Is climate change a fraud?

[Cambon]

21 hours ago, Mercenary said:

Average 20MW

From MUAs site:

"An average 20MW capacity windfarm on the Isle of Man is expected to generate at least 58GWh per year.

 

A windfarm at Earystane and Scard of at least 20MW could be expected to produce between 104 and 149 GWh of renewable electricity per year which is enough electricity to supply more than a third of current electricity demand on the Isle of Man."

I read somewhere ages ago that the turbines to be used are the Vestas            V150-4.2MW. I cannot find where I read that. Here is a link to it. 

https://www.vestas.com/en/energy-solutions/onshore-wind-turbines/4-mw-platform/V150-4-2-MW

At the bottom of the specification page for this model in the brochure there is a graph showing potential annual output. To save you the trouble I have posted it below. You can read at the bottom it is based on 100% availability, etc. The maximum output shown is around 19GW per annum, or 19,000MW

19,000/365.25=52 (per day). 52/24=2.1666 (per hour). 
  
So, effectively from the horses mouth, the best we can expect is around 50% efficiency. At best, our 21MW windfarm will output 10.8MW. However, if we take the middle of the graph (15GW), it comes out as 8.5MW windfarm. A little more than a third, but by the time you take into account the fact that they will require maintenance, they will break down, it will not be 100% availability, one third is probably more realistic.

I prefer to believe manufacturers information, even though even that is likely to be exaggerated, than government spin. 

 

[b4mbi]

13 hours ago, Mercenary said:

 

I read that as £63m of marginal costs for generation (presumably mostly gas) ?

 

As an aside MU overheads always look high relative to other DNOs, they seem to go relatively under the radar in terms of government cost & efficiencies.

So Manx Utilities are making a negative operating surplus, not a deficit, no sir... 

[b4mbi]

14 hours ago, Mercenary said:

 

I read that as £63m of marginal costs for generation (presumably mostly gas) ?

 

looks that way, and extracted from the same report (22/23 MUA Published report) they've used 38.7 million therms of natural gas transported for power generation. 

So roughly £1.64/therm. £63.5m/38.7therms, assuming all is gas purchase.

Crogga have said they'd cap this price at 80p per therm, should the gas flow.....

I know the price of gas is subject market and is variable , and it's probably too simplistic to say this but applying the capped price would have saved MUA £32 million in input costs.

This is why it's so critically important the appraisal well is drilled.

 

Edited June 27 by b4mbi

[Mercenary]

1 hour ago, Cambon said:

I read somewhere ages ago that the turbines to be used are the Vestas            V150-4.2MW. I cannot find where I read that. Here is a link to it. 

https://www.vestas.com/en/energy-solutions/onshore-wind-turbines/4-mw-platform/V150-4-2-MW

At the bottom of the specification page for this model in the brochure there is a graph showing potential annual output. To save you the trouble I have posted it below. You can read at the bottom it is based on 100% availability, etc. The maximum output shown is around 19GW per annum, or 19,000MW

19,000/365.25=52 (per day). 52/24=2.1666 (per hour). 
  
So, effectively from the horses mouth, the best we can expect is around 50% efficiency. At best, our 21MW windfarm will output 10.8MW. However, if we take the middle of the graph (15GW), it comes out as 8.5MW windfarm. A little more than a third, but by the time you take into account the fact that they will require maintenance, they will break down, it will not be 100% availability, one third is probably more realistic.

I prefer to believe manufacturers information, even though even that is likely to be exaggerated, than government spin. 

 

MU website says annual average wind speed at Earystane is more than 10.5m/s. That puts it more like 30 GWh per turbine (from the other spec brochure on the same site you have linked to), and then 5 of them puts it in the 150 GWh range. 

 

Obviously this is why they are undertaking the wind study but at least it seems reasonably consistent.

 

[HeliX]

22 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

I've just been looking at an exchange on FB where contributor "SustainIoM" is claiming that the MUA debt is due to people not being charged enough for their electricity... 🤔

The MUA took out that loan to cover shortfall expected from capped electricity prices, so yes sort of.

[Banker]

On 6/26/2024 at 3:14 PM, Non-Believer said:

I've just been looking at an exchange on FB where contributor "SustainIoM" is claiming that the MUA debt is due to people not being charged enough for their electricity... 🤔

Well the debt is a combination of many things, mainly the cost of building Pulrose, infrastructure and some losses. I suppose the person is strictly correct as the debt could be reduced if electricity prices were say doubled but imagine the outcry and hardship for everyone.

 

[Cambon]

30 minutes ago, Banker said:

Well the debt is a combination of many things, mainly the cost of building Pulrose, infrastructure and some losses. I suppose the person is strictly correct as the debt could be reduced if electricity prices were say doubled but imagine the outcry and hardship for everyone.

 

They already have doubled it. The doubling is nothing to do with gas price. 

[Cambon]

3 hours ago, Mercenary said:

MU website says annual average wind speed at Earystane is more than 10.5m/s. That puts it more like 30 GWh per turbine (from the other spec brochure on the same site you have linked to), and then 5 of them puts it in the 150 GWh range. 

 

Obviously this is why they are undertaking the wind study but at least it seems reasonably consistent.

 

As I said: 

“I prefer to believe manufacturers information, even though even that is likely to be exaggerated, than government spin. ” 

[Non-Believer]

48 minutes ago, Banker said:

Well the debt is a combination of many things, mainly the cost of building Pulrose, infrastructure and some losses. I suppose the person is strictly correct as the debt could be reduced if electricity prices were say doubled but imagine the outcry and hardship for everyone.

 

The debt would have been reduced 50% apparently if the loans had been procured through authorised channels according to information in the exchange.

To suggest that it's the consumers' fault for not paying enough is risible, considering that the runaway costs more than doubled from the original budget.

Edited June 27 by Non-Believer
Typo

[Banker]

18 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

The debt would have been reduced 50% apparently if the loans had been procured through authorised channels according to information in the exchange.

To suggest that it's the consumers' fault for not paying enough is risible, considering that the runaway costs more than doubled from the original budget.

What exchange? The original debt was obtained from Barclays Bank at interest rate available for low risk entity at the time to suggest they could have halved a debt of c£150/200m is bollocks!

The original debts for water & electricity infrastructure were refinanced into long term bonds totalling £260m with rate of 5%+ but were the long term rates at the time. A further £170m was loaned by government from the £400m bond they took out and at a rate of only 1.7% which was a fantastic rate organised by BILL Shimmins and a similar rate now would be c 6.5%

[Non-Believer]

35 minutes ago, Banker said:

What exchange? The original debt was obtained from Barclays Bank at interest rate available for low risk entity at the time to suggest they could have halved a debt of c£150/200m is bollocks!

The original debts for water & electricity infrastructure were refinanced into long term bonds totalling £260m with rate of 5%+ but were the long term rates at the time. A further £170m was loaned by government from the £400m bond they took out and at a rate of only 1.7% which was a fantastic rate organised by BILL Shimmins and a similar rate now would be c 6.5%

The attached screenshot is from the FB exchange and appears to have been lifted from the Inquiry Report.

Proffit was conflicted in his positions with both Barclays and MEA and used the subsidiary company to take out the unauthorised loans at interest rates far in excess of what they would have been had they been through authorised channels. The subsequent refinancing is an entirely different matter.

To blame the consumers for not contributing more towards the mess is pure arrogance. Are you Mike Proffit by any chance?

[Banker]

1 minute ago, Non-Believer said:

The attached screenshot is from the FB exchange and appears to have been lifted from the Inquiry Report.

Proffit was conflicted in his positions with both Barclays and MEA and used the subsidiary company to take out the unauthorised loans at interest rates far in excess of what they would have been had they been through authorised channels. The subsequent refinancing is an entirely different matter.

To blame the consumers for not contributing more towards the mess is pure arrogance. Are you Mike Proffit by any chance?

That’s the interest rate margin so say 3% above base rather than 1.5% so it say it would have doubled the debt as you posted was completely wrong, it would have added say maximum £2m interest costs 

[Non-Believer]

14 minutes ago, Banker said:

That’s the interest rate margin so say 3% above base rather than 1.5% so it say it would have doubled the debt as you posted was completely wrong, it would have added say maximum £2m interest costs 

My bad in that respect. The attached screenshot is from the exchange with a number of contributors involving the FB entity "Sustain Isle of Man" who heavily advocates windpower on the Island to such a degree that one would suspect skin in the game, possibly seeking to acquire Govt work. The consumers are not the reason that the MUA is in debt however, they are merely the victims IMHO.

There are also frequent defences of and deflections from Mr. P. in this entity's posts. Does anybody know who is behind this "Sustain IoM" ?

[Happier diner]

7 hours ago, Cambon said:

I read somewhere ages ago that the turbines to be used are the Vestas            V150-4.2MW. I cannot find where I read that. Here is a link to it. 

https://www.vestas.com/en/energy-solutions/onshore-wind-turbines/4-mw-platform/V150-4-2-MW

At the bottom of the specification page for this model in the brochure there is a graph showing potential annual output. To save you the trouble I have posted it below. You can read at the bottom it is based on 100% availability, etc. The maximum output shown is around 19GW per annum, or 19,000MW

19,000/365.25=52 (per day). 52/24=2.1666 (per hour). 
  
So, effectively from the horses mouth, the best we can expect is around 50% efficiency. At best, our 21MW windfarm will output 10.8MW. However, if we take the middle of the graph (15GW), it comes out as 8.5MW windfarm. A little more than a third, but by the time you take into account the fact that they will require maintenance, they will break down, it will not be 100% availability, one third is probably more realistic.

I prefer to believe manufacturers information, even though even that is likely to be exaggerated, than government spin. 

 

Even if you ignore the government spin and take the lowest possible assumption of yield you still get 8.5MW.

You say that like it's not much. It's nearly a quarter of daily demand.

Yes wind turbines need maintenance. But the good news is they need a lot less than gas turbines. So any saving on gas is accompanied by a saving on gas turbine maintenance.

Win win

[Cambon]

34 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Even if you ignore the government spin and take the lowest possible assumption of yield you still get 8.5MW.

You say that like it's not much. It's nearly a quarter of daily demand.

Yes wind turbines need maintenance. But the good news is they need a lot less than gas turbines. So any saving on gas is accompanied by a saving on gas turbine maintenance.

Win win

That was my point. My other ways of trying to point out what the real output of a 20MW wind farm will produce fell on on deaf ears to those I was reaching out to. What I have provided and shown above is what the manufacturer expects it to produce, which is that a 20MW wind farm is actually a 8.5MW wind farm. People need to understand this before any windmills are installed anywhere.