'An ill wind for renewables' (wind pwer) -TCE June 2008

[C&AG]

Cinco Dias

La energía eólica será competitiva en coste con el gas y el carbón a corto plazo por el escenario de precios altos que atraviesan los combustibles fósiles, tal y como afirmaron ayer Acciona e Iberdrola.

Con la producción eléctrica a partir de gas a 80 euros por megavatio/hora y la producción con carbón, a 85 euros, 'la energía eólica está más cerca de ser competitiva en costes', afirmó ayer Xabier Viteri, consejero delegado de Iberdrola Renovables en la Convención Eólica 2008. El alza del precio del petróleo está haciendo que en los próximos años 'la generación eólica podrá ser plenamente competitiva', según Viteri.

Quick translation: Iberdrola, the Airtricity of Spain, believes that wind will be competitive with combustibles fósiles in the short term and (in bold above) that wind produced electricity is more and more close to becoming competitive in cost with gas at 80 euros per megawatt and coal at 85 euros per megawatt. Maybe there's more wind in Spain

Iberdrola Homepage (spanish)

[soubresauts]

Maybe there's more wind in Spain

Ireland in general is windier than Spain, but the windiest place in Europe is in Spain -- the area around Tarifa on the Atlantic coast near Gibraltar.

[SPN]

The price of electricity charged to the consumer is subject to regulatory approval. If it was not the ESB could undercut all other competitors as electricity produced at large scale plants such as Moneypoint which are almost fully depreciated is far cheaper. As it stands the price of electricity is set at levels which permit new entrants to the market, in both renewable and other areas, to be in a position to compete.

Nonsense!

The consumer is being forced to pay extra costs to enable for-profit companies make a shed load of money.

Back in the days when we had a not-for-profit electricity company (owned by the taxpayer), we had the second cheapest electricity in Europe (only Greece was cheaper). Now we have this complete codology whereby the taxpayer is forced to pay higher pricer for electricity in order to allow for-profit companies to make a profit - and we have the second highest electricity prices in Europe.

Horlicks to that!

The ESB is currently forced to charge 20% to 30% higher prices because the powers that be want "competition" in the market.

Forgive me, but I'd prefer to have cheaper electricity, and long term strategic planning, instead of the blatant profiteering and short term investment decisions (and stealth taxes) we have under the current set up.


But you still haven't told us why you don't believe the CER when they say that Wind is cheaper than Gas.

[SPN]

On your point regarding competition you have a valid point. The manner in which is being done is a little half arsed in the short to medium term. A better way could have been to break the ESB up into competing companies each will equal asset bases in terms of depreciated facilities. However this would also make it difficult for new entrants to the market as their prices would need to reflect to the early high cost of depreciation on new capital investment.

Another approach with would tip the balance in favour of cleaner forms of energy is to put a price on the externality of fossil fuel based power generation, i.e. a tax per tonne of CO2 emissions as discussed on the thread from a few days back regarding the viability of nuclear power.

A much better plan would have been to laugh the gobshltes who peddle this "competition" balderdash out of the building.

The ESB has critical mass. It has serious technical expertise. And while it does have some bolshie Union types who need to be put back in their box from time to time, on the whole it has provided the Irish taxpayer with a very cost-effective electricity network.

Instead of breaking up the ESB, we should have given them a mandate to plan a thirty year strategy for meeting the energy needs of the Irish taxpayer in the most cost efficient manner, and let them off to do it.

Handing over a critical element of Irish Infrastructure over to privateers was a complete act of folly - as those who initially admired the Emperors shiny new clothes are beginning to realise.

[C&AG]

Massive spending boost for wind energy (among other energy measures) planned by the UK - it looks like they have the WILL to do it what's wrong with us ?

One in four British homes could be fitted with solar heating equipment and 3,500 wind turbines could be erected across Britain within 12 years as part of a green energy revolution to be proposed by the government next week.

The long-awaited renewable energy strategy, a copy of which has been seen by the Guardian, will say Britain needs to make a £100bn dash to build up its clean power supply if it is to reach its EU-imposed target of producing 15% of the country's energy from renewable sources by 2020.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... nemissions

[Centurian]

Well, thats England for you. Terminal 5 took at least 10 years - and look what a balls they made of the opening.

They ? - It was Willy Walsh who was responsible for that - And he's an Irishman ! . So much for your arguement that we can obviously do things better than the Brits ! .

[joel]

Well, thats England for you. Terminal 5 took at least 10 years - and look what a balls they made of the opening.

They ? - It was Willy Walsh who was responsible for that - And he's an Irishman ! . So much for your arguement that we can obviously do things better than the Brits ! .

No it wasn't - the BA executives in charge were sacked - and the BAA (the airport authority) was mostly responsible anyway.

[Centurian]

Complete rubbish - The buck stopped with Willy Walsh. He made the decision to go ahead with the BA move to Terminal 5 even though he was well aware that some work was incomplete and there would be problems.

As BA Chief Executive he had ultimate responsibility for the resultant fiasco - And he accepted that we he was brought before the House Of Commons Select Committee on this issue.

[riven]

I would have thought that the best approach with wind would actually be micro rather than macro.

The reason for not going down the micro route on a large scale is efficiency. For example if everyone had a turbine producing 100% of their power, then everyone needs wires, maintenance as well as losses. That is why energy power stations are generally massive. A big unit means less losses etc.
However I would be happy to see people supplying say 20% of their own electricity. that is probably not unreasonable.

A much better plan would have been to laugh the gobshltes who peddle this "competition" balderdash out of the building.
The ESB has critical mass. It has serious technical expertise. And while it does have some bolshie Union types who need to be put back in their box from time to time, on the whole it has provided the Irish taxpayer with a very cost-effective electricity network.
Instead of breaking up the ESB, we should have given them a mandate to plan a thirty year strategy for meeting the energy needs of the Irish taxpayer in the most cost efficient manner, and let them off to do it.
Handing over a critical element of Irish Infrastructure over to privateers was a complete act of folly - as those who initially admired the Emperors shiny new clothes are beginning to realise.

Whle heartedly agree. The ESB certainly has the expertise but has never been given a big enough scope or budget. I would much rather the ESB be allowed to expand into renewables etc rather than continuing the farce of SEI/SWS congolomerate (apologies for spelling).

[joel]

Complete rubbish - The buck stopped with Willy Walsh. He made the decision to go ahead with the BA move to Terminal 5 even though he was well aware that some work was incomplete and there would be problems.

As BA Chief Executive he had ultimate responsibility for the resultant fiasco - And he accepted that we he was brought before the House Of Commons Select Committee on this issue.

What are you, anyway - stop kidding us that you're Itish. Every post you make is anti-Irish.