salm wrote:
Or the feedin in tariffs for nuclear like in Hinkley Point C at 125€/MWh. Guaranteed for 35 years.
The feedin tariffs in Germany are a way to subsidize renewables. Installing renewables guarantees you a certain feedin price for X years. This price is gets lower and lower every year for newly built renewables, so that the price for renewables goes down. At the same time installing renewables is still interesting for investors because the technology gets better and more modern tech produces more power to sell.
This is a transparent system to subsidize power.
Blame renewable subsidies for Hinkley Point. What kind of moron would in society where you get guaranteed profit, directly from taxpayer pocket in exchange for nothing, build expensive powerplant which would be at the mercy of changing electricity prices?
That would be stupid. Better build windmill, not give a crap about stability of grid and let taxpayer bleed when they have to make up the difference between market price and guaranteed price. And should price climb up so that you no longer sap taxpayer, just consumer, you can build plants which have lower production costs and THEN make killer profit that way.
Renewable subsidies are messing up energy markets, it is going to hurt us bad in future.
The relieability of forecasts is pretty high and it is rapidly getting even better.
The current reliability for Germany within the next 24 - 48 hours has an error of about 5%.
Within the next 72 hours is around 10 percent.
Here´s a study on wind predicatability. On page 11 there is an example of typical forecast results. Note that this study is 5 years and uses even older data. Furthermore it´s an onshore wind farm. Offshore would be easier to forecast.
http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbi ... 61/content
Some more information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_ ... ariability
So it is random without any rhythm or guaranteed pattern. Shame modern societies do not run on principle of people living at their offices waiting for wind to pick up so that computers get power so they can get their job done.
Of course storage is an extra cost when using renewables and we can not do without. Who cares? For a nuclear power plant building thick walls is an extra cost which we can not do without when building nukes. It´s just one element of what is required for a specific type of energy which has to be taken into account when calculating cost but there is nothing special about storage and redundancies except that we can wait to implement storage until we´ve reached a renewable energy percentage of about 50 or so percent.
Nuclear plants have those walls mentioned in their costs. Renewables to this date have basically never been reported with cost that includes guarantee for production. All renewable costs are presented without storage. By your analogy, renewable costs are same as telling price of nuclear power without taking account cost of those walls. Would make it a lot cheaper.
Storage and distribution. Finnland is not an isolated place. If it´s storages run low there allways the possibility to import. Importing is nothing unusual and has been done for ages. Trading energy is not magically going to disappear just because a country is run on renewables. In fact, i´d assume that it´s going to get more important because diversifying locations is important for reliable renewables.
Oh yes, imports. So delightful. We would then be 100% depending on our neighbours for something vital, trusting them to never take advantage of it. Works really well for countries who were made dependent on Russia supplying them with gas. Never has Russia tried to use it to push their own agenda. This also assumes there is someone with excess nearby, because long transfer distances hurt a lot. For Finland, options are basically Russia, Sweden and Norway. Russia we have dealt with, Norway and Sweden have two problems. If Finland were to commit German stupidity and try to live relying heavily on renewables, Sweden most likely would be there already. They are far ahead Finland in committing this folly.
So, what are the odds that when poor production hits Finland, that Norway and Sweden happen to have huge surplus for us to buy? And at what cost?
Importing also has one nasty thing... Supply and demand. Germany and Denmark sometimes have big excess of electricity, which is when they export it at any cost. Usually at loss. Norway for example eagerly buys Danish electricity and saves water behind dams. Then wind dies out, Denmark starts to feel bit dark. They import EXPENSIVE Norwegian electricity, taking double kick in their asses.
That is not relevant to this study. Even if the Fraunhofer Institut was following an agenda (which I doubt) this study doesn´t concern itself with nuclear at all. It simply shows which way of implementing offshore energy would be the cheapest.
Which makes research in itself rather worthless for this discussion in many ways, as it presents no comparison to which mirror their idea. They have already chosen poison you MUST use and now just want to tell you how it tastes little less bitter.
Which is agenda in itself. You do not present alternatives to poison, so reader has no method to say if taking that poison is sensible or not.
Germany actually exported more energy than it imported. However, like mentioned before, trading energy is not going to stop just because of renewables.
At loss. Which is result of absurd amounts of renewables for massive cost to average german. They pay one of the highest electricity prices in Europe when you factor in all costs.
And there was situation where neighbours were making threats to Germany that they will cut the transfer routes if Germany does not stop disrupting their grid with random excess.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/a ... ric-grids/
That would be unusual. In a lot of countries nuclear plants (as well as coal and similar plants) are heavily subsidized. External costs (R&D, Waste, Dismantling) are ofte not or only partially payed by compainies themselves and financed by some sort of tax. This makes the subsidies so intransparent and it makes it difficult to find out the true cost of nuclear energy.
I have already said. Finland makes a point that companies are responsible for waste management and life cycle. And to ensure it, they have to pay certain amount of income to fun which makes sure there is money to pay for it.
R&D in turn are not related to facilities, they produce energy. Others research. And while there are subsidies and grants to research, they are not earmarked. If your plan fills the requirements, you get grant. Which includes whole lot of companies making and researching windmills and their components. Should we add this to renewable subsidies too?
Apples to apples. Only subsidies for building and maintaining power production should be included.
I´m not talking about global subsidies.
Then say what subsidies you speak of. I speak of Finland, and we have no subsidies for anything but windpower.
