Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
So, intermittent (wind) plant should be penalised for its intermittency.

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

by eurogreen on Fri Aug 3rd, 2012 at 09:28:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If an operator does not agree to provide power at a certain price in advance with an agreed relability he should be penalized.
by oliver on Fri Aug 3rd, 2012 at 12:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not with a smart grid built to accommodate generation intermittency. Not to even begin to discuss the demand side of a smarkt grid.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Fri Aug 3rd, 2012 at 12:28:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2012 at 07:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series