Drank green subsidies in Russia - to whom and how much? Specific documents and figures

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Not everyone understands that the cancer of the green "energy" has already metastasized in Russia for a long time. Someone says that for remote areas such generation makes sense as a source (exclusively for domestic needs), as a form of subsidies for the development of remote areas - and this is true. But this speaks of a complete misunderstanding already operatingmechanisms for green subsidies.

Even Alexander Khurshudov, as it turned out, is completely unaware, and he talks about green subsidies in the future tense.

So, I give a background on the history and current state of the issue of green subsidies in Russia.

Key documents that manage money in the issue of "green subsidies":

1) Rules of the wholesale electricity and capacity market

An excerpt from these rules:

99. For each year from which the power supply will be carried out based on the results of the current selection of projects, and for each type of generating facilities provided for in subparagraphs 1 - 3 of paragraph 195 of these Rules, the total volume of installed capacity of generating facilities that must be selected during the current selection is determined projects for the supply of capacity under contracts for the provision of capacity of qualified generating facilities operating on the basis of the use of renewable energy sources, concluded in relation to generating facilities of the corresponding type, the period for the supply of capacity for which begins in the corresponding year (hereinafter referred to as the planned volume of capacity required for withdrawal).

The planned volume of capacity required for the selection of capacity of the corresponding type of generating facilities in relation to the calendar year X + k (where k is the minimum value of the duration of the investment cycle, determined for the type of generating facilities in accordance with this paragraph, and the difference in years measured in years from 2024 and year X) increases by an amount equal to the maximum value of zero and the additional volume of power (DOM), which is determined by the following formula:

where:

i is the summation index reflecting the calendar number of the year (from 2014 to year X inclusive);

CPVi is the target indicator of the volume of commissioning of the installed capacity of generating facilities operating on the basis of renewable energy sources of the corresponding type in the price zones of the wholesale market, established by the Government of the Russian Federation for the i-th year;

- the volume of the installed capacity of generating facilities of the corresponding type determined in accordance with this paragraph, the commissioning of which was planned for the i-th year;

PrevM - the calculated value of the excess of the selected volumes over the planned ones, determined in accordance with this paragraph.

That is, regardless of the economy and the costs associated with the subsequent equalization of "torn" generation, the wholesale market operator is stupidly obliged to purchase renewable energy within the planned quotas. The marginal capital costs are determined in a similar way.

At what price is he obliged to purchase this "torn" generation?

This is the price for the EE itself + "power charge", which is determined by the second document:

2) Rules for determining the price of capacity of generating facilities operating on the basis of renewable energy sources

Most delicious excerpt:

The document is large, but in short the idea is this - the owner of an object that gives "torn" generation is guaranteed to receive an annual return on capital in the amount of 12%, regardless of inflation and taxes (there is an adjustment for inflation / OFZ yields, as well as changes in rates currencies).

The main thing that interests the owner of "torn" generation is quotas on volumes and limits on capex determined by the government. If he fits into them - sit, smoke a pipe, pick up and play over the suckers who are now thinking what to do with the "ragged" generation and the rise in tariffs.

This is a tracing of the infamous feed-in tariff schemes tried in Spain, where they are now dealing with economic disaster and de-industrialization.

The "fighter with the planned economy" Chubais lobbied for the launch of the worst form of the planned economy - where only the intermediate product (torn electricity) is strictly regulated, without analyzing the consequences for the consumers of this electricity. This reincarnation of a planned economy is focused not on the interests of energy consumers (ie, society), but on the interests of investors in "torn" generation.

So, now understanding the current subsidy principles, let's now look at how "capacity quotas" and "marginal capex" are defined today.

3) Information required for the competitive selection of investment projects for the construction of generating facilities operating on the basis of the use of renewable energy sources for 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023

The planned quotas for ragged generation capacity, subject to selection, are defined there as follows:

and the marginal capex per kilowatt (talking about the installed capacity!) is defined as follows:

however, if we look at

4. "Winners" of previous years, that is, objects of torn generation, receiving subsidies

we will see that "baseline capex caps" do not mean real caps at all - see the last column:

Well, let's take 100 million for a megawatt of "torn" power as a reference point. If the ICUF is taken for 15% for photovoltaics, this gives 666 million for a "real" megawatt, with the clarification that it will be a "torn" poorly predictable megawatt, which still needs to be leveled.

A purely "green solution" of leveling through the vaults Musk will inflate this price tag several times more, as we showed here - Do you want electricity for 50-70 rubles per kilowatt hour? Introduce green energy! It is clear that instead of equalizing on their own, "objects of torn generation" tend to parasitize on the existing power system, so that this subsidy is latent and implicit. But if we evaluate this subsidy explicitly, estimating that equalization of "torn kilowatt" is 2-3 times more expensive than its own production, we get that green generation with equalization will cost 1.5-2 billion rubles per megawatt of "real" capacity.

For comparison, the power unit of the Rostov-4 NPP cost 82 billion rubles for 1011 megawatts. The average ICUF for an atom is 90% percent, that is, it will be about 900 "real" megawatts, and initially even generation, which does not need to be leveled, and the project cost was approximately 90 million rubles per megawatt.

Even throwing inflation to the maximum - 85% for the period from 2010 to 2019 (although in reality not all investments were made precisely in 2010), we will get 166 million rubles for the atom in 2019 for a "real" megawatt, which is about 10-15 times less than the "torn" green generation.

To check, let's now look at real company reports:

5. Rosenergoatom's proposal for tariffs for 2019

We are primarily interested in:

- production costs (including capex): 267.2 billion rubles

- useful energy output: 188.5 billion kWh

This gives 1.41 rubles per kilowatt-hour at the nuclear power plant.

We are now looking at a typical proposal for "torn" generation:

6. Offer of JSC "Solar Wind" (Sakmarskaya SPP) on tariffs for 2019

We look at the same indicators:

- production costs (including capex): 256.8 million rubles

- useful energy output: 31.2 million kWh

This gives 8.23 rubles per kilowatt-hour for SPP.

Also, do not forget that the reports operate with the cost price, not the market price. For delivery to the consumer, it will also be necessary to throw in the profit of the torn generation facility itself, the wholesale operator's margin, retail margins, transport and losses, etc. That is, these numbers should not be confused with what the ultimate sucker pays.

The cost price for SPP is already 5.8 times higher than that of a nuclear power plant, but do not forget that this is torn generation, which still needs to be leveled, as shown above, and the real costs of torn generation will be 11-17 times higher than that of NUCLEAR POWER STATION.

I think these figures are quite enough to suspect a "ragged" generation of enemies of the people in lobbyists:-)

So far, only one thing pleases - the scantiness of this activity. If you look at the electrical balance:

7. Structure of EE generation in Russia in 2017

we see that the "ragged" generation was a measly 0.06% of the total.

But in terms of subsidies, this is not such a small thing. If we evaluate them as the difference in cost with an atom at about 10-15 rubles per kilowatt-hour, the green drinkers were paid 7-10 billion "additional" rubles per year (which would not have to be paid by the NPP), i.e. about 100-150 rubles from each working citizen.

A bit for now, but it will be paid for many years, and every year a new amount is added to this within the current "quotas" shown above.

Authorship:

Author's work / translation

Editorial comment of the Analytics section

The comment of comrade Pol Alex (regarding point 6 - with the details of the proposal for Sakmarskaya SPP), characterizes greed and appetites quite well):

The most interesting of Alex's information is the net profit of SES - and it is equal to 115% of direct costs, including depreciation - this is a dream, crazy profitability, which means that the paid full tariff was in the range of 17-20 rubles per kWh

For comparison, you can see the net profit of a nuclear power plant, which is only 16% of direct costs, including depreciation.

And if you disclose the cost of a business based on the rules of the IFRS, in particular EBITDA, then it is possible that this SES will cost more than a nuclear power plant, according to exchange rules:-)

The drug trade, of course, will give more profit, but with prostitution or the arms trade, IMHO, "ragged" generation may well compete!:-)