Decomission Power Stations?

[manshimajin]

If consumers on the island produced green energy with home generation, and flow on the UK cable remains the same, then to maintain the equilibrium of balance, the MEA has to reduce output of their station by 15% to compensate. This is a cost saving on their fuel, and no doubt the 15% benefits you're concerned about.

 

It doesn't matter 'who' has the green generation on island, the home consumer or a local company, it all adds up. This is how the likes of Sulby Hydro & the EFW plant is taken into account.

To reduce emissions, which is the goal of 15/15, the MEA would have to reduce output anyway Andy, otherwise the CO2 reduction targets would not be met. What still concerns me is that even after fuel savings there is a fixed cost to operate Pulrose that is not output related and there is that debt which is not output related but has to be serviced even if the MEA produced zero electricity. So MEA power costs will have to increase. With the loan it could be refinanced from the Reserves (if we have any left) which would give an appalling ROI or we leave it to accumulate - the numbers I saw indicated that by 2030 it would grow to about £1 billion for our grandchildren to pay before they invest in the replacement generation facility.

[Andy730]

If consumers on the island produced green energy with home generation, and flow on the UK cable remains the same, then to maintain the equilibrium of balance, the MEA has to reduce output of their station by 15% to compensate. This is a cost saving on their fuel, and no doubt the 15% benefits you're concerned about.

 

It doesn't matter 'who' has the green generation on island, the home consumer or a local company, it all adds up. This is how the likes of Sulby Hydro & the EFW plant is taken into account.

To reduce emissions, which is the goal of 15/15, the MEA would have to reduce output anyway Andy, otherwise the CO2 reduction targets would not be met. What still concerns me is that even after fuel savings there is a fixed cost to operate Pulrose that is not output related and there is that debt which is not output related but has to be serviced even if the MEA produced zero electricity. So MEA power costs will have to increase. With the loan it could be refinanced from the Reserves (if we have any left) which would give an appalling ROI or we leave it to accumulate - the numbers I saw indicated that by 2030 it would grow to about £1 billion for our grandchildren to pay before they invest in the replacement generation facility.

 

OK, i now understand where you're coming from.

 

But...

 

There are other options. One of which would be to reduce the CO2, NOx and SOx emissions. One option would be the turbine conversion to DLE (Dry low emission)

There's a rather nice PDF on the GE website that you might find interesting:

http://site.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/tech_docs/en/downloads/ger4211.pdf

 

The DLE was an option that the MEA didn't go for 10 years ago, perhaps it is something to look at now?

 

Reducing output isn't the same as reducing emissions... i take it that when you say 'reduce output' you are in fact talking about emissions rather than power?

 

I think my money would be safe if i bet against 15/15 not that i don't agree with it, i just can't see it happening. (maybe i should have a chocolate hat in the fridge just in case)

 

I'm not a financial wiz-kid, but i'm quite sure in my belief that 'any' refinancing of the debt will simply be adding to it...