back to article E.ON to flog stake in wind farms to private firms

Energy giant E.ON is to seek private investment for three large offshore wind farms, it has announced. The investment would be in addition to the €2 billion it said it will invest itself in the projects. The company said that it was looking at ways of creating "more value with less capital" as it announced the €2bn in three …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

It's all about the ROCs.

Without the ROCs noone would bother.

On a more serious note, why are they always talking about offshore wind-farms? They only appear to be better value but in reality it's the taxman getting stiffed. Plus, they change the blades every 12 months so that they don't have to pay the normal tax and NI. This means you never get experienced blades. And you have to tell them exactly when they should be turning because they don't do anything on their own initiative. Of course, when you're looking at using them you see all the best turbines but once you've handed over the cash you get turbines that have only just come out of the factory.

Yes.

2
1

Re: It's all about the ROCs.

DONG Energy? Nice name!

1
0
Unhappy

DONG.....

It gets even funnier it stands for Dansk Olie og NaturGas...... Danish Oil and Natural Gas in english, kind of like the Danish version of Gazprom.

DONG is actually all the old small local danish public power companies that have been bought up by one of companies. State owns 75% and a single commune 25%.

But they most likely won't be doing to many windmill farms anymore. The chairmain of the boards of directors just fired the whole top management due to the fact that the Director of the company, had given his top directors 'private company' level salaries.

The small group of execs that were fired where the ones that developed and executed the financing models and project office that E.ON is trying to copy, that allowed DONG to build windmill farms at x2 the speed of other players, and raising enough finance by making a unique model that allowed eg. pension fonds to invest in their projects.

This is actually quite a scandal right now in Denmark. Cause DONG is making huge profits to the Danish state coffers, and is actually extremely aggressive in pushing green energy. The chairman of the Board is also on the 'board' of the main 'conservative' party in Denmark, who has always hated Green energy, as they get most of their campain money from Coal and Gas companies... so.. the feeling here is kind of that the next Danish Big Danish Company who is on the verge of taking a leap to being a big Multinational company just got axed, and that their 'Green' business model is going to be axed.... not cause it isn't working.. but cause it does not fit with certain politicians, that have managed to move into the board of that company

// Jesper

0
0

Subtle withdrawal

Perhaps a clever way to withdraw from a market that is collapsing, without apparently losing any green credentials.

If building more is predicated on additional private investment, and that private investment also sees the writing on the wall and fails to appear, who could blame them?

3
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

You are cynical...

and most likely dead right.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Subtle withdrawal

Possibly, although the feed-in tariff model still makes renewables very attractive investments. It might just be that power plants of *any* sort - it's a bit naughty in the article to point the finger at renewables coal and nuclear are really expensive to build and take longer to come onstream - are extremely capital intensive and 7 billion is a drop in the ocean of the several hundred billion per country that is expected to be required to switch to renewables.

0
0

Re: Subtle withdrawal

You're right. It also protects E.On from any massive decommissioning costs. The operating company can just go bankrupt and then it's up to the taxpayer to make them safe. This is what has happened in some parts of California.

0
0
Gold badge
Boffin

Offshore is *meant* to be about 7% more efficient

From (IIRC) 26% to 33%.

Of course that still leaves the average 67% of the time a turbine is *not* making anything.

It is *all* about the ROC's (and their presumed re-sale value). #

In a *properly* functioning market as the market gets going then govt *should* ramp down its support and that actually appears to be *happening*.

Note though that is also *exactly* what the UK govt is doing with rail subsidies, and note what has happened to train fares as a result....

0
0

Re: Offshore is *meant* to be about 7% more efficient

Actually, some of the farms we have here in Denmark, located on the danish west coast, the efficiency is actually 40%+.. I've read a study that suggest 45% efficiency there, and from that you have to substract maintenance etc. I think that Horns Rev 1, which is owned by the swedish energy company Wattenfall, they have 42% realised efficiency.

So it's more placement than offshore, that makes the difference :)=

// Jesper

1
1
Silver badge
Meh

Re: Offshore is *meant* to be about 7% more efficient

45% efficiency wow must remember to keep the PC and robots switched off for 12 hrs a day

SO even managing that level will still mean for every Mw of wind power we'll still have to have another Mw of power generation from another source.

So why not just build that power station and save ourselves some ££££ ?

2
2
Stop

Re: Offshore is *meant* to be about 7% more efficient

Just a note. My local coal-fired power station (Killroot, Northern Ireland) is about 35% efficient. The other 65% comes in as fossilised black stuff, and leaves as world-warming clear stuff. The most modern and efficient coal plants are about 60%.

45% of something free is, by most metrics, better than 60% of something not free.

Killroot generally runs at about 25% capacity so, if by "efficiency" what you actually mean is "capacity," the picture looks even bleaker.

I understand some folk don't like the technology (it's more expensive and, shock horror, isn't how we've always done things) but please, PLEASE inject a little bit of brain-power and understanding before you spout off this sort of nonsense.

0
2
FAIL

Oh happy fucking day...

Looks like I can expect to see yet ANOTHER rise in my home energy bill. They've already made it where we turn off every single light, run the heating at 1/2 temp, and generally feel like we live in a turd world country.

They've already figured out legally how to raise the bill even though you thought (damn, must start using airplane glue again) that your rate was fixed.

This is just marketing B.S. and nothing else for a way to not lower the rate, but "reinvest"....rubbish!

3
1

Re: Oh happy fucking day...

Well most of the electricity prices are vat and other tax related stuff. At least here in Denmark it is.

I think one KWH cost around 28 euro cent, here and of that only 4-7 euro cent is actually the cost of the electricity.

In Denmark windmill electricity is subsidised, so that the companies that build and run wind farms get a minimum electricity price for a fixed number of years, which means that if the marked electricity prices are high they get nothing and if they are low they perhaps get 1-2 Euro cent per KWH. Again for us consumers it's peanuts compared to the total price of the electricity.

When we moved into the house we live in now, we had a bill of 3.100 Euro on Oil (old boiler), and 1600 Euro in electricity.

I've changed the boiler to a sparkling new natural gas condensing boiler and have changed the fridge etc. to energy efficient, stuff. Also I have changed most of the light bulbs, to LED where I can. The newest generation of LED bulbs are actually good for use in the house.

Now our total energy bill is around 2.700 euro a year, for an investment of 7.500 euro, and 3 years after with raising energy prices.. the investment have paid for it self.

Next step is to change the old windows and have the insulation overhauled.

// Jesper

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums