Windfarm could cost up to £40 million

[WTF]

20 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

 

You think it's ok to employ 100 people to man a power station that is just for back up?

😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

we've been doing that since it was built instead of installing a suitable interconnector all those years ago.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, WTF said:

we've been doing that since it was built instead of installing a suitable interconnector all those years ago.

Thats true. We should be planning to do it again for another 50 years though should we?

The Powers station is 20 years old. Its probably fine but won't last for ever. Refurbishment costs will rise and rise and rise over the next 20 years.

[Cambon]

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

When did we pay for the UK wind turbines? 

If we took another 40MW of wind generated electricity who do you think would pay for it? 

You think it's ok to employ 100 people to man a power station that is just for back up?

😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

We have been paying for uk wind turbines, solar, etc ever since they decided to go down that route, due to government borrowing to pay for grants and subsidies to power companies (etc.) for installation. As I am sure you are aware, government borrowing is paid for in currency devaluation. Our currency devaluation. 
40MW of electricity purchased from uk is cheaper than trying to produce it ourselves. 
 

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, WTF said:

we've been doing that since it was built instead of installing a suitable interconnector all those years ago.

We already had it.  The Isle of Man to England Interconnector was laid in 1999 and started working in 2000.  The Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station at Pulrose didn't open till 2003.  The existing diesel plant (which was then only 14 years old) was still there as back-up and responsible for much of the power that is exported for profit.

This is like blaming the runway extension on easyJet, when they were happy to operate from Ronaldsway before it was open.  The truth with many of these projects is that weren't just badly-delivered, they were often unnecessary in the first place.

[Non-Believer]

Political ego-driven "statements of national independence".

[doc.fixit]

53 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

We already had it.  The Isle of Man to England Interconnector was laid in 1999 and started working in 2000.  The Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station at Pulrose didn't open till 2003.  The existing diesel plant (which was then only 14 years old) was still there as back-up and responsible for much of the power that is exported for profit.

This is like blaming the runway extension on easyJet, when they were happy to operate from Ronaldsway before it was open.  The truth with many of these projects is that weren't just badly-delivered, they were often unnecessary in the first place.

The runway will be great for bombers though come the great war. Or maybe for landing emergency supplies when we go bankrupt.

[WTF]

5 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Political ego-driven "statements of national independence".

if we had our own oil or gas fields that argument could stand up , we never have so it never has.

[Happier diner]

7 hours ago, Cambon said:

40MW of electricity purchased from uk is cheaper than trying to produce it ourselves. 
 

Where do you get this information from? Surely they are not that stupid to sell us renewable energy at a loss. If it were true, and it's unlikely, do they guarantee the discount for 40 years?

[Cambon]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

Where do you get this information from? Surely they are not that stupid to sell us renewable energy at a loss. If it were true, and it's unlikely, do they guarantee the discount for 40 years?

To produce green electricity ourselves is easily going to cost in excess £100M. Probably double that (in a currency that has already been devalued to create a supply of green electricity). Plus the running cost and maintenance. Buying in from that existing supply, that we have already paid for will be far cheaper. 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Cambon said:

To produce green electricity ourselves is easily going to cost in excess £100M. Probably double that (in a currency that has already been devalued to create a supply of green electricity). Plus the running cost and maintenance. Buying in from that existing supply, that we have already paid for will be far cheaper. 

You are not getting it. Anything you buy from the UK has to include the cost of running it and the maintenance of it. 

You have failed to provide a jot of evidence to the contrary. 

What is this existing supply that you are referring to? 

[Cambon]

25 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

You are not getting it. Anything you buy from the UK has to include the cost of running it and the maintenance of it. 

You have failed to provide a jot of evidence to the contrary. 

What is this existing supply that you are referring to? 

Next time you go to Heysham or Liverpool, you may notice one or two windmills in the sea. Paid for by the devaluation of your currency. You paid for them. Do you get it yet? On your way to Heysham, you May notice a couple of nuclear power stations that you also paid for. Do you get it yet? This is existing infrastructure that you have already paid for. Why would you want to pay for a second infrastructure here, whilst continuing to pay for the expansion, upkeep and maintenance of the existing one that you have already paid for? 

[NoTail]

25 minutes ago, Cambon said:

Next time you go to Heysham or Liverpool, you may notice one or two windmills in the sea. Paid for by the devaluation of your currency. You paid for them. Do you get it yet? On your way to Heysham, you May notice a couple of nuclear power stations that you also paid for. Do you get it yet? This is existing infrastructure that you have already paid for. Why would you want to pay for a second infrastructure here, whilst continuing to pay for the expansion, upkeep and maintenance of the existing one that you have already paid for? 

I thought the UK tax payers paid for UK power, motorways, reservoirs and whatever else you care to think of which is a UK public utility. 

[CallMeCurious]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-66513420

Unless you are going to borrow money to build the replacement wind turbines then you'll need to set aside say 1/25th of the cost every year for replacements (say £1m a year allowing bases and cables are already in situ)  on top of the maintenance, repair and eventually disposal costs. Assuming a life span of 25 years for the turbines.

So wind power is never going to be 'free' or 100% reliable.

And unless we either have multiple interconnectors and/or local fossil fuel generation to cover 100% load then we need a plan for voluntary blackouts to protect critical/essential services   

What is being proposed is the equivalent of having a few work colleauges who go past your door every day and for a small contribution will give you a lift to and from work (interconnectors - plural)

Having your own car, fully taxed and insured sitting on the driveway 'just in case' (standby fossil fuel generation)

And now you are buying an expensive electric bike to cycle to work 'for muh environment' except on days when the weather is 'wrong' and you'll jump in the car or beg a lift. (local windfarm)

From the point of view of relaibility and impact on the environment which is better?

Sharing generation which has the cost benefits and reliability of large scale existing infrastructure that can easily handle the demands we have and includes an increasing proportion of green energy and nuclear? The equivalent of your colleague buying a Tesla you can ride share in.

Or buying a stand alone unreliable form of energy production while maintaining standby generation for the 'off' days which will both require reeplacement in 25-30 years.

I'd say interconnectors to England & Eire/Scotland and buy time to fully explore geothermal which would have reliability and minimal visual environmental impact on wildlife or visually that we should at least test the feasibility of. 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, CallMeCurious said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-66513420

Unless you are going to borrow money to build the replacement wind turbines then you'll need to set aside say 1/25th of the cost every year for replacements (say £1m a year allowing bases and cables are already in situ)  on top of the maintenance, repair and eventually disposal costs. Assuming a life span of 25 years for the turbines.

So wind power is never going to be 'free' or 100% reliable.

And unless we either have multiple interconnectors and/or local fossil fuel generation to cover 100% load then we need a plan for voluntary blackouts to protect critical/essential services   

What is being proposed is the equivalent of having a few work colleauges who go past your door every day and for a small contribution will give you a lift to and from work (interconnectors - plural)

Having your own car, fully taxed and insured sitting on the driveway 'just in case' (standby fossil fuel generation)

And now you are buying an expensive electric bike to cycle to work 'for muh environment' except on days when the weather is 'wrong' and you'll jump in the car or beg a lift. (local windfarm)

From the point of view of relaibility and impact on the environment which is better?

Sharing generation which has the cost benefits and reliability of large scale existing infrastructure that can easily handle the demands we have and includes an increasing proportion of green energy and nuclear? The equivalent of your colleague buying a Tesla you can ride share in.

Or buying a stand alone unreliable form of energy production while maintaining standby generation for the 'off' days which will both require reeplacement in 25-30 years.

I'd say interconnectors to England & Eire/Scotland and buy time to fully explore geothermal which would have reliability and minimal visual environmental impact on wildlife or visually that we should at least test the feasibility of. 

I'm afraid your post sounds sensible. It's not. 

Interconnectors do not buy time. They are incredibly expensive as is the electricity that we would have to purchase on top of the massive capital outlay required. It would be financial suicide. 

There is no potential in geothermal in the isle of man. You and your fellow believers are absolute crack pots pedalling misinformation.

Of course wind energy is not free. No one is saying it is. It is though proven to be the cheapest and most environmentally friendly form of electricity generation. We are an island blessed with a potential rich source of power and nut cases are going to ruin that opportunity.

[0bserver]

13 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

 

There is no potential in geothermal in the isle of man. You and your fellow believers are absolute crack pots pedalling misinformation.

Of course wind energy is not free. No one is saying it is. It is though proven to be the cheapest and most environmentally friendly form of electricity generation. We are an island blessed with a potential rich source of power and nut cases are going to ruin that opportunity.

Sadly you are correct about geothermal. When I heard a guy talking about it, the idea sounded plausible. But we just don't have the right geology here. 

The windmills might be ok, but stick them in the sea. 

In another 25 years I suspect the energy landscape will have changed immensely. Maybe tidal will become a major source of power. Space based solar also seems promising.