Red Eléctrica de España

  • Spanish electricity data with hourly resolution is presented for the months of September and October. Two months that were marked by periodically wind free conditions in northern Europe.
  • Spain has 22.9 GW installed wind capacity. This produced a maximum 14,552 MW and minimum 301 MW in the period, load varying from 1.3 to 63%. A colossal dynamic range of 48.
  • Wind in Spain is balanced mainly by varying coal output with a little help from gas and a tiny amount of help from hydro. Imports and exports are not used at all in the gross balancing exercise.
  • Hydro is used to balance solar and to follow diurnal demand.
  • The Green fantasy of using grid interconnectivity and hydro to balance variable wind is not being put into practice in Spain.

Figures 1 and 2 September (top) and October (bottom) based on data downloaded from Red Eléctrica de España. The data are archived one day at a time on this site and so it is a little cumbersome to download. The source data has 10 minute resolution and I have averaged that to 1 hour to make the data file size more manageable. XL does not manage negative numbers (exports) well in these stacked area charts. Hence I have added / deducted exports / imports from the Cogeneration data. That slice is therefore corrupted. Click charts for very large high resolution versions (10*50 cm) that will open in a new browser window.

[The wind capacity in Spain was wrongly stated as 27,480 MW when this article was published. It was brought to my attention in comments that the correct figure is in fact 22,845 MW and the text has been corrected accordingly.]

Red Eléctrica de España is Spain’s electricity grid operator. My quest for pan-European wind data during The Big Lull took me to their website (thanks to Paul-Frederik Bach for the link) where I was able to download all the generating data for September and October. The primary objective was to access the wind data but since Spain has one of the most progressive and diversified renewable energy grids in the world I will first present an overview of the generating philosophy. “Wind not Blowing in Spain Either” will have to wait till later in the week.

Spain has Europe’s second largest wind park after Germany with 22.9 GW installed capacity. The charts show (I hope) that when the wind huffs and puffs in Iberia that other generators must take the strain. It should be self evident from the charts (Figures 1 and 2) that coal is one of the main generators providing load balancing service, contracting when the wind blows hard. Nuclear by and large just hums along providing base load as does thermal renewable generation. But it’s not so easy to see what is going on with the other generating sources. That is because there are two variables at work – variable but predictable demand and variable uncontrollable wind.

Balancing Wind

Green Energy literature is full of fantasy about inter connectors and hydro being used to balance variable wind power. So one would think that Spain, connected to France and Portugal and owner of a sizeable hydro suite would be putting this fantasy into practice. Figures 3 to 6 show the correlations between wind and coal, gas, hydro and imports.

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5 Note that hydro spans positive and negative numbers the latter being pumping that is relatively minor. See also Figure 8.

Figure 6 Positive numbers are imports and negative numbers are exports. The pattern of exports and imports is following a diurnal cycle (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Cross border electricity trade is cyclical and presumably following daily pricing patterns. There is no coherence with wind.

As expected following inspection of Figures 1 and 2, coal is negatively correlated with wind (R^2 = 0.42, Figure 3). Gas (CCGT) also shows a negative correlation (R^2 = 0.22, Figure 4) though not so strong as coal. As we will see below, this is because gas plays a dual role balancing wind and following the daily demand load. Hydro also shows a rather weak correlation (R^2 = 0.14) the reason for this being that hydro is used mainly to balance solar and to follow the daily demand load. This is discussed in greater detail below. Imports and exports show no correlation with wind at all with R^2 = 0.018. The reason for this is quite simple. When the wind blows in Spain, it also blows in Portugal and France and there is either surplus or scarcity everywhere. It is also evident that Spain manages to absorb all of its wind production when it blows and to cover demand from nuclear, coal, gas and hydro when it doesn’t.

Following Demand

Figure 8 shows the stacked output for gas, hydro and solar. Solar has the virtue of being on during the day, coincident with peak demand. But it does not follow demand. The chart shows how dispatchable hydro provides the bulk of the demand following service while at the same time is fine tuned to balancing solar (you must click on chart to be able to see this). Gas also provides some of the demand following service and a close examination of the peak tops shows they are ragged from which I conclude that gas also provides fine tuning.

Figure 8 Stacked load-following generation.

Figure 9 The pattern of hydro production mainly follows daily demand minus solar. There is only occasional coherence with wind during two storms where hydro production was stopped and some minor pumping was deployed. It is not clear if water conserved has any real value.

Figure 9 provides a clearer picture of what is going on between wind and hydro. As already stated, hydro use is dominated by following the diurnal demand and solar curves. During periods of high wind, for example 13, 16, 17 September and 4, 5, 6 October, hydro production does make way for wind and some surplus power is used for pumping (negative hydro). Both these events span the weekend. It is not clear whether or not the water saved serves any future purpose. A look at Figure 1 shows that on Sunday 13th September, when demand was low and the wind was strong that everything else was switched off apart from a little coal and nuclear. It seems that hydro had to be switched off to avoid abating excessive wind. A similar situation occurred on Sunday 4th October (Figure 2). This perhaps provides further clarity on why Spain abruptly stopped expanding its wind fleet. When the wind blows hard it can barely cope with all the power produced.

Pumping picks up towards the end of October with short bursts in the early hours of the morning not clearly linked to wind and this represents conventional diurnal pumping employing nuclear base load at night.

Concluding Thoughts

The expansion of renewables in Spain came to an abrupt halt in 2012. The main reason normally given is that the cost of subsidies was bankrupting the country and that may well be true. But Figures 1 and 2 show that on occasions when the wind blows hard Spain already generates most of its electricity from hydro, wind, solar and nuclear power. I suspect the country is at the limit of renewables it can sensibly manage.

The relatively large hydro suite that provided up to 6 GW of power during September and October offers great flexibility in following diurnal load and balancing solar but is barely used to balance variable wind.

Coal is the main loser when the wind blows hard. The 8, 9 and 10 of September were relatively wind still (Figure 1) and coal ran as stable base load for three days with mean output of 8144 MW. Had coal ran as such for the whole month, 5.86 TWh would have been produced. Because of curtailment to make way for wind 4.63 TWh were produced instead. That is a 21% decline that should presumably translate to 21% less coal burned. I wonder if the Spaniards feel this has been worth the cost?


This entry was posted in Energy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Red Eléctrica de España

  1. Peter Lang says:

    Euan said

    Wind in Spain is balanced mainly by varying coal output with a little help from gas and a tiny amount of help from hydro.

    That’s the case in Australia too. In the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) most wind capacity is in South Australia. But much of the balancing is being done by black coal power stations in NSW. Significantly, the brown coal power stations have lower marginal cost than the black coal power stations and are not participating in ramping and cycling to back up for wind generation variability.

    The consequences of this are that wind generation is much less effective at avoiding emissions than is generally believed. By 2020, when wind power is expected to supply about 15% of the NEM’s electricity, wind power may be about 60% effective at avoiding emissions per MWh of wind generated electricity.

    I expect wind power in Spain may also be less effective at reducing CO2 emissions than is commonly believed. The estimates of CO2 abatement cost ($/t CO2 avoided) need to be corrected by dividing by the CO2 abatement effectiveness. For Australia, the CO2 abatement cost projections for 2020 need to be divided by about 60%; e.g. an estimate of $60/t / 60% is $100/t when corrected.

    More here:

    • REE assumes a constant 0.75 tonnes CO2/MWh for the diesel plants on El Hierro regardless of ramp rate. (They publish CO2 emissions in their 10-minute grid data for El Hierro but not for the Spanish mainland.)

      • Peter Lang says:


        Even if they did publish the emissions for the mainland it would be wrong because they do not take CO2 abatement effectiveness into account. Almost no one has begun to recognise the importance of this yet. I’ve explained the relevance of in my Submissions tot he Australian Senate ‘Select Committee on Wind Turbines’ and in my Testimony to the Committee. I summarised in the post linked in my previous.

  2. Euan: You say “There is only occasional coherence with wind during two storms where hydro production was stopped and some minor pumping was deployed.” Unfortunately you can’t tell when pumping occurred and when it didn’t because the REE hydro value is the sum of conventional + pumped hydro, like the French grid data. Pumping could have been going on when hydro was positive. Doesn’t affect your conclusions though 😉

  3. Euan: Me again. Do you happen to have a plot of solar thermal generation? These hugely expensive plants are supposed to deliver power through the night and it would be interesting to see if they do. It’s a little hard to see what’s going on in Fig 8.

    • Just go to their website and put in a few dates. In the summer, there is generation through the night, but not now.

    • Peter Lang says:

      Not exatly answering the queston but perhaps of interest:

      vanpah, a bellweather project that the Dep’t of Energy describes as the world’s largest solar thermal plant in operation, has been generating 15% capacity factors9 that appear to be roughly half of initial projections

      JP Morgan, 2015, ‘Deep de-carbonisation of electricity grids

      • Peter Lang says:

        More from JP Morgan report:

        We used EIA data to compute capacity factors for Ivanpah. The other mystery about Ivanpah: why is it using so much natural gas? We found that Ivanpah concentrated solar thermal plants are using an amount of natural gas equal to ~20% (in energy terms) of its total solar generation. At the minimum, this suggests that fuel costs should be incorporated into levelized cost assumptions for concentrated solar thermal facilities. Ivanpah is only in year #2 of operations, so perhaps in 2-3 years, things will improve.

      • Peter

        Ivanpah is using so much diesel that it may qualify for some rebate on its use or something like that. I cannot find where I saw that though…

    • Euan Mearns says:

      Roger, here you go. Power is of course not needed at night. It looks like from the shoulder off the day time peak that there is a measure of load following? Is it controllable? Or is it a cooling response?

      The more significant observation, that I forgot to mention in my post, is that if it happens to be cloudy over your solar thermal plant, generation is zero. 100% back up required for this expensive toy. In this case I suspect its windy when its cloudy, something more to check out 🙁

      Where is Spain’s solar thermal located and what did it cost? 2GW is quite impressive!

      • Roger Andrews says:

        Thanks Euan. It doesn’t look as if the “thermal” adds much to the “solar” at all. I’ll take another look at this later.

      • The over 2 GW of CSP plants in Spain are usually having very little back up in molten salts, exception of one our 2 minor plants (about 10-20 MW when the typical plant is 50 MW) that were designed to work on 24 hours normal basis and were of course much more costly. The amount of required molten salt is huge. Deposits resemble a bullring, but fully isolated to keep the salts molten. They have usually a double backup, just in case, with gas supplies, so that in case of very prolonged cloudy days, they could fire gas to avoid salts solidify. Also, the concessions permit, as far as I remember, to the conventional CSP plants, to generate up to 15% of the energy by burning gas to that purpose.

        The most interesting thing is that these days, Abengoa, the flagship of CSP plants worldwide, with plants in the USA in the Gulf and some parts of Asia and Latin America is very close to the biggest Chapter 11 occurred in Spain ever (over 8 billion Euros). It is obvious that Abengoa is much more than CSP technology, but it should be very advisable how much CSP technology had to do with this situation.


    Stadtwerke Kiel (a municipal utility in Northern Germany) has just bought a new CHP district heating plant with heat storage. It includes power to heat (to make use of surplus wind production electric heaters take over the heating of the water), and the CHP technology is not turbines, but engines.

    Clearly wind variability means there will be overcapacity/curtailment somewhere in the system. With the Kiel system, either the electric heaters are not in use, or the engine is not.

    However, this is ok, if the overall system is still cheap in spite of the redundancy/overcapacity. Think about car engines. Germany for example has got 40 million cars on the road. I do not know the average power rating of these cars, but let us assume 100 kW, and that is 4000 GW of capacity, some 98 to 99% of which sits idle at any one time.

    People worry about demand management shutting down the economy or impacting lifestyle. Yet, it does make sense to shut down 100 billion Euros worth of industry for 10 hours per year (which is 0.1% of the time and necessitates 0.1% times 100 billion Euros = 0.1 billion Euros of capital expenditure), if this reduces capital expenditure on 5 GW of power plant by 5 billion Euros.

    Or in other words, it does matter how rarely the “wind blows” nowhere situation occurs. If it happens rarely enough, batteries, demand management, gas engines using biogas are all options that would not be nearly as viable, if they had to run for 4000 hours per year.

    Biogas can be easily produced to make up 2% of overall demand, which if only required 4% of the time could in these 4% extreme low wind / high demand outlier hours, produce 50% of the power with cheap engines.

  5. RDG says:

    Without any one of gas, oil, or coal you are worthless. It is impossible to replace fossil fuels. Renewables is like a body builder trying to compete by eating nothing but spinach.

    • Euan Mearns says:

      It is impossible to replace fossil fuels.

      Not so for electricity. Nuclear is a good alternative though you probably need a little gas to follow demand load.

  6. Hugh Sharman says:


    Thanks again for another most interesting and well thought through post.

    You write “…Figures 1 and 2 show that on occasions when the wind blows hard Spain already generates most of its electricity from hydro, wind, solar and nuclear power. I suspect the country is at the limit of renewables it can sensibly manage.”

    This hits the nail on the head, I think.

    You do not at all mention wind power curtailment, a vital indicator of wind power saturation within an island system (The Iberian Peninsula is effectively an electricity island). This was dealt with by a paper (for which one must pay) that can be down-loaded from but the summary is free.

    At, we can actually see some numbers

    Of course, with wind still supplying less than 10% of UK generation, it rather looks as if wind curtailment in UK will cost consumers a record amount in 2015, probably £70 million by this year end (

    • Euan Mearns says:

      Hugh, been meaning to get back to you all day – its been rather busy. It seems like the Spaniards don’t get paid for curtailed wind – seems like a good idea. Why should anyone get paid for producing electricity when it can’t be used?

      And the REF web site is a gold mine.

      • gweberbv says:


        “Why should anyone get paid for producing electricity when it can’t be used?”
        Simply because you do not want your producer to price in the risk for not getting paid. There is nothing wind farmers can do to expand the grid. So, they can only calculate the risk and ask for a higher feed-in tariff to cover it.

        But there is a lot that grid operators and – in more general sense – the public can do to improve the grid. So, it make sense to put the price for the grid not doing what it is meant to do on their shoulders.

        • robertok06 says:

          “. There is nothing wind farmers can do to expand the grid. ”

          Oh!… yes, there is!… they, like their fellow PVfans, should open their HUGE pockets filled with tens of billions of Euros in “incentives” towards covering the huge costs of improving the distribution network, which would otherwise have no need to be expanded.
          But, for some reason, the flow of cash in the pockets of green electricity is always uni-directional.

          • Günter Weber says:


            the flow of cash for any successfull capitalist venture is always uni-directional in that sense, that in the end more money comes in than goes out.

  7. garethbeer says:

    On topic, UK related though, the ‘magic’ interconnector to/from France has slowly been throttled over last week from a 2GW to 1.5 now is negative and has been apart from a few off-peak interludes consistently sending power too France – simply cannot be relied upon as part our generation fleet…

    • Michael hamilton says:

      What supports the statement that the interconnect or cannot be relied on? These are price based flows meaning currently the marginal cost of producing power in France is higher than the uk, so the uk delivers to France. if the UK actually needs power from France, the price will be at a level to incentivise the flow.

  8. Daniel says:

    Spanish wind power capacity was 22.845 MW at the end of 2014, according to REE’s Annual Report (“El sistema eléctrico español 2014”); it does not seem it has raised to 27,5 GW in 2015. In fact, it was also the same at the end of 2013, as wind power installed in 2014 in Spain was zero.

    As Hugh Sharman says, the Iberian Peninsula has characteristics of an electrical island since its interconnection capacities are low compared to other European countries. REE data for Spain interconnectors are forecast to be the following in 2016: 2.800 MW with France (1.400 MW in 2011), 3.000 MW with Portugal (2.400 MW in 2011) and 800 MW with Morocco. I do not know how much of the 2016 forecast capacity has already been built.

    • Euan Mearns says:

      Daniel, thanks for that. My error. I have miss read the addition of 27.5 MW in 2014 as 27.5 GW installed capacity. I have added a correction to the text.

      Why would Spain want to build an inter connector to Morocco? These inter connector projects are proposed by those who hope to make a load of money from them under the guise of the Green fantasy.

      • Hugh Sharman says:

        Morocco needs every kW it can get. And can/will pay for it. Meanwhile, Spain’s capacity is being curtailed. So, not a green fantasy, just good business!

        • Euan Mearns says:

          Its maybe business, but whether its good for society is debatable. I thought the masterplan was to import solar to Europe from the whole Sahara. If Morocco needs power then the World Bank needs to build them some new hydro or coal plants. And I’m sure some solar might help too. I juts can’t see the sense of Morocco importing electricity from Europe.

          • Morrocco is quite ambitious about building solar and wind power plants.


            To my mind, improved interconnection is not about either Spain or Morrocco importing electricity from the other as net imports, it is about smoothing out generation, and that includes coal and nuclear power plants. These have unplanned outages, and the spare capacity to cope with these unplanned outages is lower when two countries pool their generation assets.

          • Hugh Sharman says:

            What’s wrong with “good business” Euan? The capacity in the Iberian Peninsula has been built and is better (more profitably) be operated than curtailed. Morocco needs the power. Actually, the onshore wind regime along the Sahara coast is strong and steady for 9 months of the year and PV all over Sahara delivers power that is cheap.

            So two way flows of power actually make sense between parts of North Africa and southern Europe.

            Or are you against the further electrification of Africa (by all means)?

          • Euan Mearns says:

            @ Hugh, of course I’m not against the electrification of Africa. Morocco has little FF. Thus they can either use indigenous renewables or import coal or gas. Former is cheapest. The last thing they should be contemplating is importing expensive unreliable electricity from Europe. What purpose is a 800 MW link between Spain and Morocco going to serve? Other than to line the pockets of those who build it.

            I’m increasingly convinced this inter connector craze is just that. Its one of these Green myths.

            I thought you belonged to the group Hugh who believes that Europe’s electricity policy is stark raving mad. Why would you want to link Morocco onto it? Moroccans need cheap dispatchable power.

          • Hugh Sharman says:


            Of course, EU energy politics are totally nuts! But the generating capacity that has been built and now must be paid for may as well find a market where it can be found. Hence “good business”. RED Eléctrica will build and pay for the Morocco inter-connector. Morocco will benefit from the lower cost electricity when Spain is in surplus.

            Good for Spain, good for Morocco. Some inter-connectors make perfect sense.

            Of course, they cannot be relied upon as “firm capacity”!

            I think we are exhausting this thread? I do hope so!

          • gweberbv says:


            “expensive and unreliable electricity from Europe”? Tell me a way Morocco could produce electricity cheaper than that:
            And by African standards, the Spanish grid should be regarded as quite stable.

  9. garethbeer says:

    Micheal, We are sold the interconnectors as part of our base load and fleet, and it would seem for most of the year it very much is, problem we have now is during winter we were capable of exporting our surplus coal capacity which is now diminished greatly due to a litany of closures and wilful destruction of perfectly working coal plants (with more to follow).
    Indeed the market (and politics) will decide and 2GW will go positive or negative – the problem is we are short on spare capacity right now, unless you count STOR and Wind as despatchable capacity.

    French Nuclear barely covers their domestic demand, so, I could say we are just importing Gas/Coal or Bunker Oil capacity if you want to be pedantic.

    • michael hamilton says:

      Hi Gareth.

      Politics don’t decide the direction of commercial flow on interconnectors, price does. (politics decides where they are built)

      The marginal fuel is always effectively flowing on the interconnector, so in the winter, you are 100% correct, it can be Gas (not coal, that’s rarely marginal in France) or in extreme cases HFO.

      The point is, if a French HFO plant is cheaper than the UK, the flow will come from france as they are the least cost.

      Basic questions is this; does a 2gw bi-directional interconnector increase or decrease security of supply for both countries?

  10. Fred Udo says:

    The concluding phrase of the article is:
    “That is a 21% decline that should presumably translate to 21% less coal burned. I wonder if the Spaniards feel this has been worth the cost?”

    The conclusion, that 21% less generation implies 21% less coal burned is exactly the misconception critics have against the fictions of intermittent energy. Lately an analysis of the performance of the Irish windmills has been published. See:

    The conclusion is twofold:
    A. The SEAI (Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland) reports, that 15% wind causes 12% savings of CO2 emissions. This number comes from a government body charged with the propaganda of wind energy, so they admit a fuel saving efficiency of 80% not 100%.
    B. Closer examination of the report reveals, that the loss is minimised by a few tricks and that the corrected efficiency based entirely on the calculations of the said report is 53%.
    C. The CO2 emission calculation is based on the static efficiency curves of the different plants, so the true loss will be higher by an unknown amount.

    All this makes the savings of 21% of coal highly improbable.

    • Euan Mearns says:

      Fred, thanks. I’m aware of the fact that FF savings and emissions reduction will be much less. I wasn’t aware that it was as much as 50%

      • Peter Lang says:


        I’ve posted the link to Wheatley’s analysis of Ireland several times before. It shows that wind power in Ireland in 2011 was just 53% effective at 17% penetration . In Australia it is 78% effective at 4.5% penetration and in ERCOT it was similar in 2007-2009.

        I’ve said many times on Energy Matters, few people have understood yet the significance of the fact that wind power is much less effective at avoiding emissions than is generally assumed in analyses of the emissions avoided by wind and the CO2 abatement cost.

        Importantly, the CO2 abatement cost estimates need to be corrected for CO2 abatement effectiveness. For example, if an estimate of $50/t CO2 is based on the assumption that wind saves the average emissions intensity of the grid (i.e abatement effectiveness is 100%), but CO2 abatement effectiveness is actually only 50%, then the CO2 abatement cost needs to be corrected to $100/t CO2 (i.e $50 / 50%).

        I hope you will pick up on this important issue. Given yours and Roger’s excelelnt analytical and data mining capabilities you might be able to do a similar analysis for Spain. Wheatley’s Australian analysis is an advance on his analysis of Ireland so would be the better analysis to follow. He’s improved the handling of the interconnector flows and the time shifting effect of hydro generation on emissions avoided by wind.

    • Without going into the detailed numbers for Ireland, I will make a little philosophical point.

      Electric cars or PV or wind initially is much more about technology development and getting started on a path to an entirely emissions free system, than about directly having fewer emissions. When you walk to a supermarket, you initially spend extra calories before you get your food. Likewise, there is an initial investment in electric cars or wind turbines, which initially may yield very little in terms of emissions reductions, but is an essential first step without which you never get to your emissions free end goal. It is like deciding that taking the walk to the supermarket takes so many calories you rather starve to death than make a start on getting where you eventually need to be.

      (Comparisons are a tricky business, they are always misleading in some respects, so be merciful on the many ways this particular comparison is not helpful)

      • gweberbv says:


        this is even more true when the electricity market is already part of a cap-and-trade scheme that limits CO2 emissions (but also allowing to shift unused emission rights from electricity production to somewhere else).

    • Peter Lang says:

      Fred Udo,

      Thank you for the great deal of excellent work you have done with empirical analyses of the CO2 emissions avoided by wind power. You mentioned your work on Ireland but did not mention the excellent work by Joe Wheatley: .
      he also has a short post here commenting on the SEAI modelling analysis of Ireland:

      He’s also recently completed an excellent analysis of the “CO2 emissions savings from wind power in the Australian National Energy Market (NEM)“: . In short, wind power generated 4.5% of electricity in the NEM in 2014 and avoided 3.5% of the emissions; therefore wind was 78% effective at avoiding CO2 emissions at 4.5% penetration in the NEM.

      • Peter Lang says:

        Fred Udo,

        Retraction: I now see you referred to Wheatley’s Irish Study.

        Thank you for the link to your 2015 post. I had not seen this one before.

    • Fred

      SEAI released a savings report from renewables some time ago. The headlines were quite dramatic. An interesting from Table 2 and 7 (and the surrounding text) is that with wind on the grid, the fossil fuel generators have a lower capacity factor. In other words their utilization (and probably their thermal efficiency) takes a hit.

  11. garethbeer says:

    Think Michael yes, that is the question, politicians with their degrees in history, would like us to think they are good for energy security and enable renewable energy to be ferried across the continent, but in reality, we have to take and give when the situation arises – bit like renewable energy!

    The ‘windy somewhere’ theory has already been dissected and demolished on this very site – another interconnector selling point.

    It’s another kick the can down the road situation and will only work when there is surplus despatchable capacity – which clearly is very rapidly diminishing, here, Germany, France included…

  12. Hugh Sharman says:

    On the other hand at, today, the Headline is Goa, Going, Gone!

    The news is still breaking…! Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy than Lord Stern of course. And such brilliant timing1

  13. robertok06 says:


    “This perhaps provides further clarity on why Spain abruptly stopped expanding its wind fleet.”

    I don’t think this is correct… Spain government (Zapatero’s socialists with support from other minor parties) was forced to stop when the 2008-2009 crisis started hitting hard on Spain.
    Same for PV… their installation rate of new power has virtually stalled since, in spite of the huge capital costs decrease.

  14. The Dork of Cork . says:

    The demand situation in Iberia has been very much influenced by the influx of tourists (especially from the UK) during this year.
    Refer to the IEAs November electricity report.
    Portugal has seen a major increase in electricity demand 6%~ with Spain not far behind.
    Combustible fuel use in Portugal up 40% + and Spain up 25%~ relative to the same period last year.
    The UK then mirrors this with corresponding declines in both elec consumption and a 11% decline in combustible fuel use

    • Euan Mearns says:

      That’s interesting. I can see why UK tourists may choose Portugal / Spain over Tunisia, Egypt , Turkey or Greece. But why would there be more tourists leaving UK shores?

  15. The Dork of Cork . says:

    reek tourist figures also up (again the main growth driver is the UK)
    The IEA reports a 4.5 % increase in Greek elec consumption so far this year.
    There is now a major correlation between jet kerosene consumption and distribution and more basic energy consumption.
    Its quite clear the residents are not consuming the stuff.

    The North Africa crisis has merely functioned to highlight the dynamic is a more stark manner.
    As for why the UK is driving internal European consumption………countries such as Spain and Ireland have had negative domestic credit going for about 7 years now.
    This forces them to engage in mercantile behaviour (tourism is a export activity) to get their hands on money tokens.
    You can also see this happening when observing the real goods trade.
    UK net imports from the EU 28 has doubled from 40 million Sterling to 80million since 2011.

  16. The Dork of Cork . says:

    Sorry that should read a net import of 80 BILLION Sterling , this is completely overpowering Asian imports.
    In fact the UK steel industry is closing down because of euro area steel imports rather then lower quality Asian steel products.

    The Conversion of Drax and other stations to biomass is also a major factor , refer to the UK energy trends publication for september 2015 which has a special feature on the wood pellet import trade.
    The UK now completely dominates this trade in Europe (imports from North America)
    Carbon credits are much more important to the UK then industry.
    It can outsource all industry now.
    In fact a UK tourist can burn carbon in Iberia , Ireland etc and charge the residents for the privilege .
    Its quite some scam.

  17. The Dork of Cork . says:

    Notice electricity supplied to Portugal up 6.8 % , combustible fuel use up 42.5 % (Jan -Aug)

    When the numbers come into the jurisdiction fossil fuels do the heavy lifting.
    The UKs low carbon economy depends on a massive flow of Jet Kerosene (it is a mirage )
    As for Ireland also note the 3% + rise in elec consumption.
    I live in South Kerry during the summer months , I can confirm a major rise in UK tourists also partially as a result of strong Sterling.
    The rise in Irish jet kerosene consumption has increased from 29kbd August 12 month moving average to 34 kbd over this past year !!!!!
    As you may be aware the Dublin London route is perhaps the busiest short haul route in the world.

  18. Pingback: A review of concentrated solar power (CSP) in Spain | Energy Matters

Comments are closed.