Solar gets over 30% initial construction and installation costs PAID FOR by tax subsidy. On top of that, forced production credits at RETAIL rates for an indefinite period are provide for most. Nuclear does not, nor has ever gotten anything like that.
Nuclear produces over 40 time the electrical power as solar, but gets nowhere near 40 times toatl subsidies. Not even close.
A typical nuclear unit pays about $10 million in property taxes, and employs hundreds of highly educated employees with high paying jobs. Nuclear is a net positive in total tax paid vs. subsidy.
A large portion of the solar subsidy goes to Asia to pay for the panels and, in the case of residential solar, to pay an individuals power bill, a luxury many people are not in position to take advantage of. Solar is a net negative.
When solar shuts down every night, nuclear is there.
Here's the thing. I have showed you the charts that clearly, without any doubt, show that wind power peaking does not correlate with load peaking, as you suggested. The same charts also clearly show that conventional generation correlates with peaking, which you suggested was not true. I don't know what else I should say if you are just going to ignore the facts that are clear and unambiguous. Moreover, your contention that conventional sources are not used for peaking defies any reasonable measure of common sense since we've done it fine for the last century without wind power.
If you want to continue a serious conversation, and earn back any respect, you need to first face the reality of the information I presented, and admit your contentions are erroneous.
And, just to throw you a bone, theoretically you could build enough wind power so that all loads are powered even in periods of low wind. Of course, there would be huge overcapacity and an large amount of unused turbines for much of the time, costs to build would be tremendous, and the transmission infrastructure would need a big overhaul. Fact is, nobody is heading that direction. I don't care to discuss this, but if you want to be a proponent of such a solution please do the math on cost.
Until you can stand up like a man and admit the facts that are obvious from those charts, how do you expect me to take on a serious conversation with you?
I'll state it again. Wind power in Germany is run as much as possible, that is, when the wind is blowing, the turbines are generating. Wind turbines are not dispatched on and off for peaking. Wind and solar have production priority and other sources are reduced when there is over capacity, other sources come on line when there is under capacity. There may be very rare cases were some turbines need to be cut off, but it is not part of peak load following management. Any contention otherwise is false, uninformed, and makes zero practical sense. The wind output variability shown is a good reflection of the overall wind energy availability over time in Germany.
Try calculating it on a per unit basis, relative to the amount of power generated or built. Solar and Wind see way more. If the point is to actually generate electricity, nuclear has paid back many times over, while solar and wind are still a net cost.
As for the graph, look it again and notice when the periods of maximum contribution from wind are. It's almost always at times of peak power consumption.
More complete bullshit from someone who's been caught and cornered. You can see the changes in conventional generation right there on the chart that you claim can't be done. Nothing you said so far is backed up by one single document. I'm sorry, but you are simply laughable at this point, and any who looks at those charts can easily see, so I know you'll reply with more bullshit and no backup, I've closed this matter for anyone who has read the thread. Got yard work to do... go ahead and reply with more unfounded bullshit. At this point, you'll just make yourself look more foolish.
I know. I just like to show the rest of folks how utterly easy it can be to show real facts that prove him wrong. He fell right into it, and now he's gonna come up with some new BS that he can't show any source for, or he'll just quit.
Look at slide 78. If your contention were true there would be a correlation between Wind generation and peak, but there is clearly no correlation. The correlation is with conventional. There are periods of low demand with high wind output, and period of high demand with low wind output. So, you'll have to explain that. I'm sure you'll try to get creative.
What was your source for your contention? I certainly backed up my point with real data.
Slides 35-38 clearly demonstrate my point and show that conventional sources are used to offset the intermittent of wind and solar. No sane operator would choose to ramp conventional up and down that much for any other reason, the reason is offset and it is obvious from looking at those pages. It is also clear that there would be no benefit from shutting down wind generation for peak management, as it is quite clear conventional is quite capable (as it was before renewables were added). You contended conventional source could not follow demand in that manner, but clearly that assumption was wrong and is quite ill though out since many countries manage their peaks quite fine without renewables. I am sure you will simply choose not to believe, and rationalize some other reason for the great variability in conventional generation, rather than accept what is quite obvious.
Sorry, but you are just wrong. Germany is maximizing their wind generation because that is how they justify the cost of building the wind, and show they are reaching their goals of % renewables. If your claims were correct, they would not have the short overcapacity periods because they would just shut down wind. But that is not happening. Your assumption is based completely on your interpretation of some weather chart, but weather charts only show averages, not the true transmittance of wind. Gusting winds are much different than steady winds, etc. If you want to continue your assertion, please find a credible source that describes this operational mode being used in Germany.
It is also hefty fees paid by nuclear that are used to finance renewables. Regardless of how it is paid, the cost is stll what it is...and that 100 billion Euro isnt the complete cost, part of the cost is also born by those who install solar. So, at least you agree that the cost is huge. That was my point. In the end Germans are paying the tab.
But I dont make stuff up, there are a number of solar fanboys that follow my every post and consistently fail making similar accusations. I always have a basis for my statements.
Proportional is the only thing that makes sense to me. Actually, proportional to GWH generation is the fairest approach, since simple capacity is not a good comparison measure.
I actually have no problem with subsidies for solar and wind. I think they are too high, and the associated production credits are damaging market models, but the concept is OK to me. I don't like the unfairness of residential solar subsidies, I've state my case there, but again, there are good reasons to subsidize power. But when people take the effects of huge subsides on the market and point to them as a success of the technology alone, I am going to point out the fact that actual cost is being lost in the discussion.
Wind power in Germany is not turned on and off to accommodate peaking, and to imply that it is either simple ignorance or a intentionally false. Wind is generating at full available power all the time, it is coal, gas, and biomass that are manged to fill in the peaks. Sorry if that reality doesn't fit your curve.
Add up the the value of those benefits and then calculate based on a percentage of construction cost or KWH generation, and it will be nowhere near what solar is getting.
They replace, or add new lines to the network on a piecemeal basis, which I consider incremental in the big picture. Call it what you want, they existing infrastructure is not changing very much when you look at the entirety.
I doubt you can show any numbers that show on a cost per KWH or cost for construction basis that money directly supporting commercial nuclear (or coal for that matter) is anywhere near the levels supporting solar. The new nuclear plants under construction are not getting anywhere near the over 30% tax break, and retail level feed-in tariffs or production credits on a per Kwh basis. Those incentives don't exist. You can make all the generalized claims you want.
The distribution network already is there, and anything more than a incremental addition is rarely ever needed. So, a fact based approach should also include the appropriate use of existing assets.
You can easily look for total actual wind generation profile charts on the net, with a simple Google effort, and you can see the immense variability within a day, a week, etc. Despite what you want to believe, the "wind is always blowing" thing is quite far from reality. Windmills overall, however, are proving to be much better than solar in terms of cost performance.
I'll also add that it took approximately 100 Billion Euro of taxpayer money in just the subsidy portion to pay for that accomplishment. Not very impressive at all. Wind, by cost comparison in Germany is kicking solar's ass.
There you go, citing a moment in time when, during one of it lowest power usage moments, and a fortunate condition of high winds and sun across the country, a significant percentage was generated. But, the percentages even changed dramatically during that same day. Over the course of the year and during any given heavy load timeframe, the true picture is formed and it looks quite different. That's why it is quite stupid to look at anything but total GWh of electricity produced and used on an annual basis. That is really all that matters in the end, and I don't see solar tooting that horn in Germany.
If you took a short enough timeframe, an AAA battery has enough power to supply all of Germany. Its a stupid trick that plays well in PR to the less informed.
Solar can fill part of the daytime peak, but other source are required to step in when solar wanes in late afternoon or on cloudy days. Then, of course, gas, coal, or nuclear are there to save the day. That is just fine as long as folks don't ignore the associated cost factors. But, I agree the way money gets thrown around distorts the market, invites mis-use, and political influence. Our energy policy should be fact based; cost, risk, reliability, diversity, environmental impact all need to be considered, but unfortunately the US hasn't had a energy policy based on those factors for over 25 years (if every).
Yes, and the subsidies for solar and wind are bigger than anything any other energy source has ever seen. In terms of percentage of construction cost, or percentage of power generated, any way you choose, solar gets an ENORMOUS subsidy. If you gave 1/3 the equivalent percentage to nuclear, for instance, you'd see a mass rush to build.
You can pretend all subsidies are equal if you want. Fact is, almost every country subsidizes its energy infrastructure in different ways because low cost, reliable energy is a key to economic security as well as quality of life.
Slashdot Mirror
Solar gets over 30% initial construction and installation costs PAID FOR by tax subsidy. On top of that, forced production credits at RETAIL rates for an indefinite period are provide for most. Nuclear does not, nor has ever gotten anything like that.
Nuclear produces over 40 time the electrical power as solar, but gets nowhere near 40 times toatl subsidies. Not even close.
A typical nuclear unit pays about $10 million in property taxes, and employs hundreds of highly educated employees with high paying jobs. Nuclear is a net positive in total tax paid vs. subsidy.
A large portion of the solar subsidy goes to Asia to pay for the panels and, in the case of residential solar, to pay an individuals power bill, a luxury many people are not in position to take advantage of. Solar is a net negative.
When solar shuts down every night, nuclear is there.
Here's the thing. I have showed you the charts that clearly, without any doubt, show that wind power peaking does not correlate with load peaking, as you suggested. The same charts also clearly show that conventional generation correlates with peaking, which you suggested was not true. I don't know what else I should say if you are just going to ignore the facts that are clear and unambiguous. Moreover, your contention that conventional sources are not used for peaking defies any reasonable measure of common sense since we've done it fine for the last century without wind power.
If you want to continue a serious conversation, and earn back any respect, you need to first face the reality of the information I presented, and admit your contentions are erroneous.
And, just to throw you a bone, theoretically you could build enough wind power so that all loads are powered even in periods of low wind. Of course, there would be huge overcapacity and an large amount of unused turbines for much of the time, costs to build would be tremendous, and the transmission infrastructure would need a big overhaul. Fact is, nobody is heading that direction. I don't care to discuss this, but if you want to be a proponent of such a solution please do the math on cost.
Until you can stand up like a man and admit the facts that are obvious from those charts, how do you expect me to take on a serious conversation with you?
I'll state it again. Wind power in Germany is run as much as possible, that is, when the wind is blowing, the turbines are generating. Wind turbines are not dispatched on and off for peaking. Wind and solar have production priority and other sources are reduced when there is over capacity, other sources come on line when there is under capacity. There may be very rare cases were some turbines need to be cut off, but it is not part of peak load following management. Any contention otherwise is false, uninformed, and makes zero practical sense. The wind output variability shown is a good reflection of the overall wind energy availability over time in Germany.
Try calculating it on a per unit basis, relative to the amount of power generated or built. Solar and Wind see way more. If the point is to actually generate electricity, nuclear has paid back many times over, while solar and wind are still a net cost.
All the charts back up my point, including page 78.
As for the graph, look it again and notice when the periods of maximum contribution from wind are. It's almost always at times of peak power consumption.
FALSE
More complete bullshit from someone who's been caught and cornered. You can see the changes in conventional generation right there on the chart that you claim can't be done. Nothing you said so far is backed up by one single document. I'm sorry, but you are simply laughable at this point, and any who looks at those charts can easily see, so I know you'll reply with more bullshit and no backup, I've closed this matter for anyone who has read the thread. Got yard work to do... go ahead and reply with more unfounded bullshit. At this point, you'll just make yourself look more foolish.
I know. I just like to show the rest of folks how utterly easy it can be to show real facts that prove him wrong. He fell right into it, and now he's gonna come up with some new BS that he can't show any source for, or he'll just quit.
And before you try to make up more stuff
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/e...
Look at slide 78. If your contention were true there would be a correlation between Wind generation and peak, but there is clearly no correlation. The correlation is with conventional. There are periods of low demand with high wind output, and period of high demand with low wind output. So, you'll have to explain that. I'm sure you'll try to get creative.
What was your source for your contention? I certainly backed up my point with real data.
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/e...
Slides 35-38 clearly demonstrate my point and show that conventional sources are used to offset the intermittent of wind and solar. No sane operator would choose to ramp conventional up and down that much for any other reason, the reason is offset and it is obvious from looking at those pages. It is also clear that there would be no benefit from shutting down wind generation for peak management, as it is quite clear conventional is quite capable (as it was before renewables were added). You contended conventional source could not follow demand in that manner, but clearly that assumption was wrong and is quite ill though out since many countries manage their peaks quite fine without renewables. I am sure you will simply choose not to believe, and rationalize some other reason for the great variability in conventional generation, rather than accept what is quite obvious.
Sorry, but you are just wrong. Germany is maximizing their wind generation because that is how they justify the cost of building the wind, and show they are reaching their goals of % renewables. If your claims were correct, they would not have the short overcapacity periods because they would just shut down wind. But that is not happening. Your assumption is based completely on your interpretation of some weather chart, but weather charts only show averages, not the true transmittance of wind. Gusting winds are much different than steady winds, etc. If you want to continue your assertion, please find a credible source that describes this operational mode being used in Germany.
It is also hefty fees paid by nuclear that are used to finance renewables. Regardless of how it is paid, the cost is stll what it is...and that 100 billion Euro isnt the complete cost, part of the cost is also born by those who install solar. So, at least you agree that the cost is huge. That was my point. In the end Germans are paying the tab.
Hi Coward. I may have understated it.
http://m.spiegel.de/internatio...
But I dont make stuff up, there are a number of solar fanboys that follow my every post and consistently fail making similar accusations. I always have a basis for my statements.
Proportional is the only thing that makes sense to me. Actually, proportional to GWH generation is the fairest approach, since simple capacity is not a good comparison measure.
I actually have no problem with subsidies for solar and wind. I think they are too high, and the associated production credits are damaging market models, but the concept is OK to me. I don't like the unfairness of residential solar subsidies, I've state my case there, but again, there are good reasons to subsidize power. But when people take the effects of huge subsides on the market and point to them as a success of the technology alone, I am going to point out the fact that actual cost is being lost in the discussion.
Wind power in Germany is not turned on and off to accommodate peaking, and to imply that it is either simple ignorance or a intentionally false. Wind is generating at full available power all the time, it is coal, gas, and biomass that are manged to fill in the peaks. Sorry if that reality doesn't fit your curve.
Add up the the value of those benefits and then calculate based on a percentage of construction cost or KWH generation, and it will be nowhere near what solar is getting.
They replace, or add new lines to the network on a piecemeal basis, which I consider incremental in the big picture. Call it what you want, they existing infrastructure is not changing very much when you look at the entirety.
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/e... Look at slide 38, wind totals for German Wind production. Argue with them if you don't believe it.
I said look at ACTUAL total generation charts that are out there. How can real numbers be bullshit? Please, explain why you would ignore REAL NUMBERS!
I doubt you can show any numbers that show on a cost per KWH or cost for construction basis that money directly supporting commercial nuclear (or coal for that matter) is anywhere near the levels supporting solar. The new nuclear plants under construction are not getting anywhere near the over 30% tax break, and retail level feed-in tariffs or production credits on a per Kwh basis. Those incentives don't exist. You can make all the generalized claims you want.
The distribution network already is there, and anything more than a incremental addition is rarely ever needed. So, a fact based approach should also include the appropriate use of existing assets.
You can easily look for total actual wind generation profile charts on the net, with a simple Google effort, and you can see the immense variability within a day, a week, etc. Despite what you want to believe, the "wind is always blowing" thing is quite far from reality. Windmills overall, however, are proving to be much better than solar in terms of cost performance.
I'll also add that it took approximately 100 Billion Euro of taxpayer money in just the subsidy portion to pay for that accomplishment. Not very impressive at all. Wind, by cost comparison in Germany is kicking solar's ass.
There you go, citing a moment in time when, during one of it lowest power usage moments, and a fortunate condition of high winds and sun across the country, a significant percentage was generated. But, the percentages even changed dramatically during that same day. Over the course of the year and during any given heavy load timeframe, the true picture is formed and it looks quite different. That's why it is quite stupid to look at anything but total GWh of electricity produced and used on an annual basis. That is really all that matters in the end, and I don't see solar tooting that horn in Germany.
If you took a short enough timeframe, an AAA battery has enough power to supply all of Germany. Its a stupid trick that plays well in PR to the less informed.
Solar can fill part of the daytime peak, but other source are required to step in when solar wanes in late afternoon or on cloudy days. Then, of course, gas, coal, or nuclear are there to save the day. That is just fine as long as folks don't ignore the associated cost factors. But, I agree the way money gets thrown around distorts the market, invites mis-use, and political influence. Our energy policy should be fact based; cost, risk, reliability, diversity, environmental impact all need to be considered, but unfortunately the US hasn't had a energy policy based on those factors for over 25 years (if every).
Yes, and the subsidies for solar and wind are bigger than anything any other energy source has ever seen. In terms of percentage of construction cost, or percentage of power generated, any way you choose, solar gets an ENORMOUS subsidy. If you gave 1/3 the equivalent percentage to nuclear, for instance, you'd see a mass rush to build.
You can pretend all subsidies are equal if you want. Fact is, almost every country subsidizes its energy infrastructure in different ways because low cost, reliable energy is a key to economic security as well as quality of life.