Renewable Energies

So I'm a bit confused. If renewable energies are on a serious upswing, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy types, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government subsidies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the prices wi ll continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subsidies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?

I'm not suggesting renewables have to take over 100% of the energy market t o be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significant porti on of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingly enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Texas, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how thin gs work out.

Rick C.

Tesla referral code -

formatting link

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit
Loading thread data ...

he cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy types, wh at is wrong with trying to switch over?

Ask the people who are making serious money out of extracting fossil carbon and selling it as fuel. They have a lot of money tied up in owning the rig hts to extract fossil carbon, and if renewable energy starts cutting into t heir market, they are going to be poorer than they are now.

It pays them to invest in creating fear, uncertainty and doubt, and they ar e doing it.

formatting link

but as renewables ramp up the prices will continue to drop. It shouldn't b e a problem to phase out the subsidies as this happens. Why would anyone b e opposed to this?

Every pork barrel has its beneficiaries.

to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significant por tion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingly enou gh one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Texas, ho me of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how th ings work out.

Not entirely. Weather and geology don't correlate all that strongly.

The North American continental plate is currently moving southwest, away fr om the mid-Atlantic ridge, at about 25 mm per year. In a million years the climate in Texas may be rather different.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

he cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy types, wh at is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government subsidi es helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the prices will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subsidie s as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?

to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significant por tion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingly enou gh one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Texas, ho me of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how th ings work out.

they cost more - if they didn't they'd be widespread & not subsidised.

Reply to
tabbypurr

The stated costs for renewables tend to be misleading.

For example if someone constructs a wind farm, and then cost per kilowatt-hour generated is approximately the cost of the wind farm, divided by the number of kilowatt-hours generated over the life of the farm, plus operating and maintenance costs. This is the cost that will be quoted for the wind farm.

But that is not the cost of supplying a kilowatt-hour to an end user (even ignoring distribution costs), because the wind farm may not be generating when the end user wants to consume.

The cost to the end user has to include the cost of other generation when the wind isn't blowing. This makes the cost to the end user significantly higher.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

e:

the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy types, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government subsi dies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the price s will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subsid ies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?

et to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significant p ortion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingly en ough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Texas, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how things work out.

They used to cost more. As usual NT's opinions are out of date.

At present wind energy is somewhat cheaper than burning fossil carbon and s olar cells marginally cheaper, and economies of scale are going to make bot h quite a bit cheaper as the rate of adoption rises.

The fact that both are intermittent power sources and have to be backed up by stored power or fast-start gas-turbine generators does create problems, but Australia is seeing a lot more investment in both than in more conventi onal generating capacity.

The fact that solar and wind generation can be distributed save money on po les and wires to distribute the power to the end users - and paying for the distribution system is about half my electricty bill.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 9:00:39 PM UTC-6, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote :

e:

the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy types, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government subsi dies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the price s will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subsid ies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?

et to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significant p ortion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingly en ough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Texas, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how things work out.

Hmmm... you seem to be ignorant of the trend. The price of oil has increas ed over the decades. The price of renewables has been decreasing. That is the point. As the cost of renewable energy drops the subsidies will phase out and they will remain cheaper then carbon based energies.

Rick C.

Tesla referral code --

formatting link

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy types, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government subsi dies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the price s will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subsid ies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?

et to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significant p ortion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingly en ough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Texas, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how things work out.

Do you calculate the cost of nuclear the same way? Nuclear is a constant s ource with little ability to adjust to demand. So do you factor in the pea king generators to adjust the supply to the load?

Rick C.

Tesla referral code ---

formatting link

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 9:51:26 PM UTC-6, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote :

e:

ote:

g, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy types , what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government sub sidies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the pri ces will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subs idies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?

rket to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significant portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingly enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Texas , home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny ho w things work out.

solar cells marginally cheaper, and economies of scale are going to make b oth quite a bit cheaper as the rate of adoption rises.

p by stored power or fast-start gas-turbine generators does create problems , but Australia is seeing a lot more investment in both than in more conven tional generating capacity.

poles and wires to distribute the power to the end users - and paying for t he distribution system is about half my electricty bill.

I think you are confusing terms. Wind is not so distributed to reduce the distribution costs. Maybe terms are different here and down under, but her e distribution refers to the last few miles including various substations t hat lower the voltage for shorter distance wires. Transmission is the term for longer distance, higher voltage transport of electrical energy which c ould be reduced if power generation is more local.

In my bill distribution is the local company function while generation and transmission are sometimes lumped together... it depends on the company.

Rick C.

Tesla referral code ----

formatting link

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

Let's say you own a coal mine....

but yeah, most people will benefit.

--
  When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
Reply to
Jasen Betts

ote:

g, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy types , what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government sub sidies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the pri ces will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subs idies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?

rket to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significant portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingly enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Texas , home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny ho w things work out.

hardly

has been decreasing. That is the point.

it's not really the point

ey will remain cheaper then carbon based energies.

you mean they will become cheaper? Perhaps one day, but they aren't yet for one simple reason. Every megawatt of intermittent generation requires 1 me gawatt of reliable generation to back it up. Thus using intermittents adds cost. That is the point.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

No, why would I? It's nothing like the same thing.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

g, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy types , what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government sub sidies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the pri ces will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subs idies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?

rket to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significant portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingly enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Texas , home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny ho w things work out.

source with little ability to adjust to demand. So do you factor in the p eaking generators to adjust the supply to the load?

Nuclear reactors have (cadmium?) control rods that can raise or lower the n eutron flux, and the rate of fission within the reactor, and this the heat output.

formatting link

The capital cost of the plant is enormous, so you do want to keep running a s close to capacity as you can manage, but that's maximising the return on your investment. You can turn it down or turn it off.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

te:

ote:

ing, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy typ es, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government s ubsidies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the p rices will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the su bsidies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?

market to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significa nt portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingl y enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Tex as, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how things work out.

.

nd solar cells marginally cheaper, and economies of scale are going to make both quite a bit cheaper as the rate of adoption rises.

up by stored power or fast-start gas-turbine generators does create proble ms, but Australia is seeing a lot more investment in both than in more conv entional generating capacity.

on poles and wires to distribute the power to the end users - and paying fo r the distribution system is about half my electricty bill.

Wind farms are made up of relatively small units, so you can put them fairl y close to the places that are going to consume power.

You can distribute the winds farms to minimise the cost of distributing the energy they generate.

I used the term "distribution" in two different sense. You may find the use of the same word in two slightly different contexts confusing, but that's your problem.

Wind generation can be. Mostly the not-in-my-back-yard problem puts wind fa rms a fair way from the communities that use the power, but the individual units aren't a big as the bits of conventional fossil-fuel-fired power stat ion.

ers to the last few miles including various substations that lower the volt age for shorter distance wires.

Power distribution is a term that covers the whole grid. The long distance high-voltage links do have to be stepped down - the high voltage link that couples Tasmania to mainland Australia has substations on either side of Ba ss Strait - and the voltage gets stepped down again as you get closer to th e power consumers.

electrical energy which could be reduced if power generation is more local .

Transmission can go both ways. Tasmania mostly sends current across to the mail-land to handle peak loads - Tasmania has mostly hydroelectric power - but during the recent drought in Tasmania the current would have gone the o ther way, if the cable hadn't failed for few months.

formatting link

-battle-looming/9275740

d transmission are sometimes lumped together... it depends on the company.

I get billed by an energy retailer, and they never separate generation and distribution costs. The cost split information comes from the regulator, wh o wasn't doing a particularly good job.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

They still cost if you include all system costs. Windmills have to be sited where the wind blows and solar only works in the day time. When they are truely cheaper, subsidies will not be needed.

Not only present problems, but require investments and cost money. I want solar to be cheaper, but it is not cheaper at this time.

Dan, Earth

Reply to
dcaster

he cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy types, wh at is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government subsidi es helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the prices will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subsidie s as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?

to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significant por tion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingly enou gh one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Texas, ho me of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how th ings work out.

You're oversimplifying again.

formatting link

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

He's only here to find opportunities to generate clumsy insults.

But he's not here to discuss things rationally.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

As with much hot and/or moving machinery, thermally cycling them isn't cost-free.

Source: my father, a two-phase flow expert who had a sideline in diagnosing strange reactor behaviour (e.g. at 55% load the power output starts oscillating), operation at strange angles, and comparing their behaviour to a bathtub full of water (before Fukushima).

Reply to
Tom Gardner

If control rods affected heat generation quickly, we wouldn't have China Syndrome.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

They do affect heat generation quickly! You can SCRAM the control rods into a modern US reactor in about 1 second and the thermal output will drop about 90% just as quickly.

It's the ~10% output that's left over from decay heat that can be a problem especially if you say, for some reason have no circulating coolant!

Reply to
bitrex

.com

:

ing,

be a

ne

es.

or

he

ll be

when

antly

tant

the

the

e heat

ing as

on your

afaiu normal operation is 5% per minute

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.