dpedin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 5:30 pm
MungoMan wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 10:35 am
dpedin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:45 am
Scotland has plenty of capacity for more hydro schemes as mentioned above however the cost of exporting electricity via the National Grid is exorbitant and makes many schemes unprofitable. It charges more for Scottish renewable generators to access and export electricity than anywhere else in the UK. The National Grid was privatised in 1990 by Thatcher's Tory Gov and is now
primarily owned by banks and venture capitalists like Macquarie, CIC, Qatar, etc. Any wonder why they are charging more for renewable generators to enter the grid?
A well-designed connection and access regime should be agnostic as regards ownership, The connection agreement process should be based on system engineering requirements and access should be dealt with by an economic regulatory regime based on best-practice utility regulation.
If I find time I shall look into this.
Dont disagree with this apart from the need to ensure energy security as a national priority over profit. However if we are serious about renewables then the problem is that they are often not located close to major centres of population ie wind and tidal power in north of Scotland and North Sea whilst major consumption is in SE England. I am not sure the regulator is effective in the energy market. As the article from May 2021 I posted the link to says;
'The analysis shows that on average, EU generators pay £0.46 per megawatt hour (MWh) in transmission system charges, while in Scotland the average is £6.42/MWh this year. Move to the windy north of Scotland and the price spikes to £7.36/MWh, with prices forecast to rise further still.'
This isn't me making a political point, although many would argue it is deliberately holding back the renewable sector in Scotland, it is about ensuring a fair market for renewable sector. However this charging structure does hold back on renewable generation and probably makes other forms of generation such as gas and including nuclear a more viable option, probably deliberately?
I did have a look - mainly at the shortish report linked in the RenewableUK press release you linked earlier. I had not realised UK generators pay use of system (UOS) charges, and locational UOS chages at that.
Generators connected to the NEM grid (Australia's largest) don't pay what we call TUOS; that's payable by 'market customers' - entities registered with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) to purchase energy - which are principally electricity retailers.
For years now the NEM's energy rulemaker, the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC), has been trying to talk the key players into some form of access reform whereby generators would pay access fees. So far the AEMC has had no success whatsoever as just about all the different electricity sectors are resolutely opposed to it, ditto the relevant governments.
The issue of location - that of generation source vis-a-vis that of load centres - is dealt with via a different mechanism built into AEMO's dispatch and pricing algorithm. That too has been, and still is, a cause of much dissent and angst.
EDIT
The report noted the absence of a zero emissions objective meant Ofgem had no legal basis to take certain steps which otherwise might be available to it. That's been the case here too for about twenty years, but the various governments now seem to be agreed upon inserting an emissions leg into the National Energy Objective. That should make a material difference in certain decisions taken by AEMO, AEMC and the Australian Energy Regulator.