I found out that 3 solar farms that were awarded CFDs did not sign up to them with the LCCC.
Bockingfold Solar Ltd 49MW
Rainsbrook 12.8MW
Eastgate 23MW
Interestingly all 3 were given a CAPITALISED listing in the initial AR5 results publication, the significance of which is unclear: only a couple of other AR5 awards were similarly capitalised.
How many more fall by the wayside remains to be seen, including from AR4. I have written to Bockingfold (sounds an appropriate name somehow!) asking them to comment on why they didn't sign - all three projects are owned by Voltalia UK Ltd., a subsidiary of French company Voltalia SA.
Incidentally I see that Onshore Wind has been upgraded to £64/MWh in 2012 money: full listing of all technology prices here:
Think of it this way. They didn't waste a lot on their pet consultants telling them what they want to hear this time, making do for the most part with the fantasiesfrom 2019/20. In any case, LCOE is a useless measure when large chunks of output end up being curtailed or wasted in a low efficiency round trip through hydrogen storage, and when all the other grid expansion and integration costs are ignored.
One thing that has changed is that BSUoS charges are no longer included in costs. You might think that that amounts to ignoring the impact of intermittent renewables on balancing costs. However, BSUoS charges were just allocated half to demand and half to generation pro rata to MWh produced or consumed. So in reality, removing them (because they are now paid only by demand) does nothing to alter the differential costs. One day they will get around to thinking like Dieter Helm that costs of intermittency should be allocated to intermittent generators.
But the government's own report in August 2023 put the cost of CCGT generation at £114/MWH,
BUT - £60/MWH of that cost was carbon taxes which means its CLEAN cost is just £54/MWH some 35% CHEAPER, and of course more flexible, reliable and able to provide both reactive load support and voltage support.
But, does it end there? no.
We are told they need to build 5 TIMES the transmission lines for all these renewables, at a cost of some £54bn, which YOU will be paying for on bills ON TOP of the cost of the renewables.
Does it end there? NO
That 5 times more transmission lines requires now 5 times the maintenance as a result, adding even more to bills.
Does it end there? NO
To get all this power to your home, local transformers will have to be seriously upgraded for capacity at yet more cost.
Does it end there? NO!
To replace the gas generation with mass storage, the gas costed at £54/MWH will be replaced with either hydrogen of batteries which both come in at well over £200/MWH and that doesn't really cover the capital costs either, just the generation costs.
I have often wondered, having solar panels and an inverter, whether I actually use the energy they produce (as we are told) and how does a national grid system designed to deliver energy one way accept any excess in the opposite direction... 'Arse' indeed?
(qualifier - I'm not an expert on solar and feed in)
With solar panels you can flow both ways, in reality it spins your meter backwards if you don't use it ( I don't have a smart meter) but if you do then you will get paid for what goes in but its pretty poor as I understand it with a feed in tariff of about 5p a unit but there's a mass of tariffs from 1p to about 15p.
If you have a smart meter and fed in 5KW then take 5KW you would I believe get say 5p/unit when your meter runs backwards and pay normal supply rates of 30p when its running forwards.
So if you are going to do it you really want to use it yourself rather than feed in.
For the grid it doesn't matter, what you feed in goes to your neighbours, it just lowers demand on the local transformer unless everyone gets them and then you could have a very difficult to manage mess on the grid.
Well I never did! I was wondering how the current I produced got past the Meter - I had no idea it could go backwards! We also have a separate meter to record input - we get about £800 a year back.
I don't have a Smart Meter either - and never will until forced to get one. It's how they will monitor our use and control consumption with The Internet of Things.
We're already semi off grid: we have only mains electricity and water, but no gas or mains drainage, or even a TV arial. And we live at the end of our own 170 yd lane - No one even knows we're here! We don't get many visitors.
We inherited our solar panels. Our tariff is set to 2035. The rates are absolute crap compared to what we have to pay. I wonder if anyone ever makes back the cost nowadays (bit like the false promises of EVs... And them chickens are also coming home to roost).
Yes, the smart meter is to control you, so you'll be given cheaper tarrifs over night and middle of the day BUT if you want to cook at tea time you'll be paying top dollar to do that.
The feed in is just not worth it, they only really pay if you use it when its available as a substitute for what you would otherwise use off the grid, so my sister put the washing on, the dishwasher and anything else like cooks tea in the oven during the day and reheats at tea time.
But its counter cyclical, in the summer you don't use much energy and people are out more, in the winter you are in more, consume more and of course get very little solar.
If you aren't using it all during the day, get an electric fire to burn the rest, it will cut your alternative heating bills if that's oil or god forbid, a heat pump
Hey, Your point about it being counter cyclical applies to the whole country too - but I don't think the muppets in charge realise that... And I'm with your sister - we are totally ruled by our 'green hand'.
No oil here either, and I'm well informed on their next farce of heat pumps - no thank you. We'll stick to good old fashioned, tried and tested - wood!
Wood is good, I have a wood burner a 5KW and its practically all I need.
Yes, the problem with solar is that its max supply at minimum demand, and minimum supply at maximum demand.
However it is reasonably cheap and most power stations shut down for maintenance during the summer so it helps with that to a degree.
But, the problem is the additional kit renewables requires, like 5 times the grid cabling at huge cost and extra maintenance costs and the cost of replacing gas with a large scale variable and controllable source to counter the variability of renewables and have long term seasonal energy storage shift.
All the options i can see of removing gas are massively more expensive.
On heat pumps a guy down the road has one, I don't speak to him but the engineer's van is never away........
What we need is for Coutinho to be called out in parliament over this and there are a few MPs who haven't been totally brainwashed but doubt it will happen. The reality as we know on here is renewables were never going to be cheap but what is unacceptable with the generation data is that it doesn't include all the additional costs that come with intermittent power which make the cost even higher. In another 18mths the world will have a big uplift in LNG capacity and i see prices of gas falling back further exposing the renewables are cheap myth even further. So its about time politicians come clean and give the populous a choice about whether they want to pay the costs for net zero or not.
Fast forward 15 years to the present time and the risk discussed in 2008 that unilateral decarbonisation could actually be counterproductive has come about. The non-Western world can see that the West is committing economic suicide through their nonsensical climate change policies and are never going to follow suit. They pay lip service to the West’s confected climate change scare and have no intention of curbing their ever-increasing consumption of cheap, efficient fossil fuels in the foreseeable future.
This renders the UK’s unilateral decarbonisation endeavours utterly pointless, yet we are told it is imperative that we eliminate our 0.9% share of global CO2 emissions by 2050 to “save the planet”.
It's not Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) anymore, a concept which formerly stopped national governments from doing very stupid things - like launching nuclear warheads - it's now Unilateral Assured Destruction, which GUARANTEES that national governments do very stupid things - like destroying their own economy, social order and natural environment in order to chase Green Rabbits down very deep holes.
Our governments no longer work for us, aren't responsible for us and if anything despise us. They are all controlled by the Uber-wealthy Malthusian Parasite class. We are seeing their snobbery in action. The Serfs do not deserve any prosperity. They must be made to suffer. The new Feudal socioeconomic system.
I have updated my AR5 map to reflect the failed solar projects:
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/N76ms/3/
I found out that 3 solar farms that were awarded CFDs did not sign up to them with the LCCC.
Bockingfold Solar Ltd 49MW
Rainsbrook 12.8MW
Eastgate 23MW
Interestingly all 3 were given a CAPITALISED listing in the initial AR5 results publication, the significance of which is unclear: only a couple of other AR5 awards were similarly capitalised.
How many more fall by the wayside remains to be seen, including from AR4. I have written to Bockingfold (sounds an appropriate name somehow!) asking them to comment on why they didn't sign - all three projects are owned by Voltalia UK Ltd., a subsidiary of French company Voltalia SA.
Incidentally I see that Onshore Wind has been upgraded to £64/MWh in 2012 money: full listing of all technology prices here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6555fbacd03a8d001207fa45/ar6-core-parameters-notification.pdf
The mumbo jumbo justification of the numbers is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6555dca8d03a8d000d07fa12/cfd-ar6-administrative-strike-price-methodology.pdf
It's what the other half thinks in DESNZ. Still a fantasy world, but who cares? There'll be another government to bamboozle before long.
There are also some interesting rule changes:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contracts-for-difference-cfd-allocation-round-6-allocation-framework
Time to revisit what was really going on at Beatrice?
The failed solar sites are now listed here:
https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/resources/registers/register-of-temporary-site-exclusion/
Odd that there is no listing for Norfolk Boreas, which basically repudiated its CFD.
Think of it this way. They didn't waste a lot on their pet consultants telling them what they want to hear this time, making do for the most part with the fantasiesfrom 2019/20. In any case, LCOE is a useless measure when large chunks of output end up being curtailed or wasted in a low efficiency round trip through hydrogen storage, and when all the other grid expansion and integration costs are ignored.
One thing that has changed is that BSUoS charges are no longer included in costs. You might think that that amounts to ignoring the impact of intermittent renewables on balancing costs. However, BSUoS charges were just allocated half to demand and half to generation pro rata to MWh produced or consumed. So in reality, removing them (because they are now paid only by demand) does nothing to alter the differential costs. One day they will get around to thinking like Dieter Helm that costs of intermittency should be allocated to intermittent generators.
Well we can at least hope.
Well well well, its NINE times cheaper you know.
But the government's own report in August 2023 put the cost of CCGT generation at £114/MWH,
BUT - £60/MWH of that cost was carbon taxes which means its CLEAN cost is just £54/MWH some 35% CHEAPER, and of course more flexible, reliable and able to provide both reactive load support and voltage support.
But, does it end there? no.
We are told they need to build 5 TIMES the transmission lines for all these renewables, at a cost of some £54bn, which YOU will be paying for on bills ON TOP of the cost of the renewables.
Does it end there? NO
That 5 times more transmission lines requires now 5 times the maintenance as a result, adding even more to bills.
Does it end there? NO
To get all this power to your home, local transformers will have to be seriously upgraded for capacity at yet more cost.
Does it end there? NO!
To replace the gas generation with mass storage, the gas costed at £54/MWH will be replaced with either hydrogen of batteries which both come in at well over £200/MWH and that doesn't really cover the capital costs either, just the generation costs.
Renewables are cheap? My arse they are.
Hey, This is all above my pay grade BUT
I have often wondered, having solar panels and an inverter, whether I actually use the energy they produce (as we are told) and how does a national grid system designed to deliver energy one way accept any excess in the opposite direction... 'Arse' indeed?
Hi marc
(qualifier - I'm not an expert on solar and feed in)
With solar panels you can flow both ways, in reality it spins your meter backwards if you don't use it ( I don't have a smart meter) but if you do then you will get paid for what goes in but its pretty poor as I understand it with a feed in tariff of about 5p a unit but there's a mass of tariffs from 1p to about 15p.
If you have a smart meter and fed in 5KW then take 5KW you would I believe get say 5p/unit when your meter runs backwards and pay normal supply rates of 30p when its running forwards.
So if you are going to do it you really want to use it yourself rather than feed in.
For the grid it doesn't matter, what you feed in goes to your neighbours, it just lowers demand on the local transformer unless everyone gets them and then you could have a very difficult to manage mess on the grid.
Well I never did! I was wondering how the current I produced got past the Meter - I had no idea it could go backwards! We also have a separate meter to record input - we get about £800 a year back.
I don't have a Smart Meter either - and never will until forced to get one. It's how they will monitor our use and control consumption with The Internet of Things.
We're already semi off grid: we have only mains electricity and water, but no gas or mains drainage, or even a TV arial. And we live at the end of our own 170 yd lane - No one even knows we're here! We don't get many visitors.
We inherited our solar panels. Our tariff is set to 2035. The rates are absolute crap compared to what we have to pay. I wonder if anyone ever makes back the cost nowadays (bit like the false promises of EVs... And them chickens are also coming home to roost).
Yes, the smart meter is to control you, so you'll be given cheaper tarrifs over night and middle of the day BUT if you want to cook at tea time you'll be paying top dollar to do that.
The feed in is just not worth it, they only really pay if you use it when its available as a substitute for what you would otherwise use off the grid, so my sister put the washing on, the dishwasher and anything else like cooks tea in the oven during the day and reheats at tea time.
But its counter cyclical, in the summer you don't use much energy and people are out more, in the winter you are in more, consume more and of course get very little solar.
If you aren't using it all during the day, get an electric fire to burn the rest, it will cut your alternative heating bills if that's oil or god forbid, a heat pump
Hey, Your point about it being counter cyclical applies to the whole country too - but I don't think the muppets in charge realise that... And I'm with your sister - we are totally ruled by our 'green hand'.
No oil here either, and I'm well informed on their next farce of heat pumps - no thank you. We'll stick to good old fashioned, tried and tested - wood!
Wood is good, I have a wood burner a 5KW and its practically all I need.
Yes, the problem with solar is that its max supply at minimum demand, and minimum supply at maximum demand.
However it is reasonably cheap and most power stations shut down for maintenance during the summer so it helps with that to a degree.
But, the problem is the additional kit renewables requires, like 5 times the grid cabling at huge cost and extra maintenance costs and the cost of replacing gas with a large scale variable and controllable source to counter the variability of renewables and have long term seasonal energy storage shift.
All the options i can see of removing gas are massively more expensive.
On heat pumps a guy down the road has one, I don't speak to him but the engineer's van is never away........
What we need is for Coutinho to be called out in parliament over this and there are a few MPs who haven't been totally brainwashed but doubt it will happen. The reality as we know on here is renewables were never going to be cheap but what is unacceptable with the generation data is that it doesn't include all the additional costs that come with intermittent power which make the cost even higher. In another 18mths the world will have a big uplift in LNG capacity and i see prices of gas falling back further exposing the renewables are cheap myth even further. So its about time politicians come clean and give the populous a choice about whether they want to pay the costs for net zero or not.
They are taking us all for fools.
Tony Blair opted to take a “lead by example” approach when he introduced the Climate Change Act in 2008, but at least the risks of taking such a unilateral approach were acknowledged and discussed at that time, see https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/climate_change_act.pdf.
Fast forward 15 years to the present time and the risk discussed in 2008 that unilateral decarbonisation could actually be counterproductive has come about. The non-Western world can see that the West is committing economic suicide through their nonsensical climate change policies and are never going to follow suit. They pay lip service to the West’s confected climate change scare and have no intention of curbing their ever-increasing consumption of cheap, efficient fossil fuels in the foreseeable future.
This renders the UK’s unilateral decarbonisation endeavours utterly pointless, yet we are told it is imperative that we eliminate our 0.9% share of global CO2 emissions by 2050 to “save the planet”.
This makes it obvious that Net Zero has nothing to do with climate but is all to do with inflicting totalitarian control. Our treasonous puppet politicians are intent on driving our economy off a cliff at the behest of their Malthusian globalist overlords, see https://twitter.com/ElanderNews/status/1568891471637680128?t=ugqAXUxwfL20BP522L51-w&s=09.
Here is a fun article I’ve just come across, a 10-minute interview, supporting my view that Net Zero means economic suicide, slightly odd in that it predicts that the grid will collapse on a specific date in 2035 but otherwise sound. The GB News interviewer is sadly clueless: https://principia-scientific.com/net-zero-is-a-suicide-pill-for-the-british-economy-nothing-more-nothing-less/.
It's not Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) anymore, a concept which formerly stopped national governments from doing very stupid things - like launching nuclear warheads - it's now Unilateral Assured Destruction, which GUARANTEES that national governments do very stupid things - like destroying their own economy, social order and natural environment in order to chase Green Rabbits down very deep holes.
Our governments no longer work for us, aren't responsible for us and if anything despise us. They are all controlled by the Uber-wealthy Malthusian Parasite class. We are seeing their snobbery in action. The Serfs do not deserve any prosperity. They must be made to suffer. The new Feudal socioeconomic system.