The war against renewable energy

[Power Raid]

Nuclear plans 'should be rethought after fall in offshore windfarm costs


Offshore windfarms are to be built for around half the price of previous ones

The government is under pressure to reconsider its commitment to a new generation of nuclear power stations after the cost of offshore wind power reached a record low.
Experts said green energy had reached a tipping point in the UK after two windfarms secured a state-backed price for their output that was nearly half the level awarded last year to Britain’s first new nuclear power site in a generation, Hinkley Point C.

Vince Cable, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said the breakthrough should prompt a rethink of the government’s energy plans, which have pencilled in atomic plants at Wylffa in Wales, Sizewell in Suffolk and Bradwell in Essex.

“The spectacular drop in the cost of offshore wind is extremely encouraging and shows the need for a radical reappraisal by government of the UK’s energy provision,” he said.

Two windfarms – the Hornsea 2 project off the Yorkshire coast and the Moray offshore windfarm in Scotland – secured a guaranteed price for their power of £57.50 per megawatt hour (MWh) from the government.

This is far below the £92.50 awarded to Hinkley Nuclear Plant last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...power-offshore-windfarm-costs-fall-record-low
in Germany


Offshore Wind Farms Offer Subsidy-Free Power for First Time

German’s electricity grid regulator approved bids to build what will be the first offshore wind farms that depend entirely on market prices instead of government support and subsidy.

“Subsidy-free offshore wind!” Hostert said. “This is a moon-landing moment.”

To compare like with like the first project for hornsea is £140 and the the second £57.50 which delivers an average cost of £95/MWhr
whilst the Hinkley project first reactor is £92.50 and the the second £60 which delivers an average cost of £76/MWhr



Then consider what the price of reliability is worth?

 

[RonSon]

To compare like with like the first project for hornsea is £140 and the the second £57.50 which delivers an average cost of £95/MWhr
whilst the Hinkley project first reactor is £92.50 and the the second £60 which delivers an average cost of £76/MWhr

View attachment 608464

Then consider what the price of reliability is worth?

I guess it also depends on whether you believe in climate change or not? What is the price of doing nothing in regards to that worth?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

 

[Power Raid]

I guess it also depends on whether you believe in climate change or not? What is the price of doing nothing in regards to that worth?

Exactly

We know the wind solar model doesn’t deliver the outcome desired, evidenced by Germany’s failed model. In 2035 their emissions per MWhr will be marginally better than 1990.

That’s 45 years of effort, billions wasted and the environment is the loser.

Meanwhile Brazil, France, Sweden, Norway, parts of Canada, New Zealand, most of South America etc etc have all achieved the desired out!

So do we do nothing, follow a failed model like Germany or choose a solution that works?

 

[RonSon]

Exactly

We know the wind solar model doesn’t deliver the outcome desired, evidenced by Germany’s failed model. In 2035 their emissions per MWhr will be marginally better than 1990.

That’s 45 years of effort, billions wasted and the environment is the loser.

Meanwhile Brazil, France, Sweden, Norway, parts of Canada, New Zealand, most of South America etc etc have all achieved the desired out!

So do we do nothing, follow a failed model like Germany or choose a solution that works?

We aren't Germany though. How is Germanys solar generation going?

 

[medusala]

I see Shorten wants to spend $200m on batteries in peoples homes so they can store electricity from solar panels

You would think the morons would have learned their lesson over pinks batts.

 

[CM86]

We know the wind solar model doesn’t deliver the outcome desired, evidenced by Germany’s failed model. In 2035 their emissions per MWhr will be marginally better than 1990.

That’s 45 years of effort, billions wasted and the environment is the loser.

Does that take into account the increase in population, and demand for power?
Because if you're saying that by 2035, emissions will be lower than they were before the 90's, against the exponential increase in population and power demand... I feel like that's pretty impressive.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

 

[Gough]

View attachment 609200

Platitudes, bullshit, failed German model. Power Raid saved you answering this one mate.

 

[The Warlord]

https://www.theage.com.au/business/...tch-as-temperatures-soar-20190123-p50t1k.html

Aaaaaand ... its the dirty old coal plant falling apart that puts reliability at risk here.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Emissions would be about a third less than those from the highly polluting Hazelwood facility.

That doesnt sound like much of an improvement for "clean coal"

Hazelwood isn't being shut down because of environmental concerns. It's old - then there's the anti-coal politics and subsidy economics.

As for the proposed plant, it depends what you mean by 'clean'. Carbon dioxide emissions have been branded as carbon ie dirty, whereas it's a colourless trace gas that is essential for life on this planet. The evidence shows that the recent rise in CO2 levels have been beneficial.

 

[Power Raid]

Platitudes, bullshit, failed German model. Power Raid saved you answering this one mate.

The Philippines will be the capital of hydrogen production as it forms naturally in their deep oceans

 

[Power Raid]

Does that take into account the increase in population, and demand for power?
Because if you're saying that by 2035, emissions will be lower than they were before the 90's, against the exponential increase in population and power demand... I feel like that's pretty impressive.

yes it does take in population as the calculation is based on MWhrs not a gross consumption

So unfortunately nothing impressive other than the scale of failure. You'd think people who cared about glabal warming would start to ask questions about the failure of germany and whether Australia should follow them or nations that have actually achieved low CO2. what's your thoughts?

 

[Power Raid]

We aren't Germany though. How is Germanys solar generation going?

would you give that a D minus or a F?

 

[RonSon]

View attachment 609360

would you give that a D minus or a F?

So non existent solar generation?

Thanks for answering.



Also what does the text "Carbon intensity in the last 24hrs" mean? Is this just a snap shot of a single 24hrs of use? Nice.

 

[Power Raid]

So non existent solar generation?

Thanks for answering.



Also what does the text "Carbon intensity in the last 24hrs" mean? Is this just a snap shot of a single 24hrs of use? Nice.

The website fed from govt or regulatory links provides a 24 hour snap shot of price, the power mix generation and carbon intensity.

It provides a clear guidance as to what energy mix models work and which ones don’t.

It’s also available as an app

 

[RonSon]

The website fed from govt or regulatory links provides a 24 hour snap shot of price, the power mix generation and carbon intensity.

It provides a clear guidance as to what energy mix models work and which ones don’t.

It’s also available as an app

So on one day in the middle of the German winter when there was no solar generation and it looks like very little wind either (for a single 24hr period) is an example of renewable energy being a failure in total as you seem to be arguing?


No.

 

[Power Raid]

So on one day in the middle of the German winter when there was no solar generation and it looks like very little wind either (for a single 24hr period) is an example of renewable energy being a failure in total as you seem to be arguing?


No.

No

It does demonstrate that reneables are unreliable though


What demonstrates Germany's model is a failure is the billions spent to date and the deliverables in 2019 (CO2/MWhr) and even worse the deliverables in 2035.

Given so many believe global warming is such an issue and action must e taken fast. Why then should we tolerate Germany and South Australia dicking around? Perhaps we should be demanding states follow the success of South America, Tasmania, New Zealand, France, Sweden, Norway and parts of Canada.

Sadly though, too many don't care about the environment and simply follow environmental spin rather than seeing the reality.

 

[Power Raid]

oh and it's interesting that SA is producing F all solar and wind on a 45 degree day right now!

How can only deliver 0.5GW of wind and solar, needing to rely on 2.3GW of gas on such a hot sunny day?

 

[Taylor]

I guess it also depends on whether you believe in climate change or not? What is the price of doing nothing in regards to that worth?

But nuclear is clean energy...

It's zero emission and reliable.

 

[Taylor]

oh and it's interesting that SA is producing F all solar and wind on a 45 degree day right now!

How can only deliver 0.5GW of wind and solar, needing to rely on 2.3GW of gas on such a hot sunny day?

Solar becomes less efficient in warmer temperatures.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Thats were it will be interesting to see solar thermal perform in Port Augusta

https://aurorasolarthermal.com.au/

 

[Baltimore Jack]

But nuclear is clean energy...

It's zero emission and reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents

 

[Taylor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents

Deaths per KWh in 2012:
Coal - 100,000
Oil - 36,000
Natural gas - 4,000
Solar - 440
Wind - 150
Nuclear - 90

 

[Elroo]

So on one day in the middle of the German winter when there was no solar generation and it looks like very little wind either (for a single 24hr period) is an example of renewable energy being a failure in total as you seem to be arguing?

No.

Yep that PF for you.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts



https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/column/20180302.html

Germany is a net exporter of electricity, even to France

2 March 2018

Understanding the difference between commercial and physical flows of electricity is critical to get the picture right about electricity trade in Europe.
2017 was another record year for Germany’s commercial net exports of electricity to neighboring countries; +60.2 terawatt-hours (TWh) (Map).



The map above notably shows that Germany exported 13.7 TWh more to France than it imported.
That is because electricity prices were lower in Germany than they were in France (Chart 1).



These low prices in Germany are the result of the significant deployment of close to zero marginal costs wind and solar power in the country since the acceleration of the Energiewende (Chart 2).



So, why are there still people believing that Germany relies on France to power its energy transition?
The probable answer is because of a confusion between commercial and physical flows of electricity.

For instance, representations of physical flows of electricity – such as the one below in Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)’s latest Energy White Paper 2017 – show Germany as a major electricity importer from nuclear powerhouse France. Yet we have seen this is not the case on a commercial basis.

• Source:Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Energy White Paper 2017 (June 2017) (in Japanese).

The chart above indicates that in 2014 France exported 14,786 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity to Germany, and imported only 824 GWh from Germany. This presentation is both correct and misleading. Indeed, the information reported here is incomplete and therefore fails to properly describe electricity trade relationships between the two neighbors.

A rigorous presentation of such data requires a note explaining how the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates electricity imports & exports in its report Electricity Information 2016. The IEA considers electricity imports & exports amounts when they have crossed the national territorial boundaries of a country. It very importantly adds “If electricity is “wheeled” or transited through a country, the amount is shown as both an import and an export.”

This means that consumers in Belgium, Italy or Switzerland may be the contractual buyers of electricity from France, but that if the physical flow of electricity goes from France where electricity is generated, carried over German power lines, and then reaches another country where it will be further transported or finally consumed, consequently the IEA considers Germany as the (1) importer of electricity from France and (2) exporter of this electricity to another transporting country or to the country the demand for French nuclear power initially originated from.

Providing the transmission service does not effect the electricity balance of the country providing transmission. Power going from country ”one” to country ”two” through country ”three” does not change the power balance of country ”three.”

Thus, the imports & exports figures indicated in METI’s chart do not provide a relevant description of the electricity trade between France and Germany. And, based on these figures, it would not only be presumptuous, but simply wrong to conclude that Germany heavily relies on French nuclear power.

For the sake of exhaustivity and clarity below is the missing piece that would have enhanced METI’s presentation of international electricity trade in Europe:

• Source:Réseau de Transport d’Electricité, Annual Electricity Report 2014 (January 2015).

The figure above shows commercial flows of electricity between France and other countries in 2014. Without surprise Germany was a net exporter of electricity to France in that year because again electricity prices in Germany were lower than those in France; €32.8/MWh against €34.6/MWh for average spot prices on power exchanges (see Chart 1).