I appreciate your insights into the effectiveness of Contracts for Difference (CfDs) in supporting the renewable energy sector, particularly offshore wind projects. I agree that CfDs can provide a longer-term solution by creating a market for electricity supply at stable long-term prices, addressing some of the challenges related to risk and uncertainty. I will look into your article as I have access through my academic account.
I recently conducted market research on the usage of hydrogen as a fuel for buses in the Scandinavian region. One interesting point raised by market players was the inadequacy of subsidies in reducing risk and costs for hydrogen fuel. They emphasized that the stability of hydrogen prices in the long term is crucial, and subsidies do not offer this, as they often depend on political considerations, and are not long-term sustainable.
However, I would like to explore your perspective on technology neutrality and the fact that CfDs are designed for specific technologies (going against the tech-neutral principle some government institutions have). This mechanism is used today for other technologies such as hydrogen in the UK, named the Low-Carbon Hydrogen Agreement (LCHA), which was deployed last August. This essentially means the government is "betting" on a technology for which the major impact is still uncertain. While government intervention is necessary for the deployment of certain technologies, "betting" on specific technologies involves significant risk with no certain return on investment, especially when there are feasible solutions with a guaranteed return. What are your thoughts on this?
Please excuse an intentional attempt to take the other side of the argument - as much for the purpose of discussion
Please tell me the difference between a CfD and a subsidy. Maybe a definition would be helpful - but a government mandated contract is a good start? As opposed to an oil company where the contract is with an established market.
It is a subsidy because there is no market to support wind at it's all in pricing (including financing) therefore the subsidy is creating a market which allows wind to be just about competitive provided they don't have to subsidise gas powered back-up
Hi Jerome, I would love to read the article. tuomas.j.makela@aalto.fi Thank you!
Hi Jérôme. Would very much appreciate to receive the article: fhammer@integratedwind.com
Hi Jerome, would like to receive the article: lpgn.coe@gmail.com
Bonjour Jerome, would be keen to receive the article. cyril.dissescou@nexifratch.com. Thanks!
Thanks for yet another one great reflexion. Can I please ask for a copy of the paper? agarcia@bluefloat.com
Hi Jerome, thanks for your work. I'd like to read your paper.
alberto.silingardi@outlook.it
regards
Hi Jerome - thanks as always for the insightful newsletter. Could you please send a copy of the paper to tebaker1@gmail.com ? Thanks!
I appreciate your insights into the effectiveness of Contracts for Difference (CfDs) in supporting the renewable energy sector, particularly offshore wind projects. I agree that CfDs can provide a longer-term solution by creating a market for electricity supply at stable long-term prices, addressing some of the challenges related to risk and uncertainty. I will look into your article as I have access through my academic account.
I recently conducted market research on the usage of hydrogen as a fuel for buses in the Scandinavian region. One interesting point raised by market players was the inadequacy of subsidies in reducing risk and costs for hydrogen fuel. They emphasized that the stability of hydrogen prices in the long term is crucial, and subsidies do not offer this, as they often depend on political considerations, and are not long-term sustainable.
However, I would like to explore your perspective on technology neutrality and the fact that CfDs are designed for specific technologies (going against the tech-neutral principle some government institutions have). This mechanism is used today for other technologies such as hydrogen in the UK, named the Low-Carbon Hydrogen Agreement (LCHA), which was deployed last August. This essentially means the government is "betting" on a technology for which the major impact is still uncertain. While government intervention is necessary for the deployment of certain technologies, "betting" on specific technologies involves significant risk with no certain return on investment, especially when there are feasible solutions with a guaranteed return. What are your thoughts on this?
Great read as usual, would also love a copy of the paper: fredwantiez@gmail.com
Hello Jérôme, I would be keen on reading the full article please : gary.mdl@gmail.com.
Many thanks for this insightful work.
Thanks. I would like a copy of the article (julien.jomaux@gmail.com).
And thanks in general for your work.
Please excuse an intentional attempt to take the other side of the argument - as much for the purpose of discussion
Please tell me the difference between a CfD and a subsidy. Maybe a definition would be helpful - but a government mandated contract is a good start? As opposed to an oil company where the contract is with an established market.
It is a subsidy because there is no market to support wind at it's all in pricing (including financing) therefore the subsidy is creating a market which allows wind to be just about competitive provided they don't have to subsidise gas powered back-up
I’d love a copy. Please send to rhysmwilliams@icloud.com
Thanks
Hi Jerome, I would be very interested in reading the article behind this!