Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Simple economics is now driving the unstoppable rise of renewables, according to advocates – or would be, except for a mystery political obstacle.
The Myth About Coal Being Cheaper And More Reliable Than Renewables
Renewable energy is now the cheapest form of new power.
04/10/2017 11:51 PM AEDT
Anthony Sharwood
Nope, nope and nope again. There’s yet more proof this Friday that coal is neither cheaper nor more reliable than renewables as an energy source, and that coal is only going to get more expensive in the future.
We were given excellent evidence of this in April, when the CSIRO and Energy Networks Australia report told us that renewables could save households $414 a year by 2050.
Further proof arrived in June when the Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market (aka the Finkel Report) told us that ramping up renewables would lead to lower power prices.
And now the Climate Council has weighed in, showing that we really can have our energy cake and eat it too — if by energy cake you mean cleaner, cheaper power, and by eating it, you mean reliability of supply.
The Council’s new report is entitled ‘Powering a 21st Century Economy: Secure, Clean, Affordable Electricity’ and you can find it here.
…
So if technology’s not holding us back, and cost is not the issue, what on earth is stopping us from transitioning as quickly as possible to cleaner, more affordable renewables?
One word: Politics.
“Politics is the only factor standing in the way of Australia’s transition to a modern electricity network, powered by renewable energy and storage technology,” Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said.
…
What is the “politics” which seems to be such an impediment to a cheaper renewable future? One clue might be the conclusion of the report referenced by The Huffington Post. The report prepared by the Climate Council, the body led by our old friend Chief Councillor Tim Flannery;
… Importantly, while we may use some existing gas plants during this transition, we do not need new gas or coal plants built. Persisting with existing coal plants beyond their technical design lives will lead to unreliable power and higher electricity prices and continued high levels of pollution from Australia’s electricity sector.
This transition requires shifting away from obsolete “baseload” concepts and inflexible old coal power generators to a modern, flexible, 21st Century grid powered by a diverse mix of renewable energy and storage technologies. …
Read more: Climate Council Report Available Here
Is the political obstacle an outmoded adherence to the concept of baseload power? Maybe. But I’m not convinced we’ve fully explored this “politics” obstacle, so I decided to delve deeper;
Politics preventing Australia’s switch to 21st Century energy
BY CLIMATE COUNCIL
04.10.2017
Politics is the only factor standing in the way of Australia’s transition to a modern electricity network, powered by renewable energy and storage technology, according to a new report released by the Climate Council today.
…
Climate Councillor and energy sector expert Andrew Stock also pointed to states and territories across the nation pushing ahead with the transition to renewables and storage technology, in a bid to achieve secure and reliable power, while also tackling climate change.
“South Australia is a global leader and is investing in solar PV, solar thermal, pumped hydro storage, and the world’s largest lithium ion battery. Others like the ACT, followed by Victoria and Queensland, are now rolling out large-scale renewables such as wind and solar,” he said.
“There’s no disputing it – fossil fuel technology is obsolete, expensive and unreliable. In fact, Within 10 years, over two thirds of our coal plants will be over 50 years old. It’s time to look to the future with an energy system fit for the 21st Century.”
…
Read more: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/politics-preventing-australia-s-switch-to-21st-century-energy
Do Greens think the political obstacle is a failure by governments to invest in renewables? But if renewables are cheaper, why is government investment required? Why aren’t private investors rushing to fund cheap renewables even without government help, to make a huge profit driving their obsolete fossil fuel rivals out of business?
If cheaper renewables are skyrocketing even without government help, why is politics still seen as such an obstacle?
I don’t want to jump to conclusions. Maybe I have misunderstood something. I’m genuinely interested in understanding what political obstacles greens think are preventing the realisation of a low cost energy future powered by renewables.
Because we all want cheaper power, right?
They are in India, says their Energy Minister
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/04/18/solar-is-now-cheaper-than-coal-says-india-energy-minister/
The why is India going to Treble its CO2 emissions between now and 2030 – as its INDC shows (Paris Climate Agreement) . If wind energy is so cheap then they have no need to build all of their planned coal fired power stations and the free market will build wind farms instead and without any need for subsidy.
The Truth is wind is way more expensive than coal or gas, as well as being wholly unreliable and those are the precise reasons why India is going to Treble its CO2 emissions.
India needs coal and gas to keep its economy growing and to lift people out of poverty – not as Australia is finding where the economy is contracting with consumer spending falling because of energy-cost poverty and major industrials closing down with manufacturing and jobs being exported because of the unaffordable price of ‘renewable’ energy.
I am not sure it is any more.
It has increased its plans beyond what it committed to at Paris.
It plans 175 GW of wind and solar capacity by 2022, aimed at providing electricity to those off grid… solar is cheaper than cola and new coal plant has been put on hold. Wind bids in recent auction at record low…
Griff says…. “It plans 175 GW of wind and solar capacity by 2022, aimed at providing electricity to those off grid.”
Key words for Griff to contemplate.
OFF GRID.
BTW Griff, those millions of off grid poor in India will have a better life with intermittent solar or wind, but a far better life with a grid and steady base load power at the least cost.
I’m sure it is, and that is good for India. I’m waiting for my energy seller to do the transition so they can do more pro fit $$$. Fat chance.
Yes, compared to the diesel generator power prices that industry was having to deal with there. Those same diesel price comparisons were the basis of a lot of solar producer business plans for selling solar panels into that market. That still leaves major grid issues and state run power companies in the mix of issues. Solar turned out to the the end around for that case. Not so for modern countries.
Griff, that really is highly biased. All big energy projects have both CAPEX and OPEX (capital expense and operational expense).
A natural gas plant running 24 hours a day is currently extremely cheap per KWh in total (CAPEX + OPEX).
Solar is also very cheap per KWh (CAPEX + OPEX). In fact, close to the equator, it is said to be cheaper than power from a natural gas plant.
So in isolation one can state that a KWh from a solar plant costs less than a KWh from a natural gas plant.
But the reality is that a solar plant can’t be depended on 24hrs a day so you have to also have the natural gas plant available as “emergency reserve”.
So now the cost of solar is:
OPEX (solar) + CAPEX (solar) + CAPEX (natural gas)
And when you do the accounting that way, solar is no longer cheaper than solar from the hard numbers I’ve seen to date.
Almost all of the cost of solar is CAPEX. About 75% of the cost of a CC natural gas plant is OPEX (mostly fuel).
Most of the OPEX only gets spent as it’s needed to generate electricity… And the OPEX can be written off in the same year it is spent. CAPEX generally has to be recovered through depreciation of the asset.
“About 75% of the cost of a CC natural gas plant is OPEX (mostly fuel).”
That’s obviously based on some duty cycle. If I assume that’s for a 100% duty cycle, it will change drastically if the natural gas plant only has to run a few hours a day. Or even worse, a few hours a week.
From your link
quote Levels of climate finance support are an open sore between rich and poor countries, with progress towards a 2009 pledge to deliver $100 billion a year by 2020 still uncertain. unquote
Hehe ohhhh yeah. If you give us dat money we will agree with you.
Once again, Griff demonstrates that if a politician says something. It must be true, even if it’s physically impossible.
Onshore wind power is in the UK
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/wind-power-now-the-cheapest-source-of-electricity-but-the-government-continues-to-resist-onshore-a6685326.html
Then why does wind require subsidy ? Simple answer is that the figures used are designed to mislead.
The word is “lie”.
Then why is Wind Europe, the european wind industry trade body, lobbying for continued subsidies to be applied to out-of-life and out-of-subsidy wind turbines if wind is so cheap and price-competitive compared to coal or gas?
https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/policy/position-papers/WindEurope-Repowering-and-Lifetime-Extension.pdf
Glad to see you campaigning so hard for removal of wind and solar subsidies and feed-in mandates
You could also point us to where wind and solar are on UK energy usage
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/427753/uk-primary-energy-use.png
Anyone got a magnifying glass
Fossil fuels, Nuclear still around 90%.. Pollution creating biomass most of the rest.
Heck they even had to lump wind in with hydro so you could see it. !
That’s all energy, isn’t it?
show us the chart for electricity only ….
So griff doesn’t use any other energy. of course not. 😉
Wind.. barely discernible amount of total energy use.
A POINTLESS waste of money..
Can you see solar on the chart, griff?
If they were cheaper it would be shown somewhere. Wrote this back in 2014 on Dr. Curry’s site.
Myth 1 – Utilities are too conservative and unwilling to investigate and utilize new and promising technologies. In the US alone there are hundreds of utilities operating on very different business models including Investor Owned Utilities, Cooperatives, Municipals, Energy Marketers, State and Federal entities. No group of related utilities provides even 5% of the US market. Furthermore, FERC Order 1000 allows non-utility power suppliers to compete as well. Additionally the development of alternative resources is not just limited to the US. The idea that the collective reluctance of a diverse mix of utility engineers, or worse a conspiracy among them, is slowing down the implementation of alternative technology does not make sense. Those who argue that we must trust climate scientists on climate issues should also consider trusting the experts when it comes to power supply.
Smart meters = dictatorship
Does the culture in Australia allow for outright lies without responsibility? Won’t these people be reminded of their lies in the future? They are lies, right? … they can’t be that stupid?
I mean, I had seen this in some relocated middle eastern (Iran) people I had known … If they couldn’t be proven to be lying right there and then (at the time of the lie), then it was O.K. to lie. They considered it to be very rude, or uncouth, to bring it up latter and call them on it at another time.
I think you have absolutely identified the way that Australian politicians operate. they lie whoever their mouth is moving, they have no idea what they are talking about and they would never take advice from someone (like an engineer) that might actually know what they are doing if it interferes with their current narrative. I am being entirely non-partisan here and referring to all Australian politicians regardless of political affiliation.
We have strong laws administered by the Australian competition and consumer Commission that prevents misleading and deceptive practices in business with heavy fines and jail terms although I don’t recall it ever being used in relation to solar and wing generators which would be a very good place to start requiring proof in advertising it seems to me.
As for responsibility for politicians, it has become clear to many Australians that the aim of most politicians in this country is to be around long enough to collect their parliamentary pension , which is much more generous than the pension bestowed upon the presents. They also have access to that pension after the three elections of the equivalent thereof in our Senate while the mugs that pay for it have to wait until at least 67 years of age.
If there was any genuine sincerity about preventing political lying, all they would need to do would be to pass legislation applying deceptive and misleading conduct rules to them. The flying pigs are fuelling as i write this.
OOPs in para 2 I meant wind not wing. Para 3 peasants not presents.
“they lie whenever their mouth is moving”
Pretty sure that’s a characteristic of politicians everywhere, not just in Oz.
The concept of baseload power is obsolete?
Hahahahahaha!!!
That’s a good one!
I sometimes wanted to give full independence to Democrat places so they’d really have to ratition electricity to keep hospitals running through winter.
To a liberal, having a few old people die because the hospitals can’t keep the power on is a good thing.
How else are they going to keep health care affordable?
Wow, that’s amazing. If you have government favoring one type of energy through a smorgasbord of tax incentives, rebates, and mandates, and punish the other forms (especially coal) to varying degrees, that form of energy suddenly, almost like magic becomes the cheapest.
Wonders will never cease.
So with Trump’s new initiative coal suddenly becomes flavour of the month???
Griff
You keep spewing this crap, prey tell what money is Trump planning to send to the coal industry?
Bob, you’re months behind the times. The latest from the Trump Energy department is they want to pay power plants that have a 90-day supply of fuel on hand a premium fee. The only plants that have that are nuclear and coal.
Paying a bit extra for guaranteed continuity of supply. Sensible
Wind and solar NEED NOT APPLY. They need to be dumped, as the intermittent, unreliable farce that they are.
Greg
Site it, and are they doing or is it something they have considered? That vs trillions is subsidies for green energy and regulations designed to destroy the coal industry.
Bob, It’s a formal proposal, but not yet law/regulation. There’s a short comment period before it will be finalized and put into effect:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/09/f37/Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Rulemaking%20.pdf
I’m not saying that agree or disagree with it. I’m saying you’re wrong on the facts. Once the facts are agreed on, the discussion can move on to their reasonableness.
Me; I think its a reasonable proposal.
Paying a premium for security of supply.. wow.
Pretty good idea, actually
This should be extended to all electricity sources that can guarantee to provide 24/7, 90 days in advance.
Wouldn’t you agree, griff. ! 🙂
This money, Bob
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/oct/09/trumps-plan-to-bail-out-failing-fossil-fuels-with-taxpayer-subsidies-is-perverse
Gruniad.. roflmao.
No wonder your yapping is so opposite to reality.
Paying a premium for security of supply.. wow.
Pretty good idea, actually
This should be extended to all electricity sources that can guarantee to provide 24/7, 90 days in advance.
Wouldn’t you agree, griff. ! 🙂
As presented it is a daft idea Andy.
It does not increase grid security, nor was there any threat to grid security in the first place.
Its a ridiculous excuse for subsidy to pay out on political promises (which can’t be delivered)
Griff
I agree, there should be no subsidising of the coal industry, so I would be against this proposal for the same reason i am against the trillions already wasted on renewables.
I have no issue with renewables if they can they can stand on their own and I have no issue with fossil fuels because they work and are effective. There is no C in AGW so let the best solution prevail, or the best mix of solutions, in the open market.
Bob boder on October 11, 2017 at 11:12 am
Griff
You keep spewing this crap, prey tell what money is Trump planning to send to the coal industry?”
——‘
Bob is 100 percent correct in that net funds are what matter. As long as the tax break is less then what coal pays, it is a reduction in how much is taken.
Tesla is a rich man’s joke at the middle class man’s expense. A large subsidy to the rich man to start, who then drives for free on a road the middle class man pays for with gasoline tax, and then the rich man refuel his Tesla for free at a charging station paid for by the middle class shill again.
Obama’s words do apply to the EV owner; ” you didn’t build that!”
I’m surprised that Finkel didn’t buttress its claim with any numbers. It could have easily done so. All it needed to do was claim that coal kills millions and that each life is worth millions. Coal therefore costs trillions more that reported, and renewables are clearly more cost effective. That the greenies have gotten too lazy to even make such an easy argument shows that they are slipping. More good news!
Griff needs a few lessons in economics.
This is the kind of rubbish he is referencing to support his dreams :
“”Over the same period, coal-fired power stations have seen their costs rocket from nearly $98 mWh to $115 and gas from $100 to $114, after the EU agreed new rules that will greatly increase the amount they must pay for their carbon emissions. Offshore wind costs $175 mWh, according to the research, by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.”” (The Independent)
If you artificially force up the price of coal and gas then subsidise wind and solar it is not a level playing field. Remove the carbon taxes and the subsidies on so called renewables then do the sums properly. There is no need for carbon taxes as there is no such thing as CAGW caused by carbon emissions. What we do need to do is stop pouring millions of tons of polluting concrete into the Countryside.
Such subsidy shifts are the basis of Catalonian independence moves today. Theirs is about total tax subsidy of the rest of Spain though, not just energy.
“The countries with the most renewables (Germany, Denmark) have the most expensive electricity” – I live in Denmark. The listed price (30.42 cents/kWh) (August 2017) is about right, but that price includes tax (appr. 16 cents/kWh) and ‘green energy subsidy’ (appr. 3 cents/kWh), so prices are not directly comparable!
It’s still part of the price. I pay about 11¢/kWh in Dallas, including all taxes and fees. Gasoline costs about $8/gal in Norway because they have about $6/gal worth of taxes included.
It still costs $8/gal. The fact that 3/4 of the price is composed of taxes doesn’t make it cheaper.
This isn’t a random pattern:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/03/obama-may-finally-succeed/
+1
Thanks David
David Middleton: Gee, that looks just like what I pay in Plano!
IIRC about 8¢/kWh goes to Reliant, 2¢/kWh goes to Oncor and about 1¢/kWh goes to taxes. Of course it varies a little because some of the charges are fixed.
OMG look at Australia on that graph! Assuming the slope holds for all countries, when Australia has the same watts/capita as Germany, it will have the most expensive electricity in the world. Well, the Australian greens wanted Australia to set an example for the world. I guess it will. No wonder you guys in Oz are upset,
Part of Australia already has the most expensive electricity in the world…
Although the causes of Australia’s high electricity prices are a bit more complicated than Germany’s or Denmark’s.
“David Middleton
Although the causes of Australia’s high electricity prices are a bit more complicated than Germany’s or Denmark’s.”
There is nothing complicated about it at all. Politicians privatised publically owned assets. The private companies didn’t invest in maintaining those assets. Politicians then set renewable energy targets (RETs). Private owners of power generating assets can’t sell their power to consumers because of RETs. Private owners of power generating assets CLOSE DOWN because it is uneconomical to keep operating. This is why the Australian Govn’t is trying to force AGL to keep it’s ageing Liddell plant operating.
Simply put; Power prices increase when supply is short.
I meant it’s more complicated than the per capita W of solar & wind, as depicted by Willis’ graph.
Elon Musk’s PowerWall had flopped soon after it was launched and field tested in Australia, a sunny land if ever there was one.. It says it all about storage of energy. Musk produced a 10kW unit specifically designed to store solar/wind energy and a 6.4kW unit designed more to shift the load of available (green intermittent)power, such as from a solar panel, to times when the production of such energy is lower. The 10kW PowerWall has been discontinued while the 6.4 kW one, which is just a glorified uninterruptible power supply has been kept in production.
One day this scammer will meet his nemesis: the Truth.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tesla-powerwall-flop-why-cant-geniuses-figure-out-dumbos-santhanam
https://gizmodo.com/tesla-is-discontinuing-its-10-kilowatt-powerwall-1767250649
Renewable energy (particularly solar) which might be competitive in Australia would not be competitive elsewhere.
Australia has a land area of about 7.40 million km2 with a population of 24.68 million, or an average population density of 3.3 people per km2. Most of Australia’s land area is between 15 and 35 degrees south latitude, and central and northern Australia is mostly desert, so there is a lot of sunshine per person in Australia.
The United States has a land area of about 9.37 million km2, most of which is between 30 and 48 degrees north latitude (lower average sun angle than in Australia), and most of the United States (except for the southwest deserts) has a much cloudier climate than Australia. The US population is about 325.4 million, with an average population density of 34.7 people per km2. With over 10 times the population density and less sunshine, solar power is much more expensive in the United States than in Australia.
The situation for solar power is even worse in Europe. The European Union has a land area of 4.46 million km2, most of which is between 35 and 55 degrees north latitude (lower sun angle than either the USA or Australia), with a cloudy climate across most of Europe except the extreme south, and the average population density is about 114 people per km2. Europe receives less sunshine than the United States and has more than triple the population density, so why are the Europeans even bothering with solar power?
Has someone estimated how much land or water space will be needed for example, for Germany to reach their solar and wind renewable goals?
To convert 100% to renewables for all energy uses, the Drang nach Osten must resume for the needed Lebensraum. Or Energiesraum.
Yes! This estimate was done by ifo
But this presentation is only available in German.
Is it possible that the aborigines would object to having most of the interior paved with solar cells?
How big of a footprint will be needed for enough batteries to last a couple of cloudy days?
There are plenty of roofs and car parks in Australia I believe. solar canopies over said car parks would also provide shade.
and plenty of room to tuck in some batteries in 3 or 4 standard containers.
None of that changes the grid and distribution costs in Australia which is the single largest cost for power. Second is always the utility profit margin to keep the repair and replace the dam thing. We are 32 time the size of the UK something good old Griff fails to grasp.
I do grasp it LdB…
As do the Australian power companies looking to avoid infrastructure costs/grid costs by providing power locally, rather than shipping it long distance.
A sort of example here:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/wa-looks-to-solar-storage-micro-grids-to-replace-poles-and-wires-after-bushfires-93392/
Reply to Griff:
And yet, in spite of what you think, Elon Musk’s PowerWall project failed dismally when prototyped and tested under the Aussie sun.
The original post calculates that most of Australia would have to be covered. And Griffie comes back with roofs and car ports.
Is Griff actually as dumb as his posts make him sound?
“Griff October 12, 2017 at 1:33 am
There are plenty of roofs and car parks in Australia I believe.”
What you believe and what is actual fact Griff are two distinct realities. One exists in your mind and the other exists in actual reality.
and I’m Honest John Conner, here to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Call within the next 10 minutes and I’ll throw the Golden Gate in free! (Just pay separate processing…)
Kelowna BC Canada – Fortis our energy provider is planning to install a 240kWh solar farm and have customers rent virtual power at more than $0.24/kWh to support solar, which is 2.5x our current rate. Fortis says that if there are not enough people subscribing, they will pass the cost on to all customers. We have smart meters, which according to mailed literature was mandated by the UN. Sounds like a good way to make $$ even if no one wants solar.
https://okanaganedge.net/2017/10/03/solar-station-soon/
I agree fully that if people want green power, they should voluntarily sign up for it and pay the costs. Technically, a lot of people and a lot companies want to virtue signal their greenness and are willing to pay for it. The earlier green projects were financed this way and they were oversubscribed in many cases.
This is the solution but “somebody” is stopping this from happening now.
They’re literally banking on virtue signalling…
Mandated by the UN? Doubt it.
Mandated is the wrong word. Smart meters are an integral component of UN Agenda 21. If your local, state or national government is committed to the sustainability goals of Agenda 21, you are probably either required or strongly “encouraged” to accept a smart meter.
Since reducing consumption is more sustainable than adding reliable capacity, smart meters are being imposed in most electricity markets in the US… even in Texas.
https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/10/30/opt-out-of-a-smart-meter-in-texas-it-will-cost-you/
surely you don’t think that agenda is some sort of sinister imposition?
It is just boilerplate mission statement…
To a socialist, it’s just boiler plate.
I think the biggest effort is to replace “base power” with “emergency reserve” in the people’s thinking.
Thus I suspect in Australia, the big political issue is:
– getting the utilities and population to drop the concept of base power and replace it with emergency reserve
– a willingness to provide enough natural gas to the power plants. They will be using their emergency reserve a lot, so they need a lot of natural gas.
– getting the utilities to build enough additional natural gas power plants to act as the emergency reserve for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
– getting the people to pay the amortization cost on the natural gas plants, even though they are only meant for emergencies
Of course, that’s a $1B/GW of capacity to act as the emergency reserve, but emergencies happen even in Australia. It’s a shame the people will have to pay the amortization cost for them, but its just the way it is in the new renewable energy era.
Here’s my fave equivalence… Thinking about ‘baseload power’ is like thinking of ‘baseload air’. I do not want to do without either.
About the only instance in which I can imagine renewable solar/wind as “reliable” is the case where you have a desert handy and lots of batteries and can depend upon bright sunshine every day. But don’t deserts experience sandstorms and are there never any significant clouds? EXpecting batteries to have the capcity to hold days or even week’s worth of power is not in the cards. As I recall, the batteries that Australia is getting only have the capacity to provide power for a short period of time. And how are the batteries recharged at the same time the renewables provide
power ? If fossil fuel is used, then what’s the point of having batteries in the first place?
The US’s desert southwest has a monsoon season every year with significant cloud cover for weeks at a time.
Destroy Western Civilization by destroying central power production. The people will go along with it if you give them a good story.
Pumped hydro makes an excellent battery.
http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm
< 16 seconds response time and 288 MW Generation potential at full load.
We should build more.
Strange that hydro is not a renewable, it sure rains quite often here in the UK.
Not enough suitable hydro sites. An interesting analysis by a professor who tried to run the numbers. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
The page on UK hydro: http://www.withouthotair.com/c8/page_55.shtml
Even if there were more suitable sites, Green Meanies wouldn’t let you build dams.
The same in Germany: Using 2010 numbers, it would take 3270 pumped hydro storage plants to compensate solar and wind mismatch.
There are only 30 suitable sites in Germany.
The queen thinks otherwise for hydro itself.
Pumped hydro does require mountains true and that can be a hard sell.
“MacKay also considers tidal power and hydropower, and assumes that they will be used to the fullest. Being interested in using erratic wind power on a big scale he sees that massive wind needs massive backup. He makes estimates on the two most eco-friendly backup systems: battery storage in millions of electric vehicles plugged into the grid, and pumping huge quantities of water uphill, so as to release it via hydropower turbines when needed during windless days or demand spikes.”
Richard you’ve introduced an interesting point. “millions of electric vehicles “. They would have to get their energy off the grid instead of it being supplied as it is now, at the friendly local petrol station. The whole idea of everyone switching to electric vehicle’s needs to be thought through. It would require a major increase in electricity generating capacity.
Also, compare the cost of a petrol tank, which lasts for the life of a vehicle with the cost of a battery. Also compare the amount of energy it can store to the amount that can be stored in a battery.
Perhaps putting your car on a sort of treadmill so you could use your petrol powered car to generate electricity might be more practical! (Of course one could just buy a diesel generator. You know, like they do in third-world countries, a direction in which we seem to be going …)
Using the batteries in electric cars will never fly.
When someone plugs their car in at night, they want to have more power in the battery in the morning, not less.
But, but, but …. experts say we can rely on those people to keep their car plugged in as we drain them! Don’t they care about the environment?
Car batteries only have to be full when you need to use them.
The concept is to use them once they are fully charged, earlier in the evening say, but before you want to use them.
There is over 1 GW of small hydro capacity potential which would have no environmental impact on UK rivers and streams. Lack of grid connection is holding this back for now in some areas.
I view it as renewable. It does have certain terrain requirements,
There is a shortage of suitable mountain and mountain sites for sure.
Some countries don’t even have mountains to start with.
Perhaps we should use ones in very uninhabited areas only.
We’ll be looking for pumped tidal power sites soon!
The further you have to transmit electricity, the more power you lose. Add transmission losses, both ways, to the already lossy pumping/discharging system.
http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm has been running since 1984. It is considered to be an important part of the UK grid.
There is a small pumped storage unit under construction in Snowdonia and a plans for a large one in Scotland which may come to pass (plus an extension to an existing one)
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/100m-llanberis-pump-scheme-approved-12713612
https://networks.online/gphsn/news/1000530/revenue-uncertainty-holding-pumped-hydro
http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2016/02/2-year-study-to-expand-scotland-s-440-mw-cruachan-pumped-storage-facility-completed.html
Those actually make sense it’s just whether they interfere with the eco systems.
Queensland is exploring pumped options from a large disused open cast mine, I believe…
Dusseldorf is converting its last coal mine to pumped storage on closure this year.
Hey guys, stop bitchin’
If only a tenth of this claims were true, it would be justified to cut down all subsidies, regulations, grants etc. of the CAGW pork barreling to zero right now!.
Moreover, there can be put an additional tax on renewables to pay back all the money already spend. Since renewable are so great they even beat perpetual motion every greeny is making so much money hand over fist that they can fix the federal budget and the health system and all retirement payments and still be filthy rich rich rich $$$$$ …
Isn’t that great news? And “World Peace” too.
Oops, I forgot the tags
(just in case, someone wonders)
My electricity bill went up by more than a third due to the cost of renewables. It is still going up. The sooner we get free energy, the better.
Well then. according to the article, you are being cheated by your power provider. Your electricity bill should be going down and not up. You should file letters of protest.
Follow the money. Stock will spin anything. If electricity was tendered on the basis of supplying it,say, at 100 MW, 24 hrs a day,365 days a year for 10 years then renewables and storage would not even bid. Stock knows this – he is an engineer, a very smart one.
So its cloudy and the wind isn’t blowing enough and the system keeps sending power to hospitals but turns your power off. Who pays for the spoiled food and helps you clean your dirty laundry for work the next day? Wait we wont work because there will be no power for unimportant things like making a living!
How are you going to get to work if you can’t recharge your electric car overnight?
charge the car at work.
What Griff does not get is that for all to charge their cars at work requires doubling the base load.
Cars on fossil fuels use a total energy equivalent almost as high as total non transport present installed energy capacity
How? Run an extension cord from your office to the parking garage?
Most parking garages have few, if any, EV charging stations. The parking garage for my office has over 3,000 parking spaces and 1 EV charging station in the visitor section.
It’s not quite that bad. If every passenger vehicle in the US was a PEV, it would “only” increase electricity consumption by 27%. Of course, we’d need to double our baseload capacity if we met the 27% demand increase with wind, solar and batteries.
Well I don’t see why employers in the UK won’t install charging stations for employees driving EVs.
after all company fleets are increasingly going electric in the UK.
and the UK govt, I find, is already promoting EV charge points at work:
https://www.chargepointservices.co.uk/businesses/workplace-charging-scheme/
Lots of UK employees commute by rail, parking at stations a few miles from home. I have no doubt charging options will appear there too. And then I seem to spend an hour parked at the supermarket some Saturdays…
And there is a high probability of some sort of smart charging arrangement to mange the overnight demand.
No David, my figures for the UK are correct.
Read page 8
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/633503/ECUK_2017.pdf
Griffie, just last week you were telling us how we didn’t need to worry about increasing the capacity of the electric grid because the cars would be charged over night.
Can’t you keep your story straight?
Like most leftists, Griffie has no trouble demanding that other people pay billions just to make his utopia a reality.
“Well I don’t see why employers in the UK won’t install charging stations for employees driving EVs.”
There’s this little thing called money. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?
Soooo, baseload is an outdated concept? Rolling blackouts are the new thing? No thanks.
And please don’t look behind the curtain to see the correlation between amount of wind/solar and the price of electricity in that locality. Oh, and don’t look too closely at how Europe depends on France’s nuke power to provide baseload for all their wind.
Unicorn farts are more reliable than wind.
but Europe does not depend on France…
In summer when river levels are low, French nuclear has to shut down.
and recently there have been a lot of maintenance shut downs of French nukes… and some due to a safety scandal
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/10/french-nuclear-industry-in-total-crisis-as-20-reactors-shut-down/
https://energytransition.org/2017/01/france-cant-meet-its-own-power-demand/
Germany exports more to France than vice versa
Don’t give them any ideas! They’ll market them alongside carbon credits!
If renewables are the cheapest form of power than renewables will grow to dominate the market place without any need for subsidies. If such is the case then all current subsidies should be pulled. We have fossil fueled power plants in the area but I have yet to see the local power company installing wind mills and solar panels on their property so that they can turn off their fossil fuel powered generators.
I would love to have an all electric car, a solar power system to charge it and a combination of a wind mill and solar power system with batteries that would allow me to live off the power grid if need be but I cannot afford to pay for any of it so to me it all has to be free and I must own all that is installed on my property.
In Australia we will soon be receiving text messages to warn us of peak load BLACK OUTS!
In Australia…one of the worlds most energy rich countries!!!
I don’t often swear on posts but this time I will make an exception.
Green f˚cking scum.