Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

German Energiewende

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 06 Oct 2018, 05:41:09

M_B_S wrote:Dear Chancellor Merkel,

The world is watching as the conflict around the Hambach forest, neighbouring villages and coal mine is escalating. The recent actions by the government of North Rhine-Westphalia on behalf of coal energy company RWE have only further fuelled the conflict. Now instead of thousands, tens of thousands of people are peacefully demonstrating each week against the irresponsible behaviour of RWE and the regional government.....


Plenty of peaceful demonstrations in Germany and few hundreds of new Muslims are coming in every day.
Now they say that every refugee will be able to bring his family too (means up to 4 wives, 25 children, parents and wives parents, 60 brothers, sisters, uncles and anties, 300 of their kids etc).
So these peaceful demonstrations don't seem to work and governor Merckel got renominated regardless...
Perhaps Germans need to plea to Erdogan directly, if anything is to be done...
Maybe future Caliph will be more symphatetic to his new subjects?
Allah is merciful after all and he must care about Germans too if noone else does! :)
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7036
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby M_B_S » Sat 06 Oct 2018, 06:04:00

@ energyunlimited

You are right 99,999% of the "refugees" dont even know what K. Imperativ means like ~99% of German/US native pop.

M_B_S

Mark: K stands NOT for KORAN
User avatar
M_B_S
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby jawagord » Sat 06 Oct 2018, 12:29:40

Merkel's Folly: Erratic German Wind Power

Always informative to check on German power production, this week they have had a couple of big wind days where wind generated over 35GW but 2 days later it's only generating 5GW, and what little Solar power there is, is dropping every day with the change in season. With this unreliable power mix the Germans will always need backup systems, basically building two types of power systems to get one stable output. And without nukes its coal coal coal for Germany.

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm
Don't deny the peak!
jawagord
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 10:49:17

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 06 Oct 2018, 20:38:22

Hambi bleibt! https://hambachforest.org/?noredirect=en_US

Hambacher forest can stay - uprooting is banned by country court. Details about the topic here: https://www.dw.com/de/hambacher-forst-v ... a-45619111


This may be a first victory against the excessive lignite burning in Germany. There is a hope that "Hambi" could become a symbol just like Gorleben and Wackersdorf have been in the eighties in the preparation of the exit from nuclear. However, it took about 10-20 year for nuclear (until 2002) and it maybe necessary that the green party needs to be in government again to get that job done. But at least they are on the rise (maybe ~18% next week in Bavaria?).

Nevertheless today is party time! ;D 20 000 people are expected today https://www.merkur.de/politik/ersten-si ... 60530.html and the weather is fine
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby M_B_S » Sun 07 Oct 2018, 07:32:23

@dohboi

Nothing is won even the battle for Hambach Forest is not won.

Our local (German) ecosystem is dieing fast.

Every day 70-100ha nature is lost in Germany allone to build houses streets pits factories

M_B_S
User avatar
M_B_S
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby M_B_S » Mon 22 Oct 2018, 08:32:03

Merkels next blow to Germanys air pollution

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... hicle-bans


Panic in Merkels Team as next elections in "Hessen" could cost many of their/her job(s)!

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she’ll seek to amend German anti-pollution laws to avoid driving bans for diesel vehicles in cities where harmful nitrogen-oxide emissions are just slightly above the limit.

The proposal would include Frankfurt, the biggest city in the Hesse region, where polls suggest her Christian Democratic Union party is headed for losses in a state election on Sunday. Later Monday, Merkel begins her final campaign tour in the state, where prospective diesel-driving bans have become a critical issue.

**************

So we learned Merkel will allow pollute the air in Hessen only to stay in power. :x

I F..... on YOUR Health VOTER! ....
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.

M_B_S
User avatar
M_B_S
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: CO2 Clock

Unread postby theluckycountry » Mon 02 May 2022, 06:22:13

This is an example of a renewable technology. Built from renewable trees, with renewable hemp ropes and similar sails, the ironwork forged over timber furnaces and recyclable.

Image

And this

Image

Germany’s Energy Disaster 20 Years Later
...It costs Germany a great deal to maintain such an excess of installed power. The average cost of electricity for German households has doubled since 2000. By 2019, households had to pay 34 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 22 cents per kilowatt-hour in France and 13 cents in the United States.
https://www.americanexperiment.org/germ ... ars-later/
theluckycountry
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: CO2 Clock

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 02 May 2022, 09:20:53

theluckycountry wrote:Germany’s Energy Disaster 20 Years Later
...It costs Germany a great deal to maintain such an excess of installed power. The average cost of electricity for German households has doubled since 2000. By 2019, households had to pay 34 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 22 cents per kilowatt-hour in France and 13 cents in the United States.
https://www.americanexperiment.org/germ ... ars-later/


An excellent article on American exceptionalism. It could be titled "doing as good as Germany more effectively and at less costs because.....MERIKA!!!"

<sigh>

I suppose pipsqueak countries will next be asking MERIKA! to come show them how to tie their own shoes and whatnot as well, building out renewables being at least as difficult as building a car, and some countries can't even do that. :)
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7476
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: CO2 Clock

Unread postby Doly » Tue 03 May 2022, 15:31:52

Germany’s Energy Disaster 20 Years Later


Some actual energy comparison stats between US and Germany, that make it plain how cherry-picked are the numbers in that article:

https://ourworldindata.org/energy/count ... ry=USA~DEU

The biggest reason Germany is a lot more de-carbonized is that it uses a lot less energy per capita overall.

It's true that when you count all energy use, all those efforts to de-carbonize electricity seem relatively small, because you can't get around the fact that transport is still almost entirely based on oil, everywhere.

Also, US has reduced use of coal quite a lot because it's no longer economic, while Germany started from a very high usage and it's gone down more slowly. And it's true that Germany choosing to reduce nuclear got in the way of reducing carbon. But overall, you can't deny that Germany is doing a lot better.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4155
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: CO2 Clock

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 03 May 2022, 17:00:40

Doly wrote:
Germany’s Energy Disaster 20 Years Later


Some actual energy comparison stats between US and Germany, that make it plain how cherry-picked are the numbers in that article:

https://ourworldindata.org/energy/count ... ry=USA~DEU

The biggest reason Germany is a lot more de-carbonized is that it uses a lot less energy per capita overall.


The point of the article was overall cost to the consumer, not per capita use. So..you are saying that Germany is a bunch more expensive because they use less energy per capita? Sort of an economy of size argument for the US?

Doly wrote:And it's true that Germany choosing to reduce nuclear got in the way of reducing carbon. But overall, you can't deny that Germany is doing a lot better.


Because a higher cost to the consumers is...better? Isn't one of the big claims of renewables is that electrical generation coming from renewables is less expensive, not more? That one gets touted all the time as an argument for more windmills and solar and whatnot. They haven't been lying all this time have they?
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7476
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: CO2 Clock

Unread postby jedrider » Wed 04 May 2022, 17:01:38

AdamB wrote:
Doly wrote:
Germany’s Energy Disaster 20 Years Later


Some actual energy comparison stats between US and Germany, that make it plain how cherry-picked are the numbers in that article:

https://ourworldindata.org/energy/count ... ry=USA~DEU

The biggest reason Germany is a lot more de-carbonized is that it uses a lot less energy per capita overall.


The point of the article was overall cost to the consumer, not per capita use. So..you are saying that Germany is a bunch more expensive because they use less energy per capita? Sort of an economy of size argument for the US?

Doly wrote:And it's true that Germany choosing to reduce nuclear got in the way of reducing carbon. But overall, you can't deny that Germany is doing a lot better.


Because a higher cost to the consumers is...better? Isn't one of the big claims of renewables is that electrical generation coming from renewables is less expensive, not more? That one gets touted all the time as an argument for more windmills and solar and whatnot. They haven't been lying all this time have they?


I don't know if Germany can be considered a disaster. I give them credit for trying. Rising energy costs is less a disaster for more efficient societies. The US would have a social breakdown under such stresses.
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3017
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44

Re: CO2 Clock

Unread postby Doly » Fri 06 May 2022, 14:29:31

So..you are saying that Germany is a bunch more expensive because they use less energy per capita?


No, I'm saying that Germany uses less energy per capita because energy is more expensive.

Because a higher cost to the consumers is...better?


If the goal is using less energy, it's better.

Isn't one of the big claims of renewables is that electrical generation coming from renewables is less expensive, not more?


Some people may be claiming that, but it's only true when fossil fuel prices are high enough.

They haven't been lying all this time have they?


Some people have. We are on the peak oil forums, remember? Do you really expect me to be a standard greenie willing to defend all sorts of standard greenie claims?
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4155
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: CO2 Clock

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 06 May 2022, 14:55:32

Doly wrote:
So..you are saying that Germany is a bunch more expensive because they use less energy per capita?


No, I'm saying that Germany uses less energy per capita because energy is more expensive.


Could be. Could also be they don't have as many big screen TVs, deep fryers and A/C per capita.

Doly wrote:
Because a higher cost to the consumers is...better?

If the goal is using less energy, it's better.


Well, I agree with you there.

Doly wrote:
Isn't one of the big claims of renewables is that electrical generation coming from renewables is less expensive, not more?


Some people may be claiming that, but it's only true when fossil fuel prices are high enough.


So renewables are only cheap if fossil fuels are expensive? Isn't that a bit circular? Mining gold from sea water is pretty cheap....if all the other gold is on the moon. That doesn't make the gold from seawater "cheap" in the sense of affordable in the context of the consumer, just "cheaper than the alternative".

Doly wrote:
They haven't been lying all this time have they?


Some people have. We are on the peak oil forums, remember? Do you really expect me to be a standard greenie willing to defend all sorts of standard greenie claims?


No. I do not. Nice answer as well. And it isn't that those saying silly things are greenies. Seriously uninformed and faith based zealot combinations work just as well.

So let me pose a better question. If renewables are claimed to be dropping cost, and we know some places depend on those renewables quite heavily as opposed to FF, have you seen any evidence that cost to the consumer is dropping correspondingly?
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7476
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: CO2 Clock

Unread postby Doly » Sun 08 May 2022, 12:06:29

Could also be they don't have as many big screen TVs, deep fryers and A/C per capita.


Sure. Which could be for a whole lot of reasons. But it's unlikely that the cost of electricity wasn't a factor.

So renewables are only cheap if fossil fuels are expensive? Isn't that a bit circular? Mining gold from sea water is pretty cheap....if all the other gold is on the moon.


Yes, that's exactly the way I meant it.

If renewables are claimed to be dropping cost, and we know some places depend on those renewables quite heavily as opposed to FF, have you seen any evidence that cost to the consumer is dropping correspondingly?


Renewables are falling in cost, and that's a big reason why more renewables are getting installed: when the cost of renewables is similar to the cost of fossil fuels, new renewable electricity generation looks like an attractive option compared to new fossil fuel electricity generation. But the cost to the consumer doesn't fall, it's about the same. If there is a policy to encourage new renewable electricity generation, the cost to the consumer may even be higher than it would be if the policy wasn't in place and less renewables were installed.

In the long run, the price of fossil fuels will continue going up due to scarcity. So in the long run, in those places that don't install renewables the consumers will have to pay more, or even suffer unreliable electricity supply.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4155
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: CO2 Clock

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 08 May 2022, 15:00:11

Doly wrote:
Could also be they don't have as many big screen TVs, deep fryers and A/C per capita.


Sure. Which could be for a whole lot of reasons. But it's unlikely that the cost of electricity wasn't a factor.


Talk to any economist. Cost is of course a factor. In about everything within human systems. But I wasn't asking about cost, I was specifically asking about who sees the benefit of those lower claimed costs....the utilities, the regulators, the contractors building the new infrastructure or the consumers who only see the "it really is cheaper!" slogans meant to get them on board with being able to have their cake and eat it to.

Doly wrote:
So renewables are only cheap if fossil fuels are expensive? Isn't that a bit circular? Mining gold from sea water is pretty cheap....if all the other gold is on the moon.


Yes, that's exactly the way I meant it.


Completely relative doesn't work in the real world.


Doly wrote:
If renewables are claimed to be dropping cost, and we know some places depend on those renewables quite heavily as opposed to FF, have you seen any evidence that cost to the consumer is dropping correspondingly?


Renewables are falling in cost, and that's a big reason why more renewables are getting installed:


I am aware of how supply, demand and price work. As you should be aware of how tax credits, subsidies and government investment works to make costs APPEAR lower, or at least allow someone to juggle the numbers to CLAIM they are lower.

Which is why I am asking about cost to the consumer, and whether or not you have any examples of how renewable energy infrastructure has had its lower costs passed along to the consumer. As opposed to higher taxes to pay for new infrastructure, itself now part of the burden borne by the consumer in ADDITION to their direct costs.

Doly wrote:In the long run, the price of fossil fuels will continue going up due to scarcity.


Pretty much Ehrlich's bet with an economist. And he lost. Scarcity doesn't work out as often as claimed exactly because of conservation and substitution, and "energy" isn't about a single commodity, but in this case the ability to do work through human tools, the thing that has made us the planets apex predator.

Doly wrote:So in the long run, in those places that don't install renewables the consumers will have to pay more, or even suffer unreliable electricity supply.


Or they'll build nukes, because anyone who knows how supply/demand/price curves work can't preclude any electricity generating system they don't like once scarcity in one area allows the supply/demand curve to shift price to the next step in the resource cost curve, in this case, of electrical generation. And nukes are jim dandy great for that.
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7476
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: German Energiewende

Unread postby Doly » Tue 10 May 2022, 14:42:58

But I wasn't asking about cost, I was specifically asking about who sees the benefit of those lower claimed costs....the utilities, the regulators, the contractors building the new infrastructure or the consumers who only see the "it really is cheaper!" slogans meant to get them on board with being able to have their cake and eat it to.


The benefit of lower costs of renewables is mainly for renewable installers, that get to install a lot more renewables. In the long run, for consumers in the sense I mentioned before, that if they stayed with fossil fuels in the long run the cost of electricity would go up a lot more.

As for slogans to get consumers on board, I wonder why they need to be on board at all. Consumers don't concern themselves with the details of most industrial processes. Sure, they may want to understand why electricity prices go up if they do and they deserve to know, but it isn't as if they can realistically do anything about it except try to save electricity when it's expensive.

Completely relative doesn't work in the real world.


All right, then what I meant is that renewables aren't cheap.

Which is why I am asking about cost to the consumer, and whether or not you have any examples of how renewable energy infrastructure has had its lower costs passed along to the consumer.


Why do you think any lower costs of renewables should be passed on to the consumer at all? Because in the USA, everything has to claim to be for the consumer?

Pretty much Ehrlich's bet with an economist. And he lost.


So Ehrlich had bad timing with his bet. But if he had chosen longer timing, he would have won.

Scarcity doesn't work out as often as claimed exactly because of conservation and substitution


If you want to encourage conservation, then why do you want lower costs for the consumer? As for substitution, that's exactly what happens when you substitute fossil fuels with other energy sources.

Or they'll build nukes, because anyone who knows how supply/demand/price curves work can't preclude any electricity generating system they don't like once scarcity in one area allows the supply/demand curve to shift price to the next step in the resource cost curve, in this case, of electrical generation. And nukes are jim dandy great for that.


Nuclear is great in the short term, but it isn't renewable. So in the long run, even in those places that build nuclear, they will have to switch to renewables, too.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4155
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: German Energiewende

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Tue 10 May 2022, 16:36:30

Doly wrote:xp
As for slogans to get consumers on board, I wonder why they need to be on board at all. Consumers don't concern themselves with the details of most industrial processes. Sure, they may want to understand why electricity prices go up if they do and they deserve to know, but it isn't as if they can realistically do anything about it except try to save electricity when it's expensive.


Consumers get to vote out a government that has made decisions that result in significant increases in the cost of electricity. That's exactly what happened here in Ontario, Canada. Our previous Liberal government started a Green Energy program that paid extremely generous rates for wind and solar power. The original rate for micro solar installations was 80.2 cents per KWh and the homeowner got to sell all the power they generated at that rate and pay the much lower regulated rate for the power they actually consumed. The government hoped that by subsiding green energy it would create lots of new manufacturing jobs. It didn't work out that way and we are now stuck with long term contracts for expensive wind and solar power. Electricity costs have increased significantly even though the government has tried to hide the increased costs by using money from their general revenue stream to subsidize electricity costs. In our last election the Liberals went from having a majority of the seats to only seven seats.
"new housing construction" is spelled h-a-b-i-t-a-t d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n.
yellowcanoe
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 14:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: German Energiewende

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 10 May 2022, 16:48:27

Doly wrote:
But I wasn't asking about cost, I was specifically asking about who sees the benefit of those lower claimed costs....the utilities, the regulators, the contractors building the new infrastructure or the consumers who only see the "it really is cheaper!" slogans meant to get them on board with being able to have their cake and eat it to.


The benefit of lower costs of renewables is mainly for renewable installers, that get to install a lot more renewables.


Or the utilities who pocket the difference, first because they told the regulators they need the extra to cover the "improvement" cost, and then just because they can.

Doly wrote:In the long run, for consumers in the sense I mentioned before, that if they stayed with fossil fuels in the long run the cost of electricity would go up a lot more.


Alternatively, as renewables themselves are built using fossil fuels, the renewables go up in cost as well as the underlying fossil fuels, and the entire thing, for all its claims of cheaper, still costs the consumer more.

Doly wrote:
Completely relative doesn't work in the real world.


All right, then what I meant is that renewables aren't cheap.


"Cheap" is a completely relative concept. I just purchased a car. It was cheap. It cost more than the median yearly income of citizens in 91 countries on this planet. So...cheap....to who? Those who can afford it? Or those who can't?

Doly wrote:
Which is why I am asking about cost to the consumer, and whether or not you have any examples of how renewable energy infrastructure has had its lower costs passed along to the consumer.


Why do you think any lower costs of renewables should be passed on to the consumer at all? Because in the USA, everything has to claim to be for the consumer?


I have no expectations that claims of lower costs of renewables will be passed on to consumers. I just see it claimed, and you appear to be defending the idea that they are indeed cheaper, and I am wondering...cheaper for who? Because consumers benefiting from this change are apparently rare. It is not required that they benefit of course. Seems like that is what they are being sold though.

Doly wrote:
Pretty much Ehrlich's bet with an economist. And he lost.

So Ehrlich had bad timing with his bet.


Not according to him when he made it. He was quite certain that his esteemed estimate as a physical scientist was superior to that of the social sciences.

Doly wrote: But if he had chosen longer timing, he would have won.


Woulda shoulda coulda. Such is the nature of a bet.

Doly wrote:
Scarcity doesn't work out as often as claimed exactly because of conservation and substitution


If you want to encourage conservation, then why do you want lower costs for the consumer? As for substitution, that's exactly what happens when you substitute fossil fuels with other energy sources.

I could care less about lower costs to consumers, I just don't like it when the sales pitch for more consumption is blatant hypocrisy. You appear to have angled towards renewables are indeed cheaper, I have been asking if you have examples we can discuss, because I am having difficulty finding them.

Doly wrote:
Or they'll build nukes, because anyone who knows how supply/demand/price curves work can't preclude any electricity generating system they don't like once scarcity in one area allows the supply/demand curve to shift price to the next step in the resource cost curve, in this case, of electrical generation. And nukes are jim dandy great for that.


Nuclear is great in the short term, but it isn't renewable. So in the long run, even in those places that build nuclear, they will have to switch to renewables, too.


In the long run, the universe isn't renewable (maybe). But there is this thing called time that is important, and when something can last a bunch of time, worrying about it running out today no longer becomes an issue. I'll just let The Man's graph speak to that.

Image
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7476
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: German Energiewende

Unread postby JuanP » Tue 10 May 2022, 23:53:37

yellowcanoe wrote: The original rate for micro solar installations was 80.2 cents per kwh and the homeowner got to sell all the power they generated at that rate and pay the much lower regulated rate for the power they actually consumed.


Wow! that's insane! I am totally in support of net metering for people that supply electricity to the network. I also support higher rates for peak hours, which could allow homeowners to profit not only from selling more electricity than they buy but also to profit by selling at higher rates during peak hours and buying at lower rates at low demand times, but 80.2 cents per kwh is insane!
"Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak"
“Every battle is won before it’s ever fought.”
Sun Tzu
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: German Energiewende

Unread postby kublikhan » Wed 11 May 2022, 19:34:33

AdamB wrote:Or the utilities who pocket the difference, first because they told the regulators they need the extra to cover the "improvement" cost, and then just because they can.
From what I've seen, real US electricity prices have been pretty stable over the last decade or two. Low natural gas prices has resulted in lower generation costs. However the utility did not pass these savings along to the customer nor did they take the cost savings as a windfall profit. Instead they spent in on new infrastructure: new transmission and distribution equipment, smart meters, hardening of the grid to increase resiliency, etc. And let's be honest, this kind of spending was badly needed with or without an increased build out of renewables. It seems the lower generation costs were roughly balanced out by the higher delivery costs.

The average retail price of electricity in the United States has risen about 1.5% per year between 2006 and 2016, about the same as the 1.6% per year general rate of inflation over those years. In contrast, natural gas prices for U.S. electric generators, a key component in the cost of generating electricity, have fallen at an average rate of 8.4% per year since 2006.

The cost of electricity reflects money spent on generation, transmission, distribution, and other plant-in-service additions, as well as plant operation and maintenance. Over the past decade, the portion of total electricity costs attributed to power production for most utilities has decreased from 69% to 54%, while the portion associated with delivering that electricity to customers has risen. While the fuel and purchased power costs have decreased over the decade with the decrease in natural gas prices, nonfuel costs have increased slightly.

Electricity delivery costs have increased in real 2016 dollar terms from 2.2 cents per kilowatthour (kWh) in 2006 to 3.2 cents/kWh in 2016, roughly offsetting the decrease in the generation cost.
Electricity prices reflect rising delivery costs, declining power production costs

MARCH 1, 2022 - Retail electricity prices adjusted for inflation have been slowly declining over the long run. The real price of electricity last year was at the lowest level since just before 2006.
TODAY IN ENERGY

Utilities have been ratcheting up capital spending by record amounts to upgrade aging grids and transition to cleaner energy sources. The industry is projected to spend nearly $140 billion on capital projects this year, an almost 80% increase from the amount spent in 2011. “With utilities plowing a lot of money into capital investments, they’ve been able to leverage lower fuel costs as a subsidy to spend on capital growth.”

Soaring natural gas may put that in jeopardy. Prices are more than double the average of the past decade, and significantly above the $2.73 per mmbtu from a year ago. Persistent higher gas prices could delay capital spending if utilities can’t find other ways to mitigate the elevated fuel costs.
Soaring Natural Gas Puts U.S. Utilities’ Clean-Energy Projects at Risk

In a digital, connected world, Americans increasingly rely on readily available and uninterrupted electricity. Over the last four years, transmission and distribution and reliability-focused pipeline investments have increased, and outages have declined slightly. Annual spending on high voltage transmission lines grew from $15.6 billion in 2012 to $21.9 billion in 2017, while annual spending on distribution systems — the “last mile” of the electricity network — grew 54% over the past two decades. Utilities are taking proactive steps to strengthen the electric grid through resilience measures.
2021 Infrastructure Report Card
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4715
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron