It’s almost as if restricting supply makes something rare and valuable.
Just so people are aware, the Renewable Energy Foundation are a ‘charity’ that claims to support sustainable energy studies. However so far their ‘studies’ exclusively attack windfarms, are generally negative about all forms of renewable and promote ‘green natural gas’ and have also been pro-fracking in the past.
Articles like this are typical in their approach, constraint payments of £115m sound excessive (says more about how shit our grid is rather than how bad wind is) and they sell it as costing the consumers more. OFGEM calculated these payments added around 14p to peoples bills at most a month. Averaging £1 a year. Making onshore and offshore windfarms still by far the cheapest form of energy in the U.K.
The REF have been referred to the Charity Commission many times due to being overly political and misleading.
Please can we consider creating a stickied post that has a list of ‘charities’ and think tanks masquerading under misleading names? There’s extremely biased left wing and right wing think tanks out there that regularly mislead or publish outright incorrect information.
People publish articles and studies based on these think tanks (innocently and deliberately) and it creates misleading narratives around some already spicy topics like energy, climate, immigration, etc.
Why can’t this energy be used to make hydrogen. A combustible fuel than can be safely stored for years. Just asking.
So we need grid-storage? We’ll get right on that in, oh, 20 years when it is far too late.
It’s the British way!
Yeah and gas peaker plants are paid to sit there not running as standby capacity… This isn’t a conspiracy, this is what you need to do to have a stable grid, have capacity you can turn on (gas) & capacity you can turn off (wind).
5 comments
It’s almost as if restricting supply makes something rare and valuable.
Just so people are aware, the Renewable Energy Foundation are a ‘charity’ that claims to support sustainable energy studies. However so far their ‘studies’ exclusively attack windfarms, are generally negative about all forms of renewable and promote ‘green natural gas’ and have also been pro-fracking in the past.
Articles like this are typical in their approach, constraint payments of £115m sound excessive (says more about how shit our grid is rather than how bad wind is) and they sell it as costing the consumers more. OFGEM calculated these payments added around 14p to peoples bills at most a month. Averaging £1 a year. Making onshore and offshore windfarms still by far the cheapest form of energy in the U.K.
The REF have been referred to the Charity Commission many times due to being overly political and misleading.
Please can we consider creating a stickied post that has a list of ‘charities’ and think tanks masquerading under misleading names? There’s extremely biased left wing and right wing think tanks out there that regularly mislead or publish outright incorrect information.
People publish articles and studies based on these think tanks (innocently and deliberately) and it creates misleading narratives around some already spicy topics like energy, climate, immigration, etc.
Why can’t this energy be used to make hydrogen. A combustible fuel than can be safely stored for years. Just asking.
So we need grid-storage? We’ll get right on that in, oh, 20 years when it is far too late.
It’s the British way!
Yeah and gas peaker plants are paid to sit there not running as standby capacity… This isn’t a conspiracy, this is what you need to do to have a stable grid, have capacity you can turn on (gas) & capacity you can turn off (wind).