Renewable Subsidies Fuel Power-Market Crisis, French Study Finds

[FBaggins]

The system of feed-in tariffs that pay above-market rates for wind and solar energy should be changed to one based on tenders and rates pegged to market prices, a report from the French planning commission Commissariat General a la Strategie et a la Prospective recommended today. The European Union is wrestling with how to reduce pollution while keeping a lid on power prices that can be more than double those in the U.S. Germany, France, Spain, Britain and Italy all have trimmed subsidies after a boom in installations increased bills.

The rise in capacity of renewable energy is posing a “serious threat” to European power supply security, industry competitiveness and consumer purchasing power, the study found. “It could further deteriorate.” Deploying renewables in Europe “could be done for a lot less money” than under the current system, Fabien Roques, one of the report’s authors, said at a press conference in Paris.

Germany must face the consequences of the decision to shut its nuclear power plants, he said. Oversuppply of solar and wind power from Germany has resulted in periods when the price of power on the spot market falls below zero, leaving utilities wary of investing. The study recommends that the EU fix targets for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and refrain from setting a target for the share of renewables.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-28/renewable-subsidies-fuel-power-market-crisis-french-study-finds.html

[kristopher]

1. "renewable energy is posing a “serious threat”" - Yep.

That's the desired effect:
W. Australian grid may become first big victim of “death spiral”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112763112

Of course, the nuclear/coal industry proponents of a centralized system see it differently. Thanks again Baggins, for sharing their perspective.

[FBaggins]

2. Nope

The renewable energy subsidies pose a serious threat.

Gotta work on that reading comprehension. Reality comprehension may come later.

That's the desired effect:

If the "desired effect" is to pay more for a less stable system... you'll have to desire that on your own.

[kristopher]

3. Yep.

It is the same message every couldn't-give-a-fuck-about-climate-change-or-the-environment-conservative-right-winger has been spouting since renewables started eating their lunch.

So, thank you (yet again) for speaking on behalf of this hit piece from the coal/nuclear industry.

[FBaggins]

4. Poor kris. Still struggling with that boogieman, eh?

I am not now, nor have I ever been, anti-renewables... and I'm certainly not pro-coal.

I am anti lying-about-renewables or pretending that they're cheaper than they are... or that we can shift to an essentially-all-renewables strategy by next Thursday... or that anyone supporting nuclear power is conservative.

I'm also opposed to plans based on irrational fears that result in lots more carbon emissions and higher prices while pretending to be green.

[kristopher]

5. How many examples of right-wingers parroting your positions would you like?

I know that you love to employ the logical construct of "even though by far the largest bloc of support for nuclear power is conservative, just because I support nuclear power doesn't mean I'm a conservative".

However pointing to that is little more than a distraction from the real point in the data about the type of support that actually gets nuclear plants built. The fact is the by-far largest bloc of support for nuclear power also supports fossil fuels and also denies climate change.

The other common belief of this 'by far largest bloc' of support for nuclear power
that is conservative,
that supports fossil fuels, and
that denies climate change, is that,
they spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the effort to deploy renewable energy** with all kinds of specious facts, defective reasoning, and faux claims of environmental concern.

In my opinion, that leaves a pretty heavy burden of proof for the negative claims made by the supposed liberal supporters of nuclear power (like yourself) who spend a great deal of their time trying to undermine renewable power. Your OP is a case in point.


** Roger Ailes Fox News Chief - Pronuclear & Antirenewable http://www.democraticunderground.com/112762504


You can't both be right, Baggins. Either all those conservative asshats like Ailes are right in that nuclear is a great choice for protecting the interests of the status quo, or a a very minor fraction of nuclear supporters that claim - against all evidence - that it's needed for climate change is right. But you can't BOTH be right.

I'm with the very large camp of long proven environmentalists that reject the nuclear industry and its greenwashing claims.

[FBaggins]

6. I suppose that depends.

Are we relying on your imagination to concoct who agrees with me and which positions actually "parrot" mine?

Because your track record for such things is, frankly, lousy. Let's use today's post as an example:


The fact is the by-far largest bloc of support for nuclear power also supports fossil fuels and also denies climate change.

You were corrected on that nonsense years ago... yet continue to push it. You looked at a poll showing comparable percentages of support for three things and then proclaimed that it was the same people in each case. That's entirely without logical foundation.

I know that you love to employ the logical construct of "even though by far the largest bloc of support for nuclear power is conservative, just because I support nuclear power doesn't mean I'm a conservative".

I'm sure that straw-man is how you would prefer it to be. But the actual logical construct is that lots of liberals support nuclear power and I support it for the same reasons that they do. These liberals also support rapid expansion of renewables, heavy investment in smarter grid technologies, and incentives to reduce/shift demand. They absolutely do not deny man's impact on the climate.
I stand with them. Whatever reason conservatives have for supporting it are their own business (though I note that some of the anti=nuclear whakos are the same right-wing nuts that gave us other woo (e.g., alex jones).

In my opinion, that leaves a pretty heavy burden of proof for the negative claims made by the supposed liberal supporters of nuclear power (like yourself) who spend a great deal of their time trying to undermine renewable power.

I can't imagine putting the burden there... because I know of very few such liberals (who support nuclear and undermine renewables). I'm certainly not one such.

[Yo_Mama]

7. Except what happens to all those depending on the grid?

Sure, you can hook up with grid-tied solar or wind and generate very low or no personal power bills, but if everyone does the same, one day the grid's not there and all of a sudden your power is out part of the time.

So grids aren't going away, and if the current scheme doesn't fund them, charges will just be added to create the funding.

If all of these people didn't need the grid, there would be no need for subsidies at all.

Just because you aren't paying a light bill doesn't mean that you are not getting your electricity from the grid part of the time.

Your "desired effect" is the kiss of death to distributed power. Nobody would do this without the subsidies and the access to continuous power, and you just don't seem to realize this.

People who are off-grid are truly rare.

[kristopher]

8. The last thing I heard we are trying to shut down fossil fuels.

I provided a link in post 1 above where the topic point you raise was discussed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112763112

My thoughts are expressed in post 5 that thread.

[Yo_Mama]

9. The grid is logically separate from the source of the electricity generated

By definition a grid is a public utility. You can privatize them or run them as public companies/entities, but still you have to have a grid, and it takes money to pay for the grid.

Like roads, really. You either pay taxes or you pay usage fees, but if you don't pay the roads rapidly degenerate.

Actually, any workable sims I have ever seen show that you need more grid, more interconnections, and more management to incorporate large amounts of solar/wind energy. Plus storage of course.

That logically implies that people who want to move toward large amounts of non-hydro renewables need to worry about dumping MORE, not less, money into the utilities to fund the necessary infrastructure.

[cprise]

16. You're leaving something out

The grids we have today were built for centralized generation.

They need to be re-tooled for distributed generation. And given that part of re-tooling will (hopefully) drive the production of large amounts of commodity energy storage hardware, the new grid will be at the mercy of distributed generators who can economically opt-out of the grid altogether.

Of course, electric cars have something to do with it as well. Even if the establishment stymies investment in new grid infrastructure, they won't be able to stop these developments from arriving eventually.

[Iterate]

10. "Distributed power" does not mean "I've got mine."

Whether it's a home, school district, small business, or farm co-producing wind, the "customer" also becomes a producer selling power to others, or as a co-owner of a local utility, or as an investor. That customer will also likely have signed up with a tariff provider who (similar to current phone service) buys power on contracts in an open market, pays for grid access, and holds priority production contracts.

What I just summarized should rightly be called the distributed social layer or distributed market layer.

Since the consumer is also a producer, the incentive is to eventually install more than adequate capacity and to minimize self-consumption, i.e. to conserve and use power wisely. Currently, the thermal and nuclear plants use about 10% of the power they generate to run their own production plants. With wind and solar it's nil, and the marginal cost of additional production is nil after the system is amortized. NG plants aren't as bad for self-consumption.

Then there's geographic distribution over parts of a continent.

Then there's distribution by renewable type: hydro, biogas, combined heat, storage, and so forth.

Add all of those up in a mature system and you're talking about hours per year of shortfall --20 years from now, with no new storage or production solutions between time.

Above all, you're not "off-grid": quite the opposite in fact.

Is there any wonder that the big central conventional producers are scared shitless? But they can see the need for interim "capacity markets", which is their polite way of saying they want their nearly idle central plant to be the last to die while blocking renewables as long as they can.

[Yo_Mama]

11. Okay, but utility companies aren't all major conventional power producers

Most buy mostof their power, and the OP is saying that it's good that the grid operator is running at a loss.

Which seems completely insane to me.

Your idea is much more workable, but the problem with many current subsidy systems is that THEY DON'T PAY FOR GRID ACCESS. Which then destabilizes the grid operator, which then prevents the investments necessary to have a grid that does what you suggest.

There is another problem, which is that you need stabilizing power in the interim, which must be generated somehow.

Edit - by "OP" I mean Kristopher's reply post 1.

[kristopher]

12. More of YoMama's Bullpuckey

It's the large-scale generation side that is being hurt by increasing renewable penetration. Your fiction that I wrote anything at all of that nature about the grid operators is just that - a fiction. You've also fictionalized your response to what's at the link in post 8. You are past the point where the issue of fabricating things could be considered just being sloppy - it is unquestionably a deliberate method of operation for you.

[Iterate]

13. I found the Western Power AU story to be pretty interesting

and learned much more about the company than I posted there. It's almost a pure case, isolated, and unlike the complex power struggle in the EU.

I didn't look into Western Power's dealings internationally or influence on Australian politics. If I had, there might not be much sympathy for them, but seeing it as a local issue with a traditional vertical company serving a fairly small population they seemed more clueless than evil.

To me, it was more a story of lost opportunity and lack of imagination. It's about what they can't see and therefore can't say to their customers --that we are in trouble and all need to find a way out.

So rather than setting up a comprehensive and aggressive program to finance distributed solar (and wind) for property owners while phasing out their useless coal plants, with net metering, using the best existing plants as a capacity reserve, raising rates as needed, and all collaborating, they've dug their heels with more debt and unnecessary conflict with their own customers (and fellow citizens).

And that's the death spiral, not the grid financing.

Oh, and not my idea, btw, but I do think it's workable.

[Iterate]

14. You posted two OPs citing the French study. Have you read it?

It's quite long. Technically speaking, Fabien Roques was not an author, but was one of three "contributors" invited to comment at the end of the document.

[FBaggins]

15. About half of it.

Technically speaking, Fabien Roques was not an author

Roughly a third of the document is titled "Fabien Roques’s report"... but why does it matter? It isn't as though his comments are inconsistent with the rest of the document (at least the parts I've read so far).