EU Solar and Wind producing more power then Fossil fuels

[BOHICA]

Coal and gas combined can’t compete with Solar and Wind in EU

 

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/11/crossover-solar-wind-power-producing-more-electricity-than-fossil-fuels-in-eu/

[Highmark]

Can't compete or isn't allowed to.   Big difference.   Not surprised considering they lost their largest supplier.  Now throw in non-EU countries like Russia and the totals would be different. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Highmark

[XCR1250]

The Hidden Costs Of The Renewables Boom

By Irina Slav - Apr 18, 2023, 4:00 PM CDT

• Investments in low-carbon energy hit $1.1 trillion in 2022.
• Shortages in crucial industrial metals and rare earth metals could lead to rising prices for renewables.
• Hydrocarbons remain very crucial for our energy security.

Join Our Community

Last year, investments in low-carbon energy hit $1.1 trillion—a record high and a major increase on the previous year.

However, this record investment did nothing for the world’s energy security, it seems, because besides the record investments in renewables, 2022 was also a year that saw a major increase in oil, gas, and coal demand.

Not only that, but warnings multiplied about more fossil fuels investments that will be needed. Even the head of the International Energy Agency warned earlier this month that the oil market is facing a shortage later this year because of a growing gap between supply and demand.

In such a context, when the most developed economies in the world are striving to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, one cannot help but wonder why they are also encouraging more fossil fuel production.

 

Germany, for instance, just closed its last three nuclear power plants—a low-carbon source of electricity—but expanded a coal mine. The United States’ federal government is spending billions on alternative energy but is insisting that oil producers boost their output. Britain wants to become the Saudi Arabia of wind energy, as former PM Boris Johnson said, but gas demand hit a record last year.

Something doesn’t seem to be adding up. This something is the hidden cost of renewable energy. It is not something widely talked about because it has the potential to derail transition efforts by casting doubts over the viability of the transition.

Yet the issue is very much clear and present. Why else would China be building as many coal power plants as the rest of the world despite boasting the world’s most wind and solar capacity?Related: G7 To Maintain Russian Oil Price Cap At $60

Many critics of the transition to wind and solar argue that the biggest problem is that these are being touted as cheaper than fossil fuels. And the calculations to do that are made on the basis of something called levelized cost of energy.

The levelized cost of energy is a simple measure. Per the U.S. Department of Energy, LCOE measures lifetime costs for an energy installation divided by energy production. It sounds straightforward and simple enough. The problem is, it isn’t.

LCOE is not a comprehensive measure of costs because it only factors in upfront costs and the cost of operating a wind or solar farm. What it markedly does not factor in is the cost of energy that is not produced by these farms when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

These are some substantial costs because when wind and solar are down, fossil fuel plants need to step in and fill the gap, and the electricity they produce has become expensive because of those cheap renewables.

But besides LCOE, which proponents of wind and solar have used for years to argue for their affordability, there are also other costs that are making themselves known now. Raw material prices are going through the roof, and there is little anyone can do about it.

Daniel Yergin earlier this month wrote in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal that the transition would kickstart a mining boom. The reason is that wind, solar, and EVs require massive amounts of metals and minerals, and these are not being produced at anywhere near the necessary scale. And this means some shortages may well be looming over the horizon.

Copper is a case in point. Trafigura warned last year that there was only five days’ worth of copper supply in the world in inventory. Not only this, but that inventory was likely to shrink further to just 2.9 days’ worth. Just how dangerous this is becomes clear from the fact that ordinarily, the world’s copper inventories are measured in weeks.

As a result, copper prices are about to hit a record this year—again—according to Trafigura. This is not going to do anything about the affordability of wind and solar, especially given that it’s not the only commodity in short supply.

“Everything is getting much more expensive in an already stretched wind industry supply chain,” a senior Siemens Gamesa executive told the FT late last year. In the U.S., the Biden administration last suspended exorbitant tariffs on Asian import solar panels after these caused a slew of new project delays and cancellations because of higher costs.

 

No wonder, then, that the wind and solar industries are finding life hard at the moment, despite upbeat reports that continue to insist that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of energy.

This is why oil—and coal, too—continue to be essential for the world’s energy security. Their LCOE may be higher than wind and solar’s, but so is their reliability because, unlike those two, fossil fuel power is dispatchable: it can deliver whenever it’s needed.

And let’s face it – oil and gas production and processing requires a lot less metals and minerals than manufacturing solar panels, inverters, cables, and wind turbines for that low-cost, low-carbon energy that is, essentially, neither of these.

[Anler]

And paying a 600% premium for it!

[hayward]

4 minutes ago, Anler said:

And paying a 600% premium for it!

Subsidy's gotta be paid back some how!

[Anler]

[Voodoo]

United Kingdom electricity prices

United Kingdom electricity prices	Household, kWh	Business, kWh
U.K. Pound Sterling	0.330	0.270
U.S. Dollar	0.410	0.336

 

 

Something to look forward to if y'all get them electric automobiles.

[Doug]

[BOHICA]

If the US electricity prices go to that level the gas prices will follow along and mirror those levels that they are in those countries.

[Doug]

In order to promote the growth of renewable electricity sources, such as wind and solar, the federal government has given them special tax incentives.  Chief among these are the production tax credit (PTC), which has been used primarily by wind generation and awards a substantial tax credit for every megawatt-hour (MWh) produced; and the investment tax credit (ITC), which is primarily used by solar electricity generators as a credit against construction costs.  PTCs and ITCs can amount to more than one-third of the cost of building and operating wind and solar facilities. 

These tax incentives were intended by Congress to support technology that was too expensive in its early development.  Over time, these tax credits accomplished their goals, as wind and solar power have increased from just over 4% of the nation’s electric generating capacity in 2010 to nearly 13% today (9.5% for wind and 3.5% for solar).  Although initially a temporary program, Congress has extended these subsidies several times in recent years as they were about to expire.  The PTC for wind is now set to expire at the end of 2020, but renewable energy advocates are pushing to extend them again.  The following are reasons renewable subsidies should not be extended.

Over $100 billion has already been spent on renewables subsidies.  

Renewable energy resources—primarily wind and solar—have received subsidies through the tax code since 1979, most of which have occurred in the last decade.  Through 2018, these subsidies amounted to more than $100 billion.  This amount is far in excess of federal assistance received by other electricity sources.  And for perspective, this exceeds the combined 2020 budgets for the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency.[ii] 

            Tax Subsidies for Renewable Energy (2019 $Billion)[iii]

Subsidized renewables have distorted the electricity grid. 

Wind and solar power do not provide the same value to the grid as conventional electricity sources.  In addition to not operating on-demand, they provide little of the capacity value that is needed to maintain long-term reliability and cannot be relied on to provide the essential reliability services the grid needs to maintain reliability.   Instead, they rely on other electricity generators to provide the services they cannot, thus “imposing” those costs on other generators and the grid. Though the wind and solar facilities do not pay these costs, ratepayers do.

A Texas heat wave in August 2019 provides a good example of how renewables can distort electricity grid operations.  In the prior ten years, wind capacity had grown from 10% to 26% of capacity in the Texas power market (ERCOT).[x]  The low marginal cost of subsidized wind power depressed market prices for electricity to the point where over 5,000 MW of conventional generation chose to retire in 2018 rather than continue losing money.  With electricity demand reaching record levels, these retirements combined with an unpredicted drop in wind generation to force ERCOT to enact emergency procedures to avoid blackouts.  Although blackouts were avoided, electricity prices that were under $20 per MWh in the morning of August 13, 2019 rose to $9,000 per MWh in the afternoon.[xi]

Federal subsidies for renewables have not lowered consumer electricity costs.

The ITC and PTC subsidies have lowered out-of-pocket costs for renewable project developers but have not led to similar savings for electricity ratepayers.  This is evident when examining states that have enacted renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that require utilities to procure renewable power.  A study from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago examined the impact RPS programs had on electricity rates across the country and concluded they led to higher electricity rates.   Rates increased by 11% when the share of renewable generation increased by 1.8%, and by 17% when the renewable share increased by 4.2%.[xii]  According to the study, “These cost estimates … likely reflect costs that renewables impose on the generation system, including those associated with their intermittency, higher transmission costs, and any stranded asset costs assigned to ratepayers.”

A large portion of subsidies are sent overseas. 

Much of the wind and solar power deployed in the United States is owned by foreign firms, and the tax credits that these power projects generate are collected by international corporations.  One study found that of the $24.5 billion in PTC credits awarded between 2007 and 2016, just 15 companies received three quarters of those credits, and 42% of that total ($8.2 billion) went to seven overseas firms.[xiii]

There is no longer a compelling reason to extend federal subsidies for renewables. 

Continued subsidies are no longer needed to support a fully developed renewables industry.  After four decades of federal subsidies and state mandates, the wind and solar industries are mature and able to compete on equal footing with conventional sources of electricity.  As AWEA said, “the PTC has been successful …”  Or as we put it, enough is enough.

[spin_dry]

Oil companies work overtime with their anti renewable propaganda machine. GOP’ers gobble it up. This thread is simply more of the same.
 

Wisconsin would need 250,000 acres of solar panels to satisfy all its electricity needs. There’s almost 15 millions acres of farmland in the state. Just putting it into perspective. My issue with solar is where the panels are coming from. They need to be made in the USA