|
cant cook creole bream posted:That's mostly just price gouging though. It's not like production of energy became that much more expensive. The energy cooperations just have a vaguely plausible reason to increase their prices now. Mind you, they were already paid horendous sums by the government for the losses of their nuclear profits. If the energy from the nuclear plants were still there, the same high bids on the energy price from these other sources would be laughed at and rejected. But without the nuclear plants, they must be accepted or face brownouts/blackouts. Most of the bidding and rejection/acceptance process for energy sales are completely automated these days, so it's not even a cabal of greedy men in suits sitting around a table deciding to do this. The bidding algorithms from each company just kept ticking up their offered sale prices until they started getting rejected, and then backed off until they hit their profit-maximizing target. All of the players in the market know that this is how the system works. Germany knew these price increases would happen, didn't take any preventative measures, and now it has happened. Sure, corporations are greedy, but we know for a fact in energy markets that they will instantaneously raise prices to as high as they can get away with, so it is on the state to ensure there is always enough competition and supply in the market to keep prices reasonable, enact price controls, or produce the energy themselves. Western governments basically reject the second and third option outright, so Germany letting a major supplier of cheap energy get decommissioned without having a replacement ready is the sole cause of the price increases.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 09:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
The conservatives, who were the primary pro-nuke party until 2016, are very split. The official party twitter declares that the Atomaustieg was all their doing, and nobody should praise any other parties for anything related to it. Especially not the Greens. The CSU meanwhile is arguing that the plant there should keep running somehow. The company has no supply chains, fired all the workers, deferred enough maintenance to need a year of shutdown anyway and is receiving bailout money for the shutdown. But, a bit of deregulation will clearly solve all power problems forever. People are replying with quotes from 2 years ago where they were saying that the Atomaustieg is not going fast enough. Luckily the Union passed on the mantle of party of the pro-nuclear to the FDP. And they have announced a solution, that will be entirely sufficient to solve everything imminently: Reduce government regulation of Fusion power. Let the free market build some fusion plants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 10:17
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:So Germany now shut down its last remaining three nuclear powerplants. To everyones surprise some energy producers announced a mild increase in the price of electricity. The article is not outright lying, but it's pretty dishonest/bad faith for trying to associate this with nuclear phase out. If anyone is interested in how the convoluted monstrosity that is the German electricity market works: "Basic supply"(Grundversorgung) is a legal scheme where public utility companies are required to provide uninterrupted services under any circumstances. If your power contract lapses, is terminated or you moved into a new apartment where you don't have a supplier yet, the public utility company will serve you automatically in the form of "basic supply", no questions asked. It is intended to be a measure of last resort and is usually substantially more expensive than market rates and you want to get out of it as fast as humanly possible. It is largely so expensive because utility companies meet that demand through stable long term contracts with producers. All of this changed with the energy crisis. At the high point of the crisis average market rates for new contacts were 60 cents per kWh and basic supply providers with their stable long term producer contract were suddenly the cheapest option. A lot of people just terminated their normal contract and moved into basic supply, which was still at pre-crisis prices of 30 cents or less. I did the same thing and saved a lot of money. But these long term contracts don't last forever and utility companies bad to negotiate new contract with producers at current high market rates, so basic supply prices have been massively going up everywhere in the last few months. I got hit wit price adjustments in February and would be paying above market rate now, if I had stayed in it. These massive price hikes are going to continue throughout this year and the next. The whole market is very messed up in general right now due the government price caps. As a consumer you only pay 40 cents per kWh and the government pays everything above that, so utility companies don't have a lot to gain from lowering prices below 40 cents. e: someone from NRW can chime in if I got something wrong, but I assume it's the same situation there as everywhere else in the country. GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Apr 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 11:17
|
|
|
HelloSailorSign posted:"The project also hit several roadblocks from private landowners who did not want power lines crossing their property. The final holdout, the Cross Mountain Ranch in the northwest corner of Colorado, did not reach a deal with TransWest until the end of 2021." If a private landowner doesn't want to sell his land, why should that have anything to do with the BLM, an agency which regulates and administers the use of Federal lands, issuing approval?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 14:49
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:If a private landowner doesn't want to sell his land, why should that have anything to do with the BLM, an agency which regulates and administers the use of Federal lands, issuing approval? Why would you approve a plan to use public land if the plan isn’t going to work without the private landowner’s permission?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
in a well actually posted:Why would you approve a plan to use public land if the plan isn’t going to work without the private landowner’s permission? Why would you not? If the company's going to negotiate with the landowner to secure access to the property then it's going to want to know that the project is going to be approved before it writes him a check, otherwise it's spending money for access rights it's never going to use. And if the project gets shitcanned because of a recalcitrant landowner, you approval was irrelevant. Meanwhile, that landowner apparently came around two years ago, and BLM still wasn't done with its process, so it's not like BLM had finished all its poo poo 10 years ago and was just waiting for this guy to say "okay" to sign its paperwork. And it's also not the case that BLM said "Nah, call us when you've got all the private land secured" and didn't start its process until the end of 2021. You've got multiple stakeholders. The line's crossing state land, Federal land, tribal land, private land. If each of them says "I'm not giving my approval until the others give their approval," then it nothing ever gets done. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Apr 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
You certainly can do conditional approvals; “this goes into effect when every party signs on” is like contract law 101. Why do you want government employees doing years of work on a project that doesn’t have the agreements needed to proceed? The west is littered with projects that never got off the board. Just off the top of my head, t boone pickens’ texas windfarm and tres amigas grid interconnect project. BLM doesn’t have the resources to expedite every project.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
in a well actually posted:You certainly can do conditional approvals; “this goes into effect when every party signs on” is like contract law 101. Right. That makes sense. Taking 17 years to approve a transmission line does not. It still does not in the case of "there's one guy who wants more money to run across his land." quote:Just off the top of my head, t boone pickens’ texas windfarm and tres amigas grid interconnect project. BLM doesn’t have the resources to expedite every project. 17 years is not a sane timeframe for a non-expedited project, is the point. Perhaps there are ways to speed that up that do not require an increased expenditure of resources.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
At a certain point if we wanna be serious about fighting climate change on a reasonable time table we just need to seize land and compensate after the fact. The unfortunate thing is at some point a Maga aligned Republican might be President or be in control of the government again and this easier process might be used to rubber stamp a moat across the border. And even common sense provisions like, "This is for adequately GREEN infrastructure ONLY not Clean Coal or Similar Etc" might have work arounds. The problem, especially outwest with all that federal land is well, what about American Indian tribal land? What can we do to mitigate that, what about giving a % of the profits to a sovereign wealth fund that's used to build up and relocate displaced communities?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:At a certain point if we wanna be serious about fighting climate change on a reasonable time table we just need to seize land and compensate after the fact. There's this whole 'Fifth Amendment' thing, and even then the Federal government does not get to just seize land from states and tribes. If we wanna be serious about fighting climate change on a reasonable time scale maybe we (by which I mean FedGov) take the position that climate change is worse than whatever land impacts are going to occur by running a transmission line and forego the environmental and cultural impact surveys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There's this whole 'Fifth Amendment' thing, and even then the Federal government does not get to just seize land from states and tribes. If we're already to the point where legally mandated externalities are being tossed aside, then I don't see why property rights shouldn't go on the pile. It's not even the biggest fight on this front - good luck dealing with suddenly drought-prone regions without rewriting or ignoring a lot of water rights which is going to be 100x bigger than just seizing private property which has a robust legal basis already. If private property remains sacrosanct and honored above all else it's not just a tricky problem to work around, it means we're just not going to be able to address climate change and we will be defeated by it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:If we're already to the point where legally mandated externalities are being tossed aside, then I don't see why property rights shouldn't go on the pile. It's not even the biggest fight on this front - good luck dealing with suddenly drought-prone regions without rewriting or ignoring a lot of water Again, eminent domain does not allow seizure of *land owned by other sovereign states.” You can’t be seriously comparing the Federal government saying to another sovereign state “that land’s not yours anymore, it’s ours,” to the Federal government saying to the BLM “yeah, you don’t need to worry about cultural impact statements anymore”?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 18:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There's this whole 'Fifth Amendment' thing, and even then the Federal government does not get to just seize land from states and tribes. I got very confused for a moment because I thought the 5th amendment was just the self-incrimination one.  But I mean the text just says this: quote:nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Maybe there's loads of case law that further narrows down and what this means in practice but can't the Federal government just go, "Here's a cheque for a fair market value of the land recently assessed last year."? Or perhaps a choice, either accept a lump sum payment for the right to the land being ceded, or, accept that they still have de facto ownership but and can be consulted on the use of the land and may get a stipend/rent payment for the usage of the land that they otherwise can't say no to? To be clear I'm talking more about private land owners, I imagine the sovereign tribal governments I imagine that's a bit different because the US gov't can negotiate state-to-state?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Again, eminent domain does not allow seizure of *land owned by other sovereign states.” You can’t be seriously comparing the Federal government saying to another sovereign state “that land’s not yours anymore, it’s ours,” to the Federal government saying to the BLM “yeah, you don’t need to worry about cultural impact statements anymore”? I'm saying that as the ultimate arbiter of the bounds of the possible, the Federal Government can do whatever it pleases and frequently does, just not typically to the people being discussed here, and that if we honor the rights of some billionaire to own half a state and block its use for any good purpose or hundred year old water rights handed out to friends of the powerful in an abnormally rainy time, we're hosed. It's why we run "clean" pipelines through tribal land and not suburbs, and why we can't so much as get transmission going for efforts that are already woefully inadequate. The Fifth Amendment allows for this. The choice is ours and a lot of my thinking is that your ideas are going to be the prevailing ones and are the reason we're definitely hosed. The notion that property rights supersede all others that is foundational to our system and how we, as a culture, think and build our ideology, is directly at odds with any real measures that will save us from the worst case scenarios. My belief is that we will literally implode and take as much of the rest of the world we can down with us before we willingly give up 3 meat meals a day or play ranches for affluent right wingers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
Speaking of BLM, did the geothermal plant get approved? Edit: I mean this one:mobby_6kl posted:Here's a fun story about a geothermal project that just popped up, though the latest news seems to be from April. Well I it's a year later and the news seems to be Plant plans are downscaled The company is wants to sue the Biden admin: https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-03-23/renewable-energy-company-threatens-to-sue-biden-over-endangered-toad-boiling-point And another lol: quote:(Reuters) - Biden administration approvals allowing developer Ormat to explore northwestern Nevada for opportunities to build geothermal energy plants ignored the "inevitable" impacts from final development on resources such as natural springs, the fire festival Burning Man claimed in a new lawsuit. In other words, still nothing built. bad_fmr posted:So Germany now shut down its last remaining three nuclear powerplants. To everyones surprise some energy producers announced a mild increase in the price of electricity. So yeah the prices have been addressed and I've no idea about the German markets anyway but I went to check out what sort of effect this had on the mix:  You can see nuclear go from 2.6GW to 0. Then the next day Nuclear+Biomass+Coal is still delivering about the same total amount, so in other words coal output is up by around the same amount too. I did some quick math (using their g/kWh numbers) and it would translate into the carbon intensity of the whole grid increasing by about 17%. mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Apr 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Maybe there's loads of case law that further narrows down and what this means in practice but can't the Federal government just go, "Here's a cheque for a fair market value of the land recently assessed last year."? It totally can, and that's the standard way of acquiring property from owners for things like power lines and roads and pipelines and rail lines. And none of that has anything to do with why it takes BLM 17 years to approve a power line project. The fact that some guy in Colorado didn't accept the company's offer until 2021 has *nothing to do* with why it took BLM 17 years to approve a power line project. Epic High Five posted:The notion that property rights supersede all others that is foundational to our system and how we, as a culture, think and build our ideology, is directly at odds with any real measures that will save us from the worst case scenarios. The notion that property rights are why it took BLM 17 years to approve a power line project is utterly risible. The regulatory burden that needed to be satisfied, the environmental impact surveys, the *cultural impact* surveys, and all the other stuff it took 17 years to do had nothing to do with acquiring the property, and the guy in Colorado who wanted more money to run the line across his land didn't slow that all that other stuff down one little bit. This is the same thing the "just nationalize it" people don't get: the *regulatory burden that prevents this stuff from getting done in a timely fashion is the creation of the government*. If you want us to be able to do things faster, then it's that burden that needs to be minimized. If you want the Federal government to just make it easier to run power lines without having to jump through 17 years' worth of hoops, then it can just do that without "just nationalize it," and if you "just nationalize it" without getting rid of that regulatory burden it's still going to take BLM 17 years to approve poo poo. quote:My belief is that we will literally implode and take as much of the rest of the world we can down with us before we willingly give up 3 meat meals a day or play ranches for affluent right wingers. I just want to be clear: this line runs across tribal lands (and state lands). Now, either you want the Federal government to say to the tribes (and the states) "gently caress you, it's our land now and we're giving access rights to it to this company so they can build a power line across it," or you want the the tribes (and the states) to willingly acquiesce to the use of their land. If it's the former, okay, but you should own that instead of pretending it's only affluent ranch-owners who are going to look at power lines when they get up in the morning. If it's the latter, what process would you suggest to obtain their acquiescence?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:If it's the former, okay, but you should own that instead of pretending it's only affluent ranch-owners who are going to look at power lines when they get up in the morning. If it's the latter, what process would you suggest to obtain their acquiescence? Make the pylons cool as gently caress like these: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-13473408.amp
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
It didn’t take seventeen years for BLM to approve it. The BLM right of way grant has been approved since 2016. Last week’s announcement was that they’ve got everything else they need and can start building. https://www.transwestexpress.net/about/timeline.shtml I thought BOR’s approval did a good job laying out all the decisions that went into approving it. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g2000/envdocs/Transwest_ROD_Vol_1_6-19-17.pdf (the maps at the end are useful) Reading through that, there’s nothing that they considered that’s frivolous. It’s not 1952, dropping a thousand miles of infrastructure across the west should require some thought.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
And if you were trying to build a coal plant you'd just pay off the regulators and bypass all the rules you'd need to follow. For example an alternative location must be selected, "eh, how about 20ft away from the planned location." It was approved and they took about 15 feet of land from me for the railroad tracks, didn't get anything for it because they expanded their easement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 00:39
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:
It's not really how the electricity grid works here tbh., that's just a snapshot of a random day. Ultimately by shutting off nuclear there's less necessity to temporarily shut down renewables when the grid capacity is bound by non-flexible production methods, so in the end it'll propably remain at roughly the same intensity until gas or renewables can replace coal. As for the prices I usually check https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/price_spot_market/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=month which has neat charts of the spot market and other stuff, as you can see the prices didn't change in any noticable way. It also shows the amount of renewable and fossile/fissile produced daily, which is also neat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 10:43
|
|
|
Son of Rodney posted:It's not really how the electricity grid works here tbh., that's just a snapshot of a random day. Ultimately by shutting off nuclear there's less necessity to temporarily shut down renewables when the grid capacity is bound by non-flexible production methods, so in the end it'll propably remain at roughly the same intensity until gas or renewables can replace coal. What exactly am I missing about "how the grid works", 2.6GW of carbon-free generation were taken offline, does this capacity not get substituted? How often do renewables have to be shut down because there's just so much energy being generated?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:It's not random, it's two days immediately before and after shutdown, that's probably as close as we can get to a before/after comparison, even though the conditions aren't perfectly identical of course. According to the posted graph: The carbon intensity in the days after the shutdown was lower then the monthly peak 2 weeks ago. Almost as if a high renewables grid has a weather dependent carbon intensity. That single last plant shutting down now permanently has fairly minimal impact on the carbon intensity. Especially as the honest comparison would still have the plant shut down for a year for maintenance and reaching EOL soon even without the Atomausstieg. Not building new plants is the actual problem. And not building the infrastructure that is needed for a functioning high renewable grid. I know that the politicians who were arguing a few years ago that the current Atomaustieg timeline was to slow are now suddenly suggesting that with some deregulation the plant operators would voluntarily return the bailouts, re-hire the staff, order fuel rods from russia and skip the maintenance period to restart the plant and after that climate change will be solved once and for all allowing all of us to drive into the sunset with out state subventioned gas guzzling cars . But you should not trust such people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:According to the posted graph: The carbon intensity in the days after the shutdown was lower then the monthly peak 2 weeks ago. Almost as if a high renewables grid has a weather dependent carbon intensity. The point is if Nuclear + "Biomass" + Coal = 20GW and you take out 2.6GW of nuclear, how is that deficit made up? [E: since there's no legend, puke green is nukes, other green is biomass, brown is coal] I often hear that "coal didn't replace nuclear, renewables did" and this seems like a pretty clear visual illustration of what actually happens, which is otherwise pretty abstract. VictualSquid posted:That single last plant shutting down now permanently has fairly minimal impact on the carbon intensity. Especially as the honest comparison would still have the plant shut down for a year for maintenance and reaching EOL soon even without the Atomausstieg.  It's more about the overall transition as above. It's probably too late to do anything about it.
mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Apr 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry. The shutdown is bringing out the dumbest parts of the German pro-nuclear movement. And all hope of nuclear getting seen as green here is being destroyed by them right now for the foreseeable future. They are even finally managing to drag down fusion, which was seen as green nuclear previously. And all of them are implying that keeping this one plant going would solve climate change forever without any other action needed, if it wasn't for those evil green deep state who snuck into the government forcing Merkel to incompetently accelerate the Atomausstieg. So right now, I am a bit allergic to arguments that overemphasise Isar2's part of the whole energy politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
Cool graph - where is it from?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
Son of Rodney posted:Ultimately by shutting off nuclear there's less necessity to temporarily shut down renewables when the grid capacity is bound by non-flexible production methods, so in the end it'll propably remain at roughly the same intensity until gas or renewables can replace coal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
Son of Rodney posted:Ultimately by shutting off nuclear there's less necessity to temporarily shut down renewables when the grid capacity is bound by non-flexible production methods, so in the end it'll propably remain at roughly the same intensity until gas or renewables can replace coal. Yes, I too found this comment weird and I think it reveals a big misunderstanding. Renewable production doesn't generally shut down, they are the cheapest source of electricity and will always produce at maximal capacity as far as wind and sun is available. On the other hand traditional nuclear is non-flexible and will run at static production at all times. It is the fossil fuel production that will adjust based on demand and renewable production. Good example of this is the German energy chart from week 2 this year. Start of the week winds are weak and there large amount of production from fossil plants. In the mid week winds pick up and fossil productions drops significantly. All this time the nuclear plants are running at fixed capacity, 2380MW, ±30MW, there is only short dip below 2300.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Does anyone have the paper/study/thing that showed price per MW of different sources over time, like several decades? I think it was showing nuclear being pretty cheap until renewables overtook it and continued to get cheaper quickly. I think I saw it ITT but can't find it now.DTurtle posted:Cool graph - where is it from? Some countries have individual more detailed tools (like https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energy-source) even with raw data download  but it's handy to have everything in one place.bad_fmr posted:What? This sounds really weird. I can see this somehow happen theoretically but not actually right now. mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Apr 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 21:46
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:Yes, I too found this comment weird and I think it reveals a big misunderstanding. Renewable production doesn't generally shut down, they are the cheapest source of electricity and will always produce at maximal capacity as far as wind and sun is available. On the other hand traditional nuclear is non-flexible and will run at static production at all times. https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power-plants-ramps-up/ quote:In countries like France, Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland, Switzerland, and Hungary, nuclear power plants (NPPs) have consistently demonstrated that they have actual and noticeable load-following and flexibility maneuvering capabilities. “When combining the different capabilities, power variations of up to 10,000 MW could be absorbed by German NPPs in 2010. In France, with an average of 2 reactors out of 3 available for load variations, the overall power adjustment capacity of the nuclear fleet equates to 21,000 MW (i.e. equivalent to the output of 21 reactors) in less than 30 minutes. In addition, it is also possible to disconnect units temporarily from the grid, and then restart them later. If kept in ‘hot stand-by’ mode, full load can then be resumed within a couple of hours,” FORATOM said in a May 2018 position paper... https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00295450.2017.1388668?journalCode=unct20 quote:This work explores the technical challenges associated with flexible operation for nuclear power plants (NPPs) and evaluates whether a flexible operational mode could improve the profitability of nuclear units by allowing nuclear plant owners/operators to reduce output when prices are low and instead shift capacity to the ancillary services markets. As compared to conventional power plants, NPP flexible operation capabilities are affected by additional physics-induced constraints. Among the most limiting constraints is the negative reactivity insertion following every reactor power drop due to the increased concentration of xenon, a strong neutron poison. In this work, a previously available power system operation model based on mixed-integer linear programming optimization was improved by implementing a dedicated representation of these physics-induced constraints for pressurized water reactors (PWRs). Because the xenon-related constraint involves nonlinear governing dynamics, a dedicated parametric approach was implemented. To evaluate the economic implications of flexible PWR operation, a case study using realistic power system data representative of the southwestern United States was analyzed. The results indicate that flexible operation can increase the revenue of nuclear units while at the same time reducing total electric system operating costs. Not only is "traditional nuclear is non-flexible and will run at static production at all times" not required to be the case, it is not the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The best I can interpret it is that renewables are generating so loving much power that they don't know what to do with it. And since you can't (well you can, but w/e) throttle nuclear, you'd have to put tarps over solar panels or something. In which case, there is no change in carbon intensity. January 4th Germany had a record wind production, reaching almost 44GW. As a result their electricity export went over 15GW, there is always some coal plant in Europe willing to power down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
The other thing about renewables+nuclear is that our capability to predict renewable production is actually very good and getting better. So, even if the Npp needs a week warning to make room for the windy day it can get that warning. Again, 99% of the downsides of renewable power is actually caused by lovely support infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:January 4th Germany had a record wind production, reaching almost 44GW. As a result their electricity export went over 15GW, there is always some coal plant in Europe willing to power down.  But looking at the same period in terms of generation, they were still burning about 20GW worth of fossil fuels so, all else being equal, it'd be still a net loss of 2.6GW. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:What? This sounds really weird. Sounds par for the course to me...
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 07:15
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:Yes, I too found this comment weird and I think it reveals a big misunderstanding. Renewable production doesn't generally shut down, they are the cheapest source of electricity and will always produce at maximal capacity as far as wind and sun is available. On the other hand traditional nuclear is non-flexible and will run at static production at all times. It is the fossil fuel production that will adjust based on demand and renewable production. This is not really the case for modern renewables after a certain percentage of grid capacity, wind and solar is curtailed often due to load management, mostly due to grid stability issues and sometimes due to low profitability. The biggest factors for this is that compared to low-flexibility power plants such as nuclear or coal they are much easier and quicker to curtail due to very low stop- and startup times and no associated costs, coal or nuclear are either slower or not cost effective below certain loads. You're right that fossil fuels are adjusting frequently but they also have limits and depending on how much they need to power down the time variability can be multiple hours which is a lot compared to roughly 15 minutes of gas or wind. What is true that in total they are not curtailed a large amount, but they are curtained often and regularily. Here in germany a lot of these issues can be mitigated by increasing grid capacity, which especially to the south is very lacking, and renewables need to now be quickly expanded to push out the more expensive fossil fuels. Tho I do have to admit it is very likely emissions will be negatively impacted by this in the short term, my former statement was too fired from the hip due to conflation multiple things related to the local energy system. Somewhere about 3% of renewable production is curtailed in a yearly average and shutting of nuclear will allow a smaller amount to be used instead, but it will not be a 1 to 1 replacement. It all depends on how much renewable capacity is increased in the next few years, really. mobby_6kl posted:Does anyone have the paper/study/thing that showed price per MW of different sources over time, like several decades? I think it was showing nuclear being pretty cheap until renewables overtook it and continued to get cheaper quickly. I think I saw it ITT but can't find it now. This is a good one, dunno if it's the one you mean: https://www.lazard.com/media/sptlfats/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 11:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1650331895492751360?s=46&t=8g1SJ87BoVmp86tfUCXz2A
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 13:06
|
|
|
That goes in the graph crimes thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 13:27
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1650331895492751360?s=46&t=8g1SJ87BoVmp86tfUCXz2A "Firm W&S in California may now cost more than Vogtle nuclear" is a technically correct way to read that graph, but a much more human way would be: "even with extensive overhead for firming, wind and solar are still usually cheaper than nuclear, already today"
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 13:35
|
|
|
I read the statement as: "If we force renewables to internalize some externalities then they are cheaper then nuclear (in a context where we refuse to state if nuclear has internalized the externalities)". I do not know anything about those Lazard guys, but from that statement they see themselves entirely in competition to wind and solar. So, presumably they run fossil and nuclear plants and feel threatened by their fossil plants getting protested by pro-w&s people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 13:44
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1650331895492751360?s=46&t=8g1SJ87BoVmp86tfUCXz2A Looks good. It'll probably take at least a decade to get a nuclear plant fired up and another 30 or 40 years to repay it but I'm willing to bet solar, wind and storage prices won't fall in the meantime. Investors will be all over this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 13:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Looks good. It'll probably take at least a decade to get a nuclear plant fired up and another 30 or 40 years to repay it but I'm willing to bet solar, wind and storage prices won't fall in the meantime. Investors will be all over this.  Son of Rodney posted:... VictualSquid posted:I read the statement as: It seems that this analysis still significantly underestimates firming costs, by e.g. only accounting for 4 hours worth of storage or costs of extra transmission. mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Apr 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 13:52
|
|