...But only introduced in 2016, and only for new projects.Cephalotus wrote: ↑Jan 11, 2018 6:27 amAgain you are not up to date to the real data. They have to bid for the feed in tarif price now.......
No matter what the cost, a power source that does not work for several months of the year is a folly !Is a solar PV plant that is able to produce at around 5ct/kWh and produces most electricity when it is need most (during daytime) a good idea or is it that expensive, non efficient nonsese that you still think about it?
In more sunnier regions large solar PV plants can now produce electricity for less than 3ct/kWh....
Much of Germanys recent wind farm projects have been offshore,
Yes, but.. Most of the offshore capacity has been in the last 3 yearsNo.
Installed wind capacity in Germany at the end of 2017
onshore: 50.29 GW
with generation costs 2-3 times higher than onshore.
??? 0,44ct/kWh. ??,.... Or. 44,0ct/kWh ?So far there was just one bid round for wind offshore yet.
Result for average feed in tariff:
...? sounds like € 4 bn of wasted money to me. Who is getting rich from that ?.
And the extra costs for those new grid lines to facilitate RE integration is .....??????
..The private owners of the distribution network (grid) which has been in private ownership for many years.Who is getting rich opperation a grid in your country?.....
All grid systems work that way. (.remember Wind, Solar, are only a few years old in grid terms)Punx0r wrote: ↑Jan 11, 2018 6:12 pmI'm talking about nationwide fluctuations in demand, so it seems you have to have a few coal plants idling alongside your inflexible baseload coal plants to take up the peaks (and presumably you still need to predict the peak well in advance to feed the boiler and raise sufficient steam).
Doesn't that seem rather inefficient? And reminiscent of the faulty argument that coal plants must be kept idling to back up RE generators?
Seems like grid battery or idling wind turbine or PV sat in the sun would be able to respond near-instantly and much more efficiently.
And there are also these political discussions about dropping the emmissions targets..
....BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany’s would-be coalition partners have agreed to drop plans to lower carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, sources familiar with negotiations said on Monday -- a potential embarrassment for Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Wow. So I imagine emergency generators, car engines, jet aircraft and flashlights are all folly. They "don't work" most of the time, after all. Interesting. Will you sell your useless car, now? (Although I imagine if you decided to start driving it 24 hours a day it wouldn't be folly.)
About the same as the extra costs for a big new fossil fuel power plant.And the extra costs for those new grid lines to facilitate RE integration is .....??????
You are lowering your standards bill...Wow. So I imagine emergency generators, car engines, jet aircraft and flashlights are all folly. They "don't work" most of the time, after all. Interesting. Will you sell your useless car, now? (Although I imagine if you decided to start driving it 24 hours a day it wouldn't be folly.)About the same as the extra costs for a big new fossil fuel power plant.And the extra costs for those new grid lines to facilitate RE integration is .....??????
Right. And then you'd have to run a grid link to them for billions more to get the power out of those fossil fueled power plants.
One is a source of power; the other enables distribution and use of that power, whether the source is renewable or fossil.And the difference between a grid line and a power plant is..?
If a utility built a power plant, but did not build the transmission lines to connect it to the grid, how much money would it make, in your estimation?...One generates electricity, and hence revenue to return its costs..
Not without transmission lines.So spend the money on a local fossil fueled power plant which will pay for itself.
Well, of course you did the thing that solar PV advocates tend to do by implying that "RE" always = solar and wind. I see the same type of intentional misrepresentation whenever news articles talk about the high percentages of "RE" in NZ or Costa Rica as a model for the rest of the world to start building out solar PV. Hydro power really works to produce for a modern grid if you have the greography. Wind's contribution is still a small percentage in TAS and solar needs a magnifying glass to be seen. I will let the HillMan finish beating you up when he wakes and sees this.
Tassie actually has 200+% of RE generation if you are considering their Hydro (2260 MWh) , together with the 300MWh of wind, ..to supply an average demand of only 1100-1200MWh.Punx0r wrote: ↑Jan 20, 2018 9:18 amTasmania, with a whopping 93% RE for electricity generation, a 5cent/kwh feed-in tarrif for domestic solar and the lowest CO2 emissions in Australia. It's also close to the cheapest on your list, and, against some predictions for high-percentage RE somehow seems to be able to keep the lights on year-round... And, as you said earlier, actually exports surplus RE to other, predominately coal-fired, states to stop their grids falling over during peak demand.
I looked at NEM watch the other day when SE Australia had another hot spell - Victorian hydro was cranking a solid 2 GW for a few hours. It's an awesome power source and I really see value in using it more with RE energy pumping it uphill. But for as long as the big generators are able to game the system they will - Hazelwood was shut and Liddell is on it's way out - two big coal fired generators reaching the end of their useful lives. To repair/upgrade/maintain these stations would be far more than most are willing to pay. But the AGLs of the world profit from volatility in the grid, so they don't mind that things are getting hectic now.