World’s Biggest Scams: Scotland’s Wind Farms Paid £650,000,000 To NOT Produce Power

In the history of commerce, there’s never been a financial scam that comes anywhere near rivalling subsidised wind power.

There aren’t many businesses where a major source of revenue is being paid to NOT produce what it is that your business is meant to produce.

STT is at a loss to find many other current examples that match the profligacy of paying what are called “constraint payments” to wind power outfits, so that they won’t deliver power to the grid when the wind is blowing.

And were not talking small beer, either. Over the last decade, British wind power outfits have collected over £650,000,000.

We covered the story in this recent post: Priceless: Scots Forced to Pay Wind Farms £650,000,000 To NOT Generate Power

Now, here’s another take on what simply has to be the biggest scam in history.

Sutherland windfarm operators paid a total of £63m to turn off turbines
The Northern Times
Caroline McMorran
11 June 2020

The operators of windfarms in Sutherland have been paid a whopping £63,475,000 in total during the last 10 years for turning their turbines off at times of grid congestion. it has emerged.

The figure has been compiled from data collated by registered charity the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF).

Brenda Herrick of the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum has said she is shocked at the extent of the payment, which is met by customers through their electricity bills, as are community benefit payments.

She said: “I was pretty horrified when I saw the total. It is just unbelievable the fact that we are paying such a huge amount for windfarms to switch off and yet we keep building more.

“What is the point of building windfarms in a remote area like Sutherland, so far from where the electricity is needed?”

According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, so-called ‘constraints payments’ began to be paid out in 2010 and are made when wind power in Scotland exceeds local demand but cannot be exported to England due to insufficient grid infrastructure.

REF’s website states: “There has been a total of £649 million paid out over the decade for discarding 8.7 terrawatt hours of electricity.

“To put this in context, this quantity of energy would be sufficient to provide 90 per cent of all Scottish households with electricity for a year.”

The REF has revealed that January and February this year saw an “extreme spike” in constraint payments to Scottish windfarms when £69 million was put onto consumer bills at an average rate of more than £1 million a day.

This has been put down in part to the failure of the ‘Western Link’, a new subsea cable running from Hunterston to Deeside.

According to Ms Herrick, the main recipients of constraints payments in Sutherland are SSE, which operates Strathy North and Gordonbush windfarms; Scottish Power Renewables, operator of Beinn Tharsuinn and Falck, operator of Kilbraur.

Work is currently under way to add an11 turbine extension to the 35 turbine Gordonbush windfarm, at StrathBrora. The new turbines measure 149.9 metres to blade tip.

REF states on its website: “The existing Gordonbush wind farm lies behind a grid bottleneck and has consequently been paid over £16.4 million to reduce output since it was commissioned in 2012. The 227.5 GWh of electrical energy discarded over that period is roughly equivalent to the annual consumption of over 50,000 Scottish households.”
The Northern Times

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.

Comments

  1. Crispin bpm says:

    Good to see that progress continues apace on Hinkley Point C, despite COVID-19. No mean feat.

    Video published by EDF.

    ‘Stuart Crooks, Hinkley Point C MD, discusses the project reaching its latest milestone.’

  2. Reblogged this on ajmarciniak and commented:
    In the history of commerce, there’s never been a financial scam that comes anywhere near rivalling subsidised wind power.

    There aren’t many businesses where a major source of revenue is being paid to NOT produce what it is that your business is meant to produce.

    STT is at a loss to find many other current examples that match the profligacy of paying what are called “constraint payments” to wind power outfits, so that they won’t deliver power to the grid when the wind is blowing.

    And were not talking small beer, either. Over the last decade, British wind power outfits have collected over £650,000,000.

    We covered the story in this recent post: Priceless: Scots Forced to Pay Wind Farms £650,000,000 To NOT Generate Power

    Now, here’s another take on what simply has to be the biggest scam in history.

  3. Colin Megson says:

    Gordonbush will generate 4,179,725 MWh over its 25 years lifespan. The £16.4 million equates to £3.92 for each of those MWh. We can assume more £s from the honeypot will be forthcoming, which will just pile on the bill-agony even more.

    Anyway, it’s all the fault of nuclear power:

    https://100percentrenewableuk.org/how-nuclear-power-undermines-renewable-energy-the-truth-about-wind-power-compensation-payments

  4. Constraints rising all the time, STT. As of two days ago, the total in the last decade is over £799 million. This year alone it’s pushing £150 million. Paid by all UK consumers, those who can afford it and those who can’t, very largely for wind farms in Scotland. How many across the UK know this? Precious few, we’d bet.

    And those are just the constraints we know about; those under the Balancing Mechanism. There is a raft of others under Forward Trades which, once again, consumers pay for. We all pay but we don’t know how much. However, in 2011 in response to a Parliamentary question, these were running more or less at the same rate as those under the Balancing Mechanism.

    And yet more and more wind farms are being added in to the equation in Scotland. The Westminster government is now punting storage for all its worth as the ‘green saviour’ – removing planning restrictions and starting the legislative process this week, but even supposing that storage can be meaningful, in the interim constraints will still be seen as subsidies.

  5. Reblogged this on uwerolandgross.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: