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: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:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Another misconception bites the dust (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: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: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.
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:This just illustrates (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Ah, looks like we've run into another person who believes that externalizing costs the way to go.
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
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: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: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: 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: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.