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

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.
I had 40 year old living plants that were supposed to live much longer but are dead and gone … Those are better metrics than the oblique Houston Chronicle or CBC … Seriously doubt I’ll see as cold as long in my lifetime and lessons learned are in place … I personally have NG, on a secure grid on purpose, and have many multi fuel gens (AEP did not shed power) … we don’t have all eggs in one basket … and on average it’s barely even snowed once a decade in my lifetime …
I have gens for hurricanes and currently 5-1/2 hours is the longest on them since buying my house in 1996 …
I’m happy to live in Texas and able to shop energy plans - sell back to the grid … all that …
 
Carbon taxes are a way of trying to price pollution (ie. negative externality). For example some of the biggest emitters of methane are NatGas producers. Methane* leaks via wells and the distribution network. Methane (a GHG) is a negative externality. How do you levy a cost for that externality? Carbon tax.

One of the largest examples of negative externalities is ocean dumping. Do you think the owners of that trash pay for the true cost to the environment? Historically that inability to assign ownership of a waste stream has been one of the biggest reasons why energy and/or goods were cheap. If an emitter doesn't have to be responsible for their waste that's an additional expense they don't have to incur so they don't have to raise their prices.

From a BITOG perspective we have seen that with the introduction of emissions controls systems over the last 60 years. Fuel injection, PCV/EGR, catalytic converters, SCR, DPF/GPF, etc. All of this technology has made vehicle emissions cleaner but there's a cost.

The biggest fault with the carbon tax is arriving at an accurate dollar amount. It's not possible.


*Annual NatGas emissions from Permian basin equate to about 500k cars.
I wish I still had the article to post; maybe someone has seen it and has the link. It explored “greenhouse gases” and their overall effect on “climate”. It turns out that yes, CO2 does have “an” effect, and is about 5x more than the other gases that normally make up our atmosphere. And that is where almost all of the climate alarmists & sheep stop: CARBON DIOXIDE IS BAD!

However, the study found that in the overall picture, CO2 was only responsible for about 2% of the cumulative effect, with the other gases totaling about 3%. So that’s 5% of the overall “greenhouse effect”. Guess what the missing 95% is comprised of, and what climate alarmists never mention: water vapor! Yes, water vapor in the atmosphere is responsible for 95% of “climate change”.

So let’s review, for the ecologically challenged: higher water vapor & higher CO2 are responsible for “warming”. Plants then take the higher water & CO2 and then turn them into more robust growth. Automatic sequestration! Who knew?? The study closed and said that IF: 1. You accept the overall CO2 argument of the IPCC and 2. Plot that effect by itself, it will take the planet roughly 1,500 years from today to see a 1.5*C increase even if CO2 continues to increase at worst-case scenarios. The paper was collaborated on by like 250 scientists, meteorologists, and data people.
 
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.
No, nothing personal, but people that don't have solar mostly aren't aware of the details. Yes, I am saying I pay twice what I am credited. However some are saying that solar is getting a free ride because they don't pay distribution and etc. costs. My reply was merely to say it is paid for in a different manner.
 
It’s hard to untangle solar as it differs from one power provider to another and there are many other incentives involved that are not shown on the utility bill.

The early adopters definitely got a free ride as a far as connection and distribution fees go because they had a guaranteed buy back rate which was considerable higher than the consumption rate.

Today, most solar is on net metering and credits received widely vary from one provider to the next and it can also change over time, usually the amount they pay gets lower and lower as more solar gets installed.

My feeling as to why they don’t charge specifically for distribution fees is that these fees would then have to go to grid maintenance. By not charging these specific fees, they can use them to fund more solar projects. The whole thing was set up, I believe, to eventually feed itself to some extent, but at the expense of the normal users that do not have solar panels.

That is why the electricity rates continue to climb. Of course, these rate hikes are blamed on something else and general public is led to believe that by installing solar, they will hedge against future hikes, not realizing that it is solar that is causing these hikes to begin with. Also, since the utilities have full control how much they pay for credited KWh, the expected savings may diminish greatly over time.
 
It’s hard to untangle solar as it differs from one power provider to another and there are many other incentives involved that are not shown on the utility bill.

The early adopters definitely got a free ride as a far as connection and distribution fees go because they had a guaranteed buy back rate which was considerable higher than the consumption rate.

Today, most solar is on net metering and credits received widely vary from one provider to the next and it can also change over time, usually the amount they pay gets lower and lower as more solar gets installed.

My feeling as to why they don’t charge specifically for distribution fees is that these fees would then have to go to grid maintenance. By not charging these specific fees, they can use them to fund more solar projects. The whole thing was set up, I believe, to eventually feed itself to some extent, but at the expense of the normal users that do not have solar panels.

That is why the electricity rates continue to climb. Of course, these rate hikes are blamed on something else and general public is led to believe that by installing solar, they will hedge against future hikes, not realizing that it is solar that is causing these hikes to begin with. Also, since the utilities have full control how much they pay for credited KWh, the expected savings may diminish greatly over time.
It's also hard to get a balanced perspective because a ratepayer who spends the capital on a solar system and then doesn't realize the return they were expecting may feel screwed, despite not being burdened with the other costs any other generator has to deal with, or the variability in compensation inherent with a market system.

There's a bit of a scheme underway here where people are sold into the idea of a distributed grid/microgrid concept as being lower cost and as this "organic" and "sustainable" concept where they are "sticking it" to the big evil utility company.

The reality of course that society moved away from small, distributed systems and toward larger interconnected ones with larger generators because of the advantages of scale. A large nuclear power plant, despite heavy levels of staffing, can produce electricity around the clock for as little as $0.035/kWh, which includes fuel and all other OPEX components. When gas prices were low, a gas plant was even cheaper. A microgrid that leverages intermittent sources plus storage to try and deliver the same level of power and reliability will be much higher cost, but the price of storage is rarely factored into the pitch for these systems as "the grid" is seen as providing that stability, which then contradicts the whole idea behind what is being peddled.
 
Here is a screen shot of 2021 data on electrical production in California. Two out-takes. Fully half of their power comes from Natural gas. Secondly, they import a lot of power from the Province of British Columbia in Canada. See “ Large Hydro - Northwest Imports” BC Hydro just announced they do not expect to have surplus power, including power from the yet-to-be finished site C dam by 2030. That means they’ll be cutting off California just in time for the ICE ban.

9A8E42C0-E850-4F2E-BB9B-96746AE1E957.png
 
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Charging "off-peak" vs peak. Wouldn't that make the off peak the peak and vice versa???

Wind, IMHO is the biggest rip off in the world. No wind turbine ever produced has broken even with the energy it used to create it. At end of life, it can't be recycled. It has to be buried.

This Co2 and Nox has been blown out of proportion with the green nut politicians and a 16 year old spoiled brat that said nuts agree with vs the foremost expert on weather.

"We're going to be l8ving under water, caps are melting, gl9bal warming......oh wait, we screwed up....climate change" HAS RESULTED IN NOTHING BUT HIGHER TAXES, HIGHER ENERGY COSTS, MORE CASH FOR THE ELITES....PERIOD.

FUN FACT 1: The word fossil fuel was coined by Jacob D Rothschild. Why?? To create the idea of scarcity. "Fossiel fuel" actually created by volcanic activity. That **** is created at higher rates than it can be pulled out of the ground.

FUN FACT 2: Materials to create batteries are actually finite. Lithium, cobalt, rate earth magnets, etc. It takes 500,000 lbs of earth to be dug up to create 1 battery. With finite materials they create scarcity, they make more cash.

FUN FACT 3: USA does not have said elements to be self sustainable. Where are the majority of these??? Russia, China, Kabul.

FUN FACT 4: It is estimated that those "burps" from Mt Etna has created 10-70k more pollution than humanity ever produced. We still here.

FUN FACT 5: Why do growers of anything in large greenhouses have CO2 generators???? Plants live off that ****. Carbon IS THE ONLY ELEMENT on the periodic table with a 100 percent life cycle.

IMHO, want to help the environment??? Fill planes full of weed, drop it everywhere. We can make clothes, bio fuels, bags, **** near everything out of it. Never mind the fact that it absorbs pollution like nobody's business. This is coming from a person that never touched it.

I do not think that anything we do can make one iota of difference.

I'll listen to activists, scientists, politicians caring about this when they stop flying around the world talking about it. When they stop burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel flying to Davos to listen to Schwab.

Also when these "we're going to live underwater" people like Kerry and Obama stop buying beach front properties.

Rant over.
 
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.
That's the can do attitude I like to see. I remember washing clothes at night in off peak times. Calling collect was cheaper at night too. We used to go to the basement in Wichita during hot summer days as it was cooler in summer and warmer in winter. I keep like thirty igloo ice packs in the freezer so that if the juice goes out it will stay cold.
 
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Charging "off-peak" vs peak. Wouldn't that make the off peak the peak and vice versa???

Wind, IMHO is the biggest rip off in the world. No wind turbine ever produced has broken even with the energy it used to create it. At end of life, it can't be recycled. It has to be buried.

This Co2 and Nox has been blown out of proportion with the green nut politicians and a 16 year old spoiled brat that said nuts agree with vs the foremost expert on weather.

"We're going to be l8ving under water, caps are melting, gl9bal warming......oh wait, we screwed up....climate change" HAS RESULTED IN NOTHING BUT HIGHER TAXES, HIGHER ENERGY COSTS, MORE CASH FOR THE ELITES....PERIOD.

FUN FACT 1: The word fossil fuel was coined by Jacob D Rothschild. Why?? To create the idea of scarcity. "Fossiel fuel" actually created by volcanic activity. That **** is created at higher rates than it can be pulled out of the ground.

FUN FACT 2: Materials to create batteries are actually finite. Lithium, cobalt, rate earth magnets, etc. It takes 500,000 lbs of earth to be dug up to create 1 battery. With finite materials they create scarcity, they make more cash.

FUN FACT 3: USA does not have said elements to be self sustainable. Where are the majority of these??? Russia, China, Kabul.

FUN FACT 4: It is estimated that those "burps" from Mt Etna has created 10-70k more pollution than humanity ever produced. We still here.

FUN FACT 5: Why do growers of anything in large greenhouses have CO2 generators???? Plants live off that ****. Carbon IS THE ONLY ELEMENT on the periodic table with a 100 percent life cycle.

IMHO, want to help the environment??? Fill planes full of weed, drop it everywhere. We can make clothes, bio fuels, bags, **** near everything out of it. Never mind the fact that it absorbs pollution like nobody's business. This is coming from a person that never touched it.

I do not think that anything we do can make one iota of difference.

I'll listen to activists, scientists, politicians caring about this when they stop flying around the world talking about it. When they stop burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel flying to Davos to listen to Schwab.

Also when these "we're going to live underwater" people like Kerry and Obama stop buying beach front properties.

Rant over.
Know where those turbines get disposed at? My teenage summer stomping ground outside Casper, Wyoming. Followed my dad going to oil rigs all summer long. Your right about so much.
 
Vogtle in Georgia is going to cost about $30.34 billion for two 1,117MW AP1000 reactors or 2,234MW combined (it has 2 existing units at 2302MW). The largest operating solar array in the US is Copper Mountain with a nameplate capacity of 802MW. Copper Mountain was done in phases, with Phase 3 being 250MW at a cost of $625 million.

Solar panels degrade over time though, the generally accepted “lifespan” of them is 20-30 years before they’re producing 80% of what they’re rated for. The oldest nuclear plant in the US (Nine Mile Point Unit 1) will turn 53 this year, and is licensed to run until 2029. But even with that old plants 79% lifetime capacity factor, it blows away solar’s capacity factor which struggles to hit 30%.


My utility already does this, and it costs extra per KWh. At least it’s voluntary… for now.
My question is why is building a nuclear plant so expensive? It’s prohibitive. And does anybody believe we are running out of oil? I don’t. I believe the earth continues to make oil and natural gas.
 
My question is why is building a nuclear plant so expensive? It’s prohibitive. And does anybody believe we are running out of oil? I don’t. I believe the earth continues to make oil and natural gas.
It's not inherently prohibitive, but the US regulatory environment and the complete atrophying of the industry and supply chain turned Summer and Vogtle into boondoggles. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the AP1000 is actually a fantastic design.

If you look at Barakah in the UAE, a place that has absolutely ZERO experience with nuclear, the Koreans built 4x 1,400MWe units for less than it cost to build two units at Vogtle.

Of course there's more to it than just nuclear projects, the West has lost its way on executing large infrastructure projects in general. BC's Site C dam, the Muskrat Falls hydro-electric project, the San Francisco "made in China" bridge project, Summer and Vogtle, Hinkley Point C, Flamanville. There's a reason designs that can't seem to be built quickly or affordably in the West can achieve both in China.
 
It's not inherently prohibitive, but the US regulatory environment and the complete atrophying of the industry and supply chain turned Summer and Vogtle into boondoggles. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the AP1000 is actually a fantastic design.

If you look at Barakah in the UAE, a place that has absolutely ZERO experience with nuclear, the Koreans built 4x 1,400MWe units for less than it cost to build two units at Vogtle.

Of course there's more to it than just nuclear projects, the West has lost its way on executing large infrastructure projects in general. BC's Site C dam, the Muskrat Falls hydro-electric project, the San Francisco "made in China" bridge project, Summer and Vogtle, Hinkley Point C, Flamanville. There's a reason designs that can't seem to be built quickly or affordably in the West can achieve both in China.
Thank you!
 
My question is why is building a nuclear plant so expensive? It’s prohibitive. And does anybody believe we are running out of oil? I don’t. I believe the earth continues to make oil and natural gas.
There's a caveat to "we're never running out of oil" statement that is typically omitted. Cost to extract is typically left out of the discussion.

Anyhow the issue is ICE lifecycle emissions rather than peak oil but peak oil will become a real financial hurdle at some point in the future.
 
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.
None of the living wojacks can demonstrate anywhere that's seen decreased electricity cost anywhere.
I have found a few examples of when solar and wind does make electricity cheaper. These examples are not applicable to large area grids in counties that have natural resources like hydro power, geothermal, fossil and fissile fuels. It's always going to be on micro grids in remote areas or on islands that were using diesel generators or were having to bring in coal by barge. As diesel generators are very expensive to run and coal is kind of expensive when you have to ship it 2,000 miles by sea.
 
Back
Top