Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

[Jack Hays]

2017 was the first time in seven years that the C02 emissions increased in EU.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...r-first-time-in-7-years-in-2017-idUSKCN1HA1J7

Also, that greenhouse gas emissions in the EU were reduced by 23 percent between 1990 and 2016, while the economy grew by 53 percent.

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/eu-cut-emissions-23-1990-2016-while-economy-grew-53_en

So, it can only be a temporary setback, still EU countries and regions can of course do more. Where one important factor is to learn from all the positive examples both in Europe and in the rest of the world. For example, that India is projected to exceeds its goal from Paris agreement and have nearly 60 percent of electricity capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2027.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/india-renewable-energy-paris-climate-summit-target

While in Norway electric and hybrid cars rose above half of new car registrations in 2017 and the right-wing government also set a target that all cars sold should be zero emissions by 2025.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ar-sales-now-electric-or-hybrid-idUSKBN1ES0WC

You also have Scotland that got 68 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2017, that was a rise of 14.1 percentage points from the 54 per cent in 2016.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html

Excuses excuses.

 

[longview]

Even if some people have said “mean things”, you still have the fact that the fossil fuel companies are amongst the profitable in the world, so it wouldn’t have prevented research into alternative theories. Also, that Bush, Trump and the Republican congress would have started inquiries if there had existed evidence that governmentally funded scientists were prevented from looking into alternatives theories.

The negative effect of manmade global warming has also been known for a very long time. That for example the American oil industry was provided evidence of the negative effect of global warming in 1968. So, it has been a very long time to question the evidence and come up with alternative theories.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

While the result is still that the people that deny the need for action on manmade global warming from C02 are all over the place. That some acknowledge that manmade global warming is real and caused by C02 but claim that the negative effect will be smaller. Some acknowledge manmade global is real but claim that the cause is aerosol and land use while other claims that the climate will cool because of the sun.

While the evidence for manmade global warming now is so strong that not only are the world’s leading scientific institutes concluding the need for action on climate change but also the fossil fuel companies acknowledge the need for action on climate change.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ammer-congress-on-climate-change-mdash-again/

https://www.total.com/en/commitment/environmental-issues-challenges/climate-change

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change/a-low-carbon-future.html

No one is claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and there are some alternate theories as to the cause of the post 1978 warming.
As to the negative effects manmade global warming, those are all hypothetical, assigning every possible event to AGW.
Of the roughly 1.1 C of warming since 1880, about .6 C can be attributed to added CO2,
some more to CH4, and some to the reduction in aerosols.
The problem AGW has with the attributions of warming is when you add them all up, there is little room for the amplified feedbacks necessary
for AGW to be catastrophic.

 

[longview]

2017 was the first time in seven years that the C02 emissions increased in EU.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...r-first-time-in-7-years-in-2017-idUSKCN1HA1J7

Also, that greenhouse gas emissions in the EU were reduced by 23 percent between 1990 and 2016, while the economy grew by 53 percent.

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/eu-cut-emissions-23-1990-2016-while-economy-grew-53_en

So, it can only be a temporary setback, still EU countries and regions can of course do more. Where one important factor is to learn from all the positive examples both in Europe and in the rest of the world. For example, that India is projected to exceeds its goal from Paris agreement and have nearly 60 percent of electricity capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2027.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/india-renewable-energy-paris-climate-summit-target

While in Norway electric and hybrid cars rose above half of new car registrations in 2017 and the right-wing government also set a target that all cars sold should be zero emissions by 2025.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ar-sales-now-electric-or-hybrid-idUSKBN1ES0WC

You also have Scotland that got 68 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2017, that was a rise of 14.1 percentage points from the 54 per cent in 2016.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html

You can hold up all the articles you want, it will not change the fact that the current alternatives cannot meet the need of modern society
without some type of grid type energy storage, and a change in the grid attachment laws.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

No one is claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and there are some alternate theories as to the cause of the post 1978 warming.
As to the negative effects manmade global warming, those are all hypothetical, assigning every possible event to AGW.
Of the roughly 1.1 C of warming since 1880, about .6 C can be attributed to added CO2,
some more to CH4, and some to the reduction in aerosols.
The problem AGW has with the attributions of warming is when you add them all up, there is little room for the amplified feedbacks necessary
for AGW to be catastrophic.

It clear that you need to take decisive action on manmade global warming. Because all the leading scientific societies acknowledge the need for action on manmade global warming to minimize the negative impacts. Like for example these 31 American societies that sent a letter to U.S. policymaker.

'In a consensus letter to U.S. policymakers, a partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies today reaffirmed the reality of human-caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions "must be substantially reduced" to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver," the collaborative said in its 28 June letter to Members of Congress. "This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science."'

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-06/aaft-tts062716.php

 

[Bergslagstroll]

You can hold up all the articles you want, it will not change the fact that the current alternatives cannot meet the need of modern society
without some type of grid type energy storage, and a change in the grid attachment laws.

There are many ways to regulate electrical demand and renewable supply like these examples from this study.

"In that study, it was found that matching large differences between high electrical demand and low renewable supply could be realized largely by using a combination of either (1) substantial CSP storage plus batteries with zero change in existing hydropower annual energy output or peak power discharge rate, (2) modest CSP storage with no batteries and zero change in the existing hydropower annual energy output but a substantial increase in hydropower’s peak discharge rate, (3) increases in CSP-storage, batteries, and heat pumps, but no thermal energy storage and no increase in hydropower’s peak discharge rate or annual energy output, or (4) a combination Thus, there were multiple solutions for matching peak demand with supply 100% of the time for 5 years without bioenergy, nuclear, power, fossil fuels with carbon capture, or natural gas."

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf (Page 115)

You also for example have sustainable bioenergy that can help to regulate demand and supply.

https://www.nwf.org/Our-Work/Our-Lands/Sustainable-Bioenergy

https://corporate.vattenfall.com/about-energy/renewable-energy-sources/biomass/how-it-works/

You also have real world examples. Like for example Denmark that got 43 percent of its electricity from wind power in 2017.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-d...cent-of-power-from-wind-in-2017-idUKKBN1F01VD

While my country Sweden have during the last decades replaced oil fired burners with district heating mostly powered by biofuels and waste heat from industries. That have contributed to our almost halving of C02 pollution and also reduced our dependency on oil from the unstable Middle East.

District heating

 

[Lord of Planar]

There are many ways to regulate electrical demand and renewable supply like these examples from this study.

"In that study, it was found that matching large differences between high electrical demand and low renewable supply could be realized largely by using a combination of either (1) substantial CSP storage plus batteries with zero change in existing hydropower annual energy output or peak power discharge rate, (2) modest CSP storage with no batteries and zero change in the existing hydropower annual energy output but a substantial increase in hydropower’s peak discharge rate, (3) increases in CSP-storage, batteries, and heat pumps, but no thermal energy storage and no increase in hydropower’s peak discharge rate or annual energy output, or (4) a combination Thus, there were multiple solutions for matching peak demand with supply 100% of the time for 5 years without bioenergy, nuclear, power, fossil fuels with carbon capture, or natural gas."

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf (Page 115)

You also for example have sustainable bioenergy that can help to regulate demand and supply.

https://www.nwf.org/Our-Work/Our-Lands/Sustainable-Bioenergy

https://corporate.vattenfall.com/about-energy/renewable-energy-sources/biomass/how-it-works/

You also have real world examples. Like for example Denmark that got 43 percent of its electricity from wind power in 2017.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-d...cent-of-power-from-wind-in-2017-idUKKBN1F01VD

While my country Sweden have during the last decades replaced oil fired burners with district heating mostly powered by biofuels and waste heat from industries. That have contributed to our almost halving of C02 pollution and also reduced our dependency on oil from the unstable Middle East.

District heating

Pipe dreams.

 

[longview]

It clear that you need to take decisive action on manmade global warming. Because all the leading scientific societies acknowledge the need for action on manmade global warming to minimize the negative impacts. Like for example these 31 American societies that sent a letter to U.S. policymaker.

'In a consensus letter to U.S. policymakers, a partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies today reaffirmed the reality of human-caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions "must be substantially reduced" to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver," the collaborative said in its 28 June letter to Members of Congress. "This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science."'

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-06/aaft-tts062716.php

Perhaps clear to "you" I think CO2 is not worth the effort and distracts from the real problem which is energy.

 

[longview]

There are many ways to regulate electrical demand and renewable supply like these examples from this study.

"In that study, it was found that matching large differences between high electrical demand and low renewable supply could be realized largely by using a combination of either (1) substantial CSP storage plus batteries with zero change in existing hydropower annual energy output or peak power discharge rate, (2) modest CSP storage with no batteries and zero change in the existing hydropower annual energy output but a substantial increase in hydropower’s peak discharge rate, (3) increases in CSP-storage, batteries, and heat pumps, but no thermal energy storage and no increase in hydropower’s peak discharge rate or annual energy output, or (4) a combination Thus, there were multiple solutions for matching peak demand with supply 100% of the time for 5 years without bioenergy, nuclear, power, fossil fuels with carbon capture, or natural gas."

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf (Page 115)

You also for example have sustainable bioenergy that can help to regulate demand and supply.

https://www.nwf.org/Our-Work/Our-Lands/Sustainable-Bioenergy

https://corporate.vattenfall.com/about-energy/renewable-energy-sources/biomass/how-it-works/

You also have real world examples. Like for example Denmark that got 43 percent of its electricity from wind power in 2017.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-d...cent-of-power-from-wind-in-2017-idUKKBN1F01VD

While my country Sweden have during the last decades replaced oil fired burners with district heating mostly powered by biofuels and waste heat from industries. That have contributed to our almost halving of C02 pollution and also reduced our dependency on oil from the unstable Middle East.

District heating

The Stanford study is acknowledge as using unrealistic assumptions.
Biofuels have the bad side effect of placing our machines in competition with Humans for food.
Load shifting can help, but it will not solve the real duty cycle problem with the alternatives, only storage will.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]President Trump Moves to Rescue Coal, Nuclear Plants[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t john – The White House has ordered Secretary of Energy Rick Perry to prevent the loss of more coal and nuclear plants, to ensure US energy independence. Statement from the Press Secretary on Fuel-Secure Power Facilities INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY Issued on: June 1, 2018 The United States of America…
Continue reading →

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The Stanford study is acknowledge as using unrealistic assumptions.
Biofuels have the bad side effect of placing our machines in competition with Humans for food.
Load shifting can help, but it will not solve the real duty cycle problem with the alternatives, only storage will.

You have renewable energy sources that produce the most electricity when the demand is the highest. Like for example solar power in countries and regions with hot summers.

Renewable energy sources that produce a steadier out put of electricity like for example off shore wind power.

Renewable sources that can produce electricity on demand like for example hydropower and concentrated solar power plants with thermal storage. You also have sustainable form of biofuels like for example forest-derived and from different types of waste.

While at the same time you have battery storage, hydrogen storage and pumped-storage hydroelectricity.

So, there are already today many different combinations of renewable energy sources and storage that can be used to regulate electrical demand and renewable supply. That at the same time you see a drastic advancement in many of those technologies.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

President Trump Moves to Rescue Coal, Nuclear Plants

Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t john – The White House has ordered Secretary of Energy Rick Perry to prevent the loss of more coal and nuclear plants, to ensure US energy independence. Statement from the Press Secretary on Fuel-Secure Power Facilities INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY Issued on: June 1, 2018 The United States of America…
Continue reading →

The Trump administration have tried before to prop up aging nuclear and very dirty and old coal plants. That Trump last year proposed subsidies to nuclear and coal plants that would have cost 10 billion per year and harmed cheaper electricity generation from renewables and natural gas.

"The U.S. Department of Energy’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to subsidize coal and nuclear generation is opposed by nearly every side of America’s electricity industry – from market operators and conservative analysts to a bipartisan group of former FERC commissioners – except for those who would directly benefit from it.

Reasons for opposing the NOPR range from potentially destroying wholesale power markets, to free trade principles, or insufficient review time, but beyond Rick Perry suggesting the proposal's price was equal to “the cost of freedom,” DOE hasn’t quantified the NOPR's economic impact or which plants it would subsidize."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energy...year-is-america-great-again-yet/#6d497a0630db

While the proposition was so bad that it was stop by federal regulators.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/climate/trump-coal-nuclear.html

 

[longview]

You have renewable energy sources that produce the most electricity when the demand is the highest. Like for example solar power in countries and regions with hot summers.

Renewable energy sources that produce a steadier out put of electricity like for example off shore wind power.

Renewable sources that can produce electricity on demand like for example hydropower and concentrated solar power plants with thermal storage. You also have sustainable form of biofuels like for example forest-derived and from different types of waste.

While at the same time you have battery storage, hydrogen storage and pumped-storage hydroelectricity.

So, there are already today many different combinations of renewable energy sources and storage that can be used to regulate electrical demand and renewable supply. That at the same time you see a drastic advancement in many of those technologies.

What you are missing, and what the criticism of the stanford report was, is that there are not enough of the right combinations to sustainable
move forward.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...ists-squash-hopes-for-100-percent-renewables/

The fear is that legislation will mandate goals that can’t be achieved with available technologies at reasonable prices, leading to
“wildly unrealistic expectations” and “massive misallocation of resources,” says David Victor, an energy policy researcher at the University of California,
San Diego, and coauthor of the critique. “That is both harmful to the economy, and creates the seeds of a backlash.”

 

[Lord of Planar]

What you are missing, and what the criticism of the stanford report was, is that there are not enough of the right combinations to sustainable
move forward.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...ists-squash-hopes-for-100-percent-renewables/

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[KLATTU]

In 1998, about 86% of world energy was from fossil fuel, 9%, nuclear, and solar and wind round off to the nearest integer down to 0%.

In 2017, after 20 years and hundreds of billions spent to develop and promote solar and wind – around $150B in the USA alone (Google "GAO budget for climate change"; the numbers are 85%, 5%, and rounds off up to 1%). Clearly, solar and wind will be unable to supplant fossil fuel any time soon.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

What you are missing, and what the criticism of the stanford report was, is that there are not enough of the right combinations to sustainable
move forward.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...ists-squash-hopes-for-100-percent-renewables/

You have countries and regions that show that already today is it possible with high percentage of renewable energy. Like for example Scotland that got 68 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2017, that was a rise of 14.1 percentage points from the 54 per cent in 2016.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html

While Denmark got 43 percent of its electricity from wind power in 2017.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-d...cent-of-power-from-wind-in-2017-idUKKBN1F01VD

This also show that its feasible for USA and other countries with a smaller level of renewable energy to speed up their transition towards renewable energy.

Also, the timeframe for goal of 100 percent renewable energy in that study is set to 2050 so you will have a lot of technological advancements up to when. There ambitious goals and policies will help to speed up the technological advancements and the transition towards renewable energy. Like for example Sweden that have set a bipartisan goal to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2045

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ct-donald-trump-paris-agreement-a7794686.html

 

[Bergslagstroll]

In 1998, about 86% of world energy was from fossil fuel, 9%, nuclear, and solar and wind round off to the nearest integer down to 0%.

In 2017, after 20 years and hundreds of billions spent to develop and promote solar and wind – around $150B in the USA alone (Google "GAO budget for climate change"; the numbers are 85%, 5%, and rounds off up to 1%). Clearly, solar and wind will be unable to supplant fossil fuel any time soon.

You have seen drastic change during the last couple of years. Like for example that renewables accounted for almost two-thirds of net new power capacity around the world in 2016 while solar PV capacity grew by 50%.

https://www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/

While the cost of renewable energy is continuing to drop, and renewable energy are becoming more and more competitive towards other energy sources.

https://futurism.com/solar-energy-prices-continue-plunge-coal-prices-climb-higher/

Like for example in India there the cost of renewables has fallen 50 percent in two years and new wind and solar have become 20 percent cheaper than existing coal-fired generation’s average wholesale power price.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energy...ts-more-than-new-wind-and-solar/#4e56c42e4c0f

 

[longview]

You have countries and regions that show that already today is it possible with high percentage of renewable energy. Like for example Scotland that got 68 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2017, that was a rise of 14.1 percentage points from the 54 per cent in 2016.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html

While Denmark got 43 percent of its electricity from wind power in 2017.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-d...cent-of-power-from-wind-in-2017-idUKKBN1F01VD

This also show that its feasible for USA and other countries with a smaller level of renewable energy to speed up their transition towards renewable energy.

Also, the timeframe for goal of 100 percent renewable energy in that study is set to 2050 so you will have a lot of technological advancements up to when. There ambitious goals and policies will help to speed up the technological advancements and the transition towards renewable energy. Like for example Sweden that have set a bipartisan goal to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2045

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ct-donald-trump-paris-agreement-a7794686.html

You are still missing the point, short periods are possible, but electricity
Is an on demand product.
The periods of maximum supply,
Seldom line up with maximum demand.
The Paris agreement was not about addressing the real problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Hays]

China: solar stocks plummet as solar subsidies cut to “make electricity cheaper”

Last week, the world leading nation in solar panel manufacturing announced big cuts to subsidies in order to make their electricity cheaper. Can you believe? The cuts are big enough for The Motley Fool to headline this “Why the Lights Went Out on Solar Today”. (h.t GWPF)

Image by Snowacinesy
​

Put this in perspective — in late 2016, Scientific American declared that China Is Dominating the Solar Industry. Apparently, the Chinese forced the prices down, drove US leaders out of business, and the US could only hope to be second. Without a hint of impending doom, Scientific American went on to title one sub-part: AN INDUSTRY PROPELLED BY TAX CREDITS. The Chinese government picked a “winner”, grabbed the industry from all over the world, brought it to China, and ran with it. Now apparently rising electricity prices hurt too much. Who could have seen that coming?
“According to some veterans in the U.S. solar industry, China bought solar companies and invited others to move to China, where they found cheap, skilled labor. Instead of paying taxes, they received tax credits.”
Last week the Chinese government announced solar subsidy cuts:
[Capital Watch] Chinese regulators said Friday they were unexpectedly suspending construction of new solar panel farms and cut subsidies to the industry, sending solar energy companies’ stocks plummeting Monday.
Chinese solar stocks immediately fell:

Some media reports said this policy approach was the most austere in years, and that it indicated a more significant rollback of subsidies for industry players.
The stock price falls in a day were in the order of 13 to 31%.
Look at a few home truths from a communist giant

Using unheard of transparency in the world of renewables, a Chinese academic explains that the main reason to cut solar subsidies is to “make electricity cheaper“.
Lin Boqiang, director of the China Center for Energy Economics Research at Xiamen University, said the policy will curb the fast growth of PV power bases, amid efforts by the central government to make electricity cheaper for consumers.
“This year’s government work report clearly stipulated that 2018 electricity prices will be lowered by 10 percent. But the PV subsidy comes from continuous hiking of electricity prices in the past, which was paid for by ordinary consumers,” Lin told the Global Times on Sunday,
He added that with the need to cut electricity prices, the PV subsidies must now be scaled back.
The academic also admitted that the PV subsidy is paid for by “ordinary consumers”. If only Australia could aspire to have academics so honest, open and free to speak?
Renewable subsidies were a massive $15.6 billion USD slap for Chinese electricity consumers:

Both moves are aimed at keeping in check the more than 100 billion yuan (US$15.6 billion) deficit in a state-run renewable energy fund, which is financed by a surcharge on power users’ bills.
All this and Chinese electricity consumers don’t even get meaningfully votes…
UPDATE: China is really jumping on the brakes:

h/t Pat in comments
6 Jun: Motley Fool: Travis Hoium: China Just Dealt a Massive Blow to the Solar Industry . . .

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Even in sunniest Queensland, solar can’t run without big subsidies — so big they have to be kept secret[/h]
Solar is so competitive that the Queensland government has to pour in money to keep solar developers from running away.
How much money? Who knows. Whatever it is, it’s so big, the government has to keep it a secret.
[h=3]Queensland taxpayers kept in dark as they prop up solar firms[/h]MARK SCHLIEBS, The Australian
The Queensland government is concealing its financial support for large-scale renewable energy projects, guaranteeing subsidies to solar companies that do not *appear on balance sheets.

With an expert panel previously finding the government would need to spend between $500 million and $900m in subsidies to meet its 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, there are now calls for spending to be made public.
The government has struck four deals with major solar-farm developers, under “contracts for difference”, with floor prices nominated for the sale of their *energy in order to attract finance. When the market price falls below that threshold, the government has to make up the difference.
Luckily for Queensland taxpayers — who don’t know how to spot a good investment or the energy source of the future — the Government can spend their money for them. The Palaszuczuk government has hammered out such a good deal for Queenslanders that it can’t tell them what it is. Try to figure out a situation where the Taxpayers are winning, but the government doesn’t want to say so.
Two of the four lucky subsidy farms have capacities of 50MW and 15MW which will make a big difference to the states 14,000MW generation capacity. These two solar farms are expensive but token to the point of being nearly imaginary. As commenter Terrence says:
“Yesterday at 9 am Queensland was generating 7,000 MW from fossil fuels/hydro and 80 MW from windmills and solar panels which is typical of Qld’s power mix over the last couple of months.
…These [50 and 15MW] capacities are nameplate ratings only if they run 24/7/365, …. The real ratings of these two baby power projects is more like 12.5 MW and 3.75 MW respectively which are definitely not large scale. “
Queensland has quite a lot of coal, oil and gas, so the Queensland govt has decided to use… something else. The state is aiming for a miraculous 50% renewables. Ponder the brave task ahead. To be 50% renewable, Queensland needs to generate more like 3,500MW on average with the unreliables, and that’s after capacity factors are taken into account.

 

[longview]

[h=2]Even in sunniest Queensland, solar can’t run without big subsidies — so big they have to be kept secret[/h]
Solar is so competitive that the Queensland government has to pour in money to keep solar developers from running away.
How much money? Who knows. Whatever it is, it’s so big, the government has to keep it a secret.
[h=3]Queensland taxpayers kept in dark as they prop up solar firms[/h]MARK SCHLIEBS, The Australian
The Queensland government is concealing its financial support for large-scale renewable energy projects, guaranteeing subsidies to solar companies that do not *appear on balance sheets.

With an expert panel previously finding the government would need to spend between $500 million and $900m in subsidies to meet its 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, there are now calls for spending to be made public.
The government has struck four deals with major solar-farm developers, under “contracts for difference”, with floor prices nominated for the sale of their *energy in order to attract finance. When the market price falls below that threshold, the government has to make up the difference.
Luckily for Queensland taxpayers — who don’t know how to spot a good investment or the energy source of the future — the Government can spend their money for them. The Palaszuczuk government has hammered out such a good deal for Queenslanders that it can’t tell them what it is. Try to figure out a situation where the Taxpayers are winning, but the government doesn’t want to say so.
Two of the four lucky subsidy farms have capacities of 50MW and 15MW which will make a big difference to the states 14,000MW generation capacity. These two solar farms are expensive but token to the point of being nearly imaginary. As commenter Terrence says:
“Yesterday at 9 am Queensland was generating 7,000 MW from fossil fuels/hydro and 80 MW from windmills and solar panels which is typical of Qld’s power mix over the last couple of months.
…These [50 and 15MW] capacities are nameplate ratings only if they run 24/7/365, …. The real ratings of these two baby power projects is more like 12.5 MW and 3.75 MW respectively which are definitely not large scale. “
Queensland has quite a lot of coal, oil and gas, so the Queensland govt has decided to use… something else. The state is aiming for a miraculous 50% renewables. Ponder the brave task ahead. To be 50% renewable, Queensland needs to generate more like 3,500MW on average with the unreliables, and that’s after capacity factors are taken into account.

Anyone with even a modest accounting class, could tell you that the feed in tariffs and the net metering plans are untenable at the higher levels.
The actual value of surplus alternate energy is likely slightly below the wholesale rate.
The lower value is because every Kwh of alternative power must have a backup int eh ready, in case the duty cycle.

 

[Jack Hays]

Anyone with even a modest accounting class, could tell you that the feed in tariffs and the net metering plans are untenable at the higher levels.
The actual value of surplus alternate energy is likely slightly below the wholesale rate.
The lower value is because every Kwh of alternative power must have a backup int eh ready, in case the duty cycle.

I won't pretend I understood that.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]Prolonged Wind Drought Crushes British Turbine Output[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t michel – Britons are experiencing first hand why wind is utterly unsuitable for reliable electricity production. Britain Has Gone Nine Days Without Wind Power By Rachel Morison 7 June 2018, 14:00 GMT+10 Forecasters see wind output staying low for at least two weeks Wind generating 4.3% of U.K. electricity…
Continue reading →

 

[longview]

I won't pretend I understood that.

I am trying to think of a clever analogy.
Imagine someone who does not own a car, but needs one from time to time.
Most times they borrow a friends car, but it is not always available.
The IRS changes some rules and says they must place a value on the borrowed car time.
is not as valuable as a rental car, because it is not always available.
We may not know the true value, but it is likely less than the rental car.

 

[Jack Hays]

I am trying to think of a clever analogy.
Imagine someone who does not own a car, but needs one from time to time.
Most times they borrow a friends car, but it is not always available.
The IRS changes some rules and says they must place a value on the borrowed car time.
is not as valuable as a rental car, because it is not always available.
We may not know the true value, but it is likely less than the rental car.

Thanks.

 

[Surface Detail]

[h=1]Prolonged Wind Drought Crushes British Turbine Output[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t michel – Britons are experiencing first hand why wind is utterly unsuitable for reliable electricity production. Britain Has Gone Nine Days Without Wind Power By Rachel Morison 7 June 2018, 14:00 GMT+10 Forecasters see wind output staying low for at least two weeks Wind generating 4.3% of U.K. electricity…
Continue reading →

Is this another of your spoof stories?

It's June. Demand is low, and the long days provide more solar power. We don't expect or need much wind power at this time of year. Indeed, solar and wind power complement one another well in the UK, with wind dominating in the winter and solar in the summer.