Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

That's complete rubbish. Sad to see people writing such nonsense without giving reliable sources.

1*kru8tJd3nC1iffs-lsdwDA.png

The only kWh that means anything to him is the one that comes in in the middle of a dark, windless and icy night when everybody's resistive space heater is fighting over the scraps, in a utility district that stubbornly refuses to install any power storage.

There are lots of ways out of that trap. Foremost is not to have an anti-renewables agenda at the top of your agenda.
 
Point me to a Country with significant Solar and Wind grid generation, that has not experienced dramatically increased electricity costs !
Lazard and the iea are stuck on various LCOE itterations that do not reflect the actual costs of a reliable supply to the consumer.
More astute observers are using the Levelised Full System Cost of Electricity,. To give a more realistic assesment of the actual costs.
 
Last edited:
that has not experienced dramatically increased electricity costs
Show me something, that has not become more expensive during the last years. The "dramatically" increase of costs of electricity is caused by CO2 taxes and wars, not by the costs for generating the renewable electricity. CO2 taxes are a political instrument in many countries to get independent from the goodwill of a handful of sheikhs.
In Germany you can read this headline today:
Strom- und Gaspreise in Deutschland wieder auf Vorkriegsniveau
 
Last edited:
Show me something, that has not become more expensive during the last years. The "dramatically" increase of costs of electricity is caused by CO2 taxes and wars, not by the costs for generating the renewable electricity. CO2 taxes are a political instrument in many countries to get independent from the goodwill of a handful of sheikhs.
“during the last years” … many costs have increased as a result of the many impacts of the Covid period…and in Germanys case most recently due to its dependance on Russian Gas as a backup for its failing wind and solar plants.
…but electricity costs have been increasing for many years prior to that, as far back as the mid 1990.
IMG_0376.jpeg
Germany EEG costs are not a “CO2 tax” as you think , but a means to fund the development of a wind and solar segment of their generation system.
The EEG levy was introduced in 2000. Also known as the “green power surcharge”, it serves to subsidise the expansion of solar, wind, biomass and hydropower plants. The levy is included in end consumers’ electricity bills.
 
You dont say where you live,…. but certainly here in Australia we are installing more solar per head of population than anywhere else in the world,..because there are still big government subsidies, retail Feed in Tarrifs, AND huge “carbon credits” paid to commercial solar and wind generators.
Power generation is a business, and like anyother it must be profitable to survive
Even Warren Buffet has stated that without incentives Solar and wind are not financially viable.
Countries like Australia that have high % of wind and solar generation (30+%) are experiencing limitations to further additions as a result of the inconsistency of generation and subsequent risk of shortages/ blackouts.
Unfortunately for the end consumers, more solar and wind just means increasing power costs.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The links in my post destroy your argument.
 
@
The EEG was cancelled in 2022 ;)
and just how did that affeect electricity prices ..?
IMG_0377.jpeg
Because the EEG was simply replaced/renamed…
Revenues from the EEG levy have so far gone into the so-called EEG account of the transmission system operators.
In future, the Federal Government will reimburse them for the loss of revenue from the special Energy and Climate Fund (EKF) and use this to subsidise renewable energies.
All “Carbon Trading” Systems are established to subsidise renewable energies.
Even countries without an official Carbon Trading market still have mechanisms to fund the installation of Wind and Solar generation . In Australia it is called the Renewable Energy Certificates….a cost per MWh the Fossil generators have to pay to subsidise the renewable generators
 
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The links in my post destroy your argument.
No, the links in your post simply show how corperations are jumping at the chance to make quick money by investing in a heavily subsidised oportunity.
And mine is not an argument, it is a statement of facts, regarding the problems being encountered by increasing the % of intermittent energy generation.
 
The only kWh that means anything to him is the one that comes in in the middle of a dark, windless and icy night when everybody's resistive space heater is fighting over the scraps, in a utility district that stubbornly refuses to install any power storage
Any fool can relax and marvel at the wonders of solar /wind generation whilst lounging in the sun on a California beach, knowing that if the wind drops and the sun goes down, there will always be plenty of imported back up power from other states to keep the A/C running.
But some of us in “ island nations” do face the prospect of …
a dark, windless and icy night
…and even several cold ,sunless, windless days,..With no neighbours to bail us out and no realistic way of storing the 1-2000 GWhs needed to cover those periods.
So yes , those are the periods that concern me !
 
No, the links in your post simply show how corperations are jumping at the chance to make quick money by investing in a heavily subsidised oportunity.
And mine is not an argument, it is a statement of facts, regarding the problems being encountered by increasing the % of intermittent energy generation.
No, you're being obtuse. Most PV installations in the world are not heavily subsidized, especially compared to fossil fuels and nukes.

No, your statements are unsupported bullshit. PV generation is currently one quarter the price, installed, of new nukes. . PV is modular, factory built in the millions of units a year, and the fuel is free. Nukes are none of those things. This is obvious stuff, and your ignorance doesn't change that.
 
All “Carbon Trading” Systems are established to subsidise renewable energies.
As written, this is a political instrument, to get rid of fossil fuels faster. This has nothing to do with the fact, that renewables are the cheapest energy we have. This is not difficult to understand.🤷‍♂️
The point is reached, that we don't have to subsidise the production of renewable electric energy any longer, as it's a reasonable investment for the owner anyway, but have to invest in the grid and storage now.
This will be much cheaper in long term, as paying for each ton of coal, gas and oil for ever and ever....

But I'll stop this discussion now, it makes no sense to play chess with a pigeon ;)
 
Last edited:
Can we all agree on one thing that the price of transitioning a country's grid is a varied affair.

A well established grid is clearly not favourable at all as theres already energy independence that needs to be broke to make a cleaner grid but the independence is there for a reason its been the easyiest and sometimes cheapest way for supplying energy to our grids.

The more technology gets applied to a working system the more people seem to be getting left behind especially rural based areas thats stuck in a trap, no wealth or job prospects and a sprial downhill.
 
Can we all agree on one thing that the price of transitioning a country's grid is a varied affair.

A well established grid is clearly not favourable at all as theres already energy independence that needs to be broke to make a cleaner grid but the independence is there for a reason its been the easyiest and sometimes cheapest way for supplying energy to our grids.

The more technology gets applied to a working system the more people seem to be getting left behind especially rural based areas thats stuck in a trap, no wealth or job prospects and a sprial downhill.
Some of the big advantages of PV is how modular, simple and flexible they are. Subsistence farmers in third world countries can set up used PV panels, some old car batteries and off the shelf components to pump irrigation water, charge their cell phones and run a village TV...*where there is no grid at all* If they could keep a work buffalo alive, or keep a 1950's era tractor running, the PV system is simple stuff for them.

There are funding groups able to provide zero interest loans ( or outright grants ) for this stuff.

You can't do that with oil, NG, coal or nukes...too much infrastructure needed to make them work in a poor rural country.

PV allows rural power to skip the grid stage, just like cell/satellite phones allow a country to skip landline phones and internet entirely. Once you have reliable PV power and an internet connection, a rural area is no longer job handicapped compared to an urban area...all that's holding anyone back is education...which those PV powered internet connections allow.
 
Totally agree that for places thats had little grid to begin with its been priceless but for an established grid the transitioning has and will continue to cause pain as our demand needs have out stripped supply.

What i see happening in uk is energy austerity, people are paying more for less with political manipulation and gain at the centre of all movements forward its shameful.

Laser obliterated rock allows us to drill les north for heat, thermal solar wind but without a means of regulating it all it becomes as messy as the oil lobbying thats got us in this mess in the first place, to me its very disjointed in uk one step forward another back scandals at every turn.
 
PV generation is currently one quarter the price, installed, of new nukes. . PV is modular, factory built in the millions of units a year, and the fuel is free
This is where your idealism shines through and highlights your lack of comprehending the real situation.
”Generation” ..is only a small part of the costs incurred to provide a reliable supply to the consumers ( who pay the bills).
Once the additional costs of transmission, storage, back up, stabilisation, life cycle, etc ,( convieniently minimised or ignored in the LCOE figures ), are included ,it is a very different picture.
for a more realistic comparason the “Full SystemLevelised Cost” is a good guide.

1C103B96-F3B4-4535-94D1-4926C2335B4B.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Uk grid costing per kw is based on its most expensive counterpart, so for example gas is our most expensive supply to grid and solar and wind the cheapest per kw ignoring installation costs etc.

So even on a day thats extremely wind and solar heavy thats costing alot less for the grid in gas topper plants to add stabilty we get charged the most expensive component for the full kw.

99% renewable 1% gas cost to consumer 100% gas thats why our prices are mental, but the costing in uk allows little left for average folk to add self stabilty even people like myself that have good knowledge struggle and end up using diy setups with ev batterys etc and may not even have solar but just use night time cheaper tariffs and that alone can pay for itself in uk as the pricing is so extreme.

Problem with that is if the natinal grid knows your system is shaking hands with your diy setup best of luck getting an insurance payout just checkmated all the time shows the systems rigged.


So what does my local council propose ? A f#%$×÷g micro nuclear plant and hydrogen production facility within spitting range of multiple housing estates its just madness it will never be built just more waste of resources and money stole by design to nothing, purposefully working on fictional jobs to funnel money at businesses councillor's etc favour and have interest in.
 
Last edited:
Most PV installations in the world are not heavily subsidized,
😳🤔So what do you think the German €177bn, “EKF” is ?..(see the link in above post)
..and in Australia we have the “Renewable Energy Certificates”….(a cost per MWh the Fossil generators have to pay to subsidise the renewable generators)
And in the USA ?…..
Renewable subsidies jumped to $15.6 billion in fiscal year 2022 from $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2016, according to the Energy Information Administration's Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy report.
Biden has repeatedly called for extending tax credits for solar power and other renewables, at a projected cost of US$200 billion over the next decade. Second, his administration has proposed a Clean Electricity Performance Program to subsidize electric utilities that increase the share of solar in their sales. This initiative is budgeted at $150 billion.
Also,..Where are “most” PV panels and equipment manufactured ?……answer,. China !
why are other countries not able to compete on price ?……..answer..China subsidises their manufacturing industries !
 
This is where your idealism shines through and highlights your lack of comprehending the real situation.
”Generation” ..is only a small part of the costs incurred to provide a reliable supply to the consumers ( who pay the bills).
Once the additional costs of transmission, storage, back up, stabilisation, life cycle, etc ,( convieniently minimised or ignored in the LCOE figures ), are included ,it is a very different picture.
for a more realistic comparason the “Full SystemLevelised Cost” is a good guide.

1C103B96-F3B4-4535-94D1-4926C2335B4B.jpeg
You're being a fool again. The cost differential between PV and nuke power is enough to cover storage and lower than rated output. On top of that, cost of PV transmission is often lower than for nukes, since they can often be be located much closer to the customer. Loan costs are much lower, since a PV project will be up and making a profit years to decades sooner than a nuke plant, and PV is often able to share land with other uses, further reducing costs and time to completion. The modular, dispersed nature of PV means that damage (natural or man made) will be partial, not complete (as when a nuke plant is damaged) Repairs are quick and easy, off the shelf.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
 
Not to mention the cost in waste fuel transportation, storage etc.

For sure sellafield is never going to break even its original purpose was to sell recycled fuel to the nuclear industry market but who would have thought that recycled waste could of had demand over virgin material when the world runs on cost its clear sellafield wouldn't of had demand for many years into a nuclear world if at all, too many secret talks and gentleman's agreements amongst countrys but little honour or faith in the shit they peddle.

The plastic industry is kinda similar gigantic mess.
 
The cost differential between PV and nuke power is enough to cover storage and lower than rated output. On top of that, cost of PV transmission is often lower than for nukes, since they can often be be located much closer to the customer.
It is apparent that you do not bother to read or understand information when it is presented to you,..or you would not make these rediculous comments.
The only part of PV that is cheaper than Nuclear is the initial capital cost of construction,.
When the FULL cost of supply to consumers is considered ( as explained in the LFSCOE ) the reality is much different to your view.
How much PV and storage do you think would be required to make PV viable for a location such as New York ?
And what cost do you estimate that might amount to ?
You might also like to check how much additional transmission and distribution infrastructure were required to attempt to make Gemany’s and Australia’s PV and Wind generation integrate to their grids ?
 
It is apparent that you do not bother to read or understand information when it is presented to you,..or you would not make these rediculous comments.
The only part of PV that is cheaper than Nuclear is the initial capital cost of construction,

I think you're not accounting for the real costs.

Certification/inspection.
Maintenance.
Fuel cost.
Fuel transport.
Fuel security.
Facilities security.
Demolition.
Cleanup.
Waste transport.
Waste disposal.
Perpetual waste storage.
Perpetual waste security.
Long term land use impairment.
Accident/disaster management and decontamination.
Loss of property value and tax base for miles around.
Health affects and illness treatment.
Huge brownfields at uranium mines and refinement facilities.

By the time PVs are worn out, they have been amortized for a long time. By the time a nuke plant is decommissioned, the bills are just beginning.
 
The energytransition in its current form, as a grid-scale build out of wind and solar with the goal to replace oil, coaland gas, is probably one of the greatest mistakes that humanity has ever made, German-listed commodity company HMS Bergbau Group shareholder Dr Lars Schernikau said
Schernikau also addressed the underwhelming operational lifetimes of renewable-energyinfrastructure, citing concerns over their longevity.

“Wind and solar power plants have a very limited operational lifetime. You have to replace them every few years. How many years? We don’t know. What we do know, is that it doesn’t last 25 years at grid scale,” he said.

Schernikau and other scientists are currently working on an academic study detailing this issue.

He noted that the newest grid-scale solar panels from China last between 12 to 15 years, a far cry from the 25 to 35 years often projected in net-zero analyses. He clarified that, while certain solarpanels on residential rooftops might last 25 to 35 years, this longevity did not apply to grid-scale infrastructure owing to the optimisation of materials for cost-efficiency.
 
Last edited:
Try reading the LFSCOE documentation.
I have never seen any analysis of the costs of nuclear energy that accounted for the many long term externalities of that technology. It's like they think once it isn't specifically their problem, it's not a problem. Or they realize that storing and securing dangerous waste until the end of time is hard to price, so they don't. Or they realize that permanently crushing the value of tens of thousands of privately owned hectares per power station is hard to price, so they don't. Or they realize that elevated rates of cancer and birth defects distributed widely across mining, refining, storage, generation, and disposal facilities are hard to price, so they don't.

Once you do begin to account for the externalized costs of nuclear fission, there is no more expensive means of producing electricity. Maybe lawyers walking on dynamo treadmills could compare, or burning art and antiques to run turbines.
 
An interesting perspective from one of my favorite youtubers:
Tl;dr crypto and AI are trendy, crypto and AI use a ton of energy, therefore tech companies have been investing in various level of nuclear projects. Not to increase energy production as a whole, no. Just to make sure there's enough private electrical generation available to keep ChatGPT busy.
 
Back
Top