France accepts 230 boat people turned away from Sicily.
"The boat’s passengers were expected to be given medical aid and interviewed at an administrative centre at Toulon’s naval port. Those eligible to make asylum claims could then be moved to other European countries, nine of which – including Germany, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Portugal – have offered to take in a total of two thirds of the passengers in “solidarity”. Those who France decided were not eligible to make an asylum claim would be returned to their countries of origin, the French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, said."
A lot of this is anecdotal, admittedly, but there does appear to be a quiet determination from pretty much everyone I speak to, to keep the heating off much longer than would normally be the case.
Much of this is very obviously price driven, through fear of the increases, and we have of course been spoiled by a very mild autumn so far, but I think it has morphed somewhat into a rather quiet, blitz-spirit like attitude bubbling below the surface, even in people who are well-off enough to pay the prices if they wanted to, particularly with the support scheme in place. If this is being repeated across society then the gas stocks in reserve must be significant.
I have heard similar.
That said, it has also been unseasonably warm. I think I've had the heating on for two evenings and one morning so far this autumn...
There’s no doubt that’s helped. And although I am concerned at the trend of rising temperatures, I hope I will be forgiven that this year out of all of them, with the events in Ukraine being as they are, for being glad and grateful that this has been the case.
France accepts 230 boat people turned away from Sicily.
"The boat’s passengers were expected to be given medical aid and interviewed at an administrative centre at Toulon’s naval port. Those eligible to make asylum claims could then be moved to other European countries, nine of which – including Germany, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Portugal – have offered to take in a total of two thirds of the passengers in “solidarity”. Those who France decided were not eligible to make an asylum claim would be returned to their countries of origin, the French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, said."
Gérald Darmanin added "or we could give them boats and put 'em in the Channel. That works too."
France accepts 230 boat people turned away from Sicily.
"The boat’s passengers were expected to be given medical aid and interviewed at an administrative centre at Toulon’s naval port. Those eligible to make asylum claims could then be moved to other European countries, nine of which – including Germany, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Portugal – have offered to take in a total of two thirds of the passengers in “solidarity”. Those who France decided were not eligible to make an asylum claim would be returned to their countries of origin, the French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, said."
Off-topic: I hope Smarkets win a big chunk of market share from Betfair before the 2024 USPE. As well as delaying paying out my winnings on Biden for ages in 2020 until the last MAGA nut in Viking headwear and waving a Confederacy flag was safely in custody, BF also recently slashed my deposit limit by more than 95% without telling me, won't acknowledge what they did, and won't reinstall it.
i'm surprised at that. if you're betting on the exchange it isnt their money at risk from your activities.
Smarkets is both: they're an exchange, but they also take risk.
(As in, they will have market makers on the various markets to ensure liquidity, and to encourage people to use their exchange. Not a stupid idea at all.)
NB that Smarkets threw a fab birthday party for PB in March and therefore deserve PBers business.
Scotland currently getting a good 25% of European wind, balance to Norway and the Baltics
Next Tuesday evening forecast to be a bonanza for North Sea wind farms.
Looking good. Now, if only they had a linked array of Starfish Prime™ storage batteries to feed into.
Is there a maximum wind speed above which more wind becomes useless for the purposes if electricity generation?
Very much so. At a certain windspeed they turn them off (ie stop them turning) presumably to prevent damage.
AFAIK it is damage due to overloading the grid at the entry point that makes them switch off, rather than damage to the turbines. As PB will be very tired of me saying, they get paid to switch off, more than they actually get paid for producing power.
Tired of you saying that because it's cobblers.
No, it's not cobblers, it's easily verifiable fact.
"Wind farm owners charge more per unit to reduce output than they earn through generating. For wind farms subsidised under the Renewables Obligation (RO) the income foregone when instructed to reduce output is the value of the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC). Typically, wind farms ask to be paid much more than the lost income, and in the early days of wind farm constraint payments, the premiums charged for not generating were very high indeed. For example, in 2011, Crystal Rig 2 charged £991 per MWh to reduce output compared to the value of the ROC at that time of £42 per MWh. Kilbraur, Millennium, Farr, An Suidhe were charging between £200 to £320 per MWh constrained-off in 2011.!
This was regarded as an abuse of market power, and the Government introduced the Transmission Constraint Licence Condition (TCLC) in 2012, which sought to prevent excessive bid prices in the event of a constraint. While there can be no doubt that the TCLC resulted in a reduction in prices, they are still well in excess of the subsidy foregone in 2019
...Assuming the 2019 ROC value will be approximately £55, these wind farms would receive £49 per MWh if generating but ask for and receive £96-£98 per MWh not to generate and thus get a premium of £47–£49 above the subsidy when constrained off. The five wind farms with the lowest constraint prices are older wind farms which receive 1 ROC per MWh. In 2019, they were setting constraint prices of £64-£69 per MWh to reduce output, thus getting a premium of £10-£15 per MWh."
Per unit, not in total.
My statement doesn't refer to a total, but even if it did, I'd have been correct. In 2020, Corriegarth Wind Farm constrained 51% of its power, Strathy North constrained 48%. Assuming even a modest premium per unit above what they get for power generation, that means they did make more than half their money from switching off. https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/371-constraint-payments-to-wind-power-in-2020-and-2021
Your statement doesn't refer to a total, but I felt it was a useful clarification.
The report you link to shows that Corriegarth and Strathy North are outliers. Most places have much, much lower rates of constrained payments.
The weather has also been extremely kind this year.
I’m in the North East of England and it is currently 16 degrees. Not far off T shirt weather (for non Geordies anyway, a freezing Feb day is T shirt weather for our Geordie friends). Our heating has rarely been on even with me working from home 2 days a week.
Not good for the wildlife but great for our fuel bills/consumption.
France accepts 230 boat people turned away from Sicily.
"The boat’s passengers were expected to be given medical aid and interviewed at an administrative centre at Toulon’s naval port. Those eligible to make asylum claims could then be moved to other European countries, nine of which – including Germany, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Portugal – have offered to take in a total of two thirds of the passengers in “solidarity”. Those who France decided were not eligible to make an asylum claim would be returned to their countries of origin, the French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, said."
Gérald Darmanin added "or we could give them boats and put 'em in the Channel. That works too."
The Libyan "Coast Guard" gets an EU subvention to stop migrants.
I wonder how much they would pay for third parties rounding up the migrants for them? Outsourcing is a popular business model, after all.
Hmmm... English Channel-Libya-Italy. That's a triangle, isn't it?
The race for Washington's 3rd House district tightened yesterday. Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez now leads Trumpista Joe Kent 132,161 to 126,279. (After Wednesday's count, the race was 117,179-108,324.)
(I made a quick search, but didn't find any explanation for the tightening.)
I really, really want Joe Kent to lose. In our top-two primary, he narrowly edged out Jaime Herra Beutler, one of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after January 6th. (It was considered a safe Republican district before that primary.)
In House races, you can't assume that ballots that are counted late will break for the Democrats.
Broadly speaking, this is a rerun of 2020, with the needle shifted slightly in favour of the Republicans, compared to two years ago.
@Casino_Royale it would take an extraordinary amount to go right for the Democrats for the Republicans not to reach 220 seats. It's more like a 10% chance than a 33% chance.
Scotland currently getting a good 25% of European wind, balance to Norway and the Baltics
Next Tuesday evening forecast to be a bonanza for North Sea wind farms.
Looking good. Now, if only they had a linked array of Starfish Prime™ storage batteries to feed into.
Is there a maximum wind speed above which more wind becomes useless for the purposes if electricity generation?
Very much so. At a certain windspeed they turn them off (ie stop them turning) presumably to prevent damage.
AFAIK it is damage due to overloading the grid at the entry point that makes them switch off, rather than damage to the turbines. As PB will be very tired of me saying, they get paid to switch off, more than they actually get paid for producing power.
Tired of you saying that because it's cobblers.
No, it's not cobblers, it's easily verifiable fact.
"Wind farm owners charge more per unit to reduce output than they earn through generating. For wind farms subsidised under the Renewables Obligation (RO) the income foregone when instructed to reduce output is the value of the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC). Typically, wind farms ask to be paid much more than the lost income, and in the early days of wind farm constraint payments, the premiums charged for not generating were very high indeed. For example, in 2011, Crystal Rig 2 charged £991 per MWh to reduce output compared to the value of the ROC at that time of £42 per MWh. Kilbraur, Millennium, Farr, An Suidhe were charging between £200 to £320 per MWh constrained-off in 2011.!
This was regarded as an abuse of market power, and the Government introduced the Transmission Constraint Licence Condition (TCLC) in 2012, which sought to prevent excessive bid prices in the event of a constraint. While there can be no doubt that the TCLC resulted in a reduction in prices, they are still well in excess of the subsidy foregone in 2019
...Assuming the 2019 ROC value will be approximately £55, these wind farms would receive £49 per MWh if generating but ask for and receive £96-£98 per MWh not to generate and thus get a premium of £47–£49 above the subsidy when constrained off. The five wind farms with the lowest constraint prices are older wind farms which receive 1 ROC per MWh. In 2019, they were setting constraint prices of £64-£69 per MWh to reduce output, thus getting a premium of £10-£15 per MWh."
Per unit, not in total.
My statement doesn't refer to a total, but even if it did, I'd have been correct. In 2020, Corriegarth Wind Farm constrained 51% of its power, Strathy North constrained 48%. Assuming even a modest premium per unit above what they get for power generation, that means they did make more than half their money from switching off. https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/371-constraint-payments-to-wind-power-in-2020-and-2021
Your statement doesn't refer to a total, but I felt it was a useful clarification.
The report you link to shows that Corriegarth and Strathy North are outliers. Most places have much, much lower rates of constrained payments.
Yes, agreed. Their switch-off rates were particularly egregious, though not massively in excess of many others.
However, it is concerning that these things keep being built, in wildernesses with poor grid connectivity.
O/T I have just felt moved to donate a small payment to Wikipedia; I don't do it very often but 98% don't bother at all apparently.
It is still amazing to me that Wiki remains free and ad-free. I wonder if that will continue indefinitely.
I donate small amounts, regularly. It's reportedly rather profitable, but so long as it continues as it is, that doesn't bother me much.
Likewise (direct debit). Bugs me a little that there isn't a way to turn off for very long the fundraising banners given even though I'm aleady funding (unless I'm missing something - perhaps if logged in? I do have an account but am rarely logged in)
While that's true, next winter is also a year away, and a lot can happen in a year.
What do you expect to happen from where we are now ?
Do you think there sufficient cause for optimism that the west can continue to plug the gap ?
Well, the first thing you need to remember is that energy is (to a significant extent) fungible, which is why coal prices are also up massively this year. This means that the energy gap is less than it appears. Europe (and the UK) can stockpile coal over the next 12 months, to give us some degree of support. (Coal also has the advantage that it's just dry bulk: it's not held back by the need for specialist vessels.)
We are also seeing a significant increase to the size of the LNG fleet over the coming 18 months, and we are seeing new projects come on stream - albeit the biggest one (Qatar North Field extension) is not until 2025.
The increased LNG fleet means there's more takeaway capacity from the US, and should mean more drilling there, and more available gas for Europe and the UK. Plus, of course, there'll be more wind installed in the UK.
Now: does this mean that next winter will be comfortable? Not really. And the UK has specific risks around its lack of substantial gas storage.
But given it looks increasingly like we'll get through this year without significant problems, there's good reason to think that next year won't be worse.
Just hope the Russians don't shell it or drop a missile on it.
If they are just accepting they have lost a chunk of "Russia" - some 4,600 sq km - it is suggesting to me that a deal has been done. It all feels too...neat and tidy.
(Summary: they are rolling in it, almost none of your money will be spent on wikipedia itself, all goes to ill-defined other ventures. You may like those ventures, if you align with them politically)
The race for Washington's 3rd House district tightened yesterday. Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez now leads Trumpista Joe Kent 132,161 to 126,279. (After Wednesday's count, the race was 117,179-108,324.)
(I made a quick search, but didn't find any explanation for the tightening.)
I really, really want Joe Kent to lose. In our top-two primary, he narrowly edged out Jaime Herra Beutler, one of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after January 6th. (It was considered a safe Republican district before that primary.)
In House races, you can't assume that ballots that are counted late will break for the Democrats.
Broadly speaking, this is a rerun of 2020, with the needle shifted slightly in favour of the Republicans, compared to two years ago.
@Casino_Royale it would take an extraordinary amount to go right for the Democrats for the Republicans not to reach 220 seats. It's more like a 10% chance than a 33% chance.
I would agree: I think there's a 90+% chance that the Republicans are between 220 and 224 seats.
A lot of this is anecdotal, admittedly, but there does appear to be a quiet determination from pretty much everyone I speak to, to keep the heating off much longer than would normally be the case.
Much of this is very obviously price driven, through fear of the increases, and we have of course been spoiled by a very mild autumn so far, but I think it has morphed somewhat into a rather quiet, blitz-spirit like attitude bubbling below the surface, even in people who are well-off enough to pay the prices if they wanted to, particularly with the support scheme in place. If this is being repeated across society then the gas stocks in reserve must be significant.
I have heard similar.
That said, it has also been unseasonably warm. I think I've had the heating on for two evenings and one morning so far this autumn...
There’s no doubt that’s helped. And although I am concerned at the trend of rising temperatures, I hope I will be forgiven that this year out of all of them, with the events in Ukraine being as they are, for being glad and grateful that this has been the case.
Yes, it's been milder, but there have been numerous days since early October where last year we would have had the heating on and this year we haven't, or have, at worst, given it 45 minutes to take the chill off. I reckon we've used less than 10% of the gas for heating that we used last Oct/Nov. I don't think we're atypical. I don't think commercial uses will have made quite the same savings, but still, it's going to have made a difference.
Scotland currently getting a good 25% of European wind, balance to Norway and the Baltics
Next Tuesday evening forecast to be a bonanza for North Sea wind farms.
Looking good. Now, if only they had a linked array of Starfish Prime™ storage batteries to feed into.
Is there a maximum wind speed above which more wind becomes useless for the purposes if electricity generation?
Very much so. At a certain windspeed they turn them off (ie stop them turning) presumably to prevent damage.
AFAIK it is damage due to overloading the grid at the entry point that makes them switch off, rather than damage to the turbines. As PB will be very tired of me saying, they get paid to switch off, more than they actually get paid for producing power.
Tired of you saying that because it's cobblers.
No, it's not cobblers, it's easily verifiable fact.
"Wind farm owners charge more per unit to reduce output than they earn through generating. For wind farms subsidised under the Renewables Obligation (RO) the income foregone when instructed to reduce output is the value of the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC). Typically, wind farms ask to be paid much more than the lost income, and in the early days of wind farm constraint payments, the premiums charged for not generating were very high indeed. For example, in 2011, Crystal Rig 2 charged £991 per MWh to reduce output compared to the value of the ROC at that time of £42 per MWh. Kilbraur, Millennium, Farr, An Suidhe were charging between £200 to £320 per MWh constrained-off in 2011.!
This was regarded as an abuse of market power, and the Government introduced the Transmission Constraint Licence Condition (TCLC) in 2012, which sought to prevent excessive bid prices in the event of a constraint. While there can be no doubt that the TCLC resulted in a reduction in prices, they are still well in excess of the subsidy foregone in 2019
...Assuming the 2019 ROC value will be approximately £55, these wind farms would receive £49 per MWh if generating but ask for and receive £96-£98 per MWh not to generate and thus get a premium of £47–£49 above the subsidy when constrained off. The five wind farms with the lowest constraint prices are older wind farms which receive 1 ROC per MWh. In 2019, they were setting constraint prices of £64-£69 per MWh to reduce output, thus getting a premium of £10-£15 per MWh."
Per unit, not in total.
My statement doesn't refer to a total, but even if it did, I'd have been correct. In 2020, Corriegarth Wind Farm constrained 51% of its power, Strathy North constrained 48%. Assuming even a modest premium per unit above what they get for power generation, that means they did make more than half their money from switching off. https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/371-constraint-payments-to-wind-power-in-2020-and-2021
My recollection - which may be wrong - is that most of the problem is caused by lack of interconnector capacity to take away wind power, rather than lack of demand for the power itself.
That's true, but that is an entirely predictable issue. Why give planning permission to a wind farm that's behind an interconnector bottleneck - especially if it's smack bang in an area of outstanding natural beauty?
Why apply to build one? That's a different story - it's a license to print money; the more remote and inaccessible the better.
The solvable problem is having National Grid improve the grid infrastructure more quickly. I would have thought a sensible way of incentivise that would be to make them liable for the capacity payments in those circumstances. It's not an inherent issue and it applies only to a small number of special cases.
Polish Independence Day. Freedom from German, Austro-Hungarian and, most importantly, Russian control. A fact not missed by a lot of my Polish friends.
Scotland currently getting a good 25% of European wind, balance to Norway and the Baltics
Next Tuesday evening forecast to be a bonanza for North Sea wind farms.
Looking good. Now, if only they had a linked array of Starfish Prime™ storage batteries to feed into.
Is there a maximum wind speed above which more wind becomes useless for the purposes if electricity generation?
Very much so. At a certain windspeed they turn them off (ie stop them turning) presumably to prevent damage.
AFAIK it is damage due to overloading the grid at the entry point that makes them switch off, rather than damage to the turbines. As PB will be very tired of me saying, they get paid to switch off, more than they actually get paid for producing power.
Tired of you saying that because it's cobblers.
No, it's not cobblers, it's easily verifiable fact.
"Wind farm owners charge more per unit to reduce output than they earn through generating. For wind farms subsidised under the Renewables Obligation (RO) the income foregone when instructed to reduce output is the value of the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC). Typically, wind farms ask to be paid much more than the lost income, and in the early days of wind farm constraint payments, the premiums charged for not generating were very high indeed. For example, in 2011, Crystal Rig 2 charged £991 per MWh to reduce output compared to the value of the ROC at that time of £42 per MWh. Kilbraur, Millennium, Farr, An Suidhe were charging between £200 to £320 per MWh constrained-off in 2011.!
This was regarded as an abuse of market power, and the Government introduced the Transmission Constraint Licence Condition (TCLC) in 2012, which sought to prevent excessive bid prices in the event of a constraint. While there can be no doubt that the TCLC resulted in a reduction in prices, they are still well in excess of the subsidy foregone in 2019
...Assuming the 2019 ROC value will be approximately £55, these wind farms would receive £49 per MWh if generating but ask for and receive £96-£98 per MWh not to generate and thus get a premium of £47–£49 above the subsidy when constrained off. The five wind farms with the lowest constraint prices are older wind farms which receive 1 ROC per MWh. In 2019, they were setting constraint prices of £64-£69 per MWh to reduce output, thus getting a premium of £10-£15 per MWh."
Per unit, not in total.
My statement doesn't refer to a total, but even if it did, I'd have been correct. In 2020, Corriegarth Wind Farm constrained 51% of its power, Strathy North constrained 48%. Assuming even a modest premium per unit above what they get for power generation, that means they did make more than half their money from switching off. https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/371-constraint-payments-to-wind-power-in-2020-and-2021
Your statement doesn't refer to a total, but I felt it was a useful clarification.
The report you link to shows that Corriegarth and Strathy North are outliers. Most places have much, much lower rates of constrained payments.
Yes, agreed. Their switch-off rates were particularly egregious, though not massively in excess of many others.
However, it is concerning that these things keep being built, in wildernesses with poor grid connectivity.
Well, it's like how you rob banks, because that is where the money is. Windy uplands are wildernesses. Plus they all plug in to the Dounreay main eventually.
While that's true, next winter is also a year away, and a lot can happen in a year.
What do you expect to happen from where we are now ?
Do you think there sufficient cause for optimism that the west can continue to plug the gap ?
Well, the first thing you need to remember is that energy is (to a significant extent) fungible, which is why coal prices are also up massively this year. This means that the energy gap is less than it appears. Europe (and the UK) can stockpile coal over the next 12 months, to give us some degree of support. (Coal also has the advantage that it's just dry bulk: it's not held back by the need for specialist vessels.)
We are also seeing a significant increase to the size of the LNG fleet over the coming 18 months, and we are seeing new projects come on stream - albeit the biggest one (Qatar North Field extension) is not until 2025.
The increased LNG fleet means there's more takeaway capacity from the US, and should mean more drilling there, and more available gas for Europe and the UK. Plus, of course, there'll be more wind installed in the UK.
Now: does this mean that next winter will be comfortable? Not really. And the UK has specific risks around its lack of substantial gas storage.
But given it looks increasingly like we'll get through this year without significant problems, there's good reason to think that next year won't be worse.
"Current gas storage in the UK is around 1.5bn m3 and figures from Ofgem project the facility could provide additional storage of 0.8bn m3 this winter and up to 1.7bn m3 for the winter of 2023/24."
For scale, an LNG ship carries something like 100,000 m3 (and upwards) of LNG - which is 600 times less volume than natural gas at STP. so an LNG ship load is 60 million m3 of gas.
A lot of this is anecdotal, admittedly, but there does appear to be a quiet determination from pretty much everyone I speak to, to keep the heating off much longer than would normally be the case.
Much of this is very obviously price driven, through fear of the increases, and we have of course been spoiled by a very mild autumn so far, but I think it has morphed somewhat into a rather quiet, blitz-spirit like attitude bubbling below the surface, even in people who are well-off enough to pay the prices if they wanted to, particularly with the support scheme in place. If this is being repeated across society then the gas stocks in reserve must be significant.
I have heard similar.
That said, it has also been unseasonably warm. I think I've had the heating on for two evenings and one morning so far this autumn...
There’s no doubt that’s helped. And although I am concerned at the trend of rising temperatures, I hope I will be forgiven that this year out of all of them, with the events in Ukraine being as they are, for being glad and grateful that this has been the case.
Yes, it's been milder, but there have been numerous days since early October where last year we would have had the heating on and this year we haven't, or have, at worst, given it 45 minutes to take the chill off. I reckon we've used less than 10% of the gas for heating that we used last Oct/Nov. I don't think we're atypical. I don't think commercial uses will have made quite the same savings, but still, it's going to have made a difference.
It would be interesting to see what the figures are for gas usage. Hopefully well down.
The solvable problem is having National Grid improve the grid infrastructure more quickly. I would have thought a sensible way of incentivise that would be to make them liable for the capacity payments in those circumstances. It's not an inherent issue and it applies only to a small number of special cases.
I know of a company which has been told that it won't be able to get a connection from its solar panel scheme into the grid for five years. Seems completely bonkers.
On the other end of the chain, I was quoted £20K by UK Power Networks to upgrade our supply to 3-phase, which we would have needed to install a heat pump. That was for a link and new transformer approx 200 yds from the house, all on our own land.
I think its fair to say that the electricity industry is not exactly helping us go to Net Zero.
The weather has also been extremely kind this year.
I’m in the North East of England and it is currently 16 degrees. Not far off T shirt weather (for non Geordies anyway, a freezing Feb day is T shirt weather for our Geordie friends). Our heating has rarely been on even with me working from home 2 days a week.
Not good for the wildlife but great for our fuel bills/consumption.
Went out to get a haircut at lunchtime wearing a sweatshirt not even thinking about putting my coat on.
Braintree (Braintree South) - Lab GAIN from Con Braintree (Coggeshall) - Ind Hold Broxtowe (Greasley) - Con Hold Burnley (Rosehill with Burnley Wood) - Lab GAIN from Con Cannock Chase (Cannock West) - Con Hold East Devon (Newton Poppleford & Harpford) - Ind GAIN from Independent East Devon Alliance Kingston-upon-Thames (Green Lane & St James) - Kingston Independent Resident GAIN from LDm South Kesteven (Bourne East) - Con Hold South Kesteven (Grantham St Wulfram’s) - Con Hold
Good Week/Bad Week index
Lab +165 Grn -6 LDm -30 Con -84
Adjusted Seat Value
Lab +2.8 Grn -0.1 LDm -0.5 Con -1.4
Nice night for Labour; poor for the LibDems off only four candidates; only Bourne saved the Cons from being negative across the board, despite all those holds.
Just hope the Russians don't shell it or drop a missile on it.
If they are just accepting they have lost a chunk of "Russia" - some 4,600 sq km - it is suggesting to me that a deal has been done. It all feels too...neat and tidy.
I’m not buying the ‘deal’ narrative.
The enemy were out of supplies and couldn’t hold position, same as with the area West of Kiev back in April.
The only deal Ukranians are going to accept, is one where all the Russians fcuk off back to Russia.
Polish Independence Day. Freedom from German, Austro-Hungarian and, most importantly, Russian control. A fact not missed by a lot of my Polish friends.
There was a thread about Polish Independence Day on the Auschwitz memorial Twitter feed and the Nazi atrocity in the camp in 1941.
The propaganda value of these scenes is incalculable. I felt for a long time that Ukraine needed to take back Kherson, a significant city, with the minimum of bloodshed and with the population still there so that they could show the world (and who knows, maybe even some Russians) the real feelings of the people of the South.
The sight of cheering crowds in a newly liberated city is intoxicating. The one moment I questioned by objection to the Iraq war was in those few early days when crowds came out to pull down Saddam statues and throw shoes. Sadly things went downhill from there.
The happy old couples in isolated villages near Kharkiv have a sense but trey were easier for Kremlin propagandists to write off or ignore. These street scenes can’t be ignored. I sincerely hope they will stiffen the resolve of Europeans, give pause to naive both-siders like Lula or Pope Francis or the British far left, and maybe even provoke a frisson of doubt in the minds of the MAGA Putin apologists in the GOP (well OK, that last one is unlikely).
Scotland currently getting a good 25% of European wind, balance to Norway and the Baltics
Next Tuesday evening forecast to be a bonanza for North Sea wind farms.
Looking good. Now, if only they had a linked array of Starfish Prime™ storage batteries to feed into.
Is there a maximum wind speed above which more wind becomes useless for the purposes if electricity generation?
Very much so. At a certain windspeed they turn them off (ie stop them turning) presumably to prevent damage.
AFAIK it is damage due to overloading the grid at the entry point that makes them switch off, rather than damage to the turbines. As PB will be very tired of me saying, they get paid to switch off, more than they actually get paid for producing power.
Tired of you saying that because it's cobblers.
No, it's not cobblers, it's easily verifiable fact.
"Wind farm owners charge more per unit to reduce output than they earn through generating. For wind farms subsidised under the Renewables Obligation (RO) the income foregone when instructed to reduce output is the value of the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC). Typically, wind farms ask to be paid much more than the lost income, and in the early days of wind farm constraint payments, the premiums charged for not generating were very high indeed. For example, in 2011, Crystal Rig 2 charged £991 per MWh to reduce output compared to the value of the ROC at that time of £42 per MWh. Kilbraur, Millennium, Farr, An Suidhe were charging between £200 to £320 per MWh constrained-off in 2011.!
This was regarded as an abuse of market power, and the Government introduced the Transmission Constraint Licence Condition (TCLC) in 2012, which sought to prevent excessive bid prices in the event of a constraint. While there can be no doubt that the TCLC resulted in a reduction in prices, they are still well in excess of the subsidy foregone in 2019
...Assuming the 2019 ROC value will be approximately £55, these wind farms would receive £49 per MWh if generating but ask for and receive £96-£98 per MWh not to generate and thus get a premium of £47–£49 above the subsidy when constrained off. The five wind farms with the lowest constraint prices are older wind farms which receive 1 ROC per MWh. In 2019, they were setting constraint prices of £64-£69 per MWh to reduce output, thus getting a premium of £10-£15 per MWh."
Per unit, not in total.
My statement doesn't refer to a total, but even if it did, I'd have been correct. In 2020, Corriegarth Wind Farm constrained 51% of its power, Strathy North constrained 48%. Assuming even a modest premium per unit above what they get for power generation, that means they did make more than half their money from switching off. https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/371-constraint-payments-to-wind-power-in-2020-and-2021
My recollection - which may be wrong - is that most of the problem is caused by lack of interconnector capacity to take away wind power, rather than lack of demand for the power itself.
That's true, but that is an entirely predictable issue. Why give planning permission to a wind farm that's behind an interconnector bottleneck - especially if it's smack bang in an area of outstanding natural beauty?
Why apply to build one? That's a different story - it's a license to print money; the more remote and inaccessible the better.
The solvable problem is having National Grid improve the grid infrastructure more quickly. I would have thought a sensible way of incentivise that would be to make them liable for the capacity payments in those circumstances. It's not an inherent issue and it applies only to a small number of special cases.
The National Grid spends a huge amount trying to improve grid infrastructure - such improvements have not kept pace with the wind farm gold rush, and they don't always work - afaicr a recent major (and costly) interconnector upgrade between England and Scotland has failed to meet expectations of its additional electrical capacity. They do that because they ARE liable for these payments, but ultimately, as a public body, that liability goes to the taxpayer, or in this case, the bill payer.
You are suggesting that the tax/billpayer should be on the hook for funding commercial entities (largely foreign) planting massive wind farms anywhere they damn well like, in the full knowledge that connectivity will be an issue, knowing that they will not only get paid whether or not their power makes it to the grid, but that they will get paid MORE if it doesn't. Why do you feel the public need to fund private shareholders in this absurd way?
France accepts 230 boat people turned away from Sicily.
"The boat’s passengers were expected to be given medical aid and interviewed at an administrative centre at Toulon’s naval port. Those eligible to make asylum claims could then be moved to other European countries, nine of which – including Germany, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Portugal – have offered to take in a total of two thirds of the passengers in “solidarity”. Those who France decided were not eligible to make an asylum claim would be returned to their countries of origin, the French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, said."
Italy has helped the situation, France hasn't.
"So far this year, 164 asylum seekers have been moved from Italy to other EU countries that have volunteered to accept them. But that is a tiny fraction of the more than 88,000 who have reached Italy’s shores so far this year, of which just 14% arrived after being rescued by NGO vessels, according to the Italian authorities.
According to the UN’s International Organization for Migration, 1,891 people have died or disappeared while trying to cross the Mediterranean so far this year."
If 1891 deaths do nothing to limit demand, Italy being beastly to 230 isn't going to make much difference, is it now? Even assuming perfect, or indeed any, information being available to potential crossers. Look at all the 1,000 plus death stampedes they manage at Mecca without denting the popularity of the hajj.
Just hope the Russians don't shell it or drop a missile on it.
If they are just accepting they have lost a chunk of "Russia" - some 4,600 sq km - it is suggesting to me that a deal has been done. It all feels too...neat and tidy.
Don't want to lose that land bridge to Crimea, I bet they want a deal.
Just hope the Russians don't shell it or drop a missile on it.
If they are just accepting they have lost a chunk of "Russia" - some 4,600 sq km - it is suggesting to me that a deal has been done. It all feels too...neat and tidy.
I’m not buying the ‘deal’ narrative.
The enemy were out of supplies and couldn’t hold position, same as with the area West of Kiev back in April.
The only deal Ukranians are going to accept, is one where all the Russians fcuk off back to Russia.
They would accept a local deal to have Russia fuck off out of Kherson without totally destroying it, I suspect. Especially if brokered by Turkey or Saudi.
Ukraine clearly did a superb job in isolating the Russian troops on the right bank. Even so, still lots of things to make you go "Hmmmm......."
A lot of this is anecdotal, admittedly, but there does appear to be a quiet determination from pretty much everyone I speak to, to keep the heating off much longer than would normally be the case.
Much of this is very obviously price driven, through fear of the increases, and we have of course been spoiled by a very mild autumn so far, but I think it has morphed somewhat into a rather quiet, blitz-spirit like attitude bubbling below the surface, even in people who are well-off enough to pay the prices if they wanted to, particularly with the support scheme in place. If this is being repeated across society then the gas stocks in reserve must be significant.
I have heard similar.
That said, it has also been unseasonably warm. I think I've had the heating on for two evenings and one morning so far this autumn...
There’s no doubt that’s helped. And although I am concerned at the trend of rising temperatures, I hope I will be forgiven that this year out of all of them, with the events in Ukraine being as they are, for being glad and grateful that this has been the case.
Yes, it's been milder, but there have been numerous days since early October where last year we would have had the heating on and this year we haven't, or have, at worst, given it 45 minutes to take the chill off. I reckon we've used less than 10% of the gas for heating that we used last Oct/Nov. I don't think we're atypical. I don't think commercial uses will have made quite the same savings, but still, it's going to have made a difference.
It would be interesting to see what the figures are for gas usage. Hopefully well down.
Demand is such an important part of the equation and I’d live to see much more done by government to support reduced demand.
We have a whole year to fast track Major (and mostly quick win) insulation fitting, and electrification of some of Britain’s heating capacity. Expanded supply + reduced demand = cheaper energy bills.
France accepts 230 boat people turned away from Sicily.
"The boat’s passengers were expected to be given medical aid and interviewed at an administrative centre at Toulon’s naval port. Those eligible to make asylum claims could then be moved to other European countries, nine of which – including Germany, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Portugal – have offered to take in a total of two thirds of the passengers in “solidarity”. Those who France decided were not eligible to make an asylum claim would be returned to their countries of origin, the French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, said."
Italy has helped the situation, France hasn't.
"So far this year, 164 asylum seekers have been moved from Italy to other EU countries that have volunteered to accept them. But that is a tiny fraction of the more than 88,000 who have reached Italy’s shores so far this year, of which just 14% arrived after being rescued by NGO vessels, according to the Italian authorities.
According to the UN’s International Organization for Migration, 1,891 people have died or disappeared while trying to cross the Mediterranean so far this year."
If 1891 deaths do nothing to limit demand, Italy being beastly to 230 isn't going to make much difference, is it now? Even assuming perfect, or indeed any, information being available to potential crossers. Look at all the 1,000 plus death stampedes they manage at Mecca without denting the popularity of the hajj.
I'm referring to this incident alone.
As for your wider point, one doesn't think one will be involved in a stampede, or die whilst making a crossing. If the number of stampede deaths, or crossing deaths, was 100%, nobody would come/go. That's why a blanket, consistent approach is helpful.
(Summary: they are rolling in it, almost none of your money will be spent on wikipedia itself, all goes to ill-defined other ventures. You may like those ventures, if you align with them politically)
I see it more as a payment for a product (actually multiple products - MediaWiki, Commons, Data) that I use more than as a charitable donation, tbh. I can be convinced to stop donating in such ways (and it has happened, but more generally related to no longer valuing the product/direction) but tons of money, some spent foolishly, doesn't really move me - for example, I also donated to Mozilla in the days when they were rolling in Google referral revenue.
The race for Washington's 3rd House district tightened yesterday. Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez now leads Trumpista Joe Kent 132,161 to 126,279. (After Wednesday's count, the race was 117,179-108,324.)
(I made a quick search, but didn't find any explanation for the tightening.)
I really, really want Joe Kent to lose. In our top-two primary, he narrowly edged out Jaime Herra Beutler, one of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after January 6th. (It was considered a safe Republican district before that primary.)
In House races, you can't assume that ballots that are counted late will break for the Democrats.
Broadly speaking, this is a rerun of 2020, with the needle shifted slightly in favour of the Republicans, compared to two years ago.
@Casino_Royale it would take an extraordinary amount to go right for the Democrats for the Republicans not to reach 220 seats. It's more like a 10% chance than a 33% chance.
I would agree: I think there's a 90+% chance that the Republicans are between 220 and 224 seats.
Last I saw Steve Kornacki was prediction 220 R to 215 D. 12 of the uncalled seats are in California.
The race for Washington's 3rd House district tightened yesterday. Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez now leads Trumpista Joe Kent 132,161 to 126,279. (After Wednesday's count, the race was 117,179-108,324.)
(I made a quick search, but didn't find any explanation for the tightening.)
I really, really want Joe Kent to lose. In our top-two primary, he narrowly edged out Jaime Herra Beutler, one of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after January 6th. (It was considered a safe Republican district before that primary.)
In House races, you can't assume that ballots that are counted late will break for the Democrats.
Broadly speaking, this is a rerun of 2020, with the needle shifted slightly in favour of the Republicans, compared to two years ago.
@Casino_Royale it would take an extraordinary amount to go right for the Democrats for the Republicans not to reach 220 seats. It's more like a 10% chance than a 33% chance.
I would agree: I think there's a 90+% chance that the Republicans are between 220 and 224 seats.
Which is four special election losses from losing control.
Just hope the Russians don't shell it or drop a missile on it.
If they are just accepting they have lost a chunk of "Russia" - some 4,600 sq km - it is suggesting to me that a deal has been done. It all feels too...neat and tidy.
I’m not buying the ‘deal’ narrative.
The enemy were out of supplies and couldn’t hold position, same as with the area West of Kiev back in April.
The only deal Ukranians are going to accept, is one where all the Russians fcuk off back to Russia.
They would accept a local deal to have Russia fuck off out of Kherson without totally destroying it, I suspect. Especially if brokered by Turkey or Saudi.
Ukraine clearly did a superb job in isolating the Russian troops on the right bank. Even so, still lots of things to make you go "Hmmmm......."
It happens in war though. There was no deal in Gallipoli, the allied forces just disappeared one day never to come back.
(Summary: they are rolling in it, almost none of your money will be spent on wikipedia itself, all goes to ill-defined other ventures. You may like those ventures, if you align with them politically)
I see it more as a payment for a product (actually multiple products - MediaWiki, Commons, Data) that I use more than as a charitable donation, tbh. I can be convinced to stop donating in such ways (and it has happened, but more generally related to no longer valuing the product/direction) but tons of money, some spent foolishly, doesn't really move me - for example, I also donated to Mozilla in the days when they were rolling in Google referral revenue.
Those concerned about the central body's spending choices can consider donating to Wikimedia UK, who are the UK branch and focused on UK activities.
The race for Washington's 3rd House district tightened yesterday. Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez now leads Trumpista Joe Kent 132,161 to 126,279. (After Wednesday's count, the race was 117,179-108,324.)
(I made a quick search, but didn't find any explanation for the tightening.)
I really, really want Joe Kent to lose. In our top-two primary, he narrowly edged out Jaime Herra Beutler, one of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after January 6th. (It was considered a safe Republican district before that primary.)
In House races, you can't assume that ballots that are counted late will break for the Democrats.
Broadly speaking, this is a rerun of 2020, with the needle shifted slightly in favour of the Republicans, compared to two years ago.
@Casino_Royale it would take an extraordinary amount to go right for the Democrats for the Republicans not to reach 220 seats. It's more like a 10% chance than a 33% chance.
I would agree: I think there's a 90+% chance that the Republicans are between 220 and 224 seats.
Last I saw Steve Kornacki was prediction 220 R to 215 D. 12 of the uncalled seats are in California.
Scotland currently getting a good 25% of European wind, balance to Norway and the Baltics
Next Tuesday evening forecast to be a bonanza for North Sea wind farms.
Looking good. Now, if only they had a linked array of Starfish Prime™ storage batteries to feed into.
Is there a maximum wind speed above which more wind becomes useless for the purposes if electricity generation?
Very much so. At a certain windspeed they turn them off (ie stop them turning) presumably to prevent damage.
AFAIK it is damage due to overloading the grid at the entry point that makes them switch off, rather than damage to the turbines. As PB will be very tired of me saying, they get paid to switch off, more than they actually get paid for producing power.
Tired of you saying that because it's cobblers.
No, it's not cobblers, it's easily verifiable fact.
"Wind farm owners charge more per unit to reduce output than they earn through generating. For wind farms subsidised under the Renewables Obligation (RO) the income foregone when instructed to reduce output is the value of the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC). Typically, wind farms ask to be paid much more than the lost income, and in the early days of wind farm constraint payments, the premiums charged for not generating were very high indeed. For example, in 2011, Crystal Rig 2 charged £991 per MWh to reduce output compared to the value of the ROC at that time of £42 per MWh. Kilbraur, Millennium, Farr, An Suidhe were charging between £200 to £320 per MWh constrained-off in 2011.!
This was regarded as an abuse of market power, and the Government introduced the Transmission Constraint Licence Condition (TCLC) in 2012, which sought to prevent excessive bid prices in the event of a constraint. While there can be no doubt that the TCLC resulted in a reduction in prices, they are still well in excess of the subsidy foregone in 2019
...Assuming the 2019 ROC value will be approximately £55, these wind farms would receive £49 per MWh if generating but ask for and receive £96-£98 per MWh not to generate and thus get a premium of £47–£49 above the subsidy when constrained off. The five wind farms with the lowest constraint prices are older wind farms which receive 1 ROC per MWh. In 2019, they were setting constraint prices of £64-£69 per MWh to reduce output, thus getting a premium of £10-£15 per MWh."
Per unit, not in total.
My statement doesn't refer to a total, but even if it did, I'd have been correct. In 2020, Corriegarth Wind Farm constrained 51% of its power, Strathy North constrained 48%. Assuming even a modest premium per unit above what they get for power generation, that means they did make more than half their money from switching off. https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/371-constraint-payments-to-wind-power-in-2020-and-2021
My recollection - which may be wrong - is that most of the problem is caused by lack of interconnector capacity to take away wind power, rather than lack of demand for the power itself.
That's true, but that is an entirely predictable issue. Why give planning permission to a wind farm that's behind an interconnector bottleneck - especially if it's smack bang in an area of outstanding natural beauty?
Why apply to build one? That's a different story - it's a license to print money; the more remote and inaccessible the better.
The solvable problem is having National Grid improve the grid infrastructure more quickly. I would have thought a sensible way of incentivise that would be to make them liable for the capacity payments in those circumstances. It's not an inherent issue and it applies only to a small number of special cases.
The National Grid spends a huge amount trying to improve grid infrastructure - such improvements have not kept pace with the wind farm gold rush, and they don't always work - afaicr a recent major (and costly) interconnector upgrade between England and Scotland has failed to meet expectations of its additional electrical capacity. They do that because they ARE liable for these payments, but ultimately, as a public body, that liability goes to the taxpayer, or in this case, the bill payer.
You are suggesting that the tax/billpayer should be on the hook for funding commercial entities (largely foreign) planting massive wind farms anywhere they damn well like, in the full knowledge that connectivity will be an issue, knowing that they will not only get paid whether or not their power makes it to the grid, but that they will get paid MORE if it doesn't. Why do you feel the public need to fund private shareholders in this absurd way?
These big onshore wind farms in remote areas are absurd. Corriegarth was a wild area above Loch Ness which required many large new roads built through blanket bog during its construction. This will have caused drainage and oxidation of the peat and a considerable quantity of related CO2 release, as well as turning open land into a no go area. All to farm subsidies.
The government is quite right to ban any more of this nonsense and to concentrate on offshore, where laying a new cable is far easier, turbines can be bigger, and the wind is more reliable.
Dogger III, IV and V please, not Monadhliath VIII.
While that's true, next winter is also a year away, and a lot can happen in a year.
What do you expect to happen from where we are now ?
Do you think there sufficient cause for optimism that the west can continue to plug the gap ?
Well, the first thing you need to remember is that energy is (to a significant extent) fungible, which is why coal prices are also up massively this year. This means that the energy gap is less than it appears. Europe (and the UK) can stockpile coal over the next 12 months, to give us some degree of support. (Coal also has the advantage that it's just dry bulk: it's not held back by the need for specialist vessels.)
We are also seeing a significant increase to the size of the LNG fleet over the coming 18 months, and we are seeing new projects come on stream - albeit the biggest one (Qatar North Field extension) is not until 2025.
The increased LNG fleet means there's more takeaway capacity from the US, and should mean more drilling there, and more available gas for Europe and the UK. Plus, of course, there'll be more wind installed in the UK.
Now: does this mean that next winter will be comfortable? Not really. And the UK has specific risks around its lack of substantial gas storage.
But given it looks increasingly like we'll get through this year without significant problems, there's good reason to think that next year won't be worse.
"Current gas storage in the UK is around 1.5bn m3 and figures from Ofgem project the facility could provide additional storage of 0.8bn m3 this winter and up to 1.7bn m3 for the winter of 2023/24."
For scale, an LNG ship carries something like 100,000 m3 (and upwards) of LNG - which is 600 times less volume than natural gas at STP. so an LNG ship load is 60 million m3 of gas.
I think most ocean going LNG vessels are more like 150,000 m3 of LNG, and sometimes even larger. So, it's storage of about 15-20 vessels worth of LNG.
With that said... is the UK gas storage number a full cycle one? I.e. can we really stuff it to 1.5bn m3, and then draw down to zero? Or is the usable capacity somewhat less?
(Summary: they are rolling in it, almost none of your money will be spent on wikipedia itself, all goes to ill-defined other ventures. You may like those ventures, if you align with them politically)
Scotland currently getting a good 25% of European wind, balance to Norway and the Baltics
Next Tuesday evening forecast to be a bonanza for North Sea wind farms.
Looking good. Now, if only they had a linked array of Starfish Prime™ storage batteries to feed into.
Is there a maximum wind speed above which more wind becomes useless for the purposes if electricity generation?
Very much so. At a certain windspeed they turn them off (ie stop them turning) presumably to prevent damage.
AFAIK it is damage due to overloading the grid at the entry point that makes them switch off, rather than damage to the turbines. As PB will be very tired of me saying, they get paid to switch off, more than they actually get paid for producing power.
Tired of you saying that because it's cobblers.
No, it's not cobblers, it's easily verifiable fact.
"Wind farm owners charge more per unit to reduce output than they earn through generating. For wind farms subsidised under the Renewables Obligation (RO) the income foregone when instructed to reduce output is the value of the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC). Typically, wind farms ask to be paid much more than the lost income, and in the early days of wind farm constraint payments, the premiums charged for not generating were very high indeed. For example, in 2011, Crystal Rig 2 charged £991 per MWh to reduce output compared to the value of the ROC at that time of £42 per MWh. Kilbraur, Millennium, Farr, An Suidhe were charging between £200 to £320 per MWh constrained-off in 2011.!
This was regarded as an abuse of market power, and the Government introduced the Transmission Constraint Licence Condition (TCLC) in 2012, which sought to prevent excessive bid prices in the event of a constraint. While there can be no doubt that the TCLC resulted in a reduction in prices, they are still well in excess of the subsidy foregone in 2019
...Assuming the 2019 ROC value will be approximately £55, these wind farms would receive £49 per MWh if generating but ask for and receive £96-£98 per MWh not to generate and thus get a premium of £47–£49 above the subsidy when constrained off. The five wind farms with the lowest constraint prices are older wind farms which receive 1 ROC per MWh. In 2019, they were setting constraint prices of £64-£69 per MWh to reduce output, thus getting a premium of £10-£15 per MWh."
Per unit, not in total.
My statement doesn't refer to a total, but even if it did, I'd have been correct. In 2020, Corriegarth Wind Farm constrained 51% of its power, Strathy North constrained 48%. Assuming even a modest premium per unit above what they get for power generation, that means they did make more than half their money from switching off. https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/371-constraint-payments-to-wind-power-in-2020-and-2021
My recollection - which may be wrong - is that most of the problem is caused by lack of interconnector capacity to take away wind power, rather than lack of demand for the power itself.
That's true, but that is an entirely predictable issue. Why give planning permission to a wind farm that's behind an interconnector bottleneck - especially if it's smack bang in an area of outstanding natural beauty?
Why apply to build one? That's a different story - it's a license to print money; the more remote and inaccessible the better.
The solvable problem is having National Grid improve the grid infrastructure more quickly. I would have thought a sensible way of incentivise that would be to make them liable for the capacity payments in those circumstances. It's not an inherent issue and it applies only to a small number of special cases.
The National Grid spends a huge amount trying to improve grid infrastructure - such improvements have not kept pace with the wind farm gold rush, and they don't always work - afaicr a recent major (and costly) interconnector upgrade between England and Scotland has failed to meet expectations of its additional electrical capacity. They do that because they ARE liable for these payments, but ultimately, as a public body, that liability goes to the taxpayer, or in this case, the bill payer.
You are suggesting that the tax/billpayer should be on the hook for funding commercial entities (largely foreign) planting massive wind farms anywhere they damn well like, in the full knowledge that connectivity will be an issue, knowing that they will not only get paid whether or not their power makes it to the grid, but that they will get paid MORE if it doesn't. Why do you feel the public need to fund private shareholders in this absurd way?
These big onshore wind farms in remote areas are absurd. Corriegarth was a wild area above Loch Ness which required many large new roads built through blanket bog. This will have caused drainage and oxidation of the peat and a considerable quantity of related CO2 release, as well as turning open land into a no go area. All to farm subsidies.
The government is quite right to ban any more of this nonsense and to concentrate on offshore, where laying a new cable is far far easier, the turbines can be bigger, and the wind is more reliable.
Dogger III, IV and V please, not Monadhliath VIII.
Have the UK Government banned it? I'm not aware that it's in the hands of the UK Government, or aware of any recent activity by them (or the Scottish Government) on the issue.
Even with connectivity vastly improved, you would still have the issue of too much power at inconvenient times. Wind power needs to be captured in full when it's windy, to be used when it isn't. My personal opinion is that constraint payments need to be severely curtailed, and progressively phased out. Investors in wind will then be forced to add storage, or lose money. The bill payer is currently subsidising unreliability.
Scotland currently getting a good 25% of European wind, balance to Norway and the Baltics
Next Tuesday evening forecast to be a bonanza for North Sea wind farms.
Looking good. Now, if only they had a linked array of Starfish Prime™ storage batteries to feed into.
Is there a maximum wind speed above which more wind becomes useless for the purposes if electricity generation?
Very much so. At a certain windspeed they turn them off (ie stop them turning) presumably to prevent damage.
AFAIK it is damage due to overloading the grid at the entry point that makes them switch off, rather than damage to the turbines. As PB will be very tired of me saying, they get paid to switch off, more than they actually get paid for producing power.
Tired of you saying that because it's cobblers.
No, it's not cobblers, it's easily verifiable fact.
"Wind farm owners charge more per unit to reduce output than they earn through generating. For wind farms subsidised under the Renewables Obligation (RO) the income foregone when instructed to reduce output is the value of the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC). Typically, wind farms ask to be paid much more than the lost income, and in the early days of wind farm constraint payments, the premiums charged for not generating were very high indeed. For example, in 2011, Crystal Rig 2 charged £991 per MWh to reduce output compared to the value of the ROC at that time of £42 per MWh. Kilbraur, Millennium, Farr, An Suidhe were charging between £200 to £320 per MWh constrained-off in 2011.!
This was regarded as an abuse of market power, and the Government introduced the Transmission Constraint Licence Condition (TCLC) in 2012, which sought to prevent excessive bid prices in the event of a constraint. While there can be no doubt that the TCLC resulted in a reduction in prices, they are still well in excess of the subsidy foregone in 2019
...Assuming the 2019 ROC value will be approximately £55, these wind farms would receive £49 per MWh if generating but ask for and receive £96-£98 per MWh not to generate and thus get a premium of £47–£49 above the subsidy when constrained off. The five wind farms with the lowest constraint prices are older wind farms which receive 1 ROC per MWh. In 2019, they were setting constraint prices of £64-£69 per MWh to reduce output, thus getting a premium of £10-£15 per MWh."
Per unit, not in total.
My statement doesn't refer to a total, but even if it did, I'd have been correct. In 2020, Corriegarth Wind Farm constrained 51% of its power, Strathy North constrained 48%. Assuming even a modest premium per unit above what they get for power generation, that means they did make more than half their money from switching off. https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/371-constraint-payments-to-wind-power-in-2020-and-2021
My recollection - which may be wrong - is that most of the problem is caused by lack of interconnector capacity to take away wind power, rather than lack of demand for the power itself.
That's true, but that is an entirely predictable issue. Why give planning permission to a wind farm that's behind an interconnector bottleneck - especially if it's smack bang in an area of outstanding natural beauty?
Why apply to build one? That's a different story - it's a license to print money; the more remote and inaccessible the better.
The solvable problem is having National Grid improve the grid infrastructure more quickly. I would have thought a sensible way of incentivise that would be to make them liable for the capacity payments in those circumstances. It's not an inherent issue and it applies only to a small number of special cases.
The National Grid spends a huge amount trying to improve grid infrastructure - such improvements have not kept pace with the wind farm gold rush, and they don't always work - afaicr a recent major (and costly) interconnector upgrade between England and Scotland has failed to meet expectations of its additional electrical capacity. They do that because they ARE liable for these payments, but ultimately, as a public body, that liability goes to the taxpayer, or in this case, the bill payer.
You are suggesting that the tax/billpayer should be on the hook for funding commercial entities (largely foreign) planting massive wind farms anywhere they damn well like, in the full knowledge that connectivity will be an issue, knowing that they will not only get paid whether or not their power makes it to the grid, but that they will get paid MORE if it doesn't. Why do you feel the public need to fund private shareholders in this absurd way?
That's not my position. My position is that this is not the most important issue with respect to wind energy, that the solution is to improve the grid infrastructure and not to slow down installation of wind turbines.
By the way, National Grid are a private company. The amount they are allowed to charge for transmission costs is regulated. Any delay on improving the grid infrastructure should cost their shareholders (and equally, the shareholders should benefit if the company does a good job on rapidly improving grid infrastructure).
If you thought @bigjohnowls hated Starmer wait until this happens.
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged by his shadow cabinet to expel Jeremy Corbyn from Labour permanently as Rishi Sunak repeatedly tries to tie the Labour leader to his predecessor.
Sunak’s main case against Starmer at three successive sessions of prime minister’s questions has been that he cannot be trusted because he served as shadow Brexit secretary under Corbyn.
While some senior Labour figures believe the prime minister’s attack is a sign of the Conservatives’ failure to forge a convincing narrative against Starmer’s leadership, others fear that if it is repeated through to the next election it will sow public unease about him.
Senior civil servants at the Ministry of Justice were offered “respite or a route out” of the department when Dominic Raab was reappointed last month, amid concerns that some were still traumatised by his behaviour during a previous stint there.
Several sources told the Guardian that about 15 staff from the justice secretary’s private office were taken into a room where departmental chiefs acknowledged they may be anxious about his behaviour and gave them the option of moving roles.
Some of the civil servants were said to have been in tears during the meeting and several subsequently decided to move to other positions in the department, with one thought to be considering leaving entirely, although sources suggested a couple of staff had since returned.
It is also understood that Antonia Romeo, the MoJ permanent secretary, had to speak to Raab when he returned to the department to warn him that he must treat staff professionally and with respect amid unhappiness about his return. One source, who was not in the room at the time, claimed she had “read him the riot act”.
The Guardian has spoken to multiple sources in the MoJ who claimed that Raab, who first held the post between September 2021 and September 2022, when he was sacked by Liz Truss, had “created a culture of fear” in the department.
They alleged that his behaviour when dealing with civil servants, including some in senior roles, was “demeaning rather than demanding”, that he was “very rude and aggressive” and that he “wasn’t just unprofessional, he was a bully”.
Senior civil servants at the Ministry of Justice were offered “respite or a route out” of the department when Dominic Raab was reappointed last month, amid concerns that some were still traumatised by his behaviour during a previous stint there.
Several sources told the Guardian that about 15 staff from the justice secretary’s private office were taken into a room where departmental chiefs acknowledged they may be anxious about his behaviour and gave them the option of moving roles.
Some of the civil servants were said to have been in tears during the meeting and several subsequently decided to move to other positions in the department, with one thought to be considering leaving entirely, although sources suggested a couple of staff had since returned.
It is also understood that Antonia Romeo, the MoJ permanent secretary, had to speak to Raab when he returned to the department to warn him that he must treat staff professionally and with respect amid unhappiness about his return. One source, who was not in the room at the time, claimed she had “read him the riot act”.
The Guardian has spoken to multiple sources in the MoJ who claimed that Raab, who first held the post between September 2021 and September 2022, when he was sacked by Liz Truss, had “created a culture of fear” in the department.
They alleged that his behaviour when dealing with civil servants, including some in senior roles, was “demeaning rather than demanding”, that he was “very rude and aggressive” and that he “wasn’t just unprofessional, he was a bully”.
The race for Washington's 3rd House district tightened yesterday. Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez now leads Trumpista Joe Kent 132,161 to 126,279. (After Wednesday's count, the race was 117,179-108,324.)
(I made a quick search, but didn't find any explanation for the tightening.)
I really, really want Joe Kent to lose. In our top-two primary, he narrowly edged out Jaime Herra Beutler, one of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after January 6th. (It was considered a safe Republican district before that primary.)
In House races, you can't assume that ballots that are counted late will break for the Democrats.
Broadly speaking, this is a rerun of 2020, with the needle shifted slightly in favour of the Republicans, compared to two years ago.
@Casino_Royale it would take an extraordinary amount to go right for the Democrats for the Republicans not to reach 220 seats. It's more like a 10% chance than a 33% chance.
I would agree: I think there's a 90+% chance that the Republicans are between 220 and 224 seats.
I think that's a little over-favouring the Reps. I think the 90% range is 218-222, and most of the remaining 10% is Dems 218+. There's very little chance of McCarthy getting his caucus to 223 or 224, based on what's left.
Senior civil servants at the Ministry of Justice were offered “respite or a route out” of the department when Dominic Raab was reappointed last month, amid concerns that some were still traumatised by his behaviour during a previous stint there.
Several sources told the Guardian that about 15 staff from the justice secretary’s private office were taken into a room where departmental chiefs acknowledged they may be anxious about his behaviour and gave them the option of moving roles.
Some of the civil servants were said to have been in tears during the meeting and several subsequently decided to move to other positions in the department, with one thought to be considering leaving entirely, although sources suggested a couple of staff had since returned.
It is also understood that Antonia Romeo, the MoJ permanent secretary, had to speak to Raab when he returned to the department to warn him that he must treat staff professionally and with respect amid unhappiness about his return. One source, who was not in the room at the time, claimed she had “read him the riot act”.
The Guardian has spoken to multiple sources in the MoJ who claimed that Raab, who first held the post between September 2021 and September 2022, when he was sacked by Liz Truss, had “created a culture of fear” in the department.
They alleged that his behaviour when dealing with civil servants, including some in senior roles, was “demeaning rather than demanding”, that he was “very rude and aggressive” and that he “wasn’t just unprofessional, he was a bully”.
Scotland currently getting a good 25% of European wind, balance to Norway and the Baltics
Next Tuesday evening forecast to be a bonanza for North Sea wind farms.
Looking good. Now, if only they had a linked array of Starfish Prime™ storage batteries to feed into.
Is there a maximum wind speed above which more wind becomes useless for the purposes if electricity generation?
Very much so. At a certain windspeed they turn them off (ie stop them turning) presumably to prevent damage.
AFAIK it is damage due to overloading the grid at the entry point that makes them switch off, rather than damage to the turbines. As PB will be very tired of me saying, they get paid to switch off, more than they actually get paid for producing power.
Tired of you saying that because it's cobblers.
No, it's not cobblers, it's easily verifiable fact.
"Wind farm owners charge more per unit to reduce output than they earn through generating. For wind farms subsidised under the Renewables Obligation (RO) the income foregone when instructed to reduce output is the value of the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC). Typically, wind farms ask to be paid much more than the lost income, and in the early days of wind farm constraint payments, the premiums charged for not generating were very high indeed. For example, in 2011, Crystal Rig 2 charged £991 per MWh to reduce output compared to the value of the ROC at that time of £42 per MWh. Kilbraur, Millennium, Farr, An Suidhe were charging between £200 to £320 per MWh constrained-off in 2011.!
This was regarded as an abuse of market power, and the Government introduced the Transmission Constraint Licence Condition (TCLC) in 2012, which sought to prevent excessive bid prices in the event of a constraint. While there can be no doubt that the TCLC resulted in a reduction in prices, they are still well in excess of the subsidy foregone in 2019
...Assuming the 2019 ROC value will be approximately £55, these wind farms would receive £49 per MWh if generating but ask for and receive £96-£98 per MWh not to generate and thus get a premium of £47–£49 above the subsidy when constrained off. The five wind farms with the lowest constraint prices are older wind farms which receive 1 ROC per MWh. In 2019, they were setting constraint prices of £64-£69 per MWh to reduce output, thus getting a premium of £10-£15 per MWh."
Per unit, not in total.
My statement doesn't refer to a total, but even if it did, I'd have been correct. In 2020, Corriegarth Wind Farm constrained 51% of its power, Strathy North constrained 48%. Assuming even a modest premium per unit above what they get for power generation, that means they did make more than half their money from switching off. https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/371-constraint-payments-to-wind-power-in-2020-and-2021
My recollection - which may be wrong - is that most of the problem is caused by lack of interconnector capacity to take away wind power, rather than lack of demand for the power itself.
That's true, but that is an entirely predictable issue. Why give planning permission to a wind farm that's behind an interconnector bottleneck - especially if it's smack bang in an area of outstanding natural beauty?
Why apply to build one? That's a different story - it's a license to print money; the more remote and inaccessible the better.
The solvable problem is having National Grid improve the grid infrastructure more quickly. I would have thought a sensible way of incentivise that would be to make them liable for the capacity payments in those circumstances. It's not an inherent issue and it applies only to a small number of special cases.
The National Grid spends a huge amount trying to improve grid infrastructure - such improvements have not kept pace with the wind farm gold rush, and they don't always work - afaicr a recent major (and costly) interconnector upgrade between England and Scotland has failed to meet expectations of its additional electrical capacity. They do that because they ARE liable for these payments, but ultimately, as a public body, that liability goes to the taxpayer, or in this case, the bill payer.
You are suggesting that the tax/billpayer should be on the hook for funding commercial entities (largely foreign) planting massive wind farms anywhere they damn well like, in the full knowledge that connectivity will be an issue, knowing that they will not only get paid whether or not their power makes it to the grid, but that they will get paid MORE if it doesn't. Why do you feel the public need to fund private shareholders in this absurd way?
These big onshore wind farms in remote areas are absurd. Corriegarth was a wild area above Loch Ness which required many large new roads built through blanket bog. This will have caused drainage and oxidation of the peat and a considerable quantity of related CO2 release, as well as turning open land into a no go area. All to farm subsidies.
The government is quite right to ban any more of this nonsense and to concentrate on offshore, where laying a new cable is far far easier, the turbines can be bigger, and the wind is more reliable.
Dogger III, IV and V please, not Monadhliath VIII.
Have the UK Government banned it? I'm not aware that it's in the hands of the UK Government, or aware of any recent activity by them (or the Scottish Government) on the issue.
Even with connectivity vastly improved, you would still have the issue of too much power at inconvenient times. Wind power needs to be captured in full when it's windy, to be used when it isn't. My personal opinion is that constraint payments need to be severely curtailed, and progressively phased out. Investors in wind will then be forced to add storage, or lose money. The bill payer is currently subsidising unreliability.
Well, it has, but that may only apply in England I guess given planning is devolved. That's probably as much as it can do.
Not interesting that the UK is having its worst manufacturing performance for 45 years? Not significant that Lord Wolfson one of the only significant business leaders to support Brexit now thinks it's a pile of shit?
Scotland currently getting a good 25% of European wind, balance to Norway and the Baltics
Next Tuesday evening forecast to be a bonanza for North Sea wind farms.
Looking good. Now, if only they had a linked array of Starfish Prime™ storage batteries to feed into.
Is there a maximum wind speed above which more wind becomes useless for the purposes if electricity generation?
Very much so. At a certain windspeed they turn them off (ie stop them turning) presumably to prevent damage.
AFAIK it is damage due to overloading the grid at the entry point that makes them switch off, rather than damage to the turbines. As PB will be very tired of me saying, they get paid to switch off, more than they actually get paid for producing power.
Tired of you saying that because it's cobblers.
No, it's not cobblers, it's easily verifiable fact.
"Wind farm owners charge more per unit to reduce output than they earn through generating. For wind farms subsidised under the Renewables Obligation (RO) the income foregone when instructed to reduce output is the value of the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC). Typically, wind farms ask to be paid much more than the lost income, and in the early days of wind farm constraint payments, the premiums charged for not generating were very high indeed. For example, in 2011, Crystal Rig 2 charged £991 per MWh to reduce output compared to the value of the ROC at that time of £42 per MWh. Kilbraur, Millennium, Farr, An Suidhe were charging between £200 to £320 per MWh constrained-off in 2011.!
This was regarded as an abuse of market power, and the Government introduced the Transmission Constraint Licence Condition (TCLC) in 2012, which sought to prevent excessive bid prices in the event of a constraint. While there can be no doubt that the TCLC resulted in a reduction in prices, they are still well in excess of the subsidy foregone in 2019
...Assuming the 2019 ROC value will be approximately £55, these wind farms would receive £49 per MWh if generating but ask for and receive £96-£98 per MWh not to generate and thus get a premium of £47–£49 above the subsidy when constrained off. The five wind farms with the lowest constraint prices are older wind farms which receive 1 ROC per MWh. In 2019, they were setting constraint prices of £64-£69 per MWh to reduce output, thus getting a premium of £10-£15 per MWh."
Per unit, not in total.
My statement doesn't refer to a total, but even if it did, I'd have been correct. In 2020, Corriegarth Wind Farm constrained 51% of its power, Strathy North constrained 48%. Assuming even a modest premium per unit above what they get for power generation, that means they did make more than half their money from switching off. https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/371-constraint-payments-to-wind-power-in-2020-and-2021
My recollection - which may be wrong - is that most of the problem is caused by lack of interconnector capacity to take away wind power, rather than lack of demand for the power itself.
That's true, but that is an entirely predictable issue. Why give planning permission to a wind farm that's behind an interconnector bottleneck - especially if it's smack bang in an area of outstanding natural beauty?
Why apply to build one? That's a different story - it's a license to print money; the more remote and inaccessible the better.
The solvable problem is having National Grid improve the grid infrastructure more quickly. I would have thought a sensible way of incentivise that would be to make them liable for the capacity payments in those circumstances. It's not an inherent issue and it applies only to a small number of special cases.
The National Grid spends a huge amount trying to improve grid infrastructure - such improvements have not kept pace with the wind farm gold rush, and they don't always work - afaicr a recent major (and costly) interconnector upgrade between England and Scotland has failed to meet expectations of its additional electrical capacity. They do that because they ARE liable for these payments, but ultimately, as a public body, that liability goes to the taxpayer, or in this case, the bill payer.
You are suggesting that the tax/billpayer should be on the hook for funding commercial entities (largely foreign) planting massive wind farms anywhere they damn well like, in the full knowledge that connectivity will be an issue, knowing that they will not only get paid whether or not their power makes it to the grid, but that they will get paid MORE if it doesn't. Why do you feel the public need to fund private shareholders in this absurd way?
These big onshore wind farms in remote areas are absurd. Corriegarth was a wild area above Loch Ness which required many large new roads built through blanket bog during its construction. This will have caused drainage and oxidation of the peat and a considerable quantity of related CO2 release, as well as turning open land into a no go area. All to farm subsidies.
The government is quite right to ban any more of this nonsense and to concentrate on offshore, where laying a new cable is far easier, turbines can be bigger, and the wind is more reliable.
Dogger III, IV and V please, not Monadhliath VIII.
I much prefer offshore to onshore - not least because it can give me meaningful employment surveying for turbines and connectors. But I would dispute the idea that laying the cables is necessarily much easier. They don't just get lain on the seafloor, but have to be trenched and buried for protection. This is a massive and costly exercise. But in other ways the offshore turbines are much better for some of the reasons you mention.
Scotland currently getting a good 25% of European wind, balance to Norway and the Baltics
Next Tuesday evening forecast to be a bonanza for North Sea wind farms.
Looking good. Now, if only they had a linked array of Starfish Prime™ storage batteries to feed into.
Is there a maximum wind speed above which more wind becomes useless for the purposes if electricity generation?
Very much so. At a certain windspeed they turn them off (ie stop them turning) presumably to prevent damage.
AFAIK it is damage due to overloading the grid at the entry point that makes them switch off, rather than damage to the turbines. As PB will be very tired of me saying, they get paid to switch off, more than they actually get paid for producing power.
Tired of you saying that because it's cobblers.
No, it's not cobblers, it's easily verifiable fact.
"Wind farm owners charge more per unit to reduce output than they earn through generating. For wind farms subsidised under the Renewables Obligation (RO) the income foregone when instructed to reduce output is the value of the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC). Typically, wind farms ask to be paid much more than the lost income, and in the early days of wind farm constraint payments, the premiums charged for not generating were very high indeed. For example, in 2011, Crystal Rig 2 charged £991 per MWh to reduce output compared to the value of the ROC at that time of £42 per MWh. Kilbraur, Millennium, Farr, An Suidhe were charging between £200 to £320 per MWh constrained-off in 2011.!
This was regarded as an abuse of market power, and the Government introduced the Transmission Constraint Licence Condition (TCLC) in 2012, which sought to prevent excessive bid prices in the event of a constraint. While there can be no doubt that the TCLC resulted in a reduction in prices, they are still well in excess of the subsidy foregone in 2019
...Assuming the 2019 ROC value will be approximately £55, these wind farms would receive £49 per MWh if generating but ask for and receive £96-£98 per MWh not to generate and thus get a premium of £47–£49 above the subsidy when constrained off. The five wind farms with the lowest constraint prices are older wind farms which receive 1 ROC per MWh. In 2019, they were setting constraint prices of £64-£69 per MWh to reduce output, thus getting a premium of £10-£15 per MWh."
Per unit, not in total.
My statement doesn't refer to a total, but even if it did, I'd have been correct. In 2020, Corriegarth Wind Farm constrained 51% of its power, Strathy North constrained 48%. Assuming even a modest premium per unit above what they get for power generation, that means they did make more than half their money from switching off. https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/371-constraint-payments-to-wind-power-in-2020-and-2021
My recollection - which may be wrong - is that most of the problem is caused by lack of interconnector capacity to take away wind power, rather than lack of demand for the power itself.
That's true, but that is an entirely predictable issue. Why give planning permission to a wind farm that's behind an interconnector bottleneck - especially if it's smack bang in an area of outstanding natural beauty?
Why apply to build one? That's a different story - it's a license to print money; the more remote and inaccessible the better.
The solvable problem is having National Grid improve the grid infrastructure more quickly. I would have thought a sensible way of incentivise that would be to make them liable for the capacity payments in those circumstances. It's not an inherent issue and it applies only to a small number of special cases.
The National Grid spends a huge amount trying to improve grid infrastructure - such improvements have not kept pace with the wind farm gold rush, and they don't always work - afaicr a recent major (and costly) interconnector upgrade between England and Scotland has failed to meet expectations of its additional electrical capacity. They do that because they ARE liable for these payments, but ultimately, as a public body, that liability goes to the taxpayer, or in this case, the bill payer.
You are suggesting that the tax/billpayer should be on the hook for funding commercial entities (largely foreign) planting massive wind farms anywhere they damn well like, in the full knowledge that connectivity will be an issue, knowing that they will not only get paid whether or not their power makes it to the grid, but that they will get paid MORE if it doesn't. Why do you feel the public need to fund private shareholders in this absurd way?
That's not my position. My position is that this is not the most important issue with respect to wind energy, that the solution is to improve the grid infrastructure and not to slow down installation of wind turbines.
By the way, National Grid are a private company. The amount they are allowed to charge for transmission costs is regulated. Any delay on improving the grid infrastructure should cost their shareholders (and equally, the shareholders should benefit if the company does a good job on rapidly improving grid infrastructure).
But what I describe is the logical outworking of your position. You do not state that it's wrong for companies to be making a premium on switching off and failing to provide power; you put the responsibility for the situation all on the National Grid, and therefore by extension the bill payer, whether or not the National Grid is a private company.
But even if squillions were spent on connectivity, wind energy is by its nature an unreliable source of power, not just hour to hour, but year to year - 2021 was, apparently, a 'bad year' for wind. That means, either you store the power, or you spend vast amounts subsidising idleness, otherwise providers leave the market and you have wind graveyards. Phasing out constraint payments to incentivise providers to invest in storage is surely the only serious way forward.
No, of course it bloody isn't. Nor is a one off snapshot evidence of anything.
You are wrong anyway. Your link is not distinguishing installed capacity vs gross wind, it is distinguishing wind harvestable-by-theoretically-installable-capacity vs gross wind.
Gross wind you say? These Islands and Kevenrage to a tee.
SeanF said: "In House races, you can't assume that ballots that are counted late will break for the Democrats."
Especially in races like Washington's 3rd district, where Trumpista Joe Kent urged his supporters to hold back their votes until election day.
(A complication I didn't mention earlier: Most of the 3rd district voters are in urban (and relatively less Republican, Clark County. The next two counties in size are Cowlitz (Democratic) and Lewis (heavily Republican). It looks to me as if Lewis has counted almost all its ballots. Cowlitz has an estimated 6,500 more to count, and Clark 45,000.
Having looked at the results in all three counties, I would be comfortable placing a small bet, at even odds, that Kent will lose. Small bet because I don't know in what order Clark is counting their ballots.)
Comments
France accepts 230 boat people turned away from Sicily.
"The boat’s passengers were expected to be given medical aid and interviewed at an administrative centre at Toulon’s naval port. Those eligible to make asylum claims could then be moved to other European countries, nine of which – including Germany, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Portugal – have offered to take in a total of two thirds of the passengers in “solidarity”. Those who France decided were not eligible to make an asylum claim would be returned to their countries of origin, the French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, said."
Do you think there sufficient cause for optimism that the west can continue to plug the gap ?
The report you link to shows that Corriegarth and Strathy North are outliers. Most places have much, much lower rates of constrained payments.
Not good for the wildlife but great for our fuel bills/consumption.
I wonder how much they would pay for third parties rounding up the migrants for them? Outsourcing is a popular business model, after all.
Hmmm... English Channel-Libya-Italy. That's a triangle, isn't it?
Broadly speaking, this is a rerun of 2020, with the needle shifted slightly in favour of the Republicans, compared to two years ago.
@Casino_Royale it would take an extraordinary amount to go right for the Democrats for the Republicans not to reach 220 seats. It's more like a 10% chance than a 33% chance.
However, it is concerning that these things keep being built, in wildernesses with poor grid connectivity.
https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/11-november-more-and-more-people-coming-out-of-their-houses
Best news in months for Ukraine.
We are also seeing a significant increase to the size of the LNG fleet over the coming 18 months, and we are seeing new projects come on stream - albeit the biggest one (Qatar North Field extension) is not until 2025.
The increased LNG fleet means there's more takeaway capacity from the US, and should mean more drilling there, and more available gas for Europe and the UK. Plus, of course, there'll be more wind installed in the UK.
Now: does this mean that next winter will be comfortable? Not really. And the UK has specific risks around its lack of substantial gas storage.
But given it looks increasingly like we'll get through this year without significant problems, there's good reason to think that next year won't be worse.
If they are just accepting they have lost a chunk of "Russia" - some 4,600 sq km - it is suggesting to me that a deal has been done. It all feels too...neat and tidy.
https://mobile.twitter.com/echetus/status/1579776106034757633
(Summary: they are rolling in it, almost none of your money will be spent on wikipedia itself, all goes to ill-defined other ventures. You may like those ventures, if you align with them politically)
I don't think commercial uses will have made quite the same savings, but still, it's going to have made a difference.
Incredible scenes of joy in liberated Kherson. Those people have been through hell.
https://twitter.com/guillaume_ptak/status/1591069646161317889
"Current gas storage in the UK is around 1.5bn m3 and figures from Ofgem project the facility could provide additional storage of 0.8bn m3 this winter and up to 1.7bn m3 for the winter of 2023/24."
For scale, an LNG ship carries something like 100,000 m3 (and upwards) of LNG - which is 600 times less volume than natural gas at STP. so an LNG ship load is 60 million m3 of gas.
On the other end of the chain, I was quoted £20K by UK Power Networks to upgrade our supply to 3-phase, which we would have needed to install a heat pump. That was for a link and new transformer approx 200 yds from the house, all on our own land.
I think its fair to say that the electricity industry is not exactly helping us go to Net Zero.
Braintree (Braintree South) - Lab GAIN from Con
Braintree (Coggeshall) - Ind Hold
Broxtowe (Greasley) - Con Hold
Burnley (Rosehill with Burnley Wood) - Lab GAIN from Con
Cannock Chase (Cannock West) - Con Hold
East Devon (Newton Poppleford & Harpford) - Ind GAIN from Independent East Devon Alliance
Kingston-upon-Thames (Green Lane & St James) - Kingston Independent Resident GAIN from LDm
South Kesteven (Bourne East) - Con Hold
South Kesteven (Grantham St Wulfram’s) - Con Hold
Good Week/Bad Week index
Lab +165
Grn -6
LDm -30
Con -84
Adjusted Seat Value
Lab +2.8
Grn -0.1
LDm -0.5
Con -1.4
Nice night for Labour; poor for the LibDems off only four candidates; only Bourne saved the Cons from being negative across the board, despite all those holds.
The enemy were out of supplies and couldn’t hold position, same as with the area West of Kiev back in April.
The only deal Ukranians are going to accept, is one where all the Russians fcuk off back to Russia.
Very sobering.
The sight of cheering crowds in a newly liberated city is intoxicating. The one moment I questioned by objection to the Iraq war was in those few early days when crowds came out to pull down Saddam statues and throw shoes. Sadly things went downhill from there.
The happy old couples in isolated villages near Kharkiv have a sense but trey were easier for Kremlin propagandists to write off or ignore. These street scenes can’t be ignored. I sincerely hope they will stiffen the resolve of Europeans, give pause to naive both-siders like Lula or Pope Francis or the British far left, and maybe even provoke a frisson of doubt in the minds of the MAGA Putin apologists in the GOP (well OK, that last one is unlikely).
You are suggesting that the tax/billpayer should be on the hook for funding commercial entities (largely foreign) planting massive wind farms anywhere they damn well like, in the full knowledge that connectivity will be an issue, knowing that they will not only get paid whether or not their power makes it to the grid, but that they will get paid MORE if it doesn't. Why do you feel the public need to fund private shareholders in this absurd way?
According to the UN’s International Organization for Migration, 1,891 people have died or disappeared while trying to cross the Mediterranean so far this year."
If 1891 deaths do nothing to limit demand, Italy being beastly to 230 isn't going to make much difference, is it now? Even assuming perfect, or indeed any, information being available to potential crossers. Look at all the 1,000 plus death stampedes they manage at Mecca without denting the popularity of the hajj.
Ukraine clearly did a superb job in isolating the Russian troops on the right bank. Even so, still lots of things to make you go "Hmmmm......."
We have a whole year to fast track Major (and mostly quick win) insulation fitting, and electrification of some of Britain’s heating capacity. Expanded supply + reduced demand = cheaper energy bills.
As for your wider point, one doesn't think one will be involved in a stampede, or die whilst making a crossing. If the number of stampede deaths, or crossing deaths, was 100%, nobody would come/go. That's why a blanket, consistent approach is helpful.
12 of the uncalled seats are in California.
The government is quite right to ban any more of this nonsense and to concentrate on offshore, where laying a new cable is far easier, turbines can be bigger, and the wind is more reliable.
Dogger III, IV and V please, not Monadhliath VIII.
With that said... is the UK gas storage number a full cycle one? I.e. can we really stuff it to 1.5bn m3, and then draw down to zero? Or is the usable capacity somewhat less?
Even with connectivity vastly improved, you would still have the issue of too much power at inconvenient times. Wind power needs to be captured in full when it's windy, to be used when it isn't. My personal opinion is that constraint payments need to be severely curtailed, and progressively phased out. Investors in wind will then be forced to add storage, or lose money. The bill payer is currently subsidising unreliability.
By the way, National Grid are a private company. The amount they are allowed to charge for transmission costs is regulated. Any delay on improving the grid infrastructure should cost their shareholders (and equally, the shareholders should benefit if the company does a good job on rapidly improving grid infrastructure).
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged by his shadow cabinet to expel Jeremy Corbyn from Labour permanently as Rishi Sunak repeatedly tries to tie the Labour leader to his predecessor.
Sunak’s main case against Starmer at three successive sessions of prime minister’s questions has been that he cannot be trusted because he served as shadow Brexit secretary under Corbyn.
While some senior Labour figures believe the prime minister’s attack is a sign of the Conservatives’ failure to forge a convincing narrative against Starmer’s leadership, others fear that if it is repeated through to the next election it will sow public unease about him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/expel-jeremy-corbyn-for-good-shadow-cabinet-urges-keir-starmer-990s6vmk8
Several sources told the Guardian that about 15 staff from the justice secretary’s private office were taken into a room where departmental chiefs acknowledged they may be anxious about his behaviour and gave them the option of moving roles.
Some of the civil servants were said to have been in tears during the meeting and several subsequently decided to move to other positions in the department, with one thought to be considering leaving entirely, although sources suggested a couple of staff had since returned.
It is also understood that Antonia Romeo, the MoJ permanent secretary, had to speak to Raab when he returned to the department to warn him that he must treat staff professionally and with respect amid unhappiness about his return. One source, who was not in the room at the time, claimed she had “read him the riot act”.
The Guardian has spoken to multiple sources in the MoJ who claimed that Raab, who first held the post between September 2021 and September 2022, when he was sacked by Liz Truss, had “created a culture of fear” in the department.
They alleged that his behaviour when dealing with civil servants, including some in senior roles, was “demeaning rather than demanding”, that he was “very rude and aggressive” and that he “wasn’t just unprofessional, he was a bully”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/11/dominic-raab-behaviour-moj-staff-offered-route-out
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63579588
No doubt the SNP will continue to be strangely beholden to the large developers.
Constraint payments made vague sense at the very beginning when wind power was in its infancy and needed support but they make little sense now.
The UK is going to Hell in a handcart. Official.
But even if squillions were spent on connectivity, wind energy is by its nature an unreliable source of power, not just hour to hour, but year to year - 2021 was, apparently, a 'bad year' for wind. That means, either you store the power, or you spend vast amounts subsidising idleness, otherwise providers leave the market and you have wind graveyards. Phasing out constraint payments to incentivise providers to invest in storage is surely the only serious way forward.
New Thread
Especially in races like Washington's 3rd district, where Trumpista Joe Kent urged his supporters to hold back their votes until election day.
(A complication I didn't mention earlier: Most of the 3rd district voters are in urban (and relatively less Republican, Clark County. The next two counties in size are Cowlitz (Democratic) and Lewis (heavily Republican). It looks to me as if Lewis has counted almost all its ballots. Cowlitz has an estimated 6,500 more to count, and Clark 45,000.
Having looked at the results in all three counties, I would be comfortable placing a small bet, at even odds, that Kent will lose. Small bet because I don't know in what order Clark is counting their ballots.)