You are again demonstrating ignorance. An anticyclone is widespread period of low wind that can cover large areas, such as a good portion of northern Europe or half of the United States. Would you PLEASE stop spouting stupid things and do some checking.
Tidal energy has pretty much been universally abandoned as a waste of time.
Scotland produces 7,5 GW from Tidal power, and 14 GW from wave power. That is far from being a waste of time, especially given the all-time availability of these renewable energies.
You should look past the wiki link, those numbers don't appear to be correct, they look like numbers that are 'projected', inaccurately represented. I could not find any other source to back it up so it is very questionable, other article show only a few hundred MW of prototype capacity.
And you don't 'produce' GW, you produce GWh. You can install 7.5 GW but it might not be generating much or often. This is simply another, much more expensive, intermittent source.
The French Academy of Sciences has determined significant CO2 reduction is not feasible if France if they reduce nuclear.
This is just an opinion, which ignores some renewable not deployed in France yet, such as tidal energy.
And as expected, we can find Vincent Courtilot in the the French science academy report authors. He is France's most famous climate denier and is former head of Institut de Physique du Globe, a research institution largely funded by oil industry.
Aahh. Find an excuse to dismiss. That's so typical. Do you dismiss everything the Academy says or just the stuff that doesn't conveniently fit your personal view? The oil industry has never supported nuclear. There is no climate denial, if fact there is climate change acknowledgement in this release.
Another item from the Academy for the 'wind blows everywhere' crowd;
The variability in output from wind and solar energy requires the use of other forms of energy to offset this intermittency, the academy said. "One might think that energy exchanges at the European-level could mitigate this problem, but long nights are everywhere at the same time in Europe, and anticyclones are often with us and our neighbours simultaneously."
The French Academy of Sciences has determined significant CO2 reduction is not feasible if France if they reduce nuclear. Here is a copy of a summary with some translated excerpts;
France cannot achieve a significant reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases from electricity production while also reducing the share of nuclear in its energy mix, the country's Academy of Sciences says.
"Simple common sense leads one to conclude that production of electricity that can meet the country's needs requires the availability of 'on demand' energies, which do not suffer from intermittency and which can be called upon at all times," it said. This means, in the absence of energy storage solutions, significant use will need to be made of thermal and nuclear power plants if France is to increase its use of renewable energy.
Nuclear power last year accounted for 13% of electricity production in Germany, which decided in 2011 to phase out its use of this form of energy. In 2010, nuclear power had accounted for 22%. The academy noted that, even though renewable energy accounted for 30% of power production last year, the share of fossil fuels was unchanged at 55% because Germany has had to open new fossil fuel plants to provide the back-up required for intermittent renewable energy. Germany thus remains one of Europe's largest CO2 emitters.
France, through its high dependence on nuclear energy, is one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita: about half as much as Germany. France produces around 540 TWh of electricity with emissions of 46 million tonnes CO2 per year, compared with Germany, which produces about 631 TWh from 334 million tonnes.
"Nuclear energy is objectively the most effective way to reduce the share of fossil fuels in the production of electrical energy," it said. "Within this general framework, there is a real contradiction in wanting to reduce emissions whilst reducing the share of nuclear power. In fact, many studies show that the total share of renewable energy cannot exceed 30-40% without leading to an exorbitant cost of electricity and the emission of greenhouse gases."
The academy said "realistic and coherent" scenarios show that it is impossible to have an energy system based wholly on renewable energy sources, which also "indicate a reasonable trajectory towards an energy solution where nuclear power will have its place in the coming decades".
In February, the French Nuclear Society issued a white paper stating the country needs to maintain its nuclear power generation capacity in order to raise the share of electricity from renewables without increasing the cost of electricity production.
The EEX is the market system. It is how market prices are set. Rate setters use the average market prices along with other factors when they set rates. Its a pretty basic concept, not sure why you don't understand it but I won't waste my time trying any more, you will just deny it like you did the generation percentages I posted even though they were right in front of your eyes in your own source link. I'm done here, you are wasting my time.
Those numbers are shown in your link. Look at percentages in chart on page ten. Actually, I was a tad high on Wind. It was 14.2% according to your link. Thanks
If you knew what a "regressive tax" is, I expect you would not have isolated the word "regressive" from its context.
Irony++
I have no idea what renewable energy government subsidies exist in Germany, nor do I understand their impact on taxation, but the parent comment makes the clear assertion that there is a greater relative financial burden on poorer consumers & taxpayers than on the more wealthy.
Whether or not this is true, the concept itself is internally consistent and semantically accurate.
Its complicated. Here is some discussion about what they might need to do going forward, which includes taxing other business to help pay for renewables;
Total contribution over the year is still substantial. Renewable contributed 188 TWh from 648 TWh total production in 2016 including 38 TWh solar and 77 TWh wind. You are pretending there is a small contribution only relevant on weekends. This is far from the truth.
According to Fraunhofer, for year 2016, German Energy Production was only 14.4% Wind, 6.9% Solar.
You are pretending there is a small contribution only relevant on weekends.
I never said nor implied that. I was just putting things in perspective when it comes to these momentary peaks. Many don't realize just how wide the range is.
music used to be something somewhat special, today its all the same polished to death generic flat loud noise no matter the genera or band, why would I care to see pictures of people sitting in front of a computer fixing the "dont give a shit" music that took a half a day to record
There are many talented musicians out there making great music.You just need to take time to find them.
You will. You are paying prices that reflect the past average market prices and predicted prices going forward, that is part of how your rates are set.
If I were German I'd worry about some of the disturbing choices presented in this article. Hopefully this isn't serious, I can't tell. They are literally recommending taxing things besides energy and surcharging other industries to pay for renewables. This will hide the rising costs from directly impacting electricity prices
All that info could easily be placed in file tags. But noboday seems to want to do that, so maybe the demand isn't really there. Artists could have a pdf link if that worked better.
Solar partially lines up with peaks, although its of little help in the winter. Wind does not line up with peaks at all, there is no correlation. Neither are dispatchable at this point, although if they were to build huge wind overcapacity they could dispatch it a bit, an approach which would also drive up the cost.
Thanks to hydro and biomass. For wind and solar, they are only able to exist on the grid at the levels they do because of coal and gas backing them up.
I'm also curious about the breakdown of the conventional sources as well. What percentages are imports, how much of that is coal, how much natural gas, nuclear, hydro(?), etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You are again demonstrating ignorance. An anticyclone is widespread period of low wind that can cover large areas, such as a good portion of northern Europe or half of the United States. Would you PLEASE stop spouting stupid things and do some checking.
The only expandable renewables are wind and solar. Nothing you said negates the very valid points of the French Academy
Tidal energy has pretty much been universally abandoned as a waste of time.
Scotland produces 7,5 GW from Tidal power, and 14 GW from wave power. That is far from being a waste of time, especially given the all-time availability of these renewable energies.
You should look past the wiki link, those numbers don't appear to be correct, they look like numbers that are 'projected', inaccurately represented. I could not find any other source to back it up so it is very questionable, other article show only a few hundred MW of prototype capacity.
And you don't 'produce' GW, you produce GWh. You can install 7.5 GW but it might not be generating much or often. This is simply another, much more expensive, intermittent source.
The French Academy of Sciences has determined significant CO2 reduction is not feasible if France if they reduce nuclear.
This is just an opinion, which ignores some renewable not deployed in France yet, such as tidal energy.
And as expected, we can find Vincent Courtilot in the the French science academy report authors. He is France's most famous climate denier and is former head of Institut de Physique du Globe, a research institution largely funded by oil industry.
Aahh. Find an excuse to dismiss. That's so typical. Do you dismiss everything the Academy says or just the stuff that doesn't conveniently fit your personal view? The oil industry has never supported nuclear. There is no climate denial, if fact there is climate change acknowledgement in this release.
This is a nice example of willful ignorance.
What is sad is that not a single normal news source covered this. Had they said the opposite it would have been reported all over the place.
Another item from the Academy for the 'wind blows everywhere' crowd;
The variability in output from wind and solar energy requires the use of other forms of energy to offset this intermittency, the academy said. "One might think that energy exchanges at the European-level could mitigate this problem, but long nights are everywhere at the same time in Europe, and anticyclones are often with us and our neighbours simultaneously."
The French Academy of Sciences has determined significant CO2 reduction is not feasible if France if they reduce nuclear. Here is a copy of a summary with some translated excerpts;
France cannot achieve a significant reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases from electricity production while also reducing the share of nuclear in its energy mix, the country's Academy of Sciences says.
"Simple common sense leads one to conclude that production of electricity that can meet the country's needs requires the availability of 'on demand' energies, which do not suffer from intermittency and which can be called upon at all times," it said. This means, in the absence of energy storage solutions, significant use will need to be made of thermal and nuclear power plants if France is to increase its use of renewable energy.
Nuclear power last year accounted for 13% of electricity production in Germany, which decided in 2011 to phase out its use of this form of energy. In 2010, nuclear power had accounted for 22%. The academy noted that, even though renewable energy accounted for 30% of power production last year, the share of fossil fuels was unchanged at 55% because Germany has had to open new fossil fuel plants to provide the back-up required for intermittent renewable energy. Germany thus remains one of Europe's largest CO2 emitters.
France, through its high dependence on nuclear energy, is one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita: about half as much as Germany. France produces around 540 TWh of electricity with emissions of 46 million tonnes CO2 per year, compared with Germany, which produces about 631 TWh from 334 million tonnes.
"Nuclear energy is objectively the most effective way to reduce the share of fossil fuels in the production of electrical energy," it said. "Within this general framework, there is a real contradiction in wanting to reduce emissions whilst reducing the share of nuclear power. In fact, many studies show that the total share of renewable energy cannot exceed 30-40% without leading to an exorbitant cost of electricity and the emission of greenhouse gases."
The academy said "realistic and coherent" scenarios show that it is impossible to have an energy system based wholly on renewable energy sources, which also "indicate a reasonable trajectory towards an energy solution where nuclear power will have its place in the coming decades".
In February, the French Nuclear Society issued a white paper stating the country needs to maintain its nuclear power generation capacity in order to raise the share of electricity from renewables without increasing the cost of electricity production.
http://www.academie-sciences.f...
The EEX is the market system. It is how market prices are set. Rate setters use the average market prices along with other factors when they set rates. Its a pretty basic concept, not sure why you don't understand it but I won't waste my time trying any more, you will just deny it like you did the generation percentages I posted even though they were right in front of your eyes in your own source link. I'm done here, you are wasting my time.
Wait till they re calculate the new rates. Market prices are a key factor, you can ignore it if you like, even though its a pretty simple concept.
If market prices were irrelevant, they would not exist.
Those numbers are shown in your link. Look at percentages in chart on page ten. Actually, I was a tad high on Wind. It was 14.2% according to your link. Thanks
If you knew what a "regressive tax" is, I expect you would not have isolated the word "regressive" from its context.
Irony++
I have no idea what renewable energy government subsidies exist in Germany, nor do I understand their impact on taxation, but the parent comment makes the clear assertion that there is a greater relative financial burden on poorer consumers & taxpayers than on the more wealthy.
Whether or not this is true, the concept itself is internally consistent and semantically accurate.
Its complicated. Here is some discussion about what they might need to do going forward, which includes taxing other business to help pay for renewables;
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
Wind was 14.4% of generation in 2016. Solar was 6.9%.
Total contribution over the year is still substantial. Renewable contributed 188 TWh from 648 TWh total production in 2016 including 38 TWh solar and 77 TWh wind. You are pretending there is a small contribution only relevant on weekends. This is far from the truth.
According to Fraunhofer, for year 2016, German Energy Production was only 14.4% Wind, 6.9% Solar.
You are pretending there is a small contribution only relevant on weekends.
I never said nor implied that. I was just putting things in perspective when it comes to these momentary peaks. Many don't realize just how wide the range is.
music used to be something somewhat special, today its all the same polished to death generic flat loud noise no matter the genera or band, why would I care to see pictures of people sitting in front of a computer fixing the "dont give a shit" music that took a half a day to record
There are many talented musicians out there making great music.You just need to take time to find them.
You will. You are paying prices that reflect the past average market prices and predicted prices going forward, that is part of how your rates are set.
No crusade. I was just presenting facts. You seem to not like them for some reason.
If I were German I'd worry about some of the disturbing choices presented in this article. Hopefully this isn't serious, I can't tell. They are literally recommending taxing things besides energy and surcharging other industries to pay for renewables. This will hide the rising costs from directly impacting electricity prices
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
All that info could easily be placed in file tags. But noboday seems to want to do that, so maybe the demand isn't really there. Artists could have a pdf link if that worked better.
Those responsible for power production and managing the grid most definitely care. You can conveniently dismiss this reality if you wish.
Solar partially lines up with peaks, although its of little help in the winter. Wind does not line up with peaks at all, there is no correlation. Neither are dispatchable at this point, although if they were to build huge wind overcapacity they could dispatch it a bit, an approach which would also drive up the cost.
Thanks to hydro and biomass. For wind and solar, they are only able to exist on the grid at the levels they do because of coal and gas backing them up.
I'm also curious about the breakdown of the conventional sources as well. What percentages are imports, how much of that is coal, how much natural gas, nuclear, hydro(?), etc.
https://www.energy-charts.de/i...
What has the spot price to do with consumer prices?
Uggh. Did you really ask that? They correlate well when averaged over time.