| Yep, we pay energy companies to not produce energy.... 08:45 - Jun 9 with 652 views | homer_123 |
Whilst I was aware of this, I wasn't in terms of scale....
"The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can't take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output.
It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded - one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day.
At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.
Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy.
Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company's analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network."
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdedjnw8e85o |  |
| |  |
| Yep, we pay energy companies to not produce energy.... on 09:02 - Jun 9 with 560 views | DarkBrandon |
It is this nonsense which allows Octopus to regularly give away free electricity to its customers. |  | | |
| Yep, we pay energy companies to not produce energy.... on 09:02 - Jun 9 with 561 views | Guthrum |
The principle of paying people not to produce is sound, you need the capacity to be available for times of higher demand - often at short notice - and that is effectively a retainer to keep systems operational.
Sending the Moray Firth electricity nearly 500 miles south to the London area is a matter of transmission capacity. The infrastructure for which is extremely expensive (not to mention the planning inquiries, pylons are not popular). Plus you get losses over longer lines.
It's the age-old problem of having resources available, then being able to get them where they are needed. The solutions would be more and better transmission lines, plus electricity storage facilities. |  |
| |
| Yep, we pay energy companies to not produce energy.... on 09:12 - Jun 9 with 494 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Yep, we pay energy companies to not produce energy.... on 09:02 - Jun 9 by Guthrum |
The principle of paying people not to produce is sound, you need the capacity to be available for times of higher demand - often at short notice - and that is effectively a retainer to keep systems operational.
Sending the Moray Firth electricity nearly 500 miles south to the London area is a matter of transmission capacity. The infrastructure for which is extremely expensive (not to mention the planning inquiries, pylons are not popular). Plus you get losses over longer lines.
It's the age-old problem of having resources available, then being able to get them where they are needed. The solutions would be more and better transmission lines, plus electricity storage facilities. |
Electricity storage facilities are also expensive and need to be in right place.
Paying companies not to generate is a short term solution, has encouraged companies to increase wind produced capacity. As far as I know we don’t pay hydro electricity plants not to generate.
Going forward paying people not to generate needs to be scaled back. |  |
| |
| Yep, we pay energy companies to not produce energy.... on 09:23 - Jun 9 with 450 views | Guthrum |
| Yep, we pay energy companies to not produce energy.... on 09:12 - Jun 9 by Pinewoodblue |
Electricity storage facilities are also expensive and need to be in right place.
Paying companies not to generate is a short term solution, has encouraged companies to increase wind produced capacity. As far as I know we don’t pay hydro electricity plants not to generate.
Going forward paying people not to generate needs to be scaled back. |
Hydro systems are effectively electricity storage - quite a few use pumped reservoirs. The potential is held in the water at the top, unlike wind and sun which are (relatively) constant flows.
A far bigger subsidisation of renewables is the pegging of electricity pricing to that of gas generation. Tho to remove that might threaten the viability of an industry with very high initial construction overheads. | |
| |
| Yep, we pay energy companies to not produce energy.... on 09:23 - Jun 9 with 450 views | JakeITFC |
| Yep, we pay energy companies to not produce energy.... on 09:12 - Jun 9 by Pinewoodblue |
Electricity storage facilities are also expensive and need to be in right place.
Paying companies not to generate is a short term solution, has encouraged companies to increase wind produced capacity. As far as I know we don’t pay hydro electricity plants not to generate.
Going forward paying people not to generate needs to be scaled back. |
Hydro can be curtailed and pump storage hydro uses times of low system demand (I.e. free or negative pricing) to pump water back up the mountains to refill reservoirs.
The cost of balancing the system is ever increasing but I’m not sure that the proposed move to locational pricing is the best or only necessary solution. |  | | |
| Yep, we pay energy companies to not produce energy.... on 09:33 - Jun 9 with 390 views | WeWereZombies |
| Yep, we pay energy companies to not produce energy.... on 09:23 - Jun 9 by Guthrum |
Hydro systems are effectively electricity storage - quite a few use pumped reservoirs. The potential is held in the water at the top, unlike wind and sun which are (relatively) constant flows.
A far bigger subsidisation of renewables is the pegging of electricity pricing to that of gas generation. Tho to remove that might threaten the viability of an industry with very high initial construction overheads. |
If you are in the west of Scotland on a rainy day a morning out at the hollow mountain is surprisingly interesting:
https://www.visitcruachan.co.uk/ |  |
| |
| Yep, we pay energy companies to not produce energy.... on 09:54 - Jun 9 with 306 views | Steve_M |
Yes, transmission constraints are a thing because the UK has had more demand in hte SOuth East and generation in other places for a long time and transmission infrastructure costs money and when anyone tries to build it there are massive NIMBYish campaigns against it (see the ongoing complaints against pylons in Suffolk).
I note the article doesn't mention a MWh figure for that £72,000 probably because it's not a large sum on that basis. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
