Scots windfarms paid cash to stop producing energy

[XemaSab]

Six Scottish windfarms were paid up to £300,000 to stop producing energy, it has emerged.


The turbines, at a range of sites across Scotland, were stopped because the grid network could not absorb all the energy they generated.

Details of the payments emerged following research by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF).

The REF said energy companies were paid £900,000 to halt the turbines for several hours between 5 and 6 April.

According to the REF research, the payments made cost up to 20 times the value of the electricity that would have been generated if the turbines had kept running.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

[Blue Owl]

1. MORE NUCLEAR

*** just kidding! ***

[phantom power]

2. "a transmission fault in the system meant the surplus energy could not be transferred to England"

Interesting.

[SheilaT]

3. Is excess power production ever an

issue with conventional power plants, including nuclear? If not, why not? Can't whatever means are used to keep excess production happening elsewhere be implemented on the windfarms?

[wtmusic]

7. The short-term variability with power from wind is much greater

than any other source. When the wind comes up and turbines are online, it can create enormous surges and even outages.

[SheilaT]

9. Thank you.

Obviously I'm not any kind of an engineer, but I wonder if this isn't something that can be solved. Can energy be stored for future use?

[XemaSab]

10. Right now pumped hydro is the best option

where excess wind is used to pump water into off-channel reservoirs.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. There are those here who minimize the difficulties of integrating irregular suppliers into the grid

This is just one example of many. It is not overcomeable, just typical difficulties. Engineering solutions are underway but there are still problems.

[phantom power]

5. This article laid out the three basic options pretty well

Store it, Ship it, or Dump it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Integration is a separate issue and as I said, is still not smooth

[kristopher]

6. Going to the procoal, antirenewable websites for inspiration, eh?

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Renewable_Energy_Foundation

The Renewable Energy Foundation is a front group or a think tank opposed to the widespread introduction of wind farms.<1>

Dr John Constable, director of policy and research is reported as saying "The Government's plans for wind are wildly unrealistic. Wind power is going to be very expensive, very difficult and ultimately very costly."<2>

The Renewable Energy Foundation provides "strong support" for local objectors to planning applications for windfarms. <3> Dr Constable is reported to tour the country to give speeches at local planning meetings opposing wind farms on behalf of the REF. One environmental activist described the organization thus "The Renewable Energy Foundation is a sham organisation; it has nothing to do with renewable energy. It is a front for industrial lobby groups which have interests in fossil fuels and nuclear power." <4>

The REF approves of the Conservative Party's approach to the economics of energy. Dr Constable, said “Subsidies in the energy sector have distorted investment patterns and left the UK with a dysfunctional and unbalanced electricity sector, as well as imposing disproportionate and rising costs on the consumer. ”<5>

The REF has consistently and vociferously opposed the Renewables Obligation.<6> The Renewables Obligation is the current main mechanism for supporting large scale generation of renewable electricity.<7> Instead the REF argue that carbon capture and storage (known as clean coal) is a viable and mature proposition.<8>

They became active shortly after the UK ended coal subsidies and beefed up support for wind.

[bananas]

11. sourcewatch: "Renewable Energy Foundation is a front group" for coal - no surprise

It's unfortunate that people still fall for these sleazy old PR techniques.

[FBaggins]

12. The title isn't very good.

It isn't that they were paid to stop producing... it's that the grid couldn't use the power that they were obligated to purchase.

Wind generation has no "fuel" cost, so once it's built, the electricity costs the producer very little. Part of creating a system that encourages development of wind farms is to either guarantee that you will buy everything they produce for a certain price, or a regulation that flat out requires purchasing wind generation first.

If you don't have enough flexible generation capacity to turn off (a peaking gas plant for instance), and can't use the power from the wind plant, that's fine. You can ask them to stop generating... but you're still obligated to pay.

So no scandal here. Something like this will occasionally happen and it's part of the price of shifting away from fossil generation (something similar happens in France with nuclear power).