Wind power: for or against the wind?

[Exnihiloest]

Source? I am still surprised by the number of what you call "operating expenses"?

Sorry for my late response, I must have skipped yours.
The accounts are there:
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

Article:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... last-year/

I was "right" to be "surprised" by the figure which seemed enormous to me ... The "operating expenses" as defined include depreciation:

"Operating and other expenses, excluding depreciation of £ 89 million, total £ 62 million or £ 26 / MWh."

This explains that.

What does that explain?

[sicetaitsimple]

What does that explain?

That I was surprised by the number and that I am no longer!

In an income statement, it is the difference between EBITDA (Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) and EBIT (the same after Depreciation and Amortization).

Simply, the amortization or depreciation of an asset is not really an expense, but an accounting operation without disbursement of cash.

This is accounting kitchen, again I was "troubled" by your "Operating expenses: £ 127,4million", which seemed enormous to me.

[ENERC]

Watch the replay on M6 of HBO Chernobyl (only episodes 3-5 are still online). Excellent movie.
it puts the cost of wind power into perspective - financially and humanly.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

What does that explain?

That you wallowed

[Exnihiloest]

What does that explain?

That you wallowed

Your interpretations are stupid.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

What does that explain?

That you wallowed

Your interpretations are stupid.

In this case, it is your numbers and your interpretation of the numbers that are. Logical when you take a retired climate-negationist accountant as an "expert". CQFD.

[Exnihiloest]

What does that explain?

That I was surprised by the number and that I am no longer!

In an income statement, it is the difference between EBITDA (Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) and EBIT (the same after Depreciation and Amortization).

Simply, the amortization or depreciation of an asset is not really an expense, but an accounting operation without disbursement of cash.

This is accounting kitchen, again I was "troubled" by your "Operating expenses: £ 127,4million", which seemed enormous to me.

In the end, without the subsidies, it is still bankruptcy, it seems to me.

[sicetaitsimple]

In the end, without the subsidies, it is still bankruptcy, it seems to me.

Uh no, not really, without the subsidies the project does not happen!

[Exnihiloest]

In the end, without the subsidies, it is still bankruptcy, it seems to me.

Uh no, not really, without the subsidies the project does not happen!

That was the message: wind power only works when subsidized. If it was investment to be repaid, investors would be at their cost. This is also what happened in the USA where wind farms had to close.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Nuclear power only exists because we have subsidized it, tidal power and geothermal energy as well. Something else ?
Source for the closure of wind farms in the USA?
https://batinfo.com/actualite/leolien-e ... -usa_14943