The real cost of wind and solar: Why rates don't match the claims

Thanks. Apparently the constant in the series is Rick Parks

No problem. Doesn't surprise me that the clean-up might have had a few issues. If you saw my post about stuff that was happening in Japan (lack of oversight) that's what the NRC was put in place to prevent, per Bryan's thread. Having a public regulator in place to ensure safe operating practices, particularly with privately owned plants, only makes sense. Here in Canada we have the CNSC, which is exactly that. It has absolutely no industry affiliation, quite unlike the regulator in Japan, which had private plant owner/operators on its board, essentially making it compromised. This is how things like the lack of upgrades at Fukushima were allowed to take place (grandfathering) because TEPCO could argue against the costs and get away with not making the upgrades/updates under that type of regulation.
 
"Traditional energy" sources would be wind, hydro, biomass, human (slave) and animal power. The Industrial Revolution driven by the adoption of fossil fuels disrupted a lot of traditions.
 
Again , My Tv tells me it is good, I think what my Tv tells me to think and I just want to charge my Ev so I can save the world.
 
"Traditional energy" sources would be wind, hydro, biomass, human (slave) and animal power. The Industrial Revolution driven by the adoption of fossil fuels disrupted a lot of traditions.
I could see going back to Draft horses to tend the fields. We would starve.
 
Uhhh...hehe, uhhhmmm heehehhee


If everyone is charging "off peak", then what does that time period become? Hey, while I wait on your answer, I'm gonna go cut off the first 6' of our 12' long rug, and sew it on the other end so we will have a longer rug.
Well our solar panels could charge the car over night :cool:
 
Pump water uphill and run it through a turbine later.

Make freezers smarter and have them go extra cold when there's a surplus, and coast when there's high demand. Digital Equipment Computers did this in the 1970s-- running refrigeration overnight with a special deal from the PoCo.

Do the same with electric car charging. Heck, make smartphones and laptop computers charge in off-peak.

Won't solve everything, but will help a little.
I can remember long ago that we did our laundry at night as the rates were lower.
 
The question I have about CA is how much of the rate increases there are due to rate hikes for grid maintenance, to pay for wild fire damage caused by PG&E fires in years past.

Is this a correlation vs causation question and/or are their other factors involved?

This article suggests Solar is one factor and that Solar users don't pay "their fair share" for the grid maintenance charges, which are claimed to be 2/3rds to 3/4s of what CA residents are charged for their electricity.




So I'm not sure CA rates can be so tightly tied to renewables as much as the state of the grid and how much is going to grid maintenance and the like.

Everyone pays for grid maintenance based on their usage, which to me seems to be the fairest of ways to fund it. (Contrary to this article/essay.) The grid provides service based on usage. Those who demand more from the grid should pay more for its maintenance, so I don't agree with the notion that consumer renewables mean users are not paying their fair share. Not sure how it's done in CA, but here in IL, we pay a fixed fee to be hooked up and then a per kWH fee for both generation and delivery (the grid.) Can't imagine CA is different.

Edited to add: I do suspect there are some additional costs not considered for renewables. However, I'm not sure I buy the idea that it's renewables driving the faster rate increases in CA vs the other factors regarding grid maintenance. That chart comes across as more sensationalism/click-bait type numbers than useful or relevant to the point being made.
While I am far from defending PGE, there is much more to this than saying the wildfires are their fault. The green brigade has been raucous in defending the status quo of the forests, while anyone in their right mind can see that clearing deadwood is a necessity. PGE is an obvious culprit; they can simply raise rates to make up for any fines, and all the do-gooders go home happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FZ1
Nuclear and clean fossil fuels seem the best way forward at this time. These "Green "Toys" just seem to set up populations for Blackouts when Green becomes too large a percentage of power for Grids.
 
I'm not saying having solar is braindead, it was constructing the scheme for residential users who do it to not pay the same fees for using the grid as everyone else, that was braindead, because it screws everyone else and PG&E is already a gong show, they didn't need to make it worse with this nonsense.
While I don't dispute your idea of the elec utilities screwing everyone, its not all on the solar owners. On the rare days I break even usage-wise from my solar (net 0) I pay twice what I am credited. I'm in the process of installing a heat pump pool heater, which will just about break me even usage wise. So far this year I have ~$500 credit, although this month due to the heat and AC usage I will actually have a bill to pay.
 
While I don't dispute your idea of the elec utilities screwing everyone, its not all on the solar owners. On the rare days I break even usage-wise from my solar (net 0) I pay twice what I am credited. I'm in the process of installing a heat pump pool heater, which will just about break me even usage wise. So far this year I have ~$500 credit, although this month due to the heat and AC usage I will actually have a bill to pay.
My subsequent posts get into the meat and potatoes of things a bit more.
 
Saw this yesterday and thought it was an interesting read:

The crux of the issue is that claims that rely on LCOE don't integrate the costs of firming into their models; the claims are made in a vacuum, which allows the lack of fuel cost to be spun as "close to free".

This chart from the article does a good job illustrating what it looks like just adding storage (not firming capacity):

View attachment 99110

Another recent chart making its rounds on twitter illustrates how this has borne out in California:
View attachment 99112

This is obviously the result of "picking winners" and incentivizing them with tax or ratepayer dollars, the same scheme we saw here in Ontario with FIT contracts and LRP's, which had the exact same impact.

Of course the quintessential example is Energiewende, an extensive article on which can be found here:

A very interesting quote from the above:

Energiewende depends heavily on neighbouring countries for back-up power and as dumping grounds for occasional surplus. With high input from solar or wind sources the supply may exceed demand, forcing the power surplus into the adjacent grids of neighbouring countries, and obliging those countries to compensate for German intermittencies by running their own conventional plants at less than economic levels.

*snip*

In October 2016 BNetzA announced that from July 2018 the Austrian power market would be split from Germany. This “has become necessary, because power grid transmission capacity in Germany, Austria, Poland and the Czech Republic no longer has the technical capacity to transport the power traded within the current common price zone even if a successful grid expansion is assumed in the long term,” it said, adding that at present TSOs had to carry out large-scale costly redispatching to ensure system security. “The need for redispatching measures has largely come from our inability to manage this transport capacity at the Austrian border. Congestion management is in place at other borders,” BNetzA said.


The Czech Republic is one of the adjacent countries affected by Germany’s grid problems. Since mid-2012 the 2 GWe Temelin plant has operated about 100 MWe below capacity as instructed by grid operator CEPS because of grid security issues caused by power surges due to renewable power production in Germany. The Czech Republic and Poland have installed phase-shifting transformers* on their German border to block German electricity dumping; France Netherlands and Belgium already had them. The Czech Republic is also boosting its lignite-fired generation capacity by 660 MWe at Ledvice, and CEZ has allocated €3.65 billon to refurbishing 11 coal and lignite power plants.


Interesting bit bolded and underlined there.

Also this statement:
An insight on the continued reliance on lignite can be gained from RWE, which in 2012 commissioned BoA units 2&3 at Neurath in North Rhine-Westphalia near Cologne (2200 MWe), billed as “the world’s most advanced lignite-fired power station” and costing €2.6 billion. Each unit can drop from full power by 500 MWe in 15 minutes and then recover as required, “demonstrating the power station’s ability to offset the intermittency of wind and solar power.” RWE said: “BoA 2&3 is an important element of our strategy, for modern coal and gas-fired power stations are indispensable. Unlike wind and solar sources, they are highly flexible and capable of producing electricity 24/7, which makes them the trump card of energy industry transformation.” The state premier said that the plant was “an important contribution to security of supply.”

Another good read on Energiewende from the IEEE, which contrasts its "success" to what the US has done with the shift from coal to gas:

However, the "transition" makes sense once you read this from one of its promoters:
View attachment 99117


The "cheap" angle is leveraged to get people (Americans, Canadians, Aussies, Brits...etc) to get onboard and assumes they won't do much in the way of research on the impacts that have happened so far, much of which has been the result of forced adoption (Germany, Ontario, California).

There is a Romanticism angle to Germany's pursuit of VRE that doesn't make sense to people who are comfortable with their current standard of living. Others who have emulated it without understanding that context (Ontario, I'm looking at you) have experienced massive push-back from ratepayers once the costs started to mount.

Shellenberger touches on this in his Forbes article from 2019:
The earliest and most sophisticated 20th Century case for renewables came from a German who is widely considered the most influential philosopher of the 20th Century, Martin Heidegger.

In his 1954 essay, “The Question Concerning of Technology,” Heidegger condemned the view of nature as a mere resource for human consumption.

The use of “modern technology,” he wrote, “puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy which can be extracted and stored as such… Air is now set upon to yield nitrogen, the earth to yield ore, ore to yield uranium…to yield atomic energy.”

The solution, Heidegger argued, was to yoke human society and its economy to unreliable energy flows. He even condemned hydro-electric dams, for dominating the natural environment, and praised windmills because they “do not unlock energy in order to store it.”

These weren’t just aesthetic preferences. Windmills have traditionally been useful to farmers whereas large dams have allowed poor agrarian societies to industrialize.

In the US, Heidegger’s views were picked up by renewable energy advocates. Barry Commoner in 1969 argued that a transition to renewables was needed to bring modern civilization "into harmony with the ecosphere."

The goal of renewables was to turn modern industrial societies back into agrarian ones, argued Murray Bookchin in his 1962 book, Our Synthetic Environment.



None of this is to say that VRE doesn't have its place. Solar in particular, tends to, at moderate levels of penetration, match daytime peaking requirements for running air conditioning loads. Coupled with some moderate storage (PHES makes the most sense), this can reduce peaking requirements and peaking capacity is expensive. Wind can compliment massive reservoir hydro (see: Quebec) when pursued in a rational and measured manner by a large public utility, not as a subsidy harvest for fossil fuel companies who also provide the gas backup.

The issue is that neither of these technologies were allowed to organically integrate into existing systems as they could fit, rather, they were forced, typically via ideologically driven politicians, or ones that had been hoodwinked by VRE advocates passing themselves off as environmentalists. That's exactly what happened in Ontario and now we have copious amounts of wind that produces massively out of phase with demand and solar contracts up to $0.80/kWh that ratepayers are on the hook for on a 20-year term. California's duck curve is another artifact of what this looks like.

Grids were historical a system designed, by engineers, to service a need, and the most efficient way in which to do so was typically employed. The goal was resiliency, reliability and reasonable cost. Grid design now is being manipulated by folks with no understanding of the engineering and instead are driven by ideology, dictating capacity quotas for specific technologies with no reason applied to why, or what will be required to make it work; to retain the reliability and resiliency that are being undermined by technologies that are neither. This has been a challenge for operators and has led to things like blackouts, brownouts, load shedding (cutting off large industrial consumers) and capacity alerts like have been seen in California during hot spells. Resiliency and reliability suffer as the operators try and maintain stability, because black starts are not fun.

Hopefully, the situation in Europe has adequately laid bare the vulnerability to foreign fuel supply (Russian gas) and now that the emperor has no clothes, sane policy dictated by what works where with an overarching goal of emissions reduction through reason, research and expertise can be brought to the fore.
Excellent post. It's clear to me there is an agenda and we aren't being told the whole picture.
 
While I am far from defending PGE, there is much more to this than saying the wildfires are their fault. The green brigade has been raucous in defending the status quo of the forests, while anyone in their right mind can see that clearing deadwood is a necessity. PGE is an obvious culprit; they can simply raise rates to make up for any fines, and all the do-gooders go home happy.
Perhaps, yet they are the ones held responsible, so effectively the courts has said the fires are their responsibility.
 
Energiewende
now germany can shove the nordstream pipe down their throats.
because burning gas to make electric, makes so much co2 sense..:ROFLMAO:
dumb merkel puppet said nordstream will be not misused for geopolitical fights. but years later we figured out the bitter truth..

FbpTV3FXkAEkydr
Fbqz4B5XgAMxWuG

 
While I don't dispute your idea of the elec utilities screwing everyone, its not all on the solar owners. On the rare days I break even usage-wise from my solar (net 0) I pay twice what I am credited. I'm in the process of installing a heat pump pool heater, which will just about break me even usage wise. So far this year I have ~$500 credit, although this month due to the heat and AC usage I will actually have a bill to pay.
Dont mis understand or take personally my post. I am just trying to understand what you are saying.
If I am understanding correctly you are saying you pay double the rate per kWh for electric than what the electric utility pays you per kWh when you have a surplus from your solar panels sold back to them?

If so, as a non solar panel owner that sounds like other rate payers might be subsidizing you having solar panels.
Im not sure of the cost your utility pays for electricity but I think it might be less than what the utility is forced to pay you because of regulations. More or less them paying you 1/2 of what they charge you might not cover all the costs involved for the electric grid, distribution ect.
What if the cost to them is only (just pulling numbers out of a hat) 1/3 of what they charge you?

Some solar homeowners (not saying you) do not take this into account.

Maybe someone like Overkill knows the actual cost to generate in an area like yours, then you have to build in distribution and all the systems required for it including staffing, materials maintenance ect ect... and lets not forget about profit.

Im not saying you, but some solar owners think an electric meter going backwards means they get full retail price of the electric that they are selling back to the utility which would mean your neighbors are subsidizing your system.
 
Russia's been doing winter nat gas curtailment to certain nations for years. If they do that to Ukraine this winter it will not be new or unprecedented behavior to Europe.
 
The problem is most Tv watchers only think what their Tv tells them to think. Factual or not. I detest the Tv. We pretty much have a crime gang running the nation. Pay attention to what has been done to us by them.
 
Thanks. Apparently the constant in the series is Rick Parks

I missed this thread somehow.

For some context - Exelon was unable to sell power from the remaining active reactor at auction. They then attempted to hold the legislature hostage for additional subsidies to keep the jobs in place. (The article is correct, that while fracking is big in PA, the legislature provides subsidies to the nuclear industry).

A standoff ensued, the legislature blinked, so Exelon defueled the plant, transferred ownership to a another entity for final decomissioning (or has filed to anyway), and wants to deactivate the safety plan, so the site is treated like a low level waste site with some physical security presence.
 
I missed this thread somehow.

For some context - Exelon was unable to sell power from the remaining active reactor at auction. They then attempted to hold the legislature hostage for additional subsidies to keep the jobs in place. (The article is correct, that while fracking is big in PA, the legislature provides subsidies to the nuclear industry).

A standoff ensued, the legislature blinked, so Exelon defueled the plant, transferred ownership to a another entity for final decomissioning (or has filed to anyway), and wants to deactivate the safety plan, so the site is treated like a low level waste site with some physical security presence.
Yeah, it's hard to sell low emissions baseload into a market that's distorted by REC's that you somehow aren't eligible for, despite having lower lifecycle emissions than the sources that are, and you can't compete with cheap gas. Of course now gas is no longer cheap, but it was at the time.

This is why electricity markets are such a farce, at least in terms of realizing the current claimed goals. They are manipulated to realize penetration targets, serving favour to ideology, don't encourage resiliency (see: Texas) and then when things get tight, prices go to the moon and then governments intervene imposing caps and distorting the market further.

Some of the best run and lowest cost (for consumers) grids on the planet are vertically integrated and publicly owned. Hydo-Quebec immediately comes to mind. Electricity in France is an interesting one, as even though they participate in the European market, EDF services consumers directly, so these transactions are not involved in the market, which is only used to buy extra capacity and sell surplus. This is somewhat similar to Ontario where we have a "market" but nothing really participates in it, because it's all either at cost (OPG) or on a long-term contract. Lots of extra complexity and cost were added here with the breakup of Ontario Hydro, the creation of a market and its regulators, only to regulate and contract all supply to ensure availability, so it is really only used for import/export transactions.
 
Back
Top