Why Solar and Wind cannot power Germany

[Nicodeamus]

Shifting the goalposts are we?

I am asking you if you have seen the report on energy poverty in Germany and what do you think about it?

this one,

EPAH - Energy Poverty Advisory Hub

ENERGY POVERTY ADVISORY HUB

www.energypoverty.eu

shouldn't that be a cause for concern, because I promise you that the Germans made all the exact same brilliant arguments with maps when this whole thing started at the end it ended up being a buggerup.

Proof is in the pudding and thus far it has a poor performance.

 

[richjdavies]

I am asking you if you have seen the report on energy poverty in Germany and what do you think about it?

this one,

EPAH - Energy Poverty Advisory Hub

ENERGY POVERTY ADVISORY HUB

www.energypoverty.eu

shouldn't that be a cause for concern, because I promise you that the Germans made all the exact same brilliant arguments with maps when this whole thing started at the end it ended up being a buggerup.

Proof is in the pudding and thus far it has a poor performance.

Germany went too soon (when solar was expensive) and subsidized too much with big +RPI kickers that lasted too long. They are paying for that and will continue to pay for some time. Also as a 'feedin' tariff they are paying people to generate even when they are using it themselves...

In short, the German solar subsidies are CRAZY high, grandfathered in and no German will ever allow the government to break a conteact. They should not be considered a reason to not do solar now. Its like saying Hitler was a Vegan so that means Veganism must be bad... (He also wasn't...)

They also shut down nuclear, for no real reason and started burning lignite coal...for no reason??
Germany may be very western etc, but they arent perfect.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Germany went too soon (when solar was expensive) and subsidized too much with big +RPI kickers that lasted too long. They are paying for that and will continue to pay for some time. Also as a 'feedin' tariff they are paying people to generate even when they are using it themselves...

In short, the German solar subsidies are CRAZY high, grandfathered in and no German will ever allow the government to break a conteact. They should not be considered a reason to not do solar now. Its like saying Hitler was a Vegan so that means Veganism must be bad... (He also wasn't...)

They also shut down nuclear, for no real reason and started burning lignite coal...for no reason??
Germany may be very western etc, but they arent perfect.

You see the same pattern repeating itself in California,

Commentary: California still No. 1 in poverty

Once again, California poverty ranks number one in the nation due partly to high costs for essentials like housing, gas and electricity.

calmatters.org

and the Manhattan institute also makes the case that Wind Energy increases the cost by a factor of 5.

Out to Sea: The Dismal Economics of Offshore Wind

Offshore wind is becoming increasingly popular among politicians and policymakers; however, the actual costs are likely being downplayed.

www.manhattan-institute.org

So take into account that California and Germany are two of the richest places in the world. California's climate is probably more comparable to South Africa,

Yes there is mismanagement, going to quick to fast etc, but I think that we should be far more cautious before we go balls against the walls. I keep on asking the question, why is our experience going to be any different than theirs?

I might sound a bit paranoid to many people here, but I keep hearing these concerns from people inside of the energy sector and I keep on reminding people that the Gillet Jaune riots in France was triggered by an increase in fuel price.

If you mess with Energy, Water and Land prices then you automatically create poverty.

 

[Vorastra]

You see the same pattern repeating itself in California,

Commentary: California still No. 1 in poverty

Once again, California poverty ranks number one in the nation due partly to high costs for essentials like housing, gas and electricity.

calmatters.org

and the Manhattan institute also makes the case that Wind Energy increases the cost by a factor of 5.

Out to Sea: The Dismal Economics of Offshore Wind

Offshore wind is becoming increasingly popular among politicians and policymakers; however, the actual costs are likely being downplayed.

www.manhattan-institute.org

So take into account that California and Germany are two of the richest places in the world. California's climate is probably more comparable to South Africa,

Yes there is mismanagement, going to quick to fast etc, but I think that we should be far more cautious before we go balls against the walls. I keep on asking the question, why is our experience going to be any different than theirs?

I might sound a bit paranoid to many people here, but I keep hearing these concerns from people inside of the energy sector and I keep on reminding people that the Gillet Jaune riots in France was triggered by an increase in fuel price.

If you mess with Energy, Water and Land prices then you automatically create poverty. the Manhattan institute is an extremely biased 501c3 that receives a large amount of its donations conveniently from the big companies that just so happen to benefit from it's article

Hasn't the Manhattan Institute been shown to be extremely biased against green initiatives?

I wouldn't trust them as far as I could pick up the server room, it's hosted on, and throw it.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Hasn't the Manhattan Institute been shown to be extremely biased against green initiatives?

I wouldn't trust them as far as I could pick up the server room, it's hosted on, and throw it.

people do have their biases, but it’s good to know what your critics say.

anyone that sells you wind and solar is going to promise you heaven on earth,

 

[Lupus]

people do have their biases, but it’s good to know what your critics say.

anyone that sells you wind and solar is going to promise you heaven on earth,

Which they do seem to, I mean they keep harping on about how environmental it is, yet all the rare earth metals don't magically materlise. I suppose if you cannot see the poor people mining it and stripping it from the earth it must be environmental.

 

[Vorastra]

Which they do seem to, I mean they keep harping on about how environmental it is, yet all the rare earth metals don't magically materlise. I suppose if you cannot see the poor people mining it and stripping it from the earth it must be environmental.

Yes, but is it more environmentally safe than currently mining for coal? I don't think anyone seriously pushing green technology is saying that it's completely environmentally safe, just that it's more so than coal, etc.

 

[Rocket-Boy]

people do have their biases, but it’s good to know what your critics say.

anyone that sells you wind and solar is going to promise you heaven on earth,

Same as anyone that tries to sell coal or nuclear.
Look at how well that worked out for Medupi and Kusile.

You seem super anti renewables, are you planning on hiding inside your house with the aircon on when the planet falls apart?

 

[Rocket-Boy]

people do have their biases, but it’s good to know what your critics say.

anyone that sells you wind and solar is going to promise you heaven on earth,

Same as anyone that tries to sell coal or nuclear.
Look at how well that worked out for Medupi and Kusile.

You seem super anti renewables, are you planning on hiding inside your house with the aircon on when the planet falls apart?

 

[Nicodeamus]

Same as anyone that tries to sell coal or nuclear.

I am sure that the Coal and Nuclear guys are well aware of the critique against them.

Look at how well that worked out for Medupi and Kusile.

You seem super anti renewables, are you planning on hiding inside your house with the aircon on when the planet falls apart?

I am not against renewables for your own homes etc, but they are definitely oversold and if the mistakes that Germany, the UK, California etc is repeated in SA then we risk impoverishing people.*

and for the record I have worked on the design of a few off shore plants.
Great technology from an Engineering perspective, horrible from an economics perspective.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Yes, but is it more environmentally safe than currently mining for coal?

I don't even know how you compare those trade-offs, both have their drawbacks.

I don't think anyone seriously pushing green technology is saying that it's completely environmentally safe, just that it's more so than coal, etc.

and I think that is what is oversold, making Solar Panels for example also requires that you mine coal.

While I get concern and worry about reaching net carbon emissions etc, I am worried that we are going to put people into poverty as Germany and California did, when the law of unintended consequences set on us.

Here is another presentation on the affordability of Renewables (and yes they have their industrial bias, no one in the energy sector is completely squeaky clean)

 

[itareanlnotani]

Making Solar Panels for example also requires that you mine coal

Not a necessity, but I won't argue that coal doesn't play a major part in electricity generation.
I would have said bauxite for aluminium, and silicates for glass and panels, but not necessarily coal.

The handful solar factory plants I've been to in China eg in Jiangsu Province or close-ish to Shanghai (like Taizhou, or Haining, have put their money where their mouth is, and have a lot of solar to reduce energy usage.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Not a necessity, but I won't argue that coal doesn't play a major part in electricity generation.
I would have said bauxite for aluminium, and silicates for glass and panels, but not necessarily coal.

On the balance they do produce less C02, but as I said comparing these mining impacts with on another comes down to picking our favorite economists.

The handful solar factory plants I've been to in China eg in Jiangsu Province or close-ish to Shanghai (like Taizhou, or Haining, have put their money where their mouth is, and have a lot of solar to reduce energy usage.

Biden has bought the Solar Cool Aid,

Biden has an ambitious climate policy — Here's what it means for alternative energy stocks

Alternative energy stocks could be poised for big gains should Biden win on Election Day.

www.cnbc.com

Biden, on the other hand, has outlined a $2 trillion climate proposal that would make the U.S. power sector carbon free by 2035, while pushing the country to net zero emissions by 2050. At the second presidential debate, Biden said he intends to “transition away from the oil industry.”

now 2 trillion sounds like a lot, but it is less than what the US War efforts cost them as a percentage of GDP.

Let's see in a few years 's time if this experiment proves me correct or not, my skepticism is that our relentless push or renewables is going to create more poverty and social backlash,

 

[Vorastra]

I don't even know how you compare those trade-offs, both have their drawbacks.



and I think that is what is oversold, making Solar Panels for example also requires that you mine coal.

While I get concern and worry about reaching net carbon emissions etc, I am worried that we are going to put people into poverty as Germany and California did, when the law of unintended consequences set on us.

Here is another presentation on the affordability of Renewables (and yes they have their industrial bias, no one in the energy sector is completely squeaky clean)

Are you seriously trying to tell me that solar panel manufacturing is just as pollution intensive as what we're currently undertaking to provide electricity?
I can't tell what your angle is here.

South Africa for example, you think solar panels would be worse, or as polluting, as coal-fired power stations?

If it were up to me, we'd just have nuclear everywhere, but it's not. So...we have to do something else.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that solar panel manufacturing is just as pollution intensive as what we're currently undertaking to provide electricity?
I can't tell what your angle is here.

My angle is the consumer cost of this generation,, the pollution is rather secondary. You can make a case against both of them and it comes down to what you do want to mine.

South Africa for example, you think solar panels would be worse, or as polluting, as coal-fired power stations?

The question is do you put a lot of panels in the Karoo and destroy the ecology there, as well as destroy a few birds or do you dig a big hole in Mpumalanga.

It boils down to the same thing,

If it were up to me, we'd just have nuclear everywhere, but it's not. So...we have to do something else.

I agree, on condition that the the Guptas don't steal it.

 

[Johnatan56]

You see the same pattern repeating itself in California,

Commentary: California still No. 1 in poverty

Once again, California poverty ranks number one in the nation due partly to high costs for essentials like housing, gas and electricity.

calmatters.org

and the Manhattan institute also makes the case that Wind Energy increases the cost by a factor of 5.

Out to Sea: The Dismal Economics of Offshore Wind

Offshore wind is becoming increasingly popular among politicians and policymakers; however, the actual costs are likely being downplayed.

www.manhattan-institute.org

So take into account that California and Germany are two of the richest places in the world. California's climate is probably more comparable to South Africa,

Yes there is mismanagement, going to quick to fast etc, but I think that we should be far more cautious before we go balls against the walls. I keep on asking the question, why is our experience going to be any different than theirs?

I might sound a bit paranoid to many people here, but I keep hearing these concerns from people inside of the energy sector and I keep on reminding people that the Gillet Jaune riots in France was triggered by an increase in fuel price.

If you mess with Energy, Water and Land prices then you automatically create poverty.

Not sure why you linked California poverty as an issue? Electricity prices in California are higher than everywhere else, yes, but so are earnings. California's poverty is definitely not due to electricity prices but rather things like housing and keeping up with the Joneses.
From your own article:

They filled the low-skill, low-pay jobs that proliferated in the post-industrial economy. But as living costs soared, especially for housing, their modest incomes could not keep up, creating a huge cohort of what’s been dubbed the “working poor.”

Then the article against offshore wind is strange, since quite a few of the projects where costs are mentioned are all proposed contracts and bidding hasn't been started yet, so not sure where the costs are coming from (e.g. skipjack is still in proposed state, earliest commission is end of 2022, and South Fork wind is 2023). So cherry picking farms is definitely there, not sure why farms that were supposed to be completed this year/are in construction state wouldn't be picked instead.

Not bothering with the rest of the article, like usual you pick stuff that's wholly one sided with obvious errors if you look past the uppermost layer.

E.g. the article spawning this entire thread is definite BS, most of Germany's issues for power are tied into the grid system cost, since they need to build new lines going from the north to the south, and that cost peaked this year and will fall away over the next few years, will probably see prices drop by ~20-30%. German electricity prices are currently at the highest peak they'll be in the foreseeable future.

And then as others have mentioned in this thread:

Solar panels are all guaranteed at 20 years at least, most are expected at 25-30 years.
The "old" AC/DC conversion was already at 80% efficiency, and there is not much loss in transmission with DC (that's the entire reason for the conversion).
Modern ones you're looking at 10-15% usually.
Capacity factor is heavily area dependent, would guess 30% is right/may even be a little high, since Germany was around 20% or so if I remember correctly (depends on modern vs older systems).
but you can't do 10W/m^2 and then go capacity factor afterwards, that's including capacity factor. Solar is around 1000W/m^2, most of the time you produce 150-250W from that.

Just based on that, the entire video can be ignored and I'm sure whatever paper he's going to publish will be called into question if it's even published at all.


And as usual, you lupus keep calling area for wind as an issue, always ignoring that wind farm area is not exclusive, you can build it in the middle of farm land without issue.

Then the battery argument, again, thinking this is all in a vacuum, not sure why argue 100% solar, just stupid. You'd do a mix of stuff, and yes, include coal into that. For batteries, he's ignoring that a lot of these problems are interlinked, e.g. electric cars are probably going to have a huge impact on how grid storage works, etc.

Not really bothering to go in depth on any of this any more, since you just keep creating new threads on stuff that's already been shown as wrong/misleading etc.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Not sure why you linked California poverty as an issue? Electricity prices in California are higher than everywhere else, yes, but so are earnings. California's poverty is definitely not due to electricity prices but rather things like housing and keeping up with the Joneses.
From your own article:

Wow, poor people are keeping up with the Joneses, and it is not the unreliable cost of Renewables that every energy analysis is warning about.

California's Self-Created Future Energy Crisis - Joel Kotkin

In much of the country a powerful energy boom is providing a serious stimulus to economic growth. But in California, where fossil fuels are considered about toxic as tobacco, we are lurching toward an anticipated energy shortage...

joelkotkin.com

"California, in a typical feat of “virtue signaling,” has committed the state to getting half of its electrical power from renewables such as wind and solar, up from 16 percent today, within the next decade. This drive has meant the rapid abandonment of electricity generated by nuclear power as well as natural, gas which together comprised nearly 70 percent of all electricity production in 2015.

This may not end well. California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Picker suggested recently that we could soon return “the kind of crisis we faced in 2000 and 2001.” The rapid abandonment of existing reliable energy sources makes the state, in the estimate of the Institute for Energy Research, “vulnerable to rolling blackouts.”"


Now guess what happened after that prediction.

California Blackouts a Warning for States Ramping Up Green Power

The state’s grid operator warned millions of residents could lose power in coming days as it struggles to meet electricity demands of the many people who are riding out a crippling heat wave indoors during the pandemic.

www.wsj.com

"Millions of Californians could lose power in coming days, the state’s grid operator warned Monday, as it continues to struggle with inadequate electricity supplies as many people have been forced indoors to ride out a crippling heat wave during the coronavirus pandemic.

The rolling blackouts across California serve as a cautionary tale as states across the country increase renewable energy and reduce their reliance on fossil fuels that can generate round-the-clock power but contribute to climate change."

Then the article against offshore wind is strange, since quite a few of the projects where costs are mentioned are all proposed contracts and bidding hasn't been started yet, so not sure where the costs are coming from (e.g. skipjack is still in proposed state, earliest commission is end of 2022, and South Fork wind is 2023). So cherry picking farms is definitely there, not sure why farms that were supposed to be completed this year/are in construction state wouldn't be picked instead.

They are looking at what has been build and not what is promised, every salesman promises you that the new tech is realizable and cheap. Policies should be assessed on their outcome and not their intention.

Not bothering with the rest of the article, like usual you pick stuff that's wholly one sided with obvious errors if you look past the uppermost layer.

E.g. the article spawning this entire thread is definite BS, most of Germany's issues for power are tied into the grid system cost, since they need to build new lines going from the north to the south, and that cost peaked this year and will fall away over the next few years, will probably see prices drop by ~20-30%. German electricity prices are currently at the highest peak they'll be in the foreseeable future.

Renewables increase the grid system cost, that is also an unmentioned aspect of these renewables that you run into undless subsidizers to fix the problems that it creates to your system.

Again "will fall away over the next few years", that is a prediction, the same predictiosn that said that these technologies "will be cheap", that didn't happen.

And then as others have mentioned in this thread:
View attachment 959094
Solar panels are all guaranteed at 20 years at least, most are expected at 25-30 years.
The "old" AC/DC conversion was already at 80% efficiency, and there is not much loss in transmission with DC (that's the entire reason for the conversion).
Modern ones you're looking at 10-15% usually.
Capacity factor is heavily area dependent, would guess 30% is right/may even be a little high, since Germany was around 20% or so if I remember correctly (depends on modern vs older systems).
but you can't do 10W/m^2 and then go capacity factor afterwards, that's including capacity factor. Solar is around 1000W/m^2, most of the time you produce 150-250W from that.

right and Germany still only gets a fraction of its energy consumption from these technologies.

Just based on that, the entire video can be ignored and I'm sure whatever paper he's going to publish will be called into question if it's even published at all.

no comment really, ignore it if you want.

And as usual, you lupus keep calling area for wind as an issue, always ignoring that wind farm area is not exclusive, you can build it in the middle of farm land without issue.

you can build it where you want, but it doesn't mean that the energy generation is going to be cheap,

Then the battery argument, again, thinking this is all in a vacuum, not sure why argue 100% solar, just stupid. You'd do a mix of stuff, and yes, include coal into that. For batteries, he's ignoring that a lot of these problems are interlinked, e.g. electric cars are probably going to have a huge impact on how grid storage works, etc.

Do you have an idea how little battery storage there are available?

Not really bothering to go in depth on any of this any more, since you just keep creating new threads on stuff that's already been shown as wrong/misleading etc.

no, I think that you believe them to be wrong and you keep on falling for predictions as opposed to looking at the impact of these policies.

The fact is that Germany and California's high energy costs are BECAUSE they went for unreliable energy technologies and it is impacting the poorest people.

Always judge a policy by its outcome and not its intention (i.e. prediction).

Don't say that you haven't been warned.

 

[Johnatan56]

Wow, poor people are keeping up with the Joneses, and it is not the unreliable cost of Renewables that every energy analysis is warning about.

California's Self-Created Future Energy Crisis - Joel Kotkin

In much of the country a powerful energy boom is providing a serious stimulus to economic growth. But in California, where fossil fuels are considered about toxic as tobacco, we are lurching toward an anticipated energy shortage...

joelkotkin.com

"California, in a typical feat of “virtue signaling,” has committed the state to getting half of its electrical power from renewables such as wind and solar, up from 16 percent today, within the next decade. This drive has meant the rapid abandonment of electricity generated by nuclear power as well as natural, gas which together comprised nearly 70 percent of all electricity production in 2015.

This may not end well. California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Picker suggested recently that we could soon return “the kind of crisis we faced in 2000 and 2001.” The rapid abandonment of existing reliable energy sources makes the state, in the estimate of the Institute for Energy Research, “vulnerable to rolling blackouts.”"


Now guess what happened after that prediction.

California Blackouts a Warning for States Ramping Up Green Power

The state’s grid operator warned millions of residents could lose power in coming days as it struggles to meet electricity demands of the many people who are riding out a crippling heat wave indoors during the pandemic.

www.wsj.com

"Millions of Californians could lose power in coming days, the state’s grid operator warned Monday, as it continues to struggle with inadequate electricity supplies as many people have been forced indoors to ride out a crippling heat wave during the coronavirus pandemic.

The rolling blackouts across California serve as a cautionary tale as states across the country increase renewable energy and reduce their reliance on fossil fuels that can generate round-the-clock power but contribute to climate change."

Again this argument.

Why renewables aren’t the reason for California’s blackouts

It’s possible to meet the state’s growing energy needs with renewable power, experts say—but it’ll take some work.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Do read the section on it being a failure of CAISO.

They are looking at what has been build and not what is promised, every salesman promises you that the new tech is realizable and cheap. Policies should be assessed on their outcome and not their intention.

So if a salesman tries to sell at 5x the cost and it's not accepted yet, we should value stuff at 5x the cost? That's a pretty dumb argument.

Renewables increase the grid system cost, that is also an unmentioned aspect of these renewables that you run into undless subsidizers to fix the problems that it creates to your system.

Yep, definitely, at the same time most of the grid costs need to be borne either way as the networks expand/become larger, but you can argue a lot of that is the same no matter the type of new generation, just that it needs to go to new regions than before as e.g. you'd not build a coal plant in certain areas, but those coal plants would need new grids as well if e.g. coal mine runs out and they need to move to new regions. It's not a cost that only renewable has, but renewable generally does have a bit higher cost as it's in completely new areas. Do note thought that the cost can't be directly added as a number, since you have the case of multiple solar plants being close to each other, so cost needs to be split among all, same as lots of coal plants are close together.

Again "will fall away over the next few years", that is a prediction, the same predictiosn that said that these technologies "will be cheap", that didn't happen.

That prediction is literally in the design for Germany's approved power tariffs.
You also have the issue that in Germany a lot of consumers don't jump to other providers, with lots of providers not passing savings on.

What German households pay for power

Key facts on household power prices in Germany, which are among the highest in Europe due to surcharges, taxes, and grid fees.

www.cleanenergywire.org

However, there also seems to exist a certain inertia among German consumers. More than half of them stick to their long-term suppliers and existing contracts, even though cheaper options are available, a survey by the Federal Association for Information Technology (Bitkom) found. The price differences between these can be substantial, sometimes reaching 20-30 percent.


Comparison website Verivox says people in eastern Germany are especially reluctant to change their power provider, even though power prices there on average are 1.2 percent higher due to differences in grid fees. Households in western Germany changed their provider at a rate slightly above the national average, whereas eastern customers stayed far below it.

right and Germany still only gets a fraction of its energy consumption from these technologies.

Not sure what the point here is? I think it was 8% net total of power consumed in Germany comes from solar, that's not that small for something that's only been built in the last few years in a country that's not really conductive for solar (compared to e.g. South Africa).

no comment really, ignore it if you want.

So even you agree your video is BS?

you can build it where you want, but it doesn't mean that the energy generation is going to be cheap,

It definitely has an impact.

Do you have an idea how little battery storage there are available?

Do you realize that you don't need to factor in battery storage for everything? You can create a mix, a balanced system is what's needed, not 100% solar. Not sure why you keep arguing this.

no, I think that you believe them to be wrong and you keep on falling for predictions as opposed to looking at the impact of these policies.

But every time you talk about the impact of these policies you post BS and misleading stuff or red herrings etc.?

The fact is that Germany and California's high energy costs are BECAUSE they went for unreliable energy technologies and it is impacting the poorest people.

That's a very weird statement to make, their energy costs vs minimum wage isn't that much. LA average saalary is ~$75k while the norm in the rest of the US is around $40-50k. That's more than enough to make up for the difference in cost.
And again, most of California's homeless problem is not electricity pricing, it's social issues with the biggest impact being housing.
Electricity pricing is such a non issue for it, that electricity is only mentioned once in the entire article, and that only being in the summary as a final bit to add to probably make it a bit longer.

Always judge a policy by its outcome and not its intention (i.e. prediction).

Don't say that you haven't been warned.

Yes, the outcome of every thread you make shows one sided bias, which is quite annoying, there are definitely negatives to renewables, there are negatives to everything, the question is the balance between them.
You keep harping on about how solar/wind is terrible, arguing things like landmass usage for wind without taking into account wind doesn't stop the area from being used by other things, or how it's substantially cheaper, or you argue 100% extremes instead of mixed systems, or completely ignore the fact of how grid systems are evolving/becoming "smart grids", or how gas peaking is pretty good, or how wind and solar are actually pretty darn predictable and definitely predictable enough for things like gas peaking. Or you ignore the fact that doing gas peaking for an hour and the other 23 hours with a mix of renewables is actually quite viable, because the key again is balance.

Now stop with this stupid tirade against renewable, and post stuff showing off both sides, try and make an argument instead of dumping a post that even you admit is biased and unproven (the guy even mentions his paper is not published).

And do note again, California went on the renewable bandwagon way too early, back when the cost of renewable was prohibitive, I don't agree that that was a good idea, but the outcome of that is quite a drop in pricing, and modern renewable should be taken with the current cost into account, not what old decisions caused, always understand the why something is, don't just say "oh look California" if that's not the actual issue.

I am asking you if you have seen the report on energy poverty in Germany and what do you think about it?

this one,

EPAH - Energy Poverty Advisory Hub

ENERGY POVERTY ADVISORY HUB

www.energypoverty.eu

shouldn't that be a cause for concern, because I promise you that the Germans made all the exact same brilliant arguments with maps when this whole thing started at the end it ended up being a buggerup.

Proof is in the pudding and thus far it has a poor performance.

And just look at that link, you post about energy poverty from a site that's clearly biased, even its site name is energy poverty.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Again this argument.

Why renewables aren’t the reason for California’s blackouts

It’s possible to meet the state’s growing energy needs with renewable power, experts say—but it’ll take some work.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Do read the section on it being a failure of CAISO.

It sounds like them running out of excuses,

I do like what they are saying here though.

"Solar and wind power provide roughly 20 percent of the state’s electricity needs, but only when the sun is shining or the wind blowing. The biggest demand for electricity generally comes in the late afternoon—right when the daily contribution from solar is dropping. That mismatch in supply and demand is a big but predictable challenge for power managers: They know that every day, they’ll have to fill that gap with another power source.
“It is fairly well known that the sun sets in the evening,” says Amol Phadke, an energy expert at the University of California, Berkeley. “We can predict the exact time it will set many years in advance.”
Sometimes the wind can step in for the sun, but it’s obviously fickle too. Nuclear and hydroelectric plants provide power more consistently, and their presence helps to smooth out the peaks and valleys of solar and wind production. But in California these days, it’s natural gas that picks up most of the slack, largely because the state’s nearly 200 plants can respond quickly to upticks in demand."

So if a salesman tries to sell at 5x the cost and it's not accepted yet, we should value stuff at 5x the cost? That's a pretty dumb argument.

I don't even think that you reed what I wrote, but the the argument is to buy something it if works, not if it sounds good, (we call that being conned)

Yep, definitely, at the same time most of the grid costs need to be borne either way as the networks expand/become larger, but you can argue a lot of that is the same no matter the type of new generation, just that it needs to go to new regions than before as e.g. you'd not build a coal plant in certain areas, but those coal plants would need new grids as well if e.g. coal mine runs out and they need to move to new regions. It's not a cost that only renewable has, but renewable generally does have a bit higher cost as it's in completely new areas.

It's not the same, the fluctuation cost due to renewables makes the grid more expensive, ultimately the cost is passed on to the consumers. People selling renewables win, but those that buy the electricity, well not so much.

Do note thought that the cost can't be directly added as a number, since you have the case of multiple solar plants being close to each other, so cost needs to be split among all, same as lots of coal plants are close together.

That is another negative consequence of intermittent sources, they end up requiring subsidies for technologies that have a proven record, because the reliable ones only have a few hours to work.

Ultimately these policies are evaluated at their consumer cost, the problem is that we don't even know how expensive some of them are, because the real costs are hidden in complex subsidies (or split through complex schemes).

 

[Nicodeamus]

That prediction is literally in the design for Germany's approved power tariffs.
You also have the issue that in Germany a lot of consumers don't jump to other providers, with lots of providers not passing savings on.

What German households pay for power

Key facts on household power prices in Germany, which are among the highest in Europe due to surcharges, taxes, and grid fees.

www.cleanenergywire.org

That is a consequence of the incentives that that created due to the unnecessary complex system.

Not sure what the point here is? I think it was 8% net total of power consumed in Germany comes from solar, that's not that small for something that's only been built in the last few years in a country that's not really conductive for solar (compared to e.g. South Africa).

The problem is that they are highly inefficient at providing electricity, compare the supply and consumption graph? 8% is ridiculous compare to the subsidies that they got.

Source (get your media here, CNN ETc and celeberate)
View attachment 959400

Consumption (look away from the reality)

View attachment 959402

Germany is chopping down as much trees as they are consuming in solar energy, and let's not get into the problems with Wind. They had to increase their coal supply to substitute for this crazy system (or now they will just import Russian gas).

My metaphor for Germany is that Airplane Pilot that committed suicide, take a sophistically high tech society and willing deindustrialize it, because you want to show the world how virtuous and green you are (if you don't get it, they shot themselves in the foot).

To prove what I am saying isn't nonsense, look at the graph below, I circled the top renewable generators, (Iceland and Norway don't count because they have hydropower and geothermal, which makes sense).

View attachment 959410

Now look in red the countries that have the so called "expensive" Nuclear Option.

What does a sensible person make of that? Are they wrong to criticize expensive energy prices?

So even you agree your video is BS?

It definitely has an impact.

No it's not BS, factors might slightly change, but the central argument remains, renewable proponents keep looking away at two fundamental problems, diffusion and intermittence.

Do you realize that you don't need to factor in battery storage for everything? You can create a mix, a balanced system is what's needed, not 100% solar. Not sure why you keep arguing this.

That mix system increases the overall consumer price, why don't you seem to grasp that?

But every time you talk about the impact of these policies you post BS and misleading stuff or red herrings etc.?

No, its factual, but you look away, because you're really dedicating yourself to renewables.

Again I am not against renewables for heating your water or helping some remote kid put the lights on, but on a grid size it is completely oversold.

That's a very weird statement to make, their energy costs vs minimum wage isn't that much. LA average saalary is ~$75k while the norm in the rest of the US is around $40-50k. That's more than enough to make up for the difference in cost.
And again, most of California's homeless problem is not electricity pricing, it's social issues with the biggest impact being housing.
Electricity pricing is such a non issue for it, that electricity is only mentioned once in the entire article, and that only being in the summary as a final bit to add to probably make it a bit longer.
View attachment 959324
View attachment 959326

Blame everything, except the elephant in the room?

California has housing issues as well, because these same renewable guys wants to push Smart homes (that also increase housing prices), its all part of the same trio.

It doesn't change the fact that the majority of Californians are living in Energy Poverty and in Texas (that uses reliable energy and sensible housing laws) that isn't the case,

Yes, the outcome of every thread you make shows one sided bias, which is quite annoying, there are definitely negatives to renewables, there are negatives to everything, the question is the balance between them.

Balance them on your own house, but before you put them on a gridsize scale, look at the experience of other countries. That is the point that I am making here, you can believe the media dogma, but a closer look mains that they are oversold and that they risk impoverishing people.

You keep harping on about how solar/wind is terrible, arguing things like landmass usage for wind without taking into account wind doesn't stop the area from being used by other things, or how it's substantially cheaper, or you argue 100% extremes instead of mixed systems, or completely ignore the fact of how grid systems are evolving/becoming "smart grids", or how gas peaking is pretty good, or how wind and solar are actually pretty darn predictable and definitely predictable enough for things like gas peaking. Or you ignore the fact that doing gas peaking for an hour and the other 23 hours with a mix of renewables is actually quite viable, because the key again is balance.

That is just not true, its cheaper to generate, but you need a backup for it, gas in the mix,

If you look at half the system then yes, its cheaper, but you're misleading yourself, if you argue like that.

I have made this argument a few times here already, if you buy a renewable system then you inherently buy a mix energy system. From what I understand, you actually agree with that, but you keep on hamering on how cheap and wonderful renewables is (which is true if you only look at the renewables), but kindly ignore the increase in prices that it creates for the rest of your system. (that is dishonest)

Now stop with this stupid tirade against renewable, and post stuff showing off both sides, try and make an argument instead of dumping a post that even you admit is biased and unproven (the guy even mentions his paper is not published).

No, I am giving you a few facts and you're ranting like a child, because you don't like hearing the alternative argument.

And do note again, California went on the renewable bandwagon way too early, back when the cost of renewable was prohibitive, I don't agree that that was a good idea, but the outcome of that is quite a drop in pricing, and modern renewable should be taken with the current cost into account, not what old decisions caused, always understand the why something is, don't just say "oh look California" if that's not the actual issue.

Consequently people suffered in Energy Poverty... that is quite a statement though, here take something that is expensive, it is good for the environment, but you know it is going to put you in poverty.

Brilliant ethics there, you need to feel good while others suffer.

And just look at that link, you post about energy poverty from a site that's clearly biased, even its site name is energy poverty.

How is it biased? It shows the impact of Energy Poverty in Germany, they did a study and that proved it.

I get the impression that when you don't like a few facts then you call it bias. Completely ridiculous,


Renewables have increase the cost to consumer in California (yes it did), in Germany (yes it did) and in the UK (yes it did). If you increase the cost of electricity you do end up with energy poverty.