Maybe they have realised not enough was offered last time

or how much they have to pay for nuclear !Countrypaul wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 6:08 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67430888
Maybe they have realised not enough was offered last time![]()
Perhaps the government got greedy…….lol like they are there for the voters…..Moxi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 8:46 am Well considering they (the government) get paid the difference if the price is above the strike price and they have to contribute the difference if its below I imagine they thought it was another cash cow to screw the public.
Set a CfD so low you never have to pay into it and sit back and rake in the difference................ oh and dont forget to continue to fleece the public at all other opportunities.
They just forgot about the cost of actually building wind farms and the fact that the owner operators need to survive as well.Or did they simply get greedy
![]()
Now the shoe is on the other foot again with them having to take a risk at setting a CfD thats competitive to the companies for making some profit but possibly could result in the government picking up the bill for the difference. Being risk averse to putting their hand in their pocket maybe they would like to consider the option of a nationalised power generation company ? Now there's a topic to discuss further![]()
Moxi
Thats an interesting strike price for a CFD.Mart wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 9:03 am On-shore wind was £42.47 with a bid max of £53, and in R5 it was £52.27 against a max of £53.
PV was £45.99 with a bid max of £47, and in R5 it was £47 against a max of £47.
Off-shore wind was £37.35 with a bid max of £46, and in R5 it was no bids against a max of £44.
But I suspect, that's not what you meant.(So Allah has been gracious to us, and has saved us from the torment of the Fire.) meaning, `He has granted us a favor and saved us from what we feared,'
Don't worry Mart, it was meant to be as cryptic as possible and not really meant for your thread.Mart wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 11:20 am Sorry Nowty, you've lost me completely. Could be due to a LC (long Covid) brain-fog spike at the moment, but I suspect I'm just being a bit thick, or missed some new, news?
Googled 52.27, and found a great quote from the Quran, that seems really fitting for AGW:
But I suspect, that's not what you meant.(So Allah has been gracious to us, and has saved us from the torment of the Fire.) meaning, `He has granted us a favor and saved us from what we feared,'
I kinda want to be right (don't we all), but sometimes it's great to be wrong - many years ago I said (on MSE I think) that off-shore wind is brilliant, and really important, but 'of course' it will never get as cheap as on-shore wind ....... boy did I get that wrong. The tumbling CfD bids, in line with the far, far higher cf's (capacity factors) than was expected, shocked me. Then 'they' built even taller WT's, gaining further from the faster wind's higher up, and so on.nowty wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:19 pmDon't worry Mart, it was meant to be as cryptic as possible and not really meant for your thread.Mart wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 11:20 am Sorry Nowty, you've lost me completely. Could be due to a LC (long Covid) brain-fog spike at the moment, but I suspect I'm just being a bit thick, or missed some new, news?
Googled 52.27, and found a great quote from the Quran, that seems really fitting for AGW:
But I suspect, that's not what you meant.(So Allah has been gracious to us, and has saved us from the torment of the Fire.) meaning, `He has granted us a favor and saved us from what we feared,'
There could be some news coming and I was happily surprised that the strike price for Onshore wind CFD was more expensive than Offshore wind CFD.