Newsflash: Most countries try to influence other countries, and they do it in a lot more ways that social media and fake news. This has only become 'news' because certain people feel the need to believe this past US election was somehow different. Sad bunch of morons.
You apply double standards. If Germany imports a little bit of electricity in the evening after sunset with low wind because this is a bit cheaper than spinning up a conventional plant, this indicates that wind power is a failure.
I never said nor implied that wind is a failure, I don't believe wind is a failure, I've always maintained it is an important part of the mix to reduce CO2 emissions. Just pointing out the contrast to those that want to point out petty import/export balance perturbations as if it were some statement on nuclear in France, particularly when they've traditionally been a leading exporter of electricity in Europe.
Its well documented that France's energy mix, which includes significant nuclear contribution, provides a stable generation base, low CO2 emissions, and low cost. Germany, meanwhile. is struggling with their CO2 reductions under a strategy which reduces nuclear, as such they are facing higher costs and higher CO2 emissions, with no clear turning point in sight.
France has not historically had issues with plants being off line, and heat related shutdowns are very rare, and can be planned and dealt with. Unlike wind, where massive drops in output cannot be scheduled, and must be made up from other sources. In fact, most of Germany's net import periods coincide with low wind output nationally and higher demand.
I never said Germany depends on nuclear power from France. They have their own nuclear power which provides a stable base. They also, like France, are a large net exporter of electricity.
There are times, like France, when they import more than they export. Those are not very often but they happen.
'total renewables' include CO2 producing biomass burning, and non-expandable hydro generation. Total wind can vary year to year based on wind conditions. You should hope for a steadily windy year and a lot of biomass burning if that short term number is important to you.
OK, we were clearly talking about electricity prices, and hence electricity generation percentages, that was pretty clear. If you want to pick on word choice, and that is your only point, so be it.
Yes, I agree German electricity is much higher than UK, mainly due to Energiewinde. Your post does not make sense in that context, as it is not relevant.
What is your point? My statements still stand. Why are you conflating other energy costs when we are talking about the high electricity cost in Germany?
Rubbish, we have a high percentage renewables here in the UK and our electricity costs very close to half of that. Wind is cheap. Solar is getting cheap.
In 2016, renewables made up about 8.9% total UK energy consumption. That includes hydro and biomass. Wind was about 4%, Solar about 1%. Conversely, in Germany , Wind was about 15% and solar about 5% annual generation. So that puts Germany about 4 times UK in terms of solar and wind percentage, plus Germany is a bigger producer and user.
Systemic cost goes up significantly with higher penetration, which is why Germany is struggling to pay for Energiewinde. Transmission upgrades along with backup asset costs are two key factors. Germany's cost per KWH wind and solar addition will continue to rise because of systemic costs, not because of based capacity costs.
But in a few years that will lead to no more nukes nor coal plants,
What are you basing that statement on? There are no projections for Germany to eliminate coal in the next 25 years. Reduction of nuclear is one reason their CO2 emissions are so high and they have made little progress reducing it.
French bills look low, but actually when you factor in the tax diverted to EDF and the other French energy companies, it's insanely expensive.
Please cite your source. This is just a fabricated rationalization. Frances nuclear plants have been paid for for quite some time. Not only is Germany subsidizing power at higher rates than anyone else, they are trying to figure out how to pay for it outside of the rate structure, including added taxes;
The generation profile is not determined by low use conditions, but rather highest demand conditions coupled with worst generation conditions (low wind). You talk about exporting when demand is low as a reason to shut down plants.
While nukes need high enough levels of water in the cooling water river they use, which isn't' the case sometimes in summer so they have to shut down,
This is a very rare occasion. For example, during summer heat waves in the US Northeast, it is nuclear plants that keep the lights one while almost no wind is producing. One plant out of many reducing output is very different than the entire wind output of Germany falling because of low wind conditions.
Yes, a very slight increase in cancer risk but not necessarily attributable to radiation. Prostate cancer is a risk, evidently is from prolonged sitting (truck drivers see similar risk).
The problem with tying cancers to occupational or medial radiation is that the risk factors are so small to begin with, potential correlation is often overcome by uncertainty. What we do know is the risks of these types of exposures are very very low.
For example, you could put your bed 2 meters from a loaded spent fuel dry storage cask, and sleep there every night for 8 hours, your exposure in a year would be less that the annual exposure to where there is any observed health effect.
never noticed fires in cell phones? it doesn't man every phone catches on fire.
No, I haven't noticed nor seen any information regarding any increase in risk of old cell phones catching fire due to taxing an older battery. Is this unique to Apple?
accelerate the battery and possibly court a battery-swell fire?
Is that choice real or artificial? Why would normal battery protection not be sufficient, unless its not good enough to begin with? Why don't other old phones have this problem?
They are acting like Firefox is the only workaround for getting to YouTube. There is, of course, Kodi which has a Kodi supported (in their repository) YouTube plugin. That is if YouTube is worth it these days. I haven't done anything on YouTube at all this year.
That was my thought. I wonder if FF on FTV even has a use-able 10 ft interface, on YouTube or in general.
Batteries can solve problems, and depending on the specific problem in a specific part of the grid, the problem may be able to be solved in a number of ways. The battery is usually not the default choice for solving problems. In third world situations, money spent on batteries is rarely going to be the best bang for the buck use of available funds.
If you were to trace back the history of the grid issues this region of Australia has been facing, you'd find that the actual blackouts and brownouts they have been suffering come after faults or other sudden disturbances.
Its a bit complicated, in that the stress on the grid can be greater if demand is high and local wind is not producing. That is when the likelihood of a fault or sudden event will bring down a part of the grid is greatest. In that sense, the batteries offset low renewable production. But still, the primary thing that maintains reliably is the fast response voltage and frequency support.
Every article I have read on this battery implies, if it doesn't state directly, that its purpose is to time-shift through periods of low wind power. Not a single one stated that its purpose is to ride through transient outages. Not a single one stated how long the battery can meet the power requirements of the state - something around 30 minutes - which would detract from their implied (and false) thesis.
That is because almost every author assumes such and does not understand how batteries are used for grid reliability. They can and will be used part time for time shifting, particularly when there is lower demand and less stress on the grid, but that is not the primary purpose they serve. They must stay charged enough to supply fast response ancillary support, so they can only discharge partially for time shifting depending on given conditions.
No, the primary purpose of the battery is to store excess energy generated when demand is low, for use when demand is high. I agree that calling it "time shifting" sounds stupid, but I'm having a hard time disagreeing that that is exactly what it is.
This is a common mistake many have in understanding what this battery installation is for, which is to solve a grid reliability issue in this specfic region, which is supplied by inadequate long distance transmission lines that cannot make up a sudden local generation disruption or system fault. Those cause voltage and frequency transients which basically result in disconnection of sections of the system. The batteries help ride through the initial transient, keeping voltage and frequency in the range required for initial seconds and minutes after the event. Once things stabilize, the existing system can keep handle the demand. This is how the batteries solve the grid reliability issue.
Any use for time shifting renewable supply is secondary. In fact, only part of the battery capacity can be used for that purpose because they must remain mostly charged to handle the transient ride through requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
Newsflash: Most countries try to influence other countries, and they do it in a lot more ways that social media and fake news. This has only become 'news' because certain people feel the need to believe this past US election was somehow different. Sad bunch of morons.
You apply double standards. If Germany imports a little bit of electricity in the evening after sunset with low wind because this is a bit cheaper than spinning up a conventional plant, this indicates that wind power is a failure.
I never said nor implied that wind is a failure, I don't believe wind is a failure, I've always maintained it is an important part of the mix to reduce CO2 emissions. Just pointing out the contrast to those that want to point out petty import/export balance perturbations as if it were some statement on nuclear in France, particularly when they've traditionally been a leading exporter of electricity in Europe.
Its well documented that France's energy mix, which includes significant nuclear contribution, provides a stable generation base, low CO2 emissions, and low cost. Germany, meanwhile. is struggling with their CO2 reductions under a strategy which reduces nuclear, as such they are facing higher costs and higher CO2 emissions, with no clear turning point in sight.
You are kidding, right? France had historically lots of issues with plants being off line (planned and unplanned).
They have had plants come off line, but it has not historically presented any problems. You are trying to make it out to be some sort of problem.
The real problem is CO2 emissions, and that is much more a German problem than a French one, nuclear being a key differentiator.
France has not historically had issues with plants being off line, and heat related shutdowns are very rare, and can be planned and dealt with. Unlike wind, where massive drops in output cannot be scheduled, and must be made up from other sources. In fact, most of Germany's net import periods coincide with low wind output nationally and higher demand.
I never said Germany depends on nuclear power from France. They have their own nuclear power which provides a stable base. They also, like France, are a large net exporter of electricity.
There are times, like France, when they import more than they export. Those are not very often but they happen.
'total renewables' include CO2 producing biomass burning, and non-expandable hydro generation. Total wind can vary year to year based on wind conditions. You should hope for a steadily windy year and a lot of biomass burning if that short term number is important to you.
OK, we were clearly talking about electricity prices, and hence electricity generation percentages, that was pretty clear. If you want to pick on word choice, and that is your only point, so be it.
Yes, I agree German electricity is much higher than UK, mainly due to Energiewinde. Your post does not make sense in that context, as it is not relevant.
What is your point? My statements still stand. Why are you conflating other energy costs when we are talking about the high electricity cost in Germany?
Rubbish, we have a high percentage renewables here in the UK and our electricity costs very close to half of that. Wind is cheap. Solar is getting cheap.
In 2016, renewables made up about 8.9% total UK energy consumption. That includes hydro and biomass. Wind was about 4%, Solar about 1%. Conversely, in Germany , Wind was about 15% and solar about 5% annual generation. So that puts Germany about 4 times UK in terms of solar and wind percentage, plus Germany is a bigger producer and user.
Systemic cost goes up significantly with higher penetration, which is why Germany is struggling to pay for Energiewinde. Transmission upgrades along with backup asset costs are two key factors. Germany's cost per KWH wind and solar addition will continue to rise because of systemic costs, not because of based capacity costs.
But in a few years that will lead to no more nukes nor coal plants,
What are you basing that statement on? There are no projections for Germany to eliminate coal in the next 25 years. Reduction of nuclear is one reason their CO2 emissions are so high and they have made little progress reducing it.
Which has nothing much to do with the actual cost of renewables,
All those fees and taxes are high BECAUSE of Energiewende costs. Their increase corresponds with spending on renewables and reduction of nuclear.
French bills look low, but actually when you factor in the tax diverted to EDF and the other French energy companies, it's insanely expensive.
Please cite your source. This is just a fabricated rationalization. Frances nuclear plants have been paid for for quite some time. Not only is Germany subsidizing power at higher rates than anyone else, they are trying to figure out how to pay for it outside of the rate structure, including added taxes;
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
The generation profile is not determined by low use conditions, but rather highest demand conditions coupled with worst generation conditions (low wind). You talk about exporting when demand is low as a reason to shut down plants.
While nukes need high enough levels of water in the cooling water river they use, which isn't' the case sometimes in summer so they have to shut down,
This is a very rare occasion. For example, during summer heat waves in the US Northeast, it is nuclear plants that keep the lights one while almost no wind is producing. One plant out of many reducing output is very different than the entire wind output of Germany falling because of low wind conditions.
Yes, a very slight increase in cancer risk but not necessarily attributable to radiation. Prostate cancer is a risk, evidently is from prolonged sitting (truck drivers see similar risk). The problem with tying cancers to occupational or medial radiation is that the risk factors are so small to begin with, potential correlation is often overcome by uncertainty. What we do know is the risks of these types of exposures are very very low.
For example, you could put your bed 2 meters from a loaded spent fuel dry storage cask, and sleep there every night for 8 hours, your exposure in a year would be less that the annual exposure to where there is any observed health effect.
never noticed fires in cell phones? it doesn't man every phone catches on fire.
No, I haven't noticed nor seen any information regarding any increase in risk of old cell phones catching fire due to taxing an older battery. Is this unique to Apple?
accelerate the battery and possibly court a battery-swell fire?
Is that choice real or artificial? Why would normal battery protection not be sufficient, unless its not good enough to begin with? Why don't other old phones have this problem?
Slow down old phones, customers see how much faster the new ones are....profit!
Yup. Net Neutrality says nothing about blocking stuff at the end device level.
They are acting like Firefox is the only workaround for getting to YouTube. There is, of course, Kodi which has a Kodi supported (in their repository) YouTube plugin. That is if YouTube is worth it these days. I haven't done anything on YouTube at all this year.
That was my thought. I wonder if FF on FTV even has a use-able 10 ft interface, on YouTube or in general.
Batteries can solve problems, and depending on the specific problem in a specific part of the grid, the problem may be able to be solved in a number of ways. The battery is usually not the default choice for solving problems. In third world situations, money spent on batteries is rarely going to be the best bang for the buck use of available funds.
The post I responded to suggested batteries at 'every substation'. I see you agree with me that is not warranted.
If you were to trace back the history of the grid issues this region of Australia has been facing, you'd find that the actual blackouts and brownouts they have been suffering come after faults or other sudden disturbances.
Its a bit complicated, in that the stress on the grid can be greater if demand is high and local wind is not producing. That is when the likelihood of a fault or sudden event will bring down a part of the grid is greatest. In that sense, the batteries offset low renewable production. But still, the primary thing that maintains reliably is the fast response voltage and frequency support.
Every article I have read on this battery implies, if it doesn't state directly, that its purpose is to time-shift through periods of low wind power. Not a single one stated that its purpose is to ride through transient outages. Not a single one stated how long the battery can meet the power requirements of the state - something around 30 minutes - which would detract from their implied (and false) thesis.
That is because almost every author assumes such and does not understand how batteries are used for grid reliability. They can and will be used part time for time shifting, particularly when there is lower demand and less stress on the grid, but that is not the primary purpose they serve. They must stay charged enough to supply fast response ancillary support, so they can only discharge partially for time shifting depending on given conditions.
https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/te...
Grid Reliability
Ancillary Services; Charge or discharge instantly to provide frequency regulation, voltage control, and spinning reserve services to the grid.
No, the primary purpose of the battery is to store excess energy generated when demand is low, for use when demand is high. I agree that calling it "time shifting" sounds stupid, but I'm having a hard time disagreeing that that is exactly what it is.
This is a common mistake many have in understanding what this battery installation is for, which is to solve a grid reliability issue in this specfic region, which is supplied by inadequate long distance transmission lines that cannot make up a sudden local generation disruption or system fault. Those cause voltage and frequency transients which basically result in disconnection of sections of the system. The batteries help ride through the initial transient, keeping voltage and frequency in the range required for initial seconds and minutes after the event. Once things stabilize, the existing system can keep handle the demand. This is how the batteries solve the grid reliability issue.
Any use for time shifting renewable supply is secondary. In fact, only part of the battery capacity can be used for that purpose because they must remain mostly charged to handle the transient ride through requirements.