorance or propaganda.
There was no sign of any substantive answers the last time or two iirc. Tick tock.
- construction cost including extraction and all allied processes and workforce costs up to installation
- installation cost
- grid connection cost
- location-specific capital cost
- lifecycle usage cost in full including maintenance, repair
- social / health / environmental impact costs e.g. infrasound and human health;, property prices for onshore; widespread and large-scale deaths of birds of prey and bats where a WTP approach must surely have been used at some time
- back-up cost from reliable conventional power
- cost associated with reduced reliability of the grid
- decommissioning cost
If a cost per turbine isn't known, then either nobody knows, or those involved in the industry at whatever level are being kept in the dark, or the information is being suppressed, Anywhichway it would be a massive fail involving ignorance or propaganda.
There was no sign of any substantive answers the last time or two iirc. Tick tock.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I am not making absurd claims - just correcting you / the thread when incorrect..
Still waiting for that, you must be an eternal optimist. You can't even provide basic data when asked and you're the insider. How much credibility do you reckon you have left to lose?Without the actual full lifecycle cost per turbine readily available (along with any remaining subsidies) the industry is clearly operating in a context of ignorance. The full absurdity at work must be too much to take for those whose salaries, careers and reputations depend on keeping reality under wraps.
I've gone way beyond your failed and facile response (Google) presumably that's what you rely on and it hasn't worked out for you. Subsidy farmers seem shy about releasing information for some reason.
As an "insider" why don't you just post the information requested rather than resort to empty rhetoric which can only work against your already threadbare case and vanishing credibility?
As an "insider" why don't you just post the information requested rather than resort to empty rhetoric which can only work against your already threadbare case and vanishing credibility?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I am not misleading anyone about anything - but said (repeating for the benefit of doubt) MY BET IS LOOKING
You have no bet - you offered a bet (which I took) then you tried to squirm and wriggle out of it by changing the timescale and dramatically wanting massive odds on price in your favour- then you had the audacity to play poker by laughing at the original tenner stake to a hundred stake!!
Holy crap, stupid gets stupider - it's your fossil fuel use that is the bigger crime for Syria, not Sarin!
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-other-poison...
Syria would not have a food/population displacement problem if it were not for war/western interference/terrorists, regardless of the population explosion and some normal drier periods/areas it was a functional/prosperous state before all this and would have coped just fine.
It's as dumb as declaring the Californian drought permanent and caused by climate change just before the wettest period on record and the end of the drought orders!
Climate nut-jobs are just determined to make themselves look like idiots.
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-other-poison...
Syria would not have a food/population displacement problem if it were not for war/western interference/terrorists, regardless of the population explosion and some normal drier periods/areas it was a functional/prosperous state before all this and would have coped just fine.
It's as dumb as declaring the Californian drought permanent and caused by climate change just before the wettest period on record and the end of the drought orders!
Climate nut-jobs are just determined to make themselves look like idiots.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
If a Car Dealership Principal sells cars, should he know the costs of the Car Transporters? Impact of the trees being cut down for the dashboard inlays (and the CO2 impact ) the cost of VLCC transiting the Suez to deliver the fuel? The cost of the NHS treating the poor children choking on the diesel fumes and causing premature asthma ? :
You've hit on the fundamental aspect of 'evaluating' anything. How far back in the supply chain do you go? It's the same as working the CO2 contribution of a car. How far back in the manufacturing and other stuff do you go? The obvious answers is, you can’t. You can always keep going, for ever. This making ALL estimates of costs, (or CO2 contribution) or any other entity, impossible. I think it will take many years before the true cost of windy things comes out. Just like the nuclear stuff, we still haven’t found out how to dispose of the left over rubbish!! To end though, we still will need back up sources for the day(s) we have no wind!!! ) the cost of VLCC transiting the Suez to deliver the fuel? The cost of the NHS treating the poor children choking on the diesel fumes and causing premature asthma ? : F---Knuckle said:
robinessex said:
To end though, we still will need back up sources for the day(s) we have no wind!!!
And there's the rub and the reason that the industrial revolution could not happen with just windmills and watermills.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff