Anyone with land 1000 mts or less from National grid sub-station?

[renewablejohn]

Not on about me with hydro its the principle that hydro with a reservoir is the ideal renewable technology for stor and was being encouraged by the high premium which the dirty diesels have hijacked and exploited resulting in the knee jerk cut by offgem across the board on all technologies. Cannot believe anybody is encouraging the use of dirty diesels with the UK's present diesel pollution problems.

 

[PhilSL]

Not on about me with hydro its the principle that hydro with a reservoir is the ideal renewable technology for stor and was being encouraged by the high premium which the dirty diesels have hijacked and exploited resulting in the knee jerk cut by offgem across the board on all technologies. Cannot believe anybody is encouraging the use of dirty diesels with the UK's present diesel pollution problems.

I agree with you that hydro and reservoir with storage is the way forward. Storage with any renewable assets is better than diesel, coal and/or gas. But the vast majority of the CM agreements went to gas and coal with a percentage going to diesel.

The Gov is the one encouraging the use of diesel, everyone else in the chain is simply making money from it!

 

[renewablejohn]

Government is not encouraging diesel they know there breaking EU policies but not prepared to do anything about it.

The whole diesel generation just stinks.

https://influencemap.org/site/data/000/287/Diesel_Report_Nov_2016.pdf

 

[PhilSL]

Government is not encouraging diesel they know there breaking EU policies but not prepared to do anything about it.

The whole diesel generation just stinks.

https://influencemap.org/site/data/000/287/Diesel_Report_Nov_2016.pdf

The Gov via Ofgem oversee the Capacity Market mechanism. As abhorrent as it may be, they make the rules, the rest simply make money!

Personally, I couldn't care less what the EU thinks about it. But let's remember that coal and gas are also being subsidised to greater a degree as well. As I have said, I would like to see more storage and renewables, but I guess I will have to wait.

 

[dolmen]

about 2000m away here from sub station, ?

hi Turbo- 2000 mts might just be ok-regards Tony

 

[renewablejohn]

The Gov via Ofgem oversee the Capacity Market mechanism. As abhorrent as it may be, they make the rules, the rest simply make money!

Personally, I couldn't care less what the EU thinks about it. But let's remember that coal and gas are also being subsidised to greater a degree as well. As I have said, I would like to see more storage and renewables, but I guess I will have to wait.

Can see this diesel generation being as big a scandal as the biomass scandal in Northern Ireland unless someone gets a grip of it.

 

[thesilentone]

I have only partially read this document, and I have to say it is shocking, I had no idea this was happening. Tax-payers money being exported out of the Country via Diesel Power Generation.

This should be stopped immediately, and these Companies Investigated.........

https://influencemap.org/site/data/000/287/Diesel_Report_Nov_2016.pdf

PhilSL there is a time to make money and a time consider credibility. Do you not see this a ridiculous waste of tax-payers money ?

 

[jcb360]

Why is this in the Renewable Energy section of the forum?

 

[PhilSL]

@renewablejohn and @thesilentone

The current situation is the Gov has seen fit, via the Capacity Market mechanism to award 600+MW of supply agreements to be provided by diesel assets. Yes it's a cluster f**k and yes it diesel is environmentally harmful but so is CCGT, OCGT and coal generation (all of which were awarded greater volume supply agreements). But what the GOV decides, they get in the main.

There are those who want to see the supply of power for the UK consumer be generated predominantly from renewables, backed by storage, I am one of them. But I also accept that the future energy supply mix will include nuclear and gas, via CCGT and OCGT, but not coal.

Let's address the diesel generators and your comment @thesilentone 'PhilSL there is a time to make money and a time consider credibility. Do you not see this a ridiculous waste of tax-payers money ?' - I will answer the second part of your question first: Yes I do when the money is being sent offshore. The revenue generated and tax reliefs available via these schemes should stay in the UK economy but the whole system will soon exclude power generation full stop.

The report posted in this thread; 'The Dirty Dozen- Diesel Power Subsidisation in the UK' relates directly to the financial mechanisms, structures of corporate institutions and hedge funds leveraging an existing UK tax system to generate greater financial gains for their investors, gains which may or may not go offshore - it's their job. In my view it is wrong, should not be allowed unless the said financial gains made, remain in the UK. The UK Gov is seeking to close this EIS/VCT tax efficient loophole where funds are leaving the UK, in respect of diesel generators, amongst other energy generation technologies. But the end result will be that the EIS/VCT will not be available for use for power generation investments for anyone. This has already happened with the SEIS scheme. It's typical UK Gov closing the door after the horse has bolted!

The use of SEIS, EIS and VCT is not a new phenomenon in either the DSR sector or the renewables sector. The tax efficient opportunity these specific vehicles offer were set up by the Gov and maximised in the past by a number of UK institutions, whose ultimate beneficiaries may or may not be, domiciled offshore!

I know of at least 1,500 'free to fit - fully funded' biomass boiler installs that are owned by institutions whose shareholders are reaping huge investment returns for the RHI payments! In my view this is not why the RHI subsidy was set up. The same applies to some solar PV arrays and wind turbine farms - all receiving Gov subsidies which are then, in some circumstances, funneled out of the UK, for the benefit of foreign investors.

On a separate but related point; I don't agree with fossil fuel exploration and supply conglomerates receiving Gov tax subsidies in one section of their business, and then being allowed to enter the renewables sector via a subsidiary! - now that is getting 'double bubble' as the saying goes!

On the first part of your question @thesilentone, and in respect of the 50MW of diesel gensets deal we are working on, we can make a difference. The plan is to enroll the assets as they are now, control the maintenance of the assets as the owners neglect this side, and over the next 12-18 months convert the diesel gensets to run on biofuels. That is how the deal is being structured.
As for making money. I wish I was able to not work but with kids, one at Uni and one looking for work and one just about to leave school, it's my responsibility to look after them and give them the best start in life they can get. So, if I can do this and effect change by ensuring 50MW of diesel gensets are converted to biofuels by using the revenues generated from the enrollment of these assets into the various DSR services, I will have achieved something on the environmental front, whilst fulfilling my primary role in life, that of a parent.

 

[thesilentone]

@renewablejohn and @thesilentone

The current situation is the Gov has seen fit, via the Capacity Market mechanism to award 600+MW of supply agreements to be provided by diesel assets. Yes it's a cluster f**k and yes it diesel is environmentally harmful but so is CCGT, OCGT and coal generation (all of which were awarded greater volume supply agreements). But what the GOV decides, they get in the main.

There are those who want to see the supply of power for the UK consumer be generated predominantly from renewables, backed by storage, I am one of them. But I also accept that the future energy supply mix will include nuclear and gas, via CCGT and OCGT, but not coal.

Let's address the diesel generators and your comment @thesilentone 'PhilSL there is a time to make money and a time consider credibility. Do you not see this a ridiculous waste of tax-payers money ?' - I will answer the second part of your question first: Yes I do when the money is being sent offshore. The revenue generated and tax reliefs available via these schemes should stay in the UK economy but the whole system will soon exclude power generation full stop.

The report posted in this thread; 'The Dirty Dozen- Diesel Power Subsidisation in the UK' relates directly to the financial mechanisms, structures of corporate institutions and hedge funds leveraging an existing UK tax system to generate greater financial gains for their investors, gains which may or may not go offshore - it's their job. In my view it is wrong, should not be allowed unless the said financial gains made, remain in the UK. The UK Gov is seeking to close this EIS/VCT tax efficient loophole where funds are leaving the UK, in respect of diesel generators, amongst other energy generation technologies. But the end result will be that the EIS/VCT will not be available for use for power generation investments for anyone. This has already happened with the SEIS scheme. It's typical UK Gov closing the door after the horse has bolted!

The use of SEIS, EIS and VCT is not a new phenomenon in either the DSR sector or the renewables sector. The tax efficient opportunity these specific vehicles offer were set up by the Gov and maximised in the past by a number of UK institutions, whose ultimate beneficiaries may or may not be, domiciled offshore!

I know of at least 1,500 'free to fit - fully funded' biomass boiler installs that are owned by institutions whose shareholders are reaping huge investment returns for the RHI payments! In my view this is not why the RHI subsidy was set up. The same applies to some solar PV arrays and wind turbine farms - all receiving Gov subsidies which are then, in some circumstances, funneled out of the UK, for the benefit of foreign investors.

On a separate but related point; I don't agree with fossil fuel exploration and supply conglomerates receiving Gov tax subsidies in one section of their business, and then being allowed to enter the renewables sector via a subsidiary! - now that is getting 'double bubble' as the saying goes!

On the first part of your question @thesilentone, and in respect of the 50MW of diesel gensets deal we are working on, we can make a difference. The plan is to enroll the assets as they are now, control the maintenance of the assets as the owners neglect this side, and over the next 12-18 months convert the diesel gensets to run on biofuels. That is how the deal is being structured.
As for making money. I wish I was able to not work but with kids, one at Uni and one looking for work and one just about to leave school, it's my responsibility to look after them and give them the best start in life they can get. So, if I can do this and effect change by ensuring 50MW of diesel gensets are converted to biofuels by using the revenues generated from the enrollment of these assets into the various DSR services, I will have achieved something on the environmental front, whilst fulfilling my primary role in life, that of a parent.

All very well but:

Currently we are committed to de-carbonising energy generation, to assist, the VCT/EIS scheme has been very beneficial, allowing substantial funding in an early adopter market.

That aside, we cannot ignore the ethics and politics surrounding this, especially at a time where base load Renewable's are experiencing substantial budget cuts, with some markets grinding to a halt with many job losses. Dare I say the money going Off-Shore could and should be utilised elsewhere, where the tax-payer shares the benefits.
On your point regarding The plan is to enroll the assets as they are now, control the maintenance of the assets as the owners neglect this side It maybe no coincidence that this is the most profitable and secure area of the balance sheet, often tied up for 3-5 years. If fully funded, it would normally be mandatory that a service contract is in place, purely to secure the assets. There are 1,000's of CHP service companies in the UK, how often do you tender the O&M contract to show the taxpayer they are not paying to much ?
In respect of ' Double Bubble' of course that is exactly what it is, however not uncommon with renewable's, therefore the major issue to shutting the scheme down.
As regards off-shoring profits , it stinks, it's as simple as that..........

 

[renewablejohn]

Why is this in the Renewable Energy section of the forum?

Because this is all part of the dodgy scam. They justify the technology as renewable as the diesel generators can be fueled by 100% oil seed rape but then when they have the contracts in place the fuel is switched to the cheapest possible diesel which is also the dirtiest of fossil fuels.

 

[PhilSL]

All very well but:

Currently we are committed to de-carbonising energy generation, to assist, the VCT/EIS scheme has been very beneficial, allowing substantial funding in an early adopter market.

That aside, we cannot ignore the ethics and politics surrounding this, especially at a time where base load Renewable's are experiencing substantial budget cuts, with some markets grinding to a halt with many job losses. Dare I say the money going Off-Shore could and should be utilised elsewhere, where the tax-payer shares the benefits.
On your point regarding The plan is to enroll the assets as they are now, control the maintenance of the assets as the owners neglect this side It maybe no coincidence that this is the most profitable and secure area of the balance sheet, often tied up for 3-5 years. If fully funded, it would normally be mandatory that a service contract is in place, purely to secure the assets. There are 1,000's of CHP service companies in the UK, how often do you tender the O&M contract to show the taxpayer they are not paying to much ?
In respect of ' Double Bubble' of course that is exactly what it is, however not uncommon with renewable's, therefore the major issue to shutting the scheme down.
As regards off-shoring profits , it stinks, it's as simple as that..........

Re the existing EIS/VCT models to finance diesel assets - they are history which we cannot change, only adapt for the future, for the better.

Let me clarify, when I state 'control the maintenance' - it means pay for it, on an annual basis out of revenue from the various DSR revenue streams. It does not mean we hold the maintenance contracts. So your inference that we are generating additional revenue via securing the maintenance contracts, is unfounded. The client has the option to agree to the change to biofuel for their assets under the caveat we pay for the maintenance of the said assets from the revenue from DSR, if they don't agree, the deal won't happen - simple as that. But you can be sure another company will do the deal on a very different basis!

On your CHP O&M point: any CHP asset owner is free to go to market to get as many O&M quotes as they fit. I know any quote we provide for our CHP installations and associated O&M, the potential clients will go to market to get at least two other quotations - this is standard business practice and then it's up to the asset owner to ascertain if they are getting value for money, not me!

Whilst you make very valid points, may I ask exactly what you are doing to change the situation?

 

[PhilSL]

Because this is all part of the dodgy scam. They justify the technology as renewable as the diesel generators can be fueled by 100% oil seed rape but then when they have the contracts in place the fuel is switched to the cheapest possible diesel which is also the dirtiest of fossil fuels.

If you have proof anyone is doing this, have you reported them to the relevant authorities? If not, why not?

'Because this is all part of the dodgy scam' - plenty of those associated with biomass boiler installs as well!

 

[thesilentone]

Whilst you make very valid points, may I ask exactly what you are doing to change the situation?

Interesting question, the only thing I can do, as can everyone else reading this is contact those who can influence change like Industry Leaders and Politicians.

Do you think this sufficient or have you other suggestions ?

 

[PhilSL]

Interesting question, the only thing I can do, as can everyone else reading this is contact those who can influence change like Industry Leaders and Politicians.

Do you think this sufficient or have you other suggestions ?

No, I think your suggestions are a starting point and should be used for those not working in this sector.

For my part, I can only effect change with this client we have, on the basis I have set out in this instance. If we hear of anything not right, with any type of opportunity presented to us, we will report it the relevant authorities.

 

[PhilSL]

Interesting debate. If you don't know the details for reporting fraud within the renewables sector, here they are;

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/counter-fraud-environmental-and-social-programmes

 

[renewablejohn]

If you have proof anyone is doing this, have you reported them to the relevant authorities? If not, why not?

'Because this is all part of the dodgy scam' - plenty of those associated with biomass boiler installs as well!

Authorities already know who they are and are taking steps to eradicate just wish it was a bit quicker.

http://www.amps.org.uk/blog/2016/08...-regulate-generators-with-high-nox-emissions/

 

[PhilSL]

On the one hand, the Gov in the latter part of 2016 start consultation on 'avoidable NOx emissions', then in Dec 2016/Jan2017 award some 600+MW of diesel CM Agreements!

But the interesting part of that article in the link you posted is;

Generators that are used solely for the purposes of providing back-up power during power cuts or other site emergencies are not expected to be affected by the proposals.

How can you fathom their thinking?

 

[thesilentone]

On the one hand, the Gov in the latter part of 2016 start consultation on 'avoidable NOx emissions', then in Dec 2016/Jan2017 award some 600+MW of diesel CM Agreements!

But the interesting part of that article in the link you posted is;

Generators that are used solely for the purposes of providing back-up power during power cuts or other site emergencies are not expected to be affected by the proposals.

How can you fathom their thinking?

Desperation !!

The practice of having back-up electricity for peak demand is nothing new, and can be quite profitable. In many Countries that have had AD Plants for several decades, it is common to see the original CHP still sitting on a updated plant, only being used during peak demand hours. It requires large gas storage capacity on-site for those hours, other than that, it is a good way of generating the revenue to upgrade the plant, often without any for of subsidy or government support, in fact in many cases the plants would not be upgraded without this.

 

[renewablejohn]

On the one hand, the Gov in the latter part of 2016 start consultation on 'avoidable NOx emissions', then in Dec 2016/Jan2017 award some 600+MW of diesel CM Agreements!

But the interesting part of that article in the link you posted is;

Generators that are used solely for the purposes of providing back-up power during power cuts or other site emergencies are not expected to be affected by the proposals.

How can you fathom their thinking?

There thinking is the original well meaning aims of the scheme before it was hijacked by speculators. Many hospitals and businesses have standby diesel generators that are never used except for an annual test to see that it still works (OK slight exaggeration but you get my drift) Some bright spark decides a good idea to avoid blackouts to utilise this spare capacity when all else fails and you have a sensible policy utilizing a dirty temporary asset in time of the nations need.