And what do the Dutch prices have to do with anything?
It only takes a few clicks from the link to download historical hourly Nordpoolspot prices for any part of the Nordics you are interested in.
I also told you why the household prices are irrelevant. They consist almost entirely of tax and transportation costs.
Come on. That link doesn't reflect electric prices in Denmark. Its a bullshit response with a link to a website, not a specific reference, please cite a specific chart or graphic, like I did. It is funny now after a few posts you suddenly want to ignore Denmark, when I've provided multiple citations that show they pay more for their electricity than just about anyone in Europe.
Yes, Norway has lower prices, and low and behold very little solar and wind.
I love how people use the word "scientists". It is a completely meaningless term which is supposed to engender feelings of respect. Are these people applying the scientific method to any of their research, or are they just a bunch of lifelong academics looking to avoid real work.
The term 'scientist' is used when the term 'expert' doesn't apply.
Denmark has among the lowest electricity prices in the developed world, actually.
On top of those, consumers (and some businesses) pay taxes on electricity use. Those taxes have nothing to do with generating costs. I will happily debate tax policy, but don't use it to derail the debate on nuclear power.
Please cite your source. Here are a couple more citations from me that back my statements. You've provided none.
I'll just address all your points in summary. As you are bouncing around trying to make a point.
As for lifetime years, notice I said "equivalent lifecycle". That takes into account refurbishment which over time equates to a complete replacement.
As for infrastructure and systemic costs, you fail repeatedly to indicate you even have any understanding of what they are for higher penetration solar and wind. I'd tell you but you'll just execute your willfully ignorant denials. So please, show me that you have a slight clue and describe those systemic costs. You don't have to get into the harder stuff like transmission like per unit costs, which I assume you never even heard of, just a basic description will be fine. I've gave you a good lead, so it should be quite simple.
The article is about financing the expansion of the generation fleet at the point where renewable sources are approaching, but not yet reaching the wholesale price, especially considering the different structure of costs of renewable sources (more has to be paid up front, as opposed to coal, gas and nuclear plants where a large part of the costs is for fuel and/or maintenance).........
I said it was about financing, here are my exact words;
Here is some additional info that might help you better understand the finance based challenges facing Germany going forward;
Unfortunately you don't grasp the reasons why they are struggling. Wind and Solar require major investment in infrastructure that nuclear and gas don't required. Installed wind and solar are driving up cost making financing new installations harder. In short, they aren't paying for themselves. And wind generators equivalent lifecycle is in the mid 20 year timeframe, so they must consider that replacement cost on a continuous basis going forward. The situation is not improving, its getting worse.
BTW, A nuclear plant can run for 60 - 80 years with modest investment and license renewals. Its a shame Germany was stupid enough to start shutting them down.
as they've added wind and solar, with almost no improvement in CO2 emissions.
Don't forget the decommissioned ancient nuclear plants that had to be replaced somehow. So far the effect of the renewables was that CO2 emissions haven't increased even further from replacing the nuclear capacity by lignite, so you can't really say that renewables had no impact. They clearly did.
Another sign of your ignorance. The nuclear units were shut down for entirely political reasons, they could have been run another 20 years easily with modest investment. Germany was even taking nuclear profits to pay for solar and wind until the courts found it unconstitutional.
You're caring about systemic costs in a very weird way, then, if you're divining function derivatives from a single function value. Otherwise it should be clear to you that just because old generators having the price tag several times higher than contemporary ones having driven electricity cost six cents higher means squat for what future cheap generation is going to do with the price.
I care about total cost, that is all that matters. If you think its weird, then you just display your lack of insight into what really matters. The fact you haven't even mentioned any of those cost reinforces the obvious, you are speaking with a Dunning Kruger level of electric generation, transmission, and distribution. Your many posts reflect such, you are a waste of time
I mentioned France because it was relevant to my point. You can mention any countries you want as well, If they are not relevant to my point, I will point that out as well..
You are dragging this into as stupid tit for tat 'he said she said' direction. A tactic I see a lot when a person would rather not refute key points.
If costs aren't increasing, then why are they struggling to figure out how to pay for them? I see you just like to find reasons to dismiss stuff. That explains your responses.
Ah, no labels on axes. That's "useful".:-p Also has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which is decreasing cost of generator installations, and the corresponding decrease in auctioned price for new units.
The chart reflects the average price of electricity. The final values are shown, you can figure out the axis from those quite easily. I don't really care about the isolated decreasing cost of generators, or even the auction price. I care about the systemic costs which include transmission and infrastructure costs, and curtailment costs which are incurred due to addition of intermittent wind and solar. Those are driving the cost of power in Germany up, and will continue to be even larger factors as wind and solar reach higher penetration. If you don't understand those systemic factors, and why they will become more demanding with higher penetration, then you are operating from a Dunning Kruger level of expertise.
That can easily be explained by an economic uptick, annual temperature record, and/or electricity only being about 40% of Germany's emissions and something else changing. A single inter-annual data point is meaningless for trend estimates and you should already understand that.
The chart shows only electrical generation sources. So no, your other excuses are applicable.
I didn't say 'France is best of all'. I never said 'of all'. I told you what I meant, yet you resort to bullshit change of words and taking stuff out of context...to prove what? Let it go, you are making yourself look petty and foolish.
The countries with high wind and solar are topping the charts with electrical prices. France is low by comparison, but yes there are countries with lower prices, that doesn't change the obvious. You are comparing countries with little nuclear or wind/solar, and some countries which aren't as industrial.
The correlation is clear. Higher nuclear = lower CO2, and lower cost than high solar and wind countries of comparable size and industrialization.
Germany and France are great for comparison. You can see the steady rise in German prices as they've added wind and solar, with almost no improvement in CO2 emissions. France has been way ahead on low CO2/kwh for decades, still is, will be for quite a while.
Energy prices backing down from ridiculous highs isn't 'decreasing year by year'. There is been a steady increase in pricing and it shows no signs of retracting significantly;
What other countries did the discussion talk about other than the US, France, and Germany? What other countries did I reference in that post or any other? If you are out to play 'gotcha' with your interpretation of my meaning, well go ahead if you think it makes a difference. I think it is clear what the frame of the discussion was when I made that post.
That is a good map. Thanks. It demonstrated my points as well. The large countries with low CO2 intensity (Sweden and France) have significant nuclear capacity. Both countries also have low energy prices.
Slashdot Mirror
The link was right in the post you replied to!
Here it is again: http://www.statnett.no/en/Mark...
And what do the Dutch prices have to do with anything?
It only takes a few clicks from the link to download historical hourly Nordpoolspot prices for any part of the Nordics you are interested in.
I also told you why the household prices are irrelevant. They consist almost entirely of tax and transportation costs.
Come on. That link doesn't reflect electric prices in Denmark. Its a bullshit response with a link to a website, not a specific reference, please cite a specific chart or graphic, like I did. It is funny now after a few posts you suddenly want to ignore Denmark, when I've provided multiple citations that show they pay more for their electricity than just about anyone in Europe.
Yes, Norway has lower prices, and low and behold very little solar and wind.
Surely these people are now experts in what they just wrote about.
Hah!. Good one.
I love how people use the word "scientists". It is a completely meaningless term which is supposed to engender feelings of respect. Are these people applying the scientific method to any of their research, or are they just a bunch of lifelong academics looking to avoid real work.
The term 'scientist' is used when the term 'expert' doesn't apply.
What kind of scientists are experts on social and government construct, and associated economics? Political scientists?
I hope they wore their white lab coats.
Just to be clear folks, 6-8 hours of sleep is good for the person. You don't want your heart sleeping that long.
Oh stop the disinformation.
Denmark has among the lowest electricity prices in the developed world, actually.
On top of those, consumers (and some businesses) pay taxes on electricity use. Those taxes have nothing to do with generating costs. I will happily debate tax policy, but don't use it to derail the debate on nuclear power.
Please cite your source. Here are a couple more citations from me that back my statements. You've provided none.
https://www.statista.com/stati...
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/...
I'll just address all your points in summary. As you are bouncing around trying to make a point.
As for lifetime years, notice I said "equivalent lifecycle". That takes into account refurbishment which over time equates to a complete replacement.
As for infrastructure and systemic costs, you fail repeatedly to indicate you even have any understanding of what they are for higher penetration solar and wind. I'd tell you but you'll just execute your willfully ignorant denials. So please, show me that you have a slight clue and describe those systemic costs. You don't have to get into the harder stuff like transmission like per unit costs, which I assume you never even heard of, just a basic description will be fine. I've gave you a good lead, so it should be quite simple.
Denmark pretty much has the highest electricity prices in the EU.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/...
The article is about financing the expansion of the generation fleet at the point where renewable sources are approaching, but not yet reaching the wholesale price, especially considering the different structure of costs of renewable sources (more has to be paid up front, as opposed to coal, gas and nuclear plants where a large part of the costs is for fuel and/or maintenance).........
I said it was about financing, here are my exact words;
Here is some additional info that might help you better understand the finance based challenges facing Germany going forward;
Unfortunately you don't grasp the reasons why they are struggling. Wind and Solar require major investment in infrastructure that nuclear and gas don't required. Installed wind and solar are driving up cost making financing new installations harder. In short, they aren't paying for themselves. And wind generators equivalent lifecycle is in the mid 20 year timeframe, so they must consider that replacement cost on a continuous basis going forward. The situation is not improving, its getting worse.
BTW, A nuclear plant can run for 60 - 80 years with modest investment and license renewals. Its a shame Germany was stupid enough to start shutting them down.
If you can't read the list of items on the chart and understand what they are, then you have once again proven you don't understand much.
as they've added wind and solar, with almost no improvement in CO2 emissions.
Don't forget the decommissioned ancient nuclear plants that had to be replaced somehow. So far the effect of the renewables was that CO2 emissions haven't increased even further from replacing the nuclear capacity by lignite, so you can't really say that renewables had no impact. They clearly did.
Another sign of your ignorance. The nuclear units were shut down for entirely political reasons, they could have been run another 20 years easily with modest investment. Germany was even taking nuclear profits to pay for solar and wind until the courts found it unconstitutional.
You're caring about systemic costs in a very weird way, then, if you're divining function derivatives from a single function value. Otherwise it should be clear to you that just because old generators having the price tag several times higher than contemporary ones having driven electricity cost six cents higher means squat for what future cheap generation is going to do with the price.
I care about total cost, that is all that matters. If you think its weird, then you just display your lack of insight into what really matters. The fact you haven't even mentioned any of those cost reinforces the obvious, you are speaking with a Dunning Kruger level of electric generation, transmission, and distribution. Your many posts reflect such, you are a waste of time
I mentioned France because it was relevant to my point. You can mention any countries you want as well, If they are not relevant to my point, I will point that out as well..
You are dragging this into as stupid tit for tat 'he said she said' direction. A tactic I see a lot when a person would rather not refute key points.
If costs aren't increasing, then why are they struggling to figure out how to pay for them? I see you just like to find reasons to dismiss stuff. That explains your responses.
Ah, no labels on axes. That's "useful". :-p Also has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which is decreasing cost of generator installations, and the corresponding decrease in auctioned price for new units.
The chart reflects the average price of electricity. The final values are shown, you can figure out the axis from those quite easily. I don't really care about the isolated decreasing cost of generators, or even the auction price. I care about the systemic costs which include transmission and infrastructure costs, and curtailment costs which are incurred due to addition of intermittent wind and solar. Those are driving the cost of power in Germany up, and will continue to be even larger factors as wind and solar reach higher penetration. If you don't understand those systemic factors, and why they will become more demanding with higher penetration, then you are operating from a Dunning Kruger level of expertise.
That can easily be explained by an economic uptick, annual temperature record, and/or electricity only being about 40% of Germany's emissions and something else changing. A single inter-annual data point is meaningless for trend estimates and you should already understand that.
The chart shows only electrical generation sources. So no, your other excuses are applicable.
I didn't say 'France is best of all'. I never said 'of all'. I told you what I meant, yet you resort to bullshit change of words and taking stuff out of context ...to prove what? Let it go, you are making yourself look petty and foolish.
The countries with high wind and solar are topping the charts with electrical prices. France is low by comparison, but yes there are countries with lower prices, that doesn't change the obvious. You are comparing countries with little nuclear or wind/solar, and some countries which aren't as industrial.
The correlation is clear. Higher nuclear = lower CO2, and lower cost than high solar and wind countries of comparable size and industrialization.
Germany and France are great for comparison. You can see the steady rise in German prices as they've added wind and solar, with almost no improvement in CO2 emissions. France has been way ahead on low CO2/kwh for decades, still is, will be for quite a while.
Here is some additional info that might help you better understand the finance based challenges facing Germany going forward;
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
Energy prices backing down from ridiculous highs isn't 'decreasing year by year'. There is been a steady increase in pricing and it shows no signs of retracting significantly;
https://static1.squarespace.co...
Most C02 cuts per capita in both countries were due to efficiency improvements
"Both countries" was clearly Germany and France, and not all the countries in the world.
What other countries did the discussion talk about other than the US, France, and Germany? What other countries did I reference in that post or any other? If you are out to play 'gotcha' with your interpretation of my meaning, well go ahead if you think it makes a difference. I think it is clear what the frame of the discussion was when I made that post.
True, perhaps because we produce more. Strange, I was of the opinion it is more or less the same. Thanx.
That is why you should look up the facts before saying stuff that is solely 'your opinion'.
What have been their reductions from electrical generation since they started significant energiewende solar and wind installations around 2008?
Here's a nice live map. Of course the values may vary depending on time.
That is a good map. Thanks. It demonstrated my points as well. The large countries with low CO2 intensity (Sweden and France) have significant nuclear capacity. Both countries also have low energy prices.