Comments on: German Baseload Power Cheaper than French 12 Months Running

By: Mercky Waters

Mercky Waters — Tue, 08 Oct 2013 06:59:00 +0000

Zack, you are responding with a straw man. No one said the cost of coal includes externalities. Neither does the cost of nuclear, hydropower, solar, or wind but the externalities are still there. Archaeopteryx is using data and logic, you respond with accusations of deceit and threats to use administrative priveledge to squelch dissent. So, are you an educator or a propagandist? Which do you admire? You can engage using facts and data or you can just be you own little Rupert Murdock.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:40:00 +0000

The power demand curves are tweak-able. We are discovering more and more ways to shift loads. That’s not going to solve all our energy problems but it will help.

We have to get fossil fuels off our grid, starting with coal.

The great thing is, all our renewable energy sources are cheaper than coal. All of them. And wind + storage is cheaper than coal.

So no one pays. Everyone saves.

Who decides? The American people decide. We elect our government and we eventually get the government to do what we want done even though we have to push long and hard on some issues. The majority of Americans want something done to reduce the problems of climate change.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:12:00 +0000

this is yet another deceitful distraction. the cost of not changing is greater than the cost of changing, and will mostly hit poorer people and nations. if you haven’t seen the studies on that basic starting point, your whole line of argument is going to be off.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:09:00 +0000

Ha, hilarious, no, I’m not scared — I just got tired of spending my day trying to inform people who have no interest in learning, and leaving completely false comments on our site is a disservice to readers and humanity — not what we’re in the business of.

And I’m sorry to say, your comment includes about 5 pieces of complete disinformation and deceit that I have no inclination to waste my time on today. I don’t assume you have any interest in learning, based on our conversations to date, so please find another site to irritate.

By: archaios pteryx

archaios pteryx — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 09:01:00 +0000

Indeed, the Industrial Revolution and economic growth have been deadly. Still, daily power demand curves are what they are. They are the needs of about 300 million people and about $15 trillion of US GDP. The power demand curves necessitate (or permit) base load power and peak power. It pays, and is good environmental and business practice to manage peak loads, as they tend to be more expensive than base. Or we can tweak the needs of 300 million people and go through contortions to have another power model. Fine, too. The question remains: who pays for this and who decides?

By: archaios pteryx

archaios pteryx — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 08:51:00 +0000

The threat of the door is only used by scared people, feel free to use it. There are MANY kinds of hidden costs. The known risks of coal, or nuclear, are costs (some are NOT hidden). The risks of not enough electricity, poverty, and child mortality are other hidden costs. The only reason hidden costs are not accounted for is because of their subjective, and possibly fraudulent, nature (hence something called “GAAP” — look it up).
Of course Eon and RWE look after their profits, isn’t everyone?. But when their gas generation becomes unprofitable, as it has, as a result of intermittent power, it will be taken off-line. That will leave wind and solar with just cheap coal and nuclear. Now, if you legislate against the rule that chooses low variable cost electricity on the grid, that is fine too. But on what basis DO you choose? Not variable cost? Perhaps total cost? That would be very much against your case. Perhaps you legislate against anything that does not suit you. That is fine too, but not necessarily in what I would consider public interest. So we go to “what IS public interest?”.
On a very practical matter, the 2012 German Electricity Generation statistics show a VERY clear image: Solar has, on average, displaced gas and even some coal; wind has also been a contributor, albeit more sporadic. The VERY clear image also says that (a) that has increased electricity prices enough to necessitate political backtracking in Germany, and (b) CO2 emissions are now higher (assuming one cares about them, which I assume you do). That is the result of two simple reasons: (i) less gas — gas is what has been reducing emissions, and (ii) reduced efficiency of the conventional dirty plants that you hate. And YOUR solution is?” Do not flip the switch when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining”. That is fine, too, the question, sir, is WHO decides on that matter?

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:29:00 +0000

I’m sorry, but if you keep posting nonsense, you’re going to be shown the door. There’s no way you can actually think coal pays for all its pollution costs. In the US alone, for one year, a Harvard Medical School study found that coal costs us $500 billion a year not included in its price. http://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/17/cost-of-coal-500-billion-year-in-u-s-harvard-study-finds/
If that cost were internalized, it would be completely out in the cold.
Yes, the grid is shifting from a baseload-based one to a more responsive and cost-effective one. There’s nothing wrong about that. That’s good. But major transitions come with challenges. I’ve seen E.ON & RWE’s statements. They’re working to protect their profits. They’re not interested in a distributed generation network. No surprise there. But the future is clear, whether you want to deny it and fight it or not.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 07:58:00 +0000

Give me a break!

In no way or fashion does the coal industry pay a dime for the 13,000+ Americans they kill each year with their pollution and the thousands upon thousands that they make ill.

You think we should simply turn a blind eye to the almost $1 billion we pay in tax dollars and health insurance premiums because of coal pollution? What kind of screwball thinking is that?

Those dollars spent on treating illnesses causes by coal pollution go into the debt column. The lost productivity due to worker and worker family illness go into the debt column.

—

Nuclear is not dispatchable. It cannot be turned on and off quickly. Some nuclear is partially load-following, it can be ramped up and down over a number of hours, but nuclear cannot be used to deal with rapid changed in supply/demand.

Hydro, gas turbines, and battery/flywheel/pump-up storage are dispatchable.

And the 24/365 95% availability of nuclear is not exactly a godsend. We built between 20 and 25 GWs of storage because nuclear has to keep running when demand is down and we need somewhere to put that unneeded supply.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 07:48:00 +0000

Screw “conventional” power. Drive those nasty coal plants out of business. That will speed up the transition to a clean grid.

When utilities realize that coal is loosing money for them they’ll start working harder to install storage.

By: archaios pteryx

archaios pteryx — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 07:45:00 +0000

There is something called “accounting”. It has generally accepted rules re costs. Coal’s pollution aspects are known and regulated and such regulations have “costs”. Other, hidden costs, suspected cost, are not “costs” and including them in income statements would be fraudulent. But you imply they should be included in decision making. I have no doubt that a 2000 MW nuke’s capital costs are higher than 2000 MW of either solar, or pv, or even coal. But 2000 nuclear MW comes with a 95%+ availability, a 40+ year lifespan, and provides dispatchable power, while solar or wind are of the order of 25% availability, about 20 yr lifespan, and do not provide dispatchable power. No electricity would be 100% cheaper than any alternative. Quasi random electricity is of limited value, that’s all. Regarding my posting “crap”, you are the moderator, you define “crap”. I am only giving you my point of view as an informed ratepayer. I regret that you think of it as “crap”.

By: archaios pteryx

archaios pteryx — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 07:26:00 +0000

solar has already cut into daytime base baseload power in Germany, including coal fired plants; you may think that is a good development; is it? What it does is to add operational inefficiencies and financial risk to such conventional plants, I suggest your German colleague translate to you E.on’s and RWE’s comments on the matter. The executive summary is “zu viel Ökostrom und fallende Preise”. I would also ask him to translate to you Altmeier’s recent tariff cutbacks to prevent consumer backlash. Or look at
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/problems-prompt-germany-to-rethink-energy-revolution-a-852815.html . Or try http://www.xe.com/news/2013/01/30/3177021.htm?c=1&t , it quotes Verbund’s CEO. Dimes against dollars that conventional power will also be asking for subsidies in the near future to avoid blackouts. “Fallende Preise” already results in disinvestment. Germany is able “export” unwanted peak power (at a loss to ratepayers) to neighbors. Others such as the US may not. I doubt that the Mexicans need unscheduled peak power when the suns shines or the wind blows in Texas. When and if power storage is economically and practically feasible in the GW range, that of course will not be a problem.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 20:13:00 +0000

You’re posting arguments that belong in a different era. Wind and solar integrate into the grid well up to quite a high penetration level. To call them a nuisance is incorrect and either 1) ignorant or 2) dishonest. If you want to try to brainwash someone, I recommend doing so on some generic website where people don’t know anything about the energy system.

Regarding “the Germans,” we’ve got one on our team, and I’ve read the commentary of and talked to many others. I do every day — I follow the sites of several Germans.

Regarding solar being primarily peak power: yes, that’s not being argued and is certainly not anything surprising. As penetration levels increase, however, it will cut into the baseload power, with wind, natural gas, and other options filling in around it.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:15:00 +0000

1. Coal is not cheaper than anything. Coal pollution causes massive public health problems and treating those illnesses costs money.

2. You cannot make a valid comparison between the price of electricity from a nuclear plants built when costs were lower and now paid off with new wind/solar generation. That makes no sense and is totally invalid.

New nuclear is more expensive than new solar and very much more expensive than new wind.

Please quit posting crap.

By: archaios pteryx

archaios pteryx — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:44:00 +0000

how about asking the Germans? Of course (base load) coal may in some cases be cheaper than (base load) nuclear. That does not change the fact that EITHER are a lot cheaper than pv or wind. The key is what does pv and what does wind substitute. The quite Green Fraunhofer Institute said it clearly: “:PVs managed to substitute gas”. I see also some coal substitution on Fraunhofer’s exhibits, they are picture perfect and all in favor of PVs as peak power especially in the summer. Wind did not appear, nor is anyone claiming any feats. Without massive and inexpensive water storage, wind is a rather random nuisance (to neighboring countries’ grid. Ignore me. Look at the German (and French) figures. They are readily available and crystal clear (and Germany is not exactly anti-Green! Why is there such fear of plain facts (especially when they are not against your “cause”)

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:24:00 +0000

This is a straw man. There are other reasons for the price of electricity being high. Please, let’s keep this discussion honest!

By: archaios pteryx

archaios pteryx — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:03:00 +0000

http://www.energy.eu/ (as official a source as they come) will show you, beyond any doubt, that Germany’s household electricity is about €0.26/kWhr vs. €0.14 in France. Industrial electricity in Germany is at €0.11/kWhr, vs. €0.078 in France. That, in simple arithmetic, says that German electricity is almost DOUBLE that of France. French base-load power sources are mostly nuclear. Germany has brown coal, black coal and nuclear. Coal may be cheaper than nukes. German successfully used solar pv for summer peak loads and has a lot of wind power but that increases its electicity costs towards consumer backlash levels

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:37:00 +0000

Hey Craig, just got your emailed and replied. Think we’re linking/crediting appropriately, but will carry on the discussion via email and make any changes desired.

Clearly, we like the great work you’re doing and are just working to spread the good word much further. If I’m not mistaken, I think we’ve got the same overall goals in mind.

By: Craig Morris

Craig Morris — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:46:00 +0000

Why is Clean Technica reprinting so many of my articles from http://www.renewablesinternational.net? Did you get our permission to do this?

By: CoBaja

CoBaja — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:53:00 +0000

Comment construire un panneau de chauffage solaire a partir de canettes d’aluminium:

http://solar.freeonplate.com/fr/panneau_solaire.htm

Thierry

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:58:00 +0000

You can look here and see Texas wholesale prices go below $0.00/MWh when the wind blows hard.

http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/20111014_real_time_spp

Some of that negative is due to the 2.2 cents/kWh PTC, but add that back in and you’ve still got some very cheap prices compared to other parts of the day.