The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The conventional fuel industry continues to see the world from the golden days of hundred year-old monopolies and unlimited cheap fossils. That the grid itself is already changing into the power equivalent of the internet is beyond their capacity to fathom.
Sadly, it's likely to take another energy and/or climate shock or two before the people for whom The Economist is shilling realize that it's already a new day.
Then again, the ostensible magazine is not attempting to define reality. It is vicious propaganda, pure and simple. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
EEX here.
(can't copy the graphs.) "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
The only parts that have been emphasized by the media are that the French consumers electricity bill will increase by 50% by 2020. And whose fault is that? Why, its' the "subsidies hungry" renewables; this is what most people will remember. Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
Who Could Have Predicted?
Of course, it is worrying that a magazine which is widely read amongst the political elite is really just a neoliberal propaganda unit but, ultimately, this says more about the general cluelessness of the people who read it than it does about the industry it describes. keep to the Fen Causeway
Did the article leave out the bird straw dog?
The anti-wind propaganda campaign is orchestrated now precisely because in several key markets, wind has achieved "critical mass" ;-) as an industry, as an employer, and as an export model. And as a reliable generator of electricity. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Yes, you're right, the progress of renewables is the reason for increased intensity in the anti campaign. But the memes didn't pop up totally spontaneously...
I didn't see any mention of one-horned goats in the article. Nor of straw dogs, nor links to organized crime. We should write to the Economist to set the record straight.
The economist is like any other news media, people buy it more to have their prejudices reinforced than to be more widely informed.
Well it's not true of ET right?
Also, ET's success as a relentless engine of propaganda for the Great Liberal Conspiracy seems somewhat limited to date.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
*Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Economic Left/Right: -9.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21 *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.10 It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
-9.00 -8.27 Von überall könnte das Volk, Urbrut alles Undemokratischen, Zelle des Terrors, über die gewählten Hüter von Wachstum und Wohlstand® kommen. - flatter
-9.12, -6.46 Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere
Yikes, no wonder I have problems fitting in. My score doesn't look like anybody else who has posted theirs. I seem to be way out there in bottom left field. Just for some perspective, if either afew or melo are around and can recall their numbers, could you please post them? I'm just curious if I'm in bad man's land all by myself or if I might have some company somewhere, anywhere nearby.
But many appears to have moved (from comments here, not a rigorous analysis).
How do we evaluate the results? If Mig is up to it, making another graph would give some idea. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Hm? Amost everyone on ET is in the bottom left field. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Comparing the location of my dot on the graph on the test result at the Political Compass site with the position of names on the ET Political Compass previously posted, my "dot" would appear to be located a little left of you (somewhere between you and afew), and on about the same level as a swedish kind of death; yet the numbers make no sense at all. -3.62 and -6.31?
-3.62 economic and -6.31 social lands you near MarekNYC (whom we have not seen for some time). A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
The Political Compass - Test
Economic Left/Right: -8.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
It is true that this is significant advantage. Doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.
Even if there examples of the speed of undemocratic decisions backfiring for the ruling oligarchy, I think it is rather the exception and not the rule.
I should be -6/-6. I think the questions press one into a strongly agree /strongly disagree direction. And somehow there seem to be few economic questions and virtually none on ecology.
Depends on political position. My result was -2, -1,38 and I found many questions hard to answer.
Welcome! No irony. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
I click on "strongly" a lot.... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
It is one thing to be sourly cynical about the motivations and knowledge of the elite decision makers (my own personal forte), it is another to consistently offer different perspectives which demonstrate there are real and preferable alternatives to the idiocies on display. keep to the Fen Causeway
the intellectual dishonesty in this puff piece is blistering, as per.
they are mass murderers, the big energy/utility companies, busy with eco-cide.
which will happen first? will enough people righteously excoriate this propaganda, as J does so surgically here?
or will these a-holes just run out of gas, all credibility exhausted? The power of knowledge is in mortal combat with the knowledge of power. It really is that simple... That's the Edenic apple we are all munching on.
Nuclear `hard to justify', says GE chief Nuclear power is so expensive compared with other forms of energy that it has become "really hard" to justify, according to the chief executive of General Electric, one of the world's largest suppliers of atomic equipment. "It's really a gas and wind world today," said Jeff Immelt, referring to two sources of electricity he said most countries are shifting towards as natural gas becomes "permanently cheap".
Nuclear power is so expensive compared with other forms of energy that it has become "really hard" to justify, according to the chief executive of General Electric, one of the world's largest suppliers of atomic equipment.
"It's really a gas and wind world today," said Jeff Immelt, referring to two sources of electricity he said most countries are shifting towards as natural gas becomes "permanently cheap".
From 2004 to Q3 2008, the price of PV modules remained approximately flat at $3.50-$4.00/W, despite manufacturers making continuous improvements in technology and scale to reduce their costs. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that the German, and then Spanish, tariff incentives allowed project developers to buy the technology at this price, coupled with a shortage of polysilicon that constrained production and prevented effective pricing competition. The 18 largest quoted solar companies followed by Bloomberg made average operating margins of 14.6%-16.3% from 2005 to 20083. Consequently, both polysilicon companies and downstream manufacturers expanded rapidly. When the Spanish incentive regime ended abruptly at the end of September 2008, global demand stayed roughly flat at 7.7 GW in 2009, from 6.7 GW in 2008, while polysilicon availability increased at least 32%; enough to make 8.5 GW of modules, with an additional 1.6GW of thin film production. As a consequence of this sudden need to compete on price, wafer and module makers gave up some of their margins, and the price fell rapidly from $4.00/W in 2008 to $2.00/W in 2009. The ability of manufacturers to drop their prices by 50%, and still make a positive operating margin, was due to the reductions in costs achieved over the previous four years, driven by scale and advances in wafer, cell and module manufacturing processes, as well as to improved performance resulting from better cell efficiencies and lower electrical conversion losses (Wesoff, 2012).
Consequently, both polysilicon companies and downstream manufacturers expanded rapidly. When the Spanish incentive regime ended abruptly at the end of September 2008, global demand stayed roughly flat at 7.7 GW in 2009, from 6.7 GW in 2008, while polysilicon availability increased at least 32%; enough to make 8.5 GW of modules, with an additional 1.6GW of thin film production. As a consequence of this sudden need to compete on price, wafer and module makers gave up some of their margins, and the price fell rapidly from $4.00/W in 2008 to $2.00/W in 2009. The ability of manufacturers to drop their prices by 50%, and still make a positive operating margin, was due to the reductions in costs achieved over the previous four years, driven by scale and advances in wafer, cell and module manufacturing processes, as well as to improved performance resulting from better cell efficiencies and lower electrical conversion losses (Wesoff, 2012).
(bold mine)
This can either be seen as an argument for a "free-market" approach, or alternatively the state gives the initial boost to help establish industrial critical mass and then market forces can operate. A bit like the "Internet" model where the (US) state reasearched and built the infrastructure and then, with critical mass, the market could then enter.
If it is technologically underdeveloped and capital intensive, the initial boost might be critical.
Or, it can be seen as a negation of the "free-market" frame: the state and the market were both present throughout. The part I would have bolded was this:
The ability of manufacturers to drop their prices by 50%, and still make a positive operating margin, was due to the reductions in costs achieved over the previous four years, driven by scale and advances in wafer, cell and module manufacturing processes
The cost reductions due to scale were the result of large volumes, thanks to the framework set by the state (the stable markets and the feed-in tariffs). The technology development was due to competition between producers on this separated market.
The uneven market price reduction you describe is more indicative of haphazard state policy than any transition from some state-dominated to a market-dominated regime. Contrary to what the article claims, the Spanish incentive regime didn't end, it was only changed with massive and differential rate reductions, crashing the market and resulting in an oversupply situation on the world market. The article also omits to mention degression, that is the (usually annual) reduction of feed-in tariffs, a field where Germany and Spain followed a different philosophy: Germany had pre-set degression rates in a law, Spain had rates re-set every year by government decree.
The Spanish feed-in law produced a bubble because it was high enough to make residential rooftop profitable but offered the same rate for large on-ground plants with few restrictions on siting, thus the latter sub-market drew venture capital with high profits. It was right to burst this bubble, but it would have been better to create an orderly transition with multiple smaller rate reductions rather than one big one. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
A. Lot.
Necessary fixed costs of plant and equipment are more or less the same for manufacturing one widget per week as one widget per hour. Sales price need to cover 52/year versus 2,000/year will obviously have to be greater in the former.
Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere
The price should be held globally at a level necessary to destroy demand, and as much of the resulting surplus as possible should be invested in renewable energy, and in the cheapest energy of all - energy saved.
In order to do this you need to literally monetise energy. Deficit financing and funding simply will not cut it.
IMHO one of the Big Trades of the 21st century will be the value of IP and Knowhow exchanged for the value of carbon fuel saved. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
Vattenfall also announced today that it has submitted an application to Sweden's radiation authority for permission to develop plans for new nuclear power stations. Chief executive Løseth emphasised that the company has not made any binding decisions to pursue new nuclear. "We are just investigating building new nuclear in the Nordic market," he said, adding that there are other options for replacing lost capacity when Sweden's existing nuclear power stations are decommissioned. These options include additional renewables capacity.
2- the biggest losers of such effect are not the flexible plants, it's the exact opposite: it's the other "price takers: nuclear plants, coal-fired plants, and base load gas prices. All of these (the core business of the big utilities) see the prices they get mot of the day go down, and they lose income. 3- The flexible plants - the gas peakers and hydro - will actually make more money as they are asked to support the system balance in new ways as renewables take a bigger part of the system. There is a known business model for peakers, functioning a few % of the time only, and it applies even more now.
2- the biggest losers of such effect are not the flexible plants, it's the exact opposite: it's the other "price takers: nuclear plants, coal-fired plants, and base load gas prices. All of these (the core business of the big utilities) see the prices they get mot of the day go down, and they lose income.
3- The flexible plants - the gas peakers and hydro - will actually make more money as they are asked to support the system balance in new ways as renewables take a bigger part of the system. There is a known business model for peakers, functioning a few % of the time only, and it applies even more now.
AFAIK, right now, the flexible plants do feel the pain due to renewables, mainly because solar is at the level where it chops off the daytime peak on sunny days but doesn't affect baseload much (unlike wind). So there isn't only a trend to push flexible plants from baseload to intermediate and peak load, but presently there is a reduction of demand for intermediate load. I wrote about this here. Also reported how this development affects plans for a pumped hydro plant, hurts the profits of hard coal plants (which mostly run in the intermediate power regime). As for gas, E.on announced plans to close three older gas plants.
Once wind and solar capacity grows further, the equation may change again to hurt conventional baseload more and give more room to peak power. (But, not necessarily, if natural balancing is significant.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The root of this claim is a couple of much-reported occurrences during the last winter, when wind and solar power were low and an oil-fired power plant in Austria was asked for help. As IWR reports, the actual power loss event during this day that called for the extra peak power was not a fluctuation of wind or solar power, but the unplanned shutdown of a nuclear reactor in southwest Germany (due to the discovery of leaking fuel rods). And the fun fact: the three gas-fired power plants which E.on wants to close, all of which are much closer to the closed nuclear plant than the Austrian peaker plant, stayed on cold reserve during the period!
IWR speculates that this may indicate the unfitness of (older) gas-fired power plants to be on reserve. But there seems to be a much better explanation, something IWR reported in the past, too (a news I linked in a Salon): the federal grid agency found that during one of these electricity shortage periods, speculative traders hoping for higher prices were holding back capacity en masse (reminding of the Enron blackouts). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
But baseload plants are suffering as well - they get lower prices, on average, than they used to. This is counter-balanced by the increase in gas prices, which means that the base load prices (ie night time) are higher than they used to be, but that helps nukes and coal plants, not the gas-fired plants that actually need to buy that more expensive gas... So gas baseload plants are becoming marginal - or increasing their price.
Some of the utilities are thus moving to convert some of their plants. see this:
UK's SSE idles gas-fired plants on low spark spreads London, 31 January (Argus) -- UK utility Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) will take its two oldest combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) out of service in late March for extended maintenance and expects both plants to be off line for at least a year. (...) SSE's move to mothball gas-fired capacity amid low spark spreads comes after rival UK utility Centrica said in October that it planned to idle its 245MW Barry CCGT and its 340MW Kings Lynn CCGT -- neither of which are among its oldest gas-fired plants -- during the second quarter of 2012.
London, 31 January (Argus) -- UK utility Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) will take its two oldest combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) out of service in late March for extended maintenance and expects both plants to be off line for at least a year.
(...)
SSE's move to mothball gas-fired capacity amid low spark spreads comes after rival UK utility Centrica said in October that it planned to idle its 245MW Barry CCGT and its 340MW Kings Lynn CCGT -- neither of which are among its oldest gas-fired plants -- during the second quarter of 2012.
As long as we have one grid, regulations must make sure that those who provide intermittent supply must subsidize backup capacity.
From an economic viewpoint wind is baseload, as the fuel is free. But its reliability is many orders of magnitude lower than in conventional sources. So essentially the more capacity based on wind you have in the system the more intermediate and peak capacity you need. But the utilisation of the capacity will go down.
not that anyone in their right mind expect wind to be alone in a sustainable grid. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
It is easier to find countermeasures, but that needs more reserves.
All that is required is to lower the average load factor of the fossil fuel plants, i.e. burn less fossil fuels in order to burn more solar and wind. Financial compensations are no doubt needed to those plants, to cover the sunk capital costs. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
That's not a mix-up and not physics, but the separate issue of providing balancing capacity to meet the difference of demand and total baseload production. And how does that not apply to conventional baseload? Baseload never meets demand anywhere near 100% of the time, and the difference can be rather big on occasion (be it a cold spell in a region with lots of electric heating boosting demand like in France in February this year, or a total shutdown of 52 nuclear plants following a natural disaster and subsequent safety concerns like in Japan earlier this year). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
So, back to the point, all plants are intermittent, and at least those normally run at the maximum power possible (nuclear, "brown coal", wind, solar, tide, wave) require balancing capacity. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Very well, so conventional plants are intermittent. Yes, but their failures are randomly and independently distributed. This is not true for the main cause of intermittent operations of wind plants. The strength of the wind is quite correlated in large areas.
To counter this very large networks can be used to some degree. However, even under the current conditions, capacities are strained and construction of massive new grid capacities is already meeting stiff resistance.
No matter the cause of the stiff resistance to grid upgrades, they would have to be done anyway. Not merely to increase security, but for economic and technical reasons as well. Plus the populace needs to finance a spare parts store, so when a sunstorm or other failure occurs, it can be repaired in weeks rather than many months. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
As for the necessity of major upgrades I have to note that the current grid with the current generation capability does work very well.
Nope, it's not that simple, but we are repeating ourselves on this, too. If there is some correlation with other significant non-load-following contributors (and there is: with solar), then it makes no sense to consider its variability isolated. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Which of course makes it open season for quacks and charlatans. Such as the people who are feeding you your talking points.
The German grid in particular has built up quite a deferred maintenance log since the experiments with open access and unbundling began. Funny how that works, because the rail and telecommunication sectors had precisely the same experience with unbundling.
You can certainly argue that these are natural monopolies. And keeping it in the hands of the suppliers doesn't work.
So either only those who own the infrastructure may use it, or it has to be split up fully.
Why not? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
EDF and Gazprom have worked fine for decades with no competitors.
Do you have good sources on this? I only read into the backlog in new construction, and the connected finger pointing. In the case of the 20-year-delayed project I mentioned downthread, grid operators and approving authorities are pointing fingers at each other for slow and sloppy work with documents; and the line originally projected to enhance east-west connections, with a Hamburg-area nuclear power plant at one end, is now called Windsammelschiene (wind bus bar) to give the false impression that it only became necessary due to the spread of wind power. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
So what? Conventional baseload plants also have the trait of being much bigger, thus a single failure or maintenance shutdown is a significant grid event. You could talk about the relative distribution functions, or about the difference in the pattern and spectrum of fluctuations.
However, even under the current conditions, capacities are strained
Yes, but not as much as claimed by certain circles; see my Enron diary.
and construction of massive new grid capacities is already meeting stiff resistance.
This argument is overblown to the extent that it sounds like an excuse. (And now a tool; with Rösler seizing on the opportunity to call for the easing of environmental restrictions.) There are 20-year-delayed power line projects in Germany with no significant counter-protests. There is also the issue of excessive coal plant production assumptions in the forecasts of the grid operators. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
For power that is sold on a spot market there is also no incentive to provide reliability.
Also in "the commons," even with very expensive scrubbers, which often are grandfathered away, are stack effluents which kill people, lakes, and forests. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
What about the intermittent gas plants mentioned by Jérôme? Their intermittency is discretionary : they turn on the juice when they can maximise their profit. They certainly don't provide power "on demand". In your opinion, how should they be penalised for their intermittency? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
If an operator does not agree to provide power at a certain price in advance with an agreed relability he should be penalized.
And in fact they are. Renewables are penalized for intermittency by receiving a lower than the average clearing price per MWh, while new coal and nuke plants are penalized by not being built.
The free-riders under the current system are the fully amortized brown coal plants, who - because they face low marginal costs and do not face the threat of liquidation due to momentary cashflow shortfalls - can sell baseload at the average clearing price rather than a lower feed-in rate.
The various producers are rewarded only for momentary conditions. The public service they provide or do not provide in case of intermittent sources is not rewarded or punished for.
False.
Required reading for anyone who wants to opine on pricing systems and market structure for electricity production.
Anyway what mechanism exists to make power companies build gas plants for the worst case?
Your reply is quite generic.
That blue text in the comments? That's links. They typically provide details, references, related material, or, as in this case, relevant background knowledge for the discussion you are engaged in.
If you can't make a good-faith effort to read a minimum of relevant background material, why should I believe that creating an original text for your benefit will yield results commensurate with the effort it would require?
Under the current market structure, they get paid a much higher price per MWh than baseload plants, because they can exploit low capital and idling costs to only produce at peak price.
It would also be possible to pay explicitly for "capacity available at N minutes' notice." Some grids do that, and it is not obvious that they are overpaying for or undersupplied with capacity relative to the European grid.
But in fact insufficient gas-fired capacity is not a problem in the contemporary European grid. The problem, rather, is that there is too much gas capacity, such that some gas turbines are being run as baseload. Nor is gas being underbuilt: Roughly half of all new capacity constructed is gas-fired (gas delivers substantially less than half of all MWh from new plants, but that is in the nature of peaker plants).
A minor quibble with your write-up: semantically it is much closer to reality to refer to renewables as variable rather than intermittent.
Intermittent is feeding the anti-renewables propaganda as it implies something that starts and stops unpredictably while the reality is that renewables (for the vast majority of them) are operating with on a gradient that is both broadly predictable and similarly addressed to the inherent variability of electricity demand (no-one calls demand intermittent when in fact you switch on a 2 kW boiler suddenly...) Orthodoxy is not a religion.
"[Romney] will allow the wind credit to expire, end the stimulus boondoggles and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits," a spokesperson for the Romney campaign told the Des Moines Register. .... "We should not be in the business of steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches," Romney notes on his campaign website. "That is a recipe for both time and money wasted on projects that do not bring us dividends. The failure of wind mills and solar plants to become economically viable or make a significant contribution to our energy supply is a prime example."
If you keep repeating lies long enough... "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
"We should not be in the business of steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches,"
like we republicans have been doing for fossil fuels and nuclear for decades, absolutely. that's not political favourisation, it's business. The power of knowledge is in mortal combat with the knowledge of power. It really is that simple... That's the Edenic apple we are all munching on.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/29/597061/many-happy-returns-for-big-oil-romneys-policies-c ould-hand-oil-companies-another-4-billion-a-year/
Main oil companies get a 2400 millions break, while their profits are 137 billions. res humà m'és aliè
The Economist is a sad hack job.
Period.
Loading tripods for their Areva Wind turbine foundations. You can imagine their scale if you imagine the size of the tugboat captain in his command deck. I'm smaller than than the joint between the cross bar and main leg, or at least i was last time i was there. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
by DoDo - May 20 18 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 15 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 12 11 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by DoDo - May 2018 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1615 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 340 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments