“At last some sanity. I can recall the 11% added to fuel bills in the early 80s for 'nuclear decommissioning'. I don't recall many people protesting at that - yet miniscule amounts for renewables lead to massive protests. I wonder why ? - surely not all the anti-renewable types are paid-for nuclear activists?”

“EACH UK HOUSEHOLD PAYS £266 FOR NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING EVERY YEAR.
Posted in News, Market by Peter Bennett Published on 06 December 2011

A recent study commissioned by Engensa has announced the results from a survey conducted by TNS that examines UK consumers' knowledge and understanding of their energy bills.
The survey indicates a distinct lack of awareness of the true cost of energy subsidies to the UK consumer. 60 percent of respondents are unsure how much UK households pay for solar energy subsidies, with only 6 percent of those surveyed correctly answering "less than £2 per year". Over 60 percent of those surveyed admitted that they did not know to what extent a household personally subsidises solar, with 6 percent believing that it costs "more than £100 per year" to subsidise solar technology.
To further compound the confusion over the cost of energy subsidies, 65 percent of respondents did not know the average contribution to the nuclear industry; only 4 percent correctly answered that the cost of nuclear decommissioning is "more than £250 per year." The actual cost each UK household pays for nuclear decommissioning is £266.
Is not this chain around our children's neck shameful and immoral ?”

“"that doesn't perform when needed and which has to be paid to shut down during periods of low demand".
One question, How many FUTURE GENERATIONS will have to pay for the nuclear mess that this generation will leave behind when they die their million year protracted death or maybe a meltdown before then, considering our government are extending there (close by date lives)??

This is the biggest moral scam in history that our governments have left us with!”

“GREEN DREAM ALIVE AND KICKING.

Clean-Energy-Loving Germany Increasingly Exporting Electricity to Nuclear-Heavy France
February 9, 2012 By Zachary Shahan

Remember last year when Germany decided to speed up its phasing out of nuclear power and switch to clean energy and everyone (not in the clean energy industry) got freaked out about how German electricity prices would rise and the country would just start importing electricity from France's nuclear power plants?

Well, as I just wrote, it seems pretty clear that solar photovoltaics are bringing down the cost of electricity in Germany. Additionally, German electricity exports to France have been increasing!

"Because France has so much nuclear power, the country has an inordinate number of electric heating systems. And because France has not added on enough additional capacity over the past decade, the country's current nuclear plants are starting to have trouble meeting demand, especially when it gets very cold in the winter," Craig Morris of Renewables International writes.

And, with relatively sunny skies above, guess who's coming to the rescue—good old solar power from Germany.

"As a result, power exports from Germany to France reached 4 to 5 gigawatts – the equivalent of around four nuclear power plants – last Friday morning according to German journalist Bernward Janzing. It was not exactly a time of low consumption in Germany either at 70 gigawatts around noon on Friday, but Janzing nonetheless reports that the grid operators said everything was under control, and the country's emergency reserves were not being tapped. On the contrary, he reports that a spokesperson for transit grid operator Amprion told him that 'photovoltaics in southern Germany is currently helping us a

Source: Clean Technica (http://tinyurl.com/7dywjga)”

“Aeolus.
Perhaps this song was about long before you were it was sung by the Seekers called, "There some things money just cant buy". Enjoy.”

“Oh dear, Oh dear, Neocon.

Work out the cost to the consumer of building and subsidising a superfluous, parallel generating system of 23GW of onshore and 51GW of offshore wind power (DECC high end projections) that doesn't perform when needed and which has to be paid to shut down during periods of low demand.

Germany operates their 27GW of inefficient onshore wind by this means ('curtailment'), routinely dumping 15-20% of hugely subsidised production. Wind has also destabilised their grid and that of neighbouring countries

We are already seeing the economic consequences in Spain, Denmark, Portugal, Holland and now Germany. read what Der Spiegel has to say today, 24 February: 'Merkel's Switch to Renewables: Rising Energy Prices Endanger German Industry' - http://tinyurl.com/75tcxzr

Over and out (hopefully like the wind bubble!).”

“Oh dear,Oh dear, how many people think we are going to have ALL our electric from wind power.

David Cameron said an energy MIX how many are listening?

Does all our electric come from Nuclear on winter windless days?
Does all our electric come from Coal on winter windless days?
Does all our electric come from Gas on winter windless days?
Does all our electric come from Solar on winter windless days?
Does all our electric come from Hydro on winter windless days?
Does all our electric come from Wind on winter windless days? well it doesn't matter then.
Does all our electric come from Biomass on winter windless days?”

“Neocon.

By the way, it is of absolutely no interest that the Guardian pu*** wind output figures on one day.

The key issue is how wind performs in relation to load (demand). For the last 4 winters wind has produced an average of 7% of its headline capacity at peak load (see National Grid's Winter Outlook reports).

National Grid and the balancing mechanism largely discounts wind's contribution at times when we most need it:

"Recent history has shown that wind power output at the time of the winter peak can be very low. The winter peak normally occurs when temperatures are low and this often results from anti-cyclonic conditions that also mean very little wind. High pressure normally extends over a large area and this could mean there would be very little wind generation in Western Europe".
(National Grid, 'Winter Outlook Report 2009/10'. 'Generation Side Risks', 167, p.54).

This problem is experienced in most countries - wind produces least when it is most required. See California, Texas, Spain, Germany, Denmark etc.

In December 2010, during the coldest December for 120 years, the UK hit a winter peak load of nearly 60,050MW. Wind power, as in the previous two winters, repeatedly failed to deliver.

The Balancing Mechanism website showed the scramble to bring hydro, pumped storage, the French interconnector and even mothballed oil-fired capacity online to meet demand. Wind was not even visible on the graphs, providing a mere 61MW at peak from a total UK metered capacity of 2,430MW, only 2.5% of its theoretical capacity.

Forecast out-turn records showed toral wind output falling as low as 20MW (the headline capacity of 1 small wind farm), less than 0.1% of headline capacity, recorded as a contribution of "0.0%" to national load.

This underlines National Grid's observations on wind power generation during peak demand for the three winters previous to 2010-11:

"In terms of generation availability we saw a small contribution from wind generation at the time of the demand peak, underlining the need to discount the technical availability of intermittent generation types." (National Grid, 'Winter Outlook, 2010-11', 17).”

“Neocon.

Your figures are a blatant attempt to make the subsidies sound less significant.

Ofgem, which runs the subsidy system, records wind output in MWh not "MW" or kWh. ROC's are awarded on the basis of 1 per MWh of electricity produced and prices are quoted in pounds not pence - see 'The outlook is good! (!), the e-ROC auction site: http://tinyurl.com/3apcs4j

The maths is very simple, as I stated below (you have not challenged the calculation):

RenewableUK (formerly the British Wind Energy association, the wind industry trade body claims that: "A modern wind turbine will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output. This is known as its load factor."

So, the output of a modern 3MW onshore turbine over a year using that 30% load factor would be 3 [MW] x 8760[hours in the year] x 30%[load factor] = 7,884MWh p.a.

An onshore wind turbine is awarded 1 ROC per MWh, the average auction value of 1 ROC as of 4 January, 2012 was £45.18 (http://tinyurl.com/3apcs4j).

So the subsidy is worth 7,884 x £45 = £354,780 for a single 3MW turbine for 1 year. This is paid by electricity consumers in their bills.

Wind is supposedly, according to the wind industry, a "mature and proven technology" that is competitive with gas (which receives no subsidy).

How do you justify this cost to the consumer? And, don't forget, offshore receives TWICE that rate of subsidy.”

“Couldn't Burrator be retro fitted with water turbines? Just think of the hydro electricity that could be produced there.”