Windfarm could cost up to £40 million

[Cambon]

12 hours ago, Happier diner said:

When and how?

The uk borrowed money to pay subsidies to private companies to produce “green” power. By borrowing money, the uk’s currency has been devalued. Our currency is linked to the uks currency so any devaluation of their currency devalues ours. They pay, we pay. 

[NoTail]

1 hour ago, Cambon said:

The uk borrowed money to pay subsidies to private companies to produce “green” power. By borrowing money, the uk’s currency has been devalued. Our currency is linked to the uks currency so any devaluation of their currency devalues ours. They pay, we pay. 

That is such a spurious and vague argument which cannot be evidenced that its only worthy of being ignored. 

[Cambon]

1 hour ago, NoTail said:

That is such a spurious and vague argument which cannot be evidenced that its only worthy of being ignored. 

Thank you. Ignore the truth if you like. 

[Happier diner]

11 hours ago, NoTail said:

That is such a spurious and vague argument which cannot be evidenced that its only worthy of being ignored. 

I think you are being too kind. I call it gibberish. 

[Roxanne]

Well, you would know...

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

Well, you would know...

Except I keep asking him for facts and figures and the source of his information. He ignores these requests and keeps on spouting generalities and speculation. 

@Cambon. One last time. Where do you get the understanding that the UK are prepared to give us cheap electricity. Give me a reference. What price would they charge us. 

Also tell me another source of power where the fuel ( be that gas, diesel, wind etc. ) where the fuel comes for free. 

[Dirty Buggane]

But it is not free, we have to keep a back up for when the wind no blowie. The good weather over the last couple of weeks shows no matter what you may think we do not live in a place where we could garrentee enough "free" wind to cover the power generation we need. So we have to have a back up that has to be built/maintained/staffed 24/7 and fueled, so this so called free energy is not so free. Not forgetting the turbines/generators them selves that have to be built maintained/renewed so every thing comes with a cost. And before battery's come into it can you imagine the size of this to cope with every one nipping out during the break in Corry to pop on the kettle. The build and resources would be astronomical, unless you have come up with a way that you are keeping secret. 

[doc.fixit]

Just read today that UK is finding wind power not economically viable?

[Mercenary]

5 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said:

But it is not free, we have to keep a back up for when the wind no blowie. The good weather over the last couple of weeks shows no matter what you may think we do not live in a place where we could garrentee enough "free" wind to cover the power generation we need. So we have to have a back up that has to be built/maintained/staffed 24/7 and fueled, so this so called free energy is not so free. Not forgetting the turbines/generators them selves that have to be built maintained/renewed so every thing comes with a cost. And before battery's come into it can you imagine the size of this to cope with every one nipping out during the break in Corry to pop on the kettle. The build and resources would be astronomical, unless you have come up with a way that you are keeping secret. 

Say you spend:

Option A, power plant (or equivalent only):

  £20m / year on capital payments, staff, maintenance etc. for power station

  £50m/ year on fuel

  Total : £70m/year

Option B, power plant + wind turbines:

   £20m / year (same as above)

   £35m/ year on fuel (based on the projected roughly 1/3rd of power being generated by wind annually)

+ one off cost of £45m.

   Total: £55m/ year recurring... your onshore wind then has payback of 3 years, and after that you are saving £15m/year

 

All about the marginal costs which relates to fuel or electricity buying, which is directly reduced by onshore generation. Either the power plants or interconnector can spin up quickly enough that the onshore can be fully utilised and substituted with imports when its not running.

 

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, Mercenary said:

Say you spend:

Option A, power plant (or equivalent only):

  £20m / year on capital payments, staff, maintenance etc. for power station

  £50m/ year on fuel

  Total : £70m/year

Option B, power plant + wind turbines:

   £20m / year (same as above)

   £35m/ year on fuel (based on the projected roughly 1/3rd of power being generated by wind annually)

+ one off cost of £45m.

   Total: £55m/ year recurring... your onshore wind then has payback of 3 years, and after that you are saving £15m/year

 

All about the marginal costs which relates to fuel or electricity buying, which is directly reduced by onshore generation. Either the power plants or interconnector can spin up quickly enough that the onshore can be fully utilised and substituted with imports when its not running.

 

But wouldn't the cost of fuel rise in Option B? You'd be buying 1/3rd less fuel and so miss out on volume discount? 

[WTF]

22 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

But wouldn't the cost of fuel rise in Option B? You'd be buying 1/3rd less fuel and so miss out on volume discount? 

the volume discount wouldn't be 33% though

[AcousticallyChallenged]

6 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said:

But it is not free, we have to keep a back up for when the wind no blowie. The good weather over the last couple of weeks shows no matter what you may think we do not live in a place where we could garrentee enough "free" wind to cover the power generation we need. So we have to have a back up that has to be built/maintained/staffed 24/7 and fueled, so this so called free energy is not so free. Not forgetting the turbines/generators them selves that have to be built maintained/renewed so every thing comes with a cost. And before battery's come into it can you imagine the size of this to cope with every one nipping out during the break in Corry to pop on the kettle. The build and resources would be astronomical, unless you have come up with a way that you are keeping secret. 

It's not about the wind being free, it's about the fact it's there and that adding it into the mix results in saving money overall.

We have to keep a backup anyway for if the interconnector doesn't interconnect. Pulrose has a bunch of diesels for it. Plus there's Peel.

[The Phantom]

5 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

It's not about the wind being free, it's about the fact it's there and that adding it into the mix results in saving money overall.

We have to keep a backup anyway for if the interconnector doesn't interconnect. Pulrose has a bunch of diesels for it. Plus there's Peel.

And the Laxey Wheel for 13 houses. 

[Cambon]

7 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Except I keep asking him for facts and figures and the source of his information. He ignores these requests and keeps on spouting generalities and speculation. 

@Cambon. One last time. Where do you get the understanding that the UK are prepared to give us cheap electricity. Give me a reference. What price would they charge us. 

Also tell me another source of power where the fuel ( be that gas, diesel, wind etc. ) where the fuel comes for free. 

IoM is buying and selling electricity with the UK every day. When UK demand is high, IoM gives it full power on both generators, which fires up the third generator, which is basically free power, so lowers the overall cost. It then sells that to the UK for a profit. When UK demand is low, and price drops, it is cheaper to put our turbines on idle and buy in. The crossover cost is around 11p per KWH. Other cheap electricity we get is from locals who produce their own. MU pay around 9p per KWH, and sell it back to them for 35p. 
 

The problems with your suggestion are: 

The £400,000,000 MEA debacle

The £1,000,000,000 that wind turbines will end up costing us.

The belief wind is free. It isn’t. It costs an absolute fortune. 
 

Electricity on IoM is not, and never will be free. Using public money to pay for these monstrosities will end up being a white elephant. There are better and cheaper ways of buying and producing electricity, such as mandatory solar panels on newbuild roof tops, panels on government and public buildings, tax incentives to private individuals to add solar, VAWT and small turbine systems which feed into the MU infrastructure. There are loads more. But saddling future generations with the massive debt that the lie of these turbines will produce is absolutely criminal! 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Cambon

[Cambon]

5 hours ago, Mercenary said:

Say you spend:

Option A, power plant (or equivalent only):

  £20m / year on capital payments, staff, maintenance etc. for power station

  £50m/ year on fuel

  Total : £70m/year

Option B, power plant + wind turbines:

   £20m / year (same as above)

   £35m/ year on fuel (based on the projected roughly 1/3rd of power being generated by wind annually)

+ one off cost of £45m.

   Total: £55m/ year recurring... your onshore wind then has payback of 3 years, and after that you are saving £15m/year

 

All about the marginal costs which relates to fuel or electricity buying, which is directly reduced by onshore generation. Either the power plants or interconnector can spin up quickly enough that the onshore can be fully utilised and substituted with imports when its not running.

 

One off cost of £45 million will come nowhere near what is required. The people who sell these things price in the cost of electricity, plus inflation, plus built in redundancy. The actual cost to manufacture a wind turbine is quite minimal compared with the retail price.