4 ms·

> Curtailment cost money, you still need pay the wind operators to the energy you told them not to produce Why? What are the real costs? Isn't it just a simpl

> Curtailment cost money, you still need pay the wind operators to the energy you told them not to produce Why? What are the real costs? Isn't it just a simple disconnect switch? Why do the wind operators get paid for not delivering power? Is it a contractual issue?

Symbiote 4y ago
Consider reading the article.
bluGill 4y ago
Contract. They have to pay for the the bank for the wind turbines even if not used. They have to pay the land owners (or the bank for the land, and government taxes). You also need to pay various employees. Thus you don't open a wind farm without some form of contract. On top of the above you want to make a profit.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  Nothing to do with any of the above. Purely a function of how the energy markets in the UK work. There’s no contract providing you with a long term guarantee that the current situation will continue, and the grid doesn’t care if you go bust.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    I don't know how the UK grid works. I know banks and investors won't put money into something if the rules don't give them confidence of a return on investment. Sure there are tech counter examples for investors, but banks are more careful.
    - avianlyric 4y ago
      Yeah, that confidence comes from the a wind farms business model, backed by a sound economic model. But there’s still risk, otherwise it’s not an investment. Banks and investors lend/invest in things that are likely to succeed, and pay them back. But there’s no guarantee, and national grid sure as shit isn’t going to provide that guarantee, why would they take on all that risk? The only guarantee provided to a wind farm by the grid, is that they’ll be able to participate in the market, and that the grid ensures they will take the power they sell in the market, or compensate them if they can’t (curtailment). But there are no guarantees that there’s someone in the market to actually buy your power at the price you want to sell it. But as wind produces the cheapest electricity around, it’s a pretty reasonable bet that a wind farm can sell it energy for a profit. Additionally the grid reserves the right to change how the markets work, within reasonable limits, and no doubt are required to take supplier and consumer issues into consideration. But if you don’t like the changes they make, your only recourse is to sue them, and prove they breached the contract. But there’s no guarantee you’ll win. A smart bank/investor know all of these things, and will have a decent idea of changes that might impact the business model, and the likelihood of them occurring, and thus include those risks in their investment strategy. But absolutely nobody in this game goes in expecting a sure fire win, that’s just naive.
avianlyric 4y ago
Because the wind providers have already sold that electricity in an energy auction. So the grid has to pay them for electricity, even if they can’t use it. One of the big points in the article is that there’s a single energy market in the UK that doesn't consider location. So it’s possible for wind providers to sell energy from locations where it can’t be used. An obvious fix is to introduce multiple energy markets for different locations, so the price of electricity drops in areas where there’s excessive production, and not enough transfer capability.
- ccalloway 4y ago
  This isn't a real economic loss. Claiming it is, is tantamount to saying that if you don't need to go to hospital while on vacation, you have wasted money on travel insurance.
  - msandford 4y ago
    I don't think you understand how this stuff works in reality at the moment. Perhaps the system could be changed to be more like how you imagine it should work, or would prefer that it would work. But not understanding how it does work and jumping off from there on the discussion means that folks end up talking past each other, rather than actually communicating.
    - ccalloway 4y ago
      You didn't directly address anything I said in my post or explain why you think I am poorly informed.. I used to work for National Grid in the Miliband era; I worked, among other things, on theorizing a replacement to the 'circle diagram' for the (then thought to be) coming renewables regime.
      - msandford 4y ago
        >> Because the wind providers have already sold that electricity in an energy auction. So the grid has to pay them for electricity, even if they can’t use it. > This isn't a real economic loss. Perhaps I'm misinformed on what economic loss is. To me, paying for something and not getting it is a loss. I go to movies, I buy popcorn, I spill popcorn. Movie theater says "tough noogies" to me that's a simple economic loss, and roughly the same. I paid for it, I didn't get it. Worse still is paying for curtailment on both sides. From the article: Consumers end up effectively paying three times for the power they’re getting: the original payment to the windfarm for the electricity, the payment to turn off, and then the payment to the alternative generator. If this is true, and you're both paying a turbine operator for the power, and then again to not produce the power, well that's extra worse. That would be the initial economic loss (I paid for the thing and didn't get it) with an fee tacked on top. I go to movies, I buy popcorn, I spill popcorn. Movie theater says "tough noogies" to me and doesn't replace the popcorn. They also charge me a fee for cleaning up the popcorn I spilled. That's worse from what I can tell. Again maybe I don't understand what's going on here with respect to how precisely curtailment works. But it's hard to imagine that the situation > So the grid has to pay them for electricity, even if they can’t use it. is anything other than an economic loss.
mcfedr 4y ago
Because when they built a wind turbine they assumed all the time it's windy they would be making and selling electricity and that's all part of the calculation that made it a worthwhile investment.

Symbiote 4y ago

Consider reading the article.

bluGill 4y ago

Contract. They have to pay for the the bank for the wind turbines even if not used. They have to pay the land owners (or the bank for the land, and government taxes). You also need to pay various employees. Thus you don't open a wind farm without some form of contract. On top of the above you want to make a profit.

avianlyric 4y ago
Nothing to do with any of the above. Purely a function of how the energy markets in the UK work. There’s no contract providing you with a long term guarantee that the current situation will continue, and the grid doesn’t care if you go bust.
- bluGill 4y ago
  I don't know how the UK grid works. I know banks and investors won't put money into something if the rules don't give them confidence of a return on investment. Sure there are tech counter examples for investors, but banks are more careful.
  - avianlyric 4y ago
    Yeah, that confidence comes from the a wind farms business model, backed by a sound economic model. But there’s still risk, otherwise it’s not an investment. Banks and investors lend/invest in things that are likely to succeed, and pay them back. But there’s no guarantee, and national grid sure as shit isn’t going to provide that guarantee, why would they take on all that risk? The only guarantee provided to a wind farm by the grid, is that they’ll be able to participate in the market, and that the grid ensures they will take the power they sell in the market, or compensate them if they can’t (curtailment). But there are no guarantees that there’s someone in the market to actually buy your power at the price you want to sell it. But as wind produces the cheapest electricity around, it’s a pretty reasonable bet that a wind farm can sell it energy for a profit. Additionally the grid reserves the right to change how the markets work, within reasonable limits, and no doubt are required to take supplier and consumer issues into consideration. But if you don’t like the changes they make, your only recourse is to sue them, and prove they breached the contract. But there’s no guarantee you’ll win. A smart bank/investor know all of these things, and will have a decent idea of changes that might impact the business model, and the likelihood of them occurring, and thus include those risks in their investment strategy. But absolutely nobody in this game goes in expecting a sure fire win, that’s just naive.

avianlyric 4y ago

Because the wind providers have already sold that electricity in an energy auction. So the grid has to pay them for electricity, even if they can’t use it. One of the big points in the article is that there’s a single energy market in the UK that doesn't consider location. So it’s possible for wind providers to sell energy from locations where it can’t be used. An obvious fix is to introduce multiple energy markets for different locations, so the price of electricity drops in areas where there’s excessive production, and not enough transfer capability.

ccalloway 4y ago
This isn't a real economic loss. Claiming it is, is tantamount to saying that if you don't need to go to hospital while on vacation, you have wasted money on travel insurance.
- msandford 4y ago
  I don't think you understand how this stuff works in reality at the moment. Perhaps the system could be changed to be more like how you imagine it should work, or would prefer that it would work. But not understanding how it does work and jumping off from there on the discussion means that folks end up talking past each other, rather than actually communicating.
  - ccalloway 4y ago
    You didn't directly address anything I said in my post or explain why you think I am poorly informed.. I used to work for National Grid in the Miliband era; I worked, among other things, on theorizing a replacement to the 'circle diagram' for the (then thought to be) coming renewables regime.
    - msandford 4y ago
      >> Because the wind providers have already sold that electricity in an energy auction. So the grid has to pay them for electricity, even if they can’t use it. > This isn't a real economic loss. Perhaps I'm misinformed on what economic loss is. To me, paying for something and not getting it is a loss. I go to movies, I buy popcorn, I spill popcorn. Movie theater says "tough noogies" to me that's a simple economic loss, and roughly the same. I paid for it, I didn't get it. Worse still is paying for curtailment on both sides. From the article: Consumers end up effectively paying three times for the power they’re getting: the original payment to the windfarm for the electricity, the payment to turn off, and then the payment to the alternative generator. If this is true, and you're both paying a turbine operator for the power, and then again to not produce the power, well that's extra worse. That would be the initial economic loss (I paid for the thing and didn't get it) with an fee tacked on top. I go to movies, I buy popcorn, I spill popcorn. Movie theater says "tough noogies" to me and doesn't replace the popcorn. They also charge me a fee for cleaning up the popcorn I spilled. That's worse from what I can tell. Again maybe I don't understand what's going on here with respect to how precisely curtailment works. But it's hard to imagine that the situation > So the grid has to pay them for electricity, even if they can’t use it. is anything other than an economic loss.

mcfedr 4y ago

Because when they built a wind turbine they assumed all the time it's windy they would be making and selling electricity and that's all part of the calculation that made it a worthwhile investment.