[Misc] Are your electricity bills too high? Get ready for a real WTF moment.......

[Eric the meek]

we dont pay directly for that sneaky bonus, we'll pay the same kWh/p. it's absorbed with all the other inefficencies and subsidies, someone else int he system got a little less revenue. the storage is another cost and the incentives aren't there - why store when you can switch off? so another manipulation to the market is needed to invest in some otherwise ineffcient system. or go the other way, if you had no guarantee production revenue then wind/solar would be incentivised to build storage and supply on demand.

See posts 8 and 9.

The sneaky bonus is a constituent cost of 'wasted wind power'.
Wasted wind power adds £40 to the average bill. This is predicted to rise to £150 by 2026, and £180 by 2030.

why store when you can switch off? For the reason above. To head off the rising cost of wasted wind power.
In addition, there is an argument to store for periods of higher demand, to reduce the risk of adverse impact of weather/climate events, war etc, and simply to reduce the risk by diversification. Storage makes perfect sense. I'm not saying it is cheap or easy.

 

[beorhthelm]

See posts 8 and 9.

The sneaky bonus is a constituent cost of 'wasted wind power'.
Wasted wind power adds £40 to the average bill. This is predicted to rise to £150 by 2026, and £180 by 2030.

why store when you can switch off? For the reason above. To head off the rising cost of wasted wind power.
In addition, there is an argument to store for periods of higher demand, to reduce the risk of adverse impact of weather/climate events, war etc, and simply to reduce the risk by diversification. Storage makes perfect sense. I'm not saying it is cheap or easy.

the article and source mis-represent how it arises, working back from bills to say this amount is attributable to this issue. its built in to the cost of wind power, into the contract structure, as it's inevitable this will occur. you accept storage isnt cheap, it's the same problem, paying for the storage will be an additonal cost. its a better use of generation capacity, means less gas fired power, which makes it a good thing to do.

 

[Eric the meek]

the article and source mis-represent how it arises, working back from bills to say this amount is attributable to this issue. its built in to the cost of wind power, into the contract structure, as it's inevitable this will occur. you accept storage isnt cheap, it's the same problem, paying for the storage will be an additonal cost. its a better use of generation capacity, means less gas fired power, which makes it a good thing to do.

The £40 that is currently added to the average bill (predicted to rise to £150 in 2026 and £180 in 2030) are figures worked out by the think tank, Carbon Tracker.

Why do you say the article and Carbon Tracker, both misrepresent how wasted wind power arises? I assume this means you don't accept the figures provided above. Why? What do you think the figures should be? I would have thought the Carbon Tracker have done us all a favour by alerting us to these costs.

I am wondering if it is the assumption of 'inevitability' of wasted wind power being built into the contract in the first place, that is the real problem? Doesn't that suggest that the wind farm operator can operate it like a cash machine that never runs out?

Clearly, some wind farm operators are exaggerating the amount of power they intend to produce, to bump up their payments they receive for switching off. Hence the articles, based on 9 whistleblowers, and hence the intervention by Ofgem. All the more reason to take a forensic look at the contracts, and isolate the - actual - cost of wasted wind power, just as Carbon Tracker have done. This level of transparency must now surely happen.