Germany's Glut of Electricity Causing Prices To Plummet 365
WIth an interesting followup to the recent news that Germany's power production by at least some measures was briefly dominated by solar production, AmiMoJo (196126) writes Germany is headed for its biggest electricity glut since 2011 as new coal-fired plants start and generation of wind and solar energy increases, weighing on power prices that have already dropped for three years. From December capacity will be at 117% of peak demand. The benchmark German electricity contract has slumped 36% since the end of 2010. "The new plants will run at current prices, but they won't cover their costs" said Ricardo Klimaschka, a power trader at Energieunion GmbH. Lower prices "leave a trail of blood in our balance sheet" according to Bernhard Guenther, CFO at RWE, Germany's biggest power producer. Wind and solar's share of installed German power capacity will rise to 42% by next year from 30% in 2010. The share of hard coal and lignite plant capacity will drop to 28% from 32%.
This just illustrates (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This just illustrates that carbon tax is too low
Ah, looks like we've run into another person who believes that human misery is the way to go. How's the plan for excessively high energy prices working out for various countries anyway? And do you believe that you can build a world on expensive energy, expensive food, and expensive bare necessities without causing massive suffering to people.
Re:This just illustrates (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, looks like we've run into another person who believes that human misery is the way to go.
Let me guess, you typed that while staring into a reflective, black screen. Permitting unchecked emissions of CO2 is what's going to cause us the real human misery. Keep telling yourself you can shit where you eat without getting sick, though, while desperately looking around for supporting examples.
Re:This just illustrates (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me guess, you typed that while staring into a reflective, black screen. Permitting unchecked emissions of CO2 is what's going to cause us the real human misery. Keep telling yourself you can shit where you eat without getting sick, though, while desperately looking around for supporting examples.
So you're telling me that CO2 is what's going to cause the real human misery. Not poor healthcare, not food to eat, not ways to keep things from spoiling. Not having properly developed agriculture or sewage management. Okay there. Next you'll be saying that burning cow dung indoors doesn't cause lung cancer, and sleeping on the ground in a hut covered with shit doesn't cut your life expectancy in half due to parasites. You do realize that in my examples that not even 1/3 of the people on this rock are at this level. If you're lucky you might hit 20%
Re:This just illustrates (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me guess, you typed that while staring into a reflective, black screen. Permitting unchecked emissions of CO2 is what's going to cause us the real human misery. Keep telling yourself you can shit where you eat without getting sick, though, while desperately looking around for supporting examples.
So you're telling me that CO2 is what's going to cause the real human misery. Not poor healthcare, not food to eat, not ways to keep things from spoiling. Not having properly developed agriculture or sewage management. Okay there. Next you'll be saying that burning cow dung indoors doesn't cause lung cancer, and sleeping on the ground in a hut covered with shit doesn't cut your life expectancy in half due to parasites. You do realize that in my examples that not even 1/3 of the people on this rock are at this level. If you're lucky you might hit 20%
Except that these are the very people that be affected by the consequences of CO2 emmissions.
Re: (Score:3)
If we knew about the effects of excessive CO2 production in the 1900s,
FWIW [wikipedia.org].
"The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in a planet's atmosphere warm its lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, discovered in 1860 by John Tyndall,[66] was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896,[67] and was developed in the 1930s through 1960s by Guy Stewart Callendar.[68]" ...just because it always amuses me to remind myself how long we've known much physics.
Re:This just illustrates (Score:4, Insightful)
There's more desert created from bad management than from global warming
Global warming is caused by bad management. Bad management of land (leading to desertification) leads to global warming, both by reducing CO2 fixing and by reducing cooling. Bad management of CO2 leads to global warming. This is not compliated. There is no conflict. What environmentalists are asking for uniformly is good management, which takes the future into account. Not account for CO2 now is almost exactly the same as looting a corporation for short-term profit for the primary investors. Only a minuscule percentage of the affected stand to profit, and even they will suffer in the long term. The difference is that you can just move on and sack another corporation, they'll make another one. We don't have another planet to go to, notably because even if we did, we couldn't get there.
For example, way back when I read some study on Slashdot which claimed a certain amount of arable land would be lost from desertification and sea level rise from 2C rise in temperature over a century. That ended up being about the same area as a year's worth of normal desertification.
Hahahahaha "normal desertification" hahahahahahaha.
No other response to that paragraph is dignified.
Re: don't be short-sighted (Score:3)
what it means is we need better ways to spread resources. If Germany could export that power to places that have a lack of power generation capabiity, that would be ideal, no? Same applies for crop surpluses, etc.
We need a better global infrastructure not more taxes that, like all taxes, will not benefit who they are supposed to.
Re: (Score:3)
If it doesn't it's time to switch supplier. If they all hold their prices, then they risk being investigated as an illegal cartel. So, maybe not immediately but it creates a downward pressure.
Re:This just illustrates (Score:5, Insightful)
switch supplier
You mean switch bill-printer, right? The supplier won't change - that's one of the great cons of the privatisation of utility suppliers.
And any as multi-billion dollar corporation kno, the "risk" of being investigated for pretty much anything is part of business. The laws are phrased vaguely enough that all that really matters is the bias of the judge, which will be reflected in how he/she interprets the facts and the law. A good lawyer goes a long way to making a particular view easier to swallow, ofc.
5 people think: "We'd all remain more profitable and minimise our risk if we kept prices high." That's easy. Don't even need to meet up to see that's obvious. Market's captive, baby.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This just illustrates (Score:5, Interesting)
Some places, even here in the US, have a choice of electrical provider, it is VERY rare, but does happen.
Certain parts of Texas have fully seperated the generation market from distribution. Distribution is run by a monopoly called Oncor, and they get to leech from your bill at a mostly fixed rate. You then sign up for generation with a variety of providers offering various contract terms. When I lived there I locked in a 2yr contract, flat rate at 8.9 cents per Kwh, and tried my hand at bitcoin mining via dirty old coal. But I could have had 100% wind or 100% renewable at even lower rates, but they were seasonal and they tended to have short terms. 3mo then you get dumped on the market again when the 8.9 cent deal isn't available. Longer term renewables ran 11 - 15 cents per Kwh.
This is the system California was trying to set up, but the mistake they made was to not seperate distribution from generation. Now they're stuck with a politicized PUC making decisions that deem 1 Kwh used by a company has higher economic value to the state than 1 Kwh used at my house. So I get a form of rationing by tier, and if I leave my computers on and do too many load of laundry, they start charging me 50 cents a Kwh. Just who get s to keep the difference between that and the actual generation costs is lost on me...
Re: (Score:3)
When I lived in regular Texas, Green Mountain was my 100% wind provider, and my rates only went down for the ~6 years I used them.
Austin doesn't give me a choice as I have to use the municipal service. I'm still 100% wind but angry they didn't grandfather my past record of wind power into a lower early adopter rate.
Re:This just illustrates (Score:4, Interesting)
solar is going to be affordable for me to install on my roof (technically it already is today, but due to HOA rules I can't have them
Have you checked with your HOA recently? TX now has a law that regulates what HOAs can demand as far as roof top solar. An HOA cannot simply say "no solar panels allowed". Instead there are guide lines in the law that the HOA will make you follow, such as the panels must follow the roof angle, no tilt panels that follow the sun, panel frames and mounts that blend into the HOA color scheme (probably they will ask for black). Stuff like that. The law isn't perfect, there are loop holes in case the HOA is run by jerks. But if you're willing to go to arbitration it is very likely you will win. I'm in Dallas and installed 20 solar panels (5kW) earlier this month. My HOA was very supportive and changed some of the rules due to my suggestions in order to make the process easier.
Re: This just illustrates (Score:3, Insightful)
Is solar 'affordable' with or without subsidy? If it requires subsidy, then in my mind it isn't affordable, it's a more expensive form of power generation that the government forces your neighbors to help you pay for...
Re:This just illustrates (Score:5, Interesting)
That is incorrect. In many countries, such as my own (Finland) you can actually choose which power provider to use.
My bill basically consists of two parts. One comes from utility provider providing power transmission wires to my home (which I cannot choose for obvious reasons) and one comes from the provider of electrical power to the grid (which I can choose from anywhere in Finland).
I live in city of Tampere, and buy electricity from provider in Kouvola (https://www.kssenergia.fi/). The distance between our cities is several hundred kilometers, but this works because electric grid is unified, and what actually happens is that provider feeds a certain amount of energy into the grid, and whatever energy I take out is billed according to our contract. Provider is required to feed this much power (+ certain surplus for transmission) into the grid at its local exchange. This creates competition between electricity generating companies while transmission fees are monitored by government to ensure that they are in line with spending and do not abuse the monopolistic rights (since they are the only provider in the area for obvious reasons).
This system enables healthy competition for power providers without upending utilities.
Re:This just illustrates (Score:5, Informative)
Here in america my power bill consists of only one part, and I have the choice of whether to go fuck myself or allow the regional monopoly to price gouge me for electricity.
Re:This just illustrates (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, German residential electric rates are up to four times as high as US rates (Hawaii pays about as much as Germany, New England and Alaska half as much, everywhere else considerably cheaper)
Finnish rates, on the other hand, are comparable to New England's rates. In other words, more expensive than anywhere but Alaska and Hawaii.
So, if you're being "gouged", I take it you live in Hawaii? Because otherwise, your "gouged" is probably lower than anyone in Europe is paying....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This just illustrates (Score:5, Informative)
The average household electricity prices in Germany were at ~29 eurocents per kWh in 2013 and they are rapidly rising 5-10% per year. The "price drop" the article describes is the drop in the electricity exchange market (EEX) prices, which indeed went down from something like 5.5 cents to 3.75 cents in the last years. The reason is the massive influx of highly subventioned solar, wind and biogas-generated electricity. At times when the renewables production spikes, the electricity is "sold" at negative prices - i.e. whoever takes it, gets paid.
For the end user, the falling market prices are pretty much irrelevant, since the end price contains the averaged difference fee ("EEG-Umlage") between the subventioned price and the market price - the lower the market price, the more the end users have to pay to get the subventioned price to the level defined by law. The more renewable energy is produced, the more they have to pay in total.
The other side of the issue is that the commercially operated conventional power plants cannot competitively operate against prices deflated by subventions, so many operators announced to scale down their capacity and close many power plants. In many cases, brand-new gas-fired plants with very high efficiency are affected, of all things, because of the rising gas prices. This however plays against the renewable energy plans, since exactly these gas-fired plants are direly needed to keep the grid stable in presence of highly fluctuating renewable inputs. Currently there are talks about introducing subventions for the conventional gas- and coal-fired powerplants in order to maintain their generation capacity. The subventions of course will be forwarded to the end user.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just a quick FYI, because you keep using that word: "Subvention" is subsidy in English.
Re: (Score:3)
The word exists. It's just uncommon.
Re: (Score:3)
They already do it, but negative prices are a rare occurrence and it's probably not worth investing in additional capacity. Storage and reducing production are both more expensive than paying people to accept the extra electricity. In a way, this is the same as installing resistors, except that you're just letting other people dispose of the electricity without incurring capital expenses yourself.
Re:This just illustrates (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Energy generation is a very difficult thing in that entire grid must stay within certain tolerance levels. We're talking about gigawatts per hour, so your swimming pool would have to be a size of a large lake or two and would obviously not be worth the cost.
They used to pump electricity up into potential energy water storage in some places, but those have been in dire need of upgrades and for some fucked up reason (which is an apt summary of the entire Energiewende really) are not supported and are actually closed down. All while new coal and gas is being massively built up so that they have hot reserve ready to go for the renewables fluctuations.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Energy generation is a very difficult thing in that entire grid must stay within certain tolerance levels. We're talking about gigawatts per hour, so your swimming pool would have to be a size of a large lake or two and would obviously not be worth the cost.
Or you need a lot of small swimming pools. My water boiler uses so called "night current" which is sporadic excess electricity sold at a discounted price. (I live in Hungary.)
Re: (Score:2)
At times when the renewables production spikes, the electricity is "sold" at negative prices - i.e. whoever takes it, gets paid.
Why would suppliers provide electricity at negative prices?
Generally the time prices are negative is small, so it is cheaper to pay to take it than try to cycle a plant to keep prices higher. A baseload plant is not easily ramp up and down, especially when demand changes faster than their ramping ability, so they simply base load and pay to take to excess capacity.
Re:This just illustrates (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Most people in Germany do not have their own house, but live in rented apartments. They have no possibility to install any kind of power generator, renewable or not.
2. Even if you have your own house, you cannot install for example a wind turbine or a biogas tank - these are only allowed at a minimum distance to living areas.
3. So, the only option is the solar power, but its output is fluctuating, so you need capabilities to equalize it, either:
- keep a connection to the grid (which brings you back all kinds of taxes and fees back, also see the next point)
- have a battery storage - for a househould it would require a battery the size of a shipping container and cost 1-2 million euros and wear out within few years. Remember, you need a storage capacity to last through the winter, where there is barely any solar output.
- have a backup generator running on diesel or gas - possible to combine with a heating boiler, there are solutions on the market like that, but then again you will need to pay additional taxes for electricity generation from gas, pay for gas, deal with the waste heat when you don't need it and I don't think any solution will readily run without grid connection
4. Starting from this year, the regenerative energy produced for self-consumption will be also subject to the EEG surcharge (the money that goes to the subventioning the renewable energy production) in Germany.
When you realize that it's cheaper for you to live off the grid you will realize that it's cheaper not to live here at all.
Re:This just illustrates (Score:4, Informative)
A whole house backup battery costs a few thousand Euros and will last decades. Electric vehicles are pushing the price down further as used packs become available and production ramps up.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This just illustrates (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This just illustrates (Score:5, Informative)
The batteries are Fullriver DC310-6 gel-packs which are supposed to deal with hydrogen out-gassing. I think the model number translates to 6 volt, 310 Amp hours. They're connected in series to yield 48 volts DC to the inverter.
The system was sized to run the critical circuits in the house for 3 days. (Critical being the heating boiler (LP), some lights, the kitchen (except the electric oven), a sump pump, and a circuit for the living room and master bedroom.
Re:This just illustrates (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Most people in Germany do not have their own house, but live in rented apartments. They have no possibility to install any kind of power generator, renewable or not.
That is not really true. One of the things that is becoming more common is for the housing corporations to create projects where the renters pay an additional fee for using power from solar panels the corporations install. There are variants when it comes to the type of payment and ownership, but the general construction is quite viable. Basically, renters get to bet that their fees for the solar panels will be lower than what they would pay in electricity costs, feel good about supporting solar and have to do nothing otherwise. The housing corporations can (technically) provide better panels and prices due to the scale advantages.
It's obviously not a panacea, considering that housing corporations could really mess up their choices or try to become rich off of the projects, but in a way it is a much faster way to increase the number of installed solar panels than waiting for home owners to take the plunge.
Re: (Score:2)
Most Germans live in cities where such investment is impossible.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? "The new plants will run at current prices, but they won't cover their costs"
And you wonder if the prices go DOWN?
Sure they can go down and most definitely some companies go bankrupt but count on it the prices will go up after that...
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds to me like "our production costs are so close to our competition's retail price, we're having trouble staying in business, pity us!"
No, this is not something for me to pity, and it most certainly isn't my problem to help you solve. You need to innovate and improve efficiency of your business, or close your doors. We don't do the "buggy whip" thing anymore. And your
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds to me like "our production costs are so close to our competition's retail price, we're having trouble staying in business, pity us!"
No, this is not something for me to pity, and it most certainly isn't my problem to help you solve. You need to innovate and improve efficiency of your business, or close your doors. We don't do the "buggy whip" thing anymore. And your existence isn't critical enough to justufy subsdies/handouts. Innovate or die. (quietly if possible)
While I agree in principle, you can't simply have generators shutdown and not supply power to meet demand. If they simply shut off plants, the grid be damned, people would be screaming about blackouts and brownouts. Many of their competitors are heavily subsidized as well, and their generation not (yet) reliable enough to base load and ensure grid stability. While it's easy to say fu and your business model when it comes to power generation it isn't that simple. Just as California after the deregulated.
Another misconception bites the dust (Score:5, Informative)
People here keep saying that Germany is adding coal capacity to make up for the closure of nuclear plants, but actually they are reducing it over time. Yeah, in the short term there are more plants, but that is just so they can get running before taking the old ones off line. After that the total capacity will be lower.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except that Germany mostly uses brown coal in it's coal plants which pollutes the environment the most. It's the dirtiest form of energy production. Lot's of CO2 and Sulphur products.
Re:Another misconception bites the dust (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of it may be scrubbed, but there are still significant losses. Even a small fraction of a percent escaping results in substantial pollution when burning billions of tons of coal a year. Have a look at the contents [energyfromthorium.com], and that isn't even considering the contribution of CO2 to ocean acidification [wikipedia.org].
Germany should reverse course, as they are not on a path which will eliminate or even mitigate coal pollution. Current policy is driving prices up and creating a permanent dependence on fossil fuels to compensa
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except that Germany mostly uses brown coal in it's coal plants which pollutes the environment the most. It's the dirtiest form of energy production. Lot's of CO2 and Sulphur products.
Plants in Germany are filtered. I don't know of any problems with sulfur. In fact, sulfur in the air is a lot less than in the 1980s.
(According to Wikipedia, modern plants filter out 99.5% of ash and 90% of sulfur dioxide.)
Though you are correct in that they produce more CO2. (Wikipedia says typically 850–1200 g CO2 per kWh compared to 750–1100 g CO2 per kWh for black coal.)
Obviously we need to move away from fossil fuels. Hence wind and solar.
Re:Another misconception bites the dust (Score:5, Informative)
But of course, that difference is way outweighed by the fact that the new gassification plants are about 40% efficient, versus 25%-ish for the plants they're replacing. Also the new plants are designed for rapid ramp up/ramp down. That means that while they're baseload for now, the more renewables in the future come to dominate the grid, the more they'll switch over to being peaking plants. I actually don't think it's a bad strategy at all. I think it makes a lot more sense than relying on Russian NG. It's lower carbon, but more expensive, and it leaves you reliant on a country that tries to use its market dominance as geopolitical blackmail. And the extra money you spend on NG could instead be spent on increasing your renewables deployment.
On the other hand, if some of the European nations that are interested in fracking end up going that route, perhaps they get low carbon *plus* low cost and geopolitical stability. It's really hard to know what NG prices are going to be in the EU in the long term. If EU does go the fracking route, Russia's going to be in a world of hurt. Before the US fracking boom, US and EU NG prices were about the same. Since then, EU prices have doubled while US prices have halved; US prices are now a quarter of what they pay in Germany. If the EU could get gas prices even close to what they are in the US, the Russian natural gas industry will pretty much collapse, there's no way they can afford that sort of pricing.
Re:Another misconception bites the dust (Score:4, Interesting)
In what year is it predicted that Germany will generate fewer kWh of power from coal than it did in, say, 2005? Will we have to wait until 2050 or something for this long-promised decrease?
Re:Another misconception bites the dust (Score:5, Informative)
In what year is it predicted that Germany will generate fewer kWh of power from coal than it did in, say, 2005? Will we have to wait until 2050 or something for this long-promised decrease?
I don't think anybody can give you am exact date on when coal power will be phased out but the energy transition effort enjoys fairly broad support among the German public even if it is expensive so I expect it will continue. Also, there is now a strategic security/economical/political dimension to the energy transition for Germany much like there is for the USA concerning Oil independence that has only been reinforced by the Ukraine crisis. The Germans also tend to think in terms of decades rather than fiscal quarters like many Americans seem to do. Germany has gone from renewables being 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 25 percent in the first half of 2012. That's an increase of about 20% in 12 years so if we are insanely optimistic and assume a linear progression they should be at 50% renewables in c.a. 2028-30. The future of the energy transition project depends on several factors (apart from politics and economic issues of course), chief among them are things like the speed and extent of the transition to electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, how the transition to wind and solar goes and perhaps most importantly the level of progress on projects to store excess energy. The last time I checked the Germans were planning to store energy initially by producing hydrogen which will be used to supplement natural gas (which in turn requires modifications to the gas mains) and how much success they have with projects to store energy by producing methane from carbon dioxide (which a Nature article I read claimed they plan to eventually scrub from the atmosphere) and the hydrogen generated with excess solar/wind energy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]). I seem to remember there are already a couple or so industrial scale P2G methane plants on line but they are still somewhat experimental.
Re: (Score:3)
Two things:
1) The USA is a net exporter of petroleum products (we import some oil, but export more refined petroleum products than the oil we import makes) these days.
2) Increasing dependence on natural gas rather than coal by Germany makes them more vulnerable to things like the Ukraine
Re:Another misconception bites the dust (Score:5, Informative)
Hydrogen doesn't just require "modifications to the gas mains", it requires a complete reconstruction, and it'd probably be a really dumb idea. Hydrogen embrittles metals. You put it in any sort of regular pipe, and your system will start springing leaks everywhere from distribution to end-user consumption. It also leaks through almost everything, but especially things not specifically designed for it. But it gets worse, because after it leaks it tends to pool in explosive mixtures under overhangs. Also, if you have multiple pipes running parallel, and there's hydrogen in the lower one but not in the upper one, part of the hydrogen leaking out of the lower pipe ends up in the upper pipe, where it can follow it to its destination and pools there. Beyond that, H2 has combustible fuel air mixtures way, way wider than of methane, 4-75% in air. And unlike methane, it can readily undergo deflagration-to-detonation transitions under STP conditions. NASA safety guidelines require any facility handling more than a dozen or so kilograms of hydrogen to have a roof designed to be blown away in an explosion. And hydrogen ignites with a tenth the ignition energy of methane. We're used to fuels that require a visible, audible spark to ignite, but hydrogen ignites with the sort of tiny static or electrics discharges that you don't even see in everyday life; ordinary electronics are not designed to be safe in an environment where a combustible hydrogen mix might leak into.
Beyond that, producing hydrogen then burning it is a ridiculously wasteful approach. Even using it in a SOFC after producing it is still ridiculously wasteful. And it's also a very expensive process. Producing methane from atmospheric CO2, however, is so bad it makes even hydrogen look efficient by comparison.
Obviously, the efficient way to store electricity is batteries. Given DC and not too fast of a charge rate, li-ions, for example, can be over 99% efficient. But obviously the price for storage would be way too high. There's various cheaper techs on the market, including some forms of flow storage, with radically cheaper ones in development, and there's talk of using used EV batteries for grid storage; we'll have to wait and see how that plays out. Also far cheaper and more efficient (~75% net) than hydrogen production is pumped hydro, with or without a river present. Compressed air storage is relatively cheap, but inefficient (~10-30%); however there's some lab-scale attempts at isothermal storage which might get that signficantly higher.
Sometimes you see claims on hydrogen or compressed air production that are higher efficiency, but that's just PR flak; they get those numbers by assuming you make use of the waste heat for some other industry that would otherwise have to burning something to produce said head. But you can say that about every system on earth, because everything has waste heat. The number that matters is how efficiently you can store your electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
Around 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
You will have to wait until the current generation of politicians has retired. Then a new generation of politicians will be in power who will make new impossible promises that they will then not fulfill until they retire.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal usage will drop as soon as the political winds shift yet again and a new generation of politicians reopens the nuclear plants.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've heard that one before. In europe, we've got our share of "temporary bridges" built after "world war II" that were definitely going to be replaced in a few years by a definitive solution and they were still used in the 21st century. We also have temporary taxes (every new tax for decades has always been introduced as temporary) that were never repelled. And now, we have temporary coal power.... I'll believe it when I see it.
Re:Another misconception bites the dust (Score:4, Insightful)
Hasn't been seen so far. Germany is building new coal and has taken many older plants out of mothballed status since Fukushima and planned closure of the nuclear power plants.
Perhaps in very distant future, they will start reducing the dependence on coal. Right now, German coal buildup is a massive manna from heaven for power plant building companies in what is otherwise a very challenging market outside China.
WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Lower prices???? In what world?
The prices per kW/h have risen year after year in Germany. How do I know this? I'm living in fucking Germany and get a higher bill each and every year.
RWE is one of the greediest bitches in Germany. They even have the audacity to ask the government to pay for the save destruction of their own nuclear plants, after receiving subsidies to operate them and extracting as much money as possible for their own pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Lower prices???? In what world?
I think they're talking about the prices they can charge other utility companies. Consumer prices will continue to rise, because corporate greed will never decline.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually the prices are rising because government has made some pretty insane requirements of those companies. They are basically building a completely new power grid in the country which is costing them billions upon billions, on top of building up renewables and coal and gas needed to provide hot reserve for the renewables.
They certainly are posting good profits on all of this, but they're not in a good spot right now with massive investments they have to make and all the subsidy mess that is going on wit
Re: (Score:2)
The prices per kW/h have risen year after year in Germany.
kWh, dammit. Go learn some very basic physics, or you won't even understand what you are being billed for.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Lower prices than other places (Score:3)
It sucks immensely.
For example, Australia has much lower wholesale electricity prices than Germany yet has much higher retail prices than Germany with the distributors blaming their con on increased infrastructure. That price gouging has driven residential solar to around a two year payba
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is an apt summary of Energiewende. It's a "feel good" policy that came after Fukushima, and resulted in a massive build up of coal and gas plants under the guise of "get renewables".
And now you pay so much for electricity, that you actually have energy poverty in Germany - state where there are people who are too poor to afford electricity. In a modern Western country. It's a god damn insanity, but Greens get to feel good about being on the forefront of renewables. Poor be damned, as usual
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wholesale price is down because utilities are FORCED to accept electricity from renewable plants, which were massively built up due to subsidies.
Said subsidies are paid by a massive surcharge taken out of the bill of consumers.
As a result, while electricity wholesale prices are down, the reason they are down is because consumers are being charged an arm and a leg, and that money subsidises production.
And the trend is to increase the surcharge, because Energiewende is at massive risk of failing due to being late or deemed unfeasible on almost every front.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends. Because of the increased usage of solar and wind, the grid needs more upgrades, and part of the consumer bill goes to such investments. Also, government taxes could go up.
And there's no problem with buying low and selling high, as long as they are not using unfair business practices to block competitors from doing the same thing.
There are and always will be people who notice the most minute increase in electricity or gasoline prices but think nothing of spending a fortune on, say, cigarettes, holidays, restoring a classic car, buying a caravan or keeping a bunch of pets but the original poster [slashdot.org] nevertheless has a point. A disproportionate amount of the costs of the energy transition has been offloaded on German consumers. The argument has been that this is being done to save jobs, keep industry competitive, blah, blah, blah..... Whi
So not a total ripoff anymore? (Score:5, Informative)
So instead of extremely high prices we are going to get high prices? Awesome!
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Lists an average price of 26,4 ct/kWh for 2012 in Germany. RWE.de gives me a current price quote of 25,72 ct/kWh.
The average in Europe is 18,4 ct/kWh.
Power may be cheaper on the exchange but the consumer is still getting shafted.
The only people who will profit from this are energy traders and power hungry corporations. They currently pay ~15 to ~12 ct/kWh.
Re: (Score:2)
The average in Europe is that low mostly because of some Eastern European countries with big old Soviet power plants that sell power cheaply. The average would be considerably higher than 18,4 ct/kWh if you removed Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and the Baltic countries from the calculation.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK I'm paying 0.15 Euros a KW/h (Including Euro Tax, without "standing daily charge", but before some discounts). I may have overlooked the soviet power plants somewhere.
Jason.
Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? (Score:5, Informative)
I live in Finland and pay around 10 eurocents.
We have a sane energy policy though, and rely heavily on nukes and hydro.
http://www.investinfinland.fi/... [investinfinland.fi]
Re: (Score:2)
Er, Finland was never part of the Soviet Union.
Re: (Score:2)
Just looked up the prices back home (Denmark):
0.274 - 0.35 EUR/kWh
Not sure Germans have anything to complain about :)
Re: So not a total ripoff anymore? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong. The price at the EEX is 4 cent per kWh. That's what RWE buys energy for. Nuclear energy is only competitive due to high subsidies and no tax on nuclear fuels. Which is a subsidy, too. Remove all nuclear subsidies, demand the money back, tax them properly and all of the sudden nuclear energy is the most expensive one. That's the big lie of the big four energy company. Renewable energy is not expensive.
Increased production, or reduced demand? (Score:4, Informative)
The production figures in this article are all given as percentages of demand - not the actual amount generated. There's two reasons Germany could suddenly be producing an excess of energy: supply has increased, or demand has dropped. A quick Google shows German production has dropped 6% in the period 2004-12 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org] ).
So the reason isn't that Germany's renewable plants are producing an abundance of power - it's that people are demanding less power; presumably because they cannot afford prices that are among the most expensive in the world ( http://www.contactenergy.co.nz... [contactenergy.co.nz] )
Re: (Score:2)
or they are reducing their energy demands on an intelligent way : better insulation for example.
Right. Its not for the obvious reason that follows well known economic laws.. its for the hard to swallow reason that people are more intelligent now.
Higher prices for me... (Score:3, Informative)
Funny, I just got a letter stating my (Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) energy prices will rise on August 1st to 27.42 cents per kWh. That translats to 37.43 US cents per kWh. This price will remain in effect until December 2015. Nice.
some don't agree with that (Score:3, Informative)
http://srsroccoreport.com/germ... [srsroccoreport.com] :
Since the introduction of the Renewable Energy law in 2000 aimed at replacing coal and gas-fired as well as nuclear power generation by so-called renewable energy sources, the household price for electricity has jumped by more than 200%. German customers now pay the second-highest electricity prices in Europe. At the same time, the task of stabilizing the grid against the massive erratic influx from solar and wind power plants that produce without regard for actual need has pushed the operators to their limits.
One of the major problems with wind and solar is that the projects aren't commercially viable without huge Govt subsidies including long-term contracts by energy utilities to pay 2-4 times the going wholesale electric rate for solar and wind generated power.
Re: (Score:2)
Prices ridiculously low (Score:3)
Chemical engineer here. The industry prices for electricity have become so low that it doesn't even make sense to heat up the reactors using turbine-generated steam any more. It's ridiculous. It's cheaper to buy the electricity to generate the steam!
Can't wait for self generation... (Score:2)
These markets are being screwed up by politics... both international and domestic.
If we self generate then the powers that be can sit on it and spin... I really can't wait.
"Capacity" (Score:2)
"From December capacity will be at 117% of peak demand."
Ignoring, of course, that when talking about solar/wind power and "capacity," the actual output is, to say the least, variable.
They had the big headline recently about how much they generated during one hour of one day - but for some reason, they didn't mention all of those cloudy and windless winter days where effective output was a tiny fraction of that - and they had to use lots and lots of coal to make up the difference.
Baseline power? (Score:2)
Sunny days they make tons of "free" electricity.
On cold dark winter nights, where does the power come from?
They can build backup plants that run on coal/gas typically operating under nameplate capacity or they can buy nuke power from the French.
Oh, the irony...
Re: (Score:3)
Sunny days they make tons of "free" electricity.
On cold dark winter nights, where does the power come from?
They can build backup plants that run on coal/gas typically operating under nameplate capacity or they can buy nuke power from the French.
Oh, the irony...
You've got it. What I don't understand is why nuclear electricity is put in the same basket as coal and gas plants. The incidents that Nuclear has gone through in the past 60 years only reinforce my view that it's a safe solution. If given all the fsck-ups that gave us Chernobyl, Fukushima and 3 Mile Island that's all that happened I think that it's pretty much OK. I'm saying this because coal/thermal have their exhaust pipe problems which affect a much greater percent of the population and hydro is in gene
Re: (Score:3)
Because nuclear industry externalities are less immediate and more severe than coal and gas.
I'd suggest that much of the information about what has gone on in the nuclear industry has been subjected to PR spin and political interference to minimize the true situation. One only has
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing OK about releasing materials that cause cancer, failed pregnancies, introduces transgenic disease by altering the genome of life itself in all species including humans.
Yes I agree, we should stop with coal.
So do I, however, do you even know what the difference is between natural and enriched radio-isotopes? Are you stupid enough to think that a chemical fire from burning coal will produce plutonium and actually have a greater radionuclide release than the Nuclear industry? Do you think that a coal plant can release, tritium or radio-cobalt for example. Did you even question that statement when it was made and check for yourself? No, you didn't.
Nuclear releases less radioactive waste into the environment.
This statement is a fiction, produced from the statement "In norma
Like Ontario Canada (Score:2)
A province that, because it has little storage capability, has a rigid hydro system geared to meet peak demand and 'dump' power during low demand periods. It's a province that has paid others to take its surplus power.
A solution to both Germany's and Ontario's problem is creating storage capability, and that needs innovative research world-wide. Sadly, the focus is mostly on new ways to _produce_ power. Go figure.
Renewables? Pfffttt ! (Score:2)
Germany like Ontario (to a much lesser extent) invested in wind farms and solar.
In Ontario, all wind farms have to be installed with back-up generators, gas-turbines for the most part.
Why?
On hot, windless days of summer, when demand peaks for air conditioning, the back-ups kick-in for the useless wind turbines.
In winter, when the skies are mostly grey, the solar is mostly useless to meet the demand peak caused by electric heating. When the wind does blow in winter, the speeds are usually above the wind tur
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't work very well:
http://www.spiegel.de/internat... [spiegel.de]
In short, the aluminium plants can't work on unstable grid power.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Set up aluminium plant that can absorb any surplus capacity.
They'd be far better off if they could figure out how to store the surplus.
Stored energy is the big answer to variable sources. And it doesn't have to be batteries. There are many ways to store energy. Potential energy in the form of gravity has so far been one of the most practical. Usually it has been large volumes of water pumped uphill to storage, which then runs back down during peak periods to generate more electricity. But one current project pumps water OUT of a large tower in the ocean, and allo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...but you can turn off the plant to free more of the existing electricity...
No you can't. Aluminium plants take time to shut down. A sudden loss of electricity will destroy the equipment used to smelt it. So you'd need many hours to wind production down and then many hours to get it started again.
The last thing any aluminium smelting plants wants is downtime. That is why they are run 24/7. Shutting them down takes a very long time and costs a lot of money.
Re: (Score:2)
But one current project pumps water OUT of a large tower in the ocean, and allowing the water back in is what generates the electricity.
Either that, or - luckily for the Germans - Holland is right next door!
Re: (Score:2)
Pumped water is nice if you have the geography, but what about hydrogen from electrolysis? Convert it to methane and add it to the natural gas network.
It makes the most sense with renewables like wind or solar when there's no grid demand but conditions are favorable for generation. In those conditions its free energy and the inefficiency of generation really doesn't matter. You could also use it as a grid sink for non-renewables in situations where it would be less practical to spin down other sources on
Re: (Score:2)
Pumped water is nice if you have the geography, but what about hydrogen from electrolysis? Convert it to methane and add it to the natural gas network.
Hydrogen from electrolysis is horribly inefficient to begin with. Pumped water has far better payback. They don't have city-sized fuel cells to pump that hydrogen back into, so it has to get converted (more energy) and then used in ways in which it is not needed. If you're going to make it at all, it should get used in ways in which natgas is used, but without actually being made into natgas.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, pumped water is better, provided you have the geography and a reservoir handy. Most places don't.
Measures of energy efficiency are meaningless if you're using renewable energy when it would otherwise go unused. The only real question in terms of efficiency is the cost and operational complexity of the facilities, especially in light of the gas yields from fracking.
The Germans have a plant that makes 300 cubic meters of methane per day from 6.6MW of power. The Alta Wind Energy Center can generate 1.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Aluminium (Score:4, Informative)
Storage costs money. Lots of storage costs lots of money. Storage wastes energy too -- pumped hydro, the cheapest form of bulk energy storage has an input-to-output efficiency of about 65 percent. Baseload coal, gas and nuclear generation doesn't need storage to be useful and meet demand 24/7/365 unlike intermittent renewable generating capacity, but no-one ever adds the cost of storage to the cost of renewables when comparing prices.
Re: (Score:2)
> Storage wastes energy too -- pumped hydro, the cheapest form
> of bulk energy storage has an input-to-output efficiency of
> about 65 percent.
yeah, but that excess production was free, so even if you lose some
of it in the efficiency losses it's still a net gain, just less so.
which is still good.
Re: (Score:2)
Most renewable generators get a guaranteed minimum payment for electricity they feed into the grid (in the UK where I live windfarm operators get about £145 per MWh) so the "excess" production is not free, it is paid for by the grid operators and ultimately the consumers even if it is not needed sometimes. If the renewable generators stored their excess production and dispatched it into the grid at times of low output that would be a different story, but that would cost them money so they don't do tha
Re:Aluminium (Score:5, Informative)
...pumped hydro...has an input-to-output efficiency of about 65 percent.
I think that's a pretty low number, perhaps typical of older designs. Newer designs can have efficiencies upwards of 80%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
http://people.duke.edu/~cy42/P... [duke.edu]
http://www.colorado.edu/engine... [colorado.edu]
...and nuclear generation doesn't need storage to be useful and meet demand...
I believe nuclear tends to be quite bad at load following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Of course, it is excellent for always-on power, but not ideal for surges or lulls. In certain cases -- L.A. in the summer, for instance -- solar power, although intermittent on the whole, is intermittent in the most useful way: on a nice clear hot day, there's the biggest demand for A/C and the best solar power production.
...but no-one ever adds the cost of storage to the cost of renewables when comparing prices.
Well...staunch proponents with an ax to grind may not include such costs, but then, staunch proponents of coal with an ax to grind will ignore any externalities related to airborne toxins. Any legitimate study of renewable energy should really include storage costs.
With all that said, I really think Germany did the wrong thing with the whole anti-nuclear energy thing. To paraphrase that quote about democracy, nuclear is the most dangerous form of energy generation, except for all those other sources we've tried ( http://physics.kenyon.edu/peop... [kenyon.edu] ).
Re: (Score:2)
They'd be far better off if they could figure out how to store the surplus.
Well, not really. Aluminum replaces steel, so you don't need as much steel production if you're producing Aluminum. More and more cars are being made out of Aluminum, which Germany has traditionally purchased from the USA. I would presume they've upped their production capacities since the nineties, when they bought pretty much all of it from Alcoa, but there's probably still more demand. So really, what is Aluminum production but energy storage? It's stored in the form of order.