navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Legal challenge to ban on onshore participation in cfds  (Read 196 times)
GarethC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280


« on: August 15, 2019, 09:22:39 PM »

https://renews.biz/54822/banks-behind-cfd3-challenge/

Legal challenge to try to force government to allow onshore wind farms to participate in latest CFD round. While I'm all for allowing onshor back into the mix, I'm slightly frustrated that this is will delay the CFD results. Small price to pay if successful I suppose.
Logged
azps
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 717



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2019, 08:26:46 AM »

https://renews.biz/54822/banks-behind-cfd3-challenge/

Legal challenge to try to force government to allow onshore wind farms to participate in latest CFD round. While I'm all for allowing onshor back into the mix, I'm slightly frustrated that this is will delay the CFD results. Small price to pay if successful I suppose.

Yeah, quite. In the scheme of things, it's a short delay. If successful, the consequences could be significant. Although the planning system is now heavily stacked against onshore wind anyway, so even with onshore wind in CfDs, it won't make enough of a difference until the planning rules are changed.

I'd be very surpised if BEIS's lawyers got this one wrong. Gawd knows that I and others have had enough discussions with them about onshore wind and CfDs. Maybe Banks Renewables are playing a longer game, to embarrass the government into changing policy. It's just that this government seem unusually shameless.
Logged

brackwell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3061


« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2019, 08:37:18 AM »

I do not undestand the relevance of this when onshore wind can be built without subsidy and so why need CFD ?
Ken
Logged
GarethC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280


« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2019, 03:38:08 PM »

I assume CFD still provides greater certainty of income, which might help reduce financing costs (or increase the likelihood of getting finance).

Guaranteed income of, say 40/MWh, even though that's a bit below the long run average wholesale electricity price (meaning the wind farm might expect to be a net contributor to the government, rather than a net receiver of subsidy) might be more attractive than operating without a CFD and taking the risk of the wholesale electricity price falling well below that, which has happened in the past, if not for particularly long periods.

Just speculating.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!