"The PSO Levy is primarily driven by the price of electricity. If electricity prices are high, less money is needed to subsidise renewables like wind, small-scale hydro and biomass. Indigenous peat burning power plants will need less subsidy money too. That’s because they receive more on the open market for the electricity they produce.
Conversely, if electricity prices are falling, more money is needed to subsidise renewable and indigenous supply.
The renewable and peat generators will need bigger subsidy cheques. And in somewhat oversimplified terms, that is where the PSO levies or taxpayers are needed to fill the cash gap."http://www.bonkers.ie/…/pso-levy-increase-of-47--proposed-…/
If this is the case then how can the CER justify more energy production on any level, as surely the cost of supporting, maintaining and producing energy has a cut off point to which a set population can support it without the energy production then becoming a burden?
Wind energy has had its subsidies increased from €29.73 million to €87.8 million in the
four years to 2014/2015. This represents an increase of 295%. Yet we are still bent on increasing windfarms for which we will no doubt have to further increase the PSO subsidy to. Is this value for money?
Are these giant farms cost competitive? This question must be answered by the CER.; In a normal market when your revenue declines you seek to offset the
revenue loss by lowering your input costs and engage in cost reduction strategies. Have the CER carried out investigations to ensure that this has occurred in the renewables, peat and supply plants? Can the CER provide proof that they have carried out this exercise? Who has an oversight into value
for money?
In addition, Eirgrid is proposing to put in place double cables underground for 700mw to 1500mw Gridlink and Gridwest https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2015-04-21a.4 . Costing the taxpayer an estimated 4 billion on top of the 9.8 million for the East west and who knows the cost of the North south Interconnector "The energy regulators in Ireland and Northern Ireland are very concerned at the
delays experienced to date in delivery of this key element of the island’s energy infrastructure. The absence of the North South Interconnector is currently costing the consumer approx. €20 million annually in terms of increased production costs and a reduced ability to share generation capacity across the island. The CER understands this could well rise to €30 - €40 million in the medium term." http://www.cer.ie/docs/000727/13149-consultation-paper.pdf . What the CER has to ask is the need for it all. The working population is ageing and industrial energy usages are going down in Ireland and Europe! https://data.oecd.org/pop/working-age-population.htm… If the population is declining and these projects are built surely they won't be cost effective, because there is no one there to use them. http://www.nytimes.com/…/germany-fights-population-dr...;
AS Colm Mc Carthy, puts it here, and as he is well respected within the energy industry and specifically hired as a member of an independent committee to review Eirgrid organised by the government of Ireland I believe this says it all:
"Electricity systems must provide a margin of capacity over and above the peak demand level. This capacity must be constantly available, so intermittent forms of generation, such as wind and solar power, do not qualify. Plants which can be dispatched at the will of the grid operator, such as gas or coal, or hydro, will do fine.
There are no hard and fast rules about the necessary capacity margin, but many grid operators would be uncomfortable unless they had dispatchable capacity of around 115% or 120% of peak demand. This ensures a low probability of blackouts due to plants going offline, which is more frequent occurrence than you think.
In Ireland, peak demand is still below the level seen in 2008. But three large new gas-fired plants have been commissioned since the bubble burst and the margin of dispatchable plant capacity is now over 150% of peak demand.
In addition, there is an extensive and growing collection of wind farms around the country which are available on an intermittent basis. In total, power generation capacity when the wind blows equals roughly double peak demand.
No more gas plants are likely to be built for many years. When the wind blows, they get switched off and the builders of new gas plants must regret their optimism. But new wind farms continue to be built and indeed there are clamorous demands from the big wind energy companies to build yet more, along with transmission lines to carry their power.
Given the unprecedented excess capacity in the system, this looks rather odd. There is a simple explanation: the wind companies face a guaranteed price, courtesy of the electricity consumer, which is index-linked and subject to upward-only review.
There is an extra wrinkle. Since wind capacity is now very large, it is sometimes necessary to decline offers of power from wind farms in the interests of system stability, but wind farms get paid anyway if they are “constrained off”.
Oversupply
As wind capacity grows ever larger, these curtailment payments are likely to become more frequent. So it is possible to finance new wind farms even in an over-supplied market. In effect, the risk is not borne by the wind farms, but by consumers at large who are effectively underwriting a NAMA for wind farms." http://www.farmersjournal.ie/colm-mccarthy-wind-farms-are-&h...
The CER has serious questions to answer as to the projects it's supporting through the PSO levy and the price Irish citizens are paying for them. Merely lowering the PSO levy a fraction of what it has risen with 242% increase in the last 5 years, to what in real terms is an already inflated , gorged and bloated Electricity supply is making the very system unreliable, unaffordable, and unsustainable. The CER must make a stand regarding the approval of all these energy projects when the real need is not there and cost of running them does not outway there need. Here is another example of a project that is going to be tax supported. http://www.independent.ie/…/endas-new-power-plant-is-...; Surely the CER will reign in some sense on the matter, so that the Irish people will not be faced with billions of taxpayer euros wasted.
anne flynn
Posted on 5 Jul 2015 10:00 am
"The PSO Levy is primarily driven by the price of electricity. If electricity prices are high, less money is needed to subsidise renewables like wind, small-scale hydro and biomass. Indigenous peat burning power plants will need less subsidy money too. That’s because they receive more on the open market for the electricity they produce.
Conversely, if electricity prices are falling, more money is needed to subsidise renewable and indigenous supply.
The renewable and peat generators will need bigger subsidy cheques. And in somewhat oversimplified terms, that is where the PSO levies or taxpayers are needed to fill the cash gap."http://www.bonkers.ie/…/pso-levy-increase-of-47--proposed-…/
If this is the case then how can the CER justify more energy production on any level, as surely the cost of supporting, maintaining and producing energy has a cut off point to which a set population can support it without the energy production then becoming a burden?
Wind energy has had its subsidies increased from €29.73 million to €87.8 million in the
four years to 2014/2015. This represents an increase of 295%. Yet we are still bent on increasing windfarms for which we will no doubt have to further increase the PSO subsidy to. Is this value for money?
Are these giant farms cost competitive? This question must be answered by the CER.; In a normal market when your revenue declines you seek to offset the
revenue loss by lowering your input costs and engage in cost reduction strategies. Have the CER carried out investigations to ensure that this has occurred in the renewables, peat and supply plants? Can the CER provide proof that they have carried out this exercise? Who has an oversight into value
for money?
In addition, Eirgrid is proposing to put in place double cables underground for 700mw to 1500mw Gridlink and Gridwest https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2015-04-21a.4 . Costing the taxpayer an estimated 4 billion on top of the 9.8 million for the East west and who knows the cost of the North south Interconnector "The energy regulators in Ireland and Northern Ireland are very concerned at the
delays experienced to date in delivery of this key element of the island’s energy infrastructure. The absence of the North South Interconnector is currently costing the consumer approx. €20 million annually in terms of increased production costs and a reduced ability to share generation capacity across the island. The CER understands this could well rise to €30 - €40 million in the medium term." http://www.cer.ie/docs/000727/13149-consultation-paper.pdf . What the CER has to ask is the need for it all. The working population is ageing and industrial energy usages are going down in Ireland and Europe! https://data.oecd.org/pop/working-age-population.htm… If the population is declining and these projects are built surely they won't be cost effective, because there is no one there to use them. http://www.nytimes.com/…/germany-fights-population-dr...;
AS Colm Mc Carthy, puts it here, and as he is well respected within the energy industry and specifically hired as a member of an independent committee to review Eirgrid organised by the government of Ireland I believe this says it all:
"Electricity systems must provide a margin of capacity over and above the peak demand level. This capacity must be constantly available, so intermittent forms of generation, such as wind and solar power, do not qualify. Plants which can be dispatched at the will of the grid operator, such as gas or coal, or hydro, will do fine.
There are no hard and fast rules about the necessary capacity margin, but many grid operators would be uncomfortable unless they had dispatchable capacity of around 115% or 120% of peak demand. This ensures a low probability of blackouts due to plants going offline, which is more frequent occurrence than you think.
In Ireland, peak demand is still below the level seen in 2008. But three large new gas-fired plants have been commissioned since the bubble burst and the margin of dispatchable plant capacity is now over 150% of peak demand.
In addition, there is an extensive and growing collection of wind farms around the country which are available on an intermittent basis. In total, power generation capacity when the wind blows equals roughly double peak demand.
No more gas plants are likely to be built for many years. When the wind blows, they get switched off and the builders of new gas plants must regret their optimism. But new wind farms continue to be built and indeed there are clamorous demands from the big wind energy companies to build yet more, along with transmission lines to carry their power.
Given the unprecedented excess capacity in the system, this looks rather odd. There is a simple explanation: the wind companies face a guaranteed price, courtesy of the electricity consumer, which is index-linked and subject to upward-only review.
There is an extra wrinkle. Since wind capacity is now very large, it is sometimes necessary to decline offers of power from wind farms in the interests of system stability, but wind farms get paid anyway if they are “constrained off”.
Oversupply
As wind capacity grows ever larger, these curtailment payments are likely to become more frequent. So it is possible to finance new wind farms even in an over-supplied market. In effect, the risk is not borne by the wind farms, but by consumers at large who are effectively underwriting a NAMA for wind farms." http://www.farmersjournal.ie/colm-mccarthy-wind-farms-are-&h...
The CER has serious questions to answer as to the projects it's supporting through the PSO levy and the price Irish citizens are paying for them. Merely lowering the PSO levy a fraction of what it has risen with 242% increase in the last 5 years, to what in real terms is an already inflated , gorged and bloated Electricity supply is making the very system unreliable, unaffordable, and unsustainable. The CER must make a stand regarding the approval of all these energy projects when the real need is not there and cost of running them does not outway there need. Here is another example of a project that is going to be tax supported. http://www.independent.ie/…/endas-new-power-plant-is-...; Surely the CER will reign in some sense on the matter, so that the Irish people will not be faced with billions of taxpayer euros wasted.