Wind Power Becomes Spain's Leading Energy Source for 2021 (elpais.com) 89
An anonymous reader shares a report: Even if the wind stops blowing in the next three weeks, wind power will end the year as the leading source of electricity in Spain. This will mean wind overtaking nuclear in the national energy matrix for the first time since 2013, the only year since records began in which wind turbines were the main source of power. That year was particularly good in terms of wind resources while nuclear was affected by the closure of the Garoña plant in Burgos. Since then, however, wind power has continued to grow as a percentage of total energy generated both in absolute and relative terms, a trend that looks to continue in the near future. The milestone, advanced by Spanish news site Nius, is just a taste of things to come. "Wind power is going to dominate the Spanish electricity grid for a long time," says Francisco Valverde, a consultant at the energy company Menta Energia.
According to the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC), released by the Spanish government last year, the installed capacity of wind turbines will almost double between now and 2030. During this period, the rate of growth of solar photovoltaic will be even greater as installed capacity more than quadruples, making it the second most important electricity source, though it will still lag far behind wind power, even when solar thermal is taken into account. Meanwhile, installed nuclear power will fall to less than half its current level. And both combined-cycle plants, which use natural gas, and hydroelectricity will maintain their weight in a mix in which coal will no longer be included.
According to the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC), released by the Spanish government last year, the installed capacity of wind turbines will almost double between now and 2030. During this period, the rate of growth of solar photovoltaic will be even greater as installed capacity more than quadruples, making it the second most important electricity source, though it will still lag far behind wind power, even when solar thermal is taken into account. Meanwhile, installed nuclear power will fall to less than half its current level. And both combined-cycle plants, which use natural gas, and hydroelectricity will maintain their weight in a mix in which coal will no longer be included.
good for don Quixote (Score:5, Funny)
He'll have plenty of windmill action.
Re: (Score:3)
https://xkcd.com/556/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Blowhard. (Score:2)
Ah that's nothing. Washington D.C. has been depending upon Congress for wind energy for decades.
are you new here? (Score:1)
this is an English language web forum created by Americans and passed through the hands of several American companies. If it's on Slashdot, you can expect there to be at least some comments on the American perspective. And culturally speaking, Americans volunteer their opinions to anyone that will stand still to listen to them.
Re:are you new here? (Score:5, Funny)
Americans volunteer their opinions to anyone that will stand still to listen to them.
And a few that won't.
Good, but price is still high (Score:2)
Average price in Spain is 0.21 euro ($0.23) per kWh according to my quick google search.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good, and price is still totally reasonable (Score:4, Interesting)
"High" compared to... what exactly? Qatar?
https://www.electricrate.com/d... [electricrate.com]
https://www.worldatlas.com/art... [worldatlas.com]
$0.23/kWh doesn't even make it into the top 20 nations, and is cheaper than at least two of its nearest land neighbors.
Looking at this graphs, there are certainly many countries with cheaper electricity, but in a geographically comparative assessment Spain pricing is looking pretty much as expected if not lower cost. (IEA, Distribution of residential and industry electricity prices, 2019, IEA)
https://www.iea.org/data-and-s... [iea.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"High" compared to... what exactly?
What I pay, and the rest of the world as well.
https://www.globalpetrolprices... [globalpetrolprices.com]
Only 4 countries are above 0.30$/kWh on that list.
Most countries are cheaper than Spain, including next door France.
But Europe in general is where the prices are the highest, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, 125 countries are cheaper than the 22nd most expensive country. No argument there.
Not that I think that country counting is really the way to think about this, but I did notice that the USA is listed as 0.15/kWh average which is also above the country-count average of 0.135/kWh. So I guess where you are is "high" compared to the rest of the world, too, or at least it is, on average, in your country.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically what counts is the bill at the end of the month.
Considering that for a small household customer the grid cost is basically a fixed price, the price per kWh goes down the more you consume.
I doubt there are many american two person households that use about 3500 kWh per year.
I'm a single person and save energy as much as I can, I'm around 900 kWh per year. So my yearly bill is something like 900 * 0.27cents -> 243 Euro
Re: (Score:2)
I used 17.9 MWh last year. And this is for a recent, efficient home. Fortunately my per kWh price is much lower than that.
Re: (Score:2)
That is 5 times more (close to 6) than an average household is using here in Germany.
In Thailand I use even less than my typical 1000kWh per year (we use so less power that it is in fact not metered, basically a fridge, my Computer, the Computer of my wife and LED lights, rarely a TV or stereo - we are cooking with gas ofc, same in Germany, I'm cooking with gas here as well, and heating is gas based obviously)
Re: (Score:2)
most of it is heating (including water heating). There is no gas available here.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are the retail prices. They include subsidies, infrastructure costs for grids in various states of repair and modernity, etc.
You can't really make direct comparisons, but Spain certainly isn't expensive by European standards. Nothing like detractors said it would be, with high prices and the lights going out when it's not windy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That it is easier for wind to be competitive in very high prices location such as Spain, and western Europe in general.
Re: (Score:2)
$0.23/kWh doesn't even make it into the top 20 nations, and is cheaper than at least two of its nearest land neighbors.
Give Spain some credit. They are trying to catch up with leaders as much as they can. They reached EUR 0.29 per kWh yesterday: https://www.theolivepress.es/s... [theolivepress.es]
Re: (Score:2)
That was the price on the spot market for a few hours.
Not the household price, that was only given as "comparison" and hence is misleading, no household customer is affected by spot market prices.
Re: (Score:2)
It was an average price for the day. Prices are changing much more widely in per hour spot and values around 400 EUR per MWh are common in EU now. If these conditions will persist for longer then they will have significant influence on futures for the next year price.
But you have a good point. The spot market is irrelevant for most countries. But notice that the link I posted claims that that spot price is a reference for 17e6 households in Spain and those households will pay 33 EUR per MWh during that day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If these conditions will persist for longer then they will have significant influence on futures for the next year price.
Nope. An hour ahead price has nothing to do with a year ahead price.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant day ahead price. Not hourly price. Even the link I originally posted was about day ahead price. European Energy Exchange reports day ahead prices under section named "Spot market data".
https://www.powernext.com/spot... [powernext.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oki, then just repalce "hour" with "day" - lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Then your comment is wrong. It is likely happening even now. Go to EEX [eex.com] and look at the settlement prices of quarterly or yearly futures for delivery in 2022. All of them are rising significantly as the rise of spot prices from the end of summer increased in the last month and as there is more and more talk about inflation.
Futures rise can happen through inflation expectations. Many things are priced based on daily electricity prices. If they are hight for too long then that increases their price. That incre
Re: (Score:1)
"High" compared to... what exactly?
High compared to the cost of wind energy.
The cost of power from the latest turbines, including capital costs, is about 0.04 euro/kwh.
The utilities are charging their customers six times that price.
That is some serious price gouging.
Re: (Score:3)
Inform me of the sources for these informations. I'm super interested.
Serious price gouging? Justify that assertion, please. Are you forgetting infrastructure or is the electricity supposed to show up at the destination by magic and without it?
This (unverified) source pegs it a a bit higher than 4 euro cents: https://earthandhuman.org/cost... [earthandhuman.org]
The Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory has published the results of a global survey that involved 163 wind energy experts. The baseline cost was expected to declin
Re: (Score:2)
What's really going on is that it's an unusual form of auction. Different providers bid "We can provide X kWh tomorrow at Y euros per kWh". The bids are sorted by increasing Y and then the cutoff is found at which sufficient kWh are provided to cover demand. Then everyone up to that cutoff is paid at the cutoff price. This means that the cheap providers like wind always make the cut, but their profit is higher when more expensive providers also make the cut.
Re: (Score:2)
It also nicely offloads the intermittency price of renewables to fossil fuel providers.
The whole idea that electricity providers do not need to provide year ahead futures is clever. On the other side, it is also the reason why EU countries did not bother to buy enough long term natural gas contracts and it is a partial reason for volatile prices of electricity in EU now.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it not also offload the cost of providing peak power from the baseload generators to the peak generators?
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think it has any impact on that. This is a day-ahead planning after the long term contracts are covered. Traditional baseload providers were likely already allocated in the long term contracts if they were able to sell them for a good price and were able to buy long tern contracts for their fuel. The rest are all peakers already. And what pjt33 described is the way how they are paid.
The advantage of this scheme for renewables is that they do not need to estimate their production more than 1 day ahe
Re: (Score:2)
Spain's natural gas market is somewhat disconnected from most of the EU's. Its current problem there is a diplomatic dispute between Algeria and Morocco which means that the gas it's purchased from Algeria isn't being allowed to use Morocco's pipeline.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Combined cycle gas plants are about 17.5% contributing to the electricity mix, so no idea how much rising gas prices would affect the final price.
Re: Good, but price is still high (Score:2)
Spain's Leading Electricity Source (Score:2)
If the plan is for most of those vehicles switch to electric then the power demand will switch from oil tankers to the grid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I feel a little bad being the one to say it, but it's really that wind generates more *electricity* on the grid than nuclear, natural gas, hydro, etc. There's still the energy generated by all those pesky petroleum-fueled vehicles running around.
Depending on your source transportation makes up about 1/4 to 1/3 of our CO2 emissions. Electricity production is also about 1/4 to 1/3. Heating also about 1/4 to 1/3. The rest is "other", things like industrial emissions (mostly iron, aluminum, and cement production) and agriculture. Trust me, it adds up. Again the numbers move around some but it's about equal shares of transportation, electricity and heating. It's that last bit, "other", that is smaller than the three big contributors.
If the plan is for most of those vehicles switch to electric then the power demand will switch from oil tankers to the grid.
Future elect
Re: (Score:2)
My educated guess is that in Spain there is not a lot of heating going on for most of the year. Now air conditioning on the other hand now you are talking.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because your image of Spain is the Mediterranean coast, and even there it's cold enough for people to turn on the heating for two or three months of winter. The Atlantic coast is colder, and so is the interior. In Madrid, it's below 20C for half the year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Future electric vehicles will be much like past electric vehicles, they will burn hydrocarbons for the electricity.
Given how quickly many nations are using renewables it seems unlikely that hydrocarbons will be the majority source of the energy to power electric vehicles, even more so when many will be charged overnight when there is excess energy from things like wind.
Re: (Score:2)
Given how quickly many nations are using renewables it seems unlikely that hydrocarbons will be the majority source of the energy to power electric vehicles,
The need for hydrocarbon fuels is not changed because we charge batteries from renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels. Batteries don't hold more energy by mass or volume because they were charged by solar power. All that means is we will use renewable energy to produce hydrocarbon fuels instead of petroleum.
even more so when many will be charged overnight when there is excess energy from things like wind.
Plug-in hybrid vehicles are a thing. People can plug in for all electric short range driving and then use synthesized hydrocarbons for long distances, forgetting to plug in, extreme weather,
Re: (Score:2)
Given how quickly many nations are using renewables it seems unlikely that hydrocarbons will be the majority source of the energy to power electric vehicles,
The need for hydrocarbon fuels is not changed because we charge batteries from renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels.
WTF.
All that means is we will use renewable energy to produce hydrocarbon fuels instead of petroleum.
Why would you do this? Why not just effective battery technology which already exists and is being deployed in new cars. You are really being quite desperate with your nonsense posts now.
Re: (Score:2)
is being deployed in new cars
There's more to transportation than cars, therefore more needs for transportation fuels than cars.
We need hydrocarbon fuels for ships, trucks, trains, and most of all aircraft. There's considerable efforts in developing synthesized hydrocarbon fuels for use in aircraft and spacecraft. Once that comes to market its a matter of economy of scale to bring that to every other use of hydrocarbon fuels for transportation.
Batteries will not carry people or cargo across oceans. Batteries won't launch satellites t
Re: (Score:2)
is being deployed in new cars
There's more to transportation than cars, therefore more needs for transportation fuels than cars.
We need hydrocarbon fuels for ships, trucks, trains, and most of all aircraft. There's considerable efforts in developing synthesized hydrocarbon fuels for use in aircraft and spacecraft. Once that comes to market its a matter of economy of scale to bring that to every other use of hydrocarbon fuels for transportation.
Batteries will not carry people or cargo across oceans. Batteries won't launch satellites to orbit. We need hydrocarbon fuels for that.
Unusually, accurate.
There is a floor on the prices, raw materials. (Score:3)
âoeTechnological evolution will help: the cost of investing in renewables and in batteries to store surpluses are not going to stop falling, and that is going to speed up the process,â she says.
No battery or windmill can cost less than the raw materials used to make them. There is another floor on costs, the amount of energy that one can get out versus the amount of energy put in. The two are related because a large part of what determines the price of raw materials is the amount of energy needed to produce them. I do believe that the labor and engineering costs will fall for every energy source as technology develops but that cost cannot go to zero. Material costs cannot go to zero. There are real physical limits on how much energy we can get out.
We can get an idea how future prices will trend by looking at the energy costs in to the energy gain out. This is called EROEI, energy return on energy invested. Some nice people took a bunch of different sources on EROEI and put them in a chart for us: https://world-nuclear.org/info... [world-nuclear.org]
Another collection of studies, put on a nice chart for comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Onshore wind gives a very good EROEI but as pointed out in the fine article the wind is not always blowing when needed. That means needing something more reliable as backup. Something where an outage on any one producer isn't coincidental with an outage on another producer. Preferably something with an EROEI that is the same or higher, as low in CO2 emissions or lower, needing less raw materials and labor, so that in the end the costs are the same or lower. That's going to be hydro and nuclear fission.
Spain can't rely on wind and solar for their energy. They need hydro, and certainly nuclear fission. If they don't invest in hydro and nuclear power then they will eventually have energy scarcity.
Oh, and I suspect someone will claim that Spain can just join some pan-Eurasian electrical grid so everyone can share in their wind and solar resources to keep the lights on. No, that's not going to solve the problem. This gets back to the problem of raw material costs not going to zero, and outages being coincidental. The sun might not set on the British/Soviet/whatever empire but there's not going to be enough wires to connect them all for solar collectors to keep providing power. Someone is going to build nuclear power plants. Those that do will have an economic advantage, and therefore political and military advantage, over those that do not. If European nations want to remain independent nations then they need to be able to produce enough energy domestically to prevent other nations from using electricity, natural gas, or some other energy supply, as leverage against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Spain can't rely on wind and solar for their energy. They need hydro, and certainly nuclear fission. If they don't invest in hydro and nuclear power then they will eventually have energy scarcity.
They use natural gas for now: https://ourworldindata.org/ene... [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They use natural gas for now
I know they do. That can't last forever. Natural gas prices keep going up as it gets harder to find. The costs of hydro, geothermal, and nuclear fission come down as those technologies develop. At some point those two price points meet in the middle, then natural gas will be on the way out.
Re:There is a floor on the prices, raw materials. (Score:4, Interesting)
We dealt with your EROI bullshit a year ago, and now you're back on it?
Come on, tell us... You HAVE to be getting paid, right? Every story when tangentially related to energy, you post within minutes of it going live, then mod yourself up with your sock puppet account. You can't be doing it just because you are a really big fan of nuclear power.
Re:There is a floor on the prices, raw materials. (Score:4, Interesting)
Problem solved?
Reminds me of the joke about the Engineer, the Physicist, and the Mathematician each of whom was staying in a (different) hotel when their room catches fire.
The Engineer wakes up, sees the flames, grabs the fire extinguisher and empties over the flames, then turns on the water in the bathroom and dumps pitcher after pitcher of water over the whole area, soaks the walls and mattress with water, then satisifed that all danger is past, goes back to sleep.
The Physicist wakes up, sees the flames, watches them closely for a minute, does a quick calculation, grabs the fire extinguisher, aims and fires a 3.5 second burst at the base the flames, and then sits up the rest of the night seeing if more flames appear.
The Mathematician wakes up, sees the flames, puzzles for awhile, then his eyes alights on the fire extinguisher and shouts "Aha! A solution exists!" and goes back to sleep.
Knowing that there is there are viable solutions that can be implemented to solve a problem is not remotely like actually solving the problem. The solutions must be implemented - and when there are may vested interests opposed to those solutions then this can be extremely hard.
So no. We can solve this problem, we know multiple ways of solving it, but until a sufficient set of those various ways are actually implemented then no, we have not "solved the problem". Heck, I will even cut enough slack to say that when a complete program is developed and put into action, which sufficient political and economic backing to complete it, then we have "solved the problem" even though in actuality we will have only begun to do so.
Yeah, "scaring the kids to death" to build the political momentum to ACTUALLY fix the problem is pretty effing important.
Re: (Score:2)
Studies show that the low CO2 options for energy are also the low cost options for energy. Now, tell me how or why people are going to continuously demand the higher cost option for energy?
I will accept that adoption would be slowed by NIMBY-ism and such. That is driven by ignorance, and once ignorance is lost it cannot be found again. One example was the protestations over the Concorde SST because people didn't want sonic booms over their neighborhoods. Once the plane landed, and nobody even noticed be
Re: (Score:3)
We can get an idea how future prices will trend by looking at the energy costs in to the energy gain out. This is called EROEI, energy return on energy invested. Some nice people took a bunch of different sources on EROEI and put them in a chart for us: https://world-nuclear.org/info... [world-nuclear.org]
Another collection of studies, put on a nice chart for comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You links on EROEI have been debunked multiple time by multiple people here in your previous handle of blindseer. The data is based on Vattenfall findings which, apart from being biased (because they manufacture Nuclear Power Plants), is also not peer reviewed and no longer certified by the industry itself.
It is disingenuous of you to be continually posting data that is known to be misleading. Your continuous efforts to smear the actual science peer reviewed by 10 major nuclear specific educational and [stormsmith.nl]
Re: (Score:2)
The data is based on Vattenfall findings which, apart from being biased (because they manufacture Nuclear Power Plants), is also not peer reviewed and no longer certified by the industry itself.
If that data is wrong then where can I find the correct data? I clicked on your link and it took me to a website homepage with no mention of EROEI. I tried some web searches of that site and could not find any numbers on EROEI, only a rather dubious claim that nuclear power was a net energy sink. Admittedly I did not do an exhaustive search of the site for data. I'm quite curious to know the arguments for and against every energy source but I'm not that curious.
I'll keep an eye out for better sources bu
Re: (Score:2)
You're being obstinate again. Try click some links of the paper you've already seen before and examined,
There's more than two people in this conversation. (Score:2)
Pretend that you are not talking to me. Pretend this is an open forum where people will be coming in with no foreknowledge of what was said before. Pretend that not everyone is going to express their ignorance, confusion, or curiosity. I'm asking you to pretend this because it is true. There are people reading this right now with no idea what you are talking about. You can say you mentioned the EROEI of nuclear power compared to other sources before but there's a lot of people that would not have been
Re: (Score:2)
The EROEI for solar power is between 12 - 18 months. Depending who you ask.
That includes the glas on top, the aluminium frames and the inverter etc.
Re: (Score:2)
EROEI is a ratio, it is not measured in months. You gave no source on where to verify this "information", likely because it is nonsense.
Without some comparisons to other energy sources this "data" on solar means little. Especially comparisons with nuclear fission since that was what I understood to be in dispute. Also, if methods of calculating this differs then they are of limited value.
Re: (Score:2)
EROEI is a ratio, it is not measured in months.
Well you remember that next time you mention Capacity Factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm posting tired. If I've made a mistake somewhere I'll try to correct it tomorrow.
There are few links to pdf documents which state EROEI of nuclear to be about 2 and declining. Here is a sample. [stormsmith.nl] The argument is mostly high energy cost of refining uranium ore
You mean *that* argument is about mining. There is also the energetic cost of demolishing the reactor (70 petajoules IIRC) and the energetic cost of creating waste storage facilities. I'd welcome a list of the facilities of nuclear infrastructure and their energetic costs if you can provide it.
The energetic cost of concrete to build the plant in petajoules perhaps.
Then there is the relationship of reactor vessel
Re: (Score:2)
It was just his wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I do not have any source about nuclear infrastructure and their demolishing cost. But you may consider that solar and wind have demolishing cost too and it is not negligible. E.g. wind uses about 11 times as much concrete than nuclear per MWh generated for the plant itself. Radioactive waste is a problem specific to nuclear though. And it is a tough one but contrary to what Jan claims it does not need to be 100% perfect and therefore his dist
Re: (Score:2)
I do not have any source about nuclear infrastructure and their demolishing cost. But you may consider that solar and wind have demolishing cost too and it is not negligible.
Only nuclear power has radionuclides and radioactivated components to deal with. The energetic costs aren't comparable and it's hardly fair to make a guess at that whilst you are leveling those critiques at this study.
E.g. wind uses about 11 times as much concrete than nuclear per MWh generated for the plant itself.
Which can be reused when the tower and generator is upgraded.
Radioactive waste is a problem specific to nuclear though. And it is a tough one but contrary to what Jan claims it does not need to be 100% perfect and therefore his distraction with Second Law are not relevant. Disposal just needs to be good enough not to cause health issues.
That's your claim and I doubt disposal is anywhere near 50% perfect and in some cases, such as DU weapons, it is dispersed randomly.
Uranium ore is relevant now for current plants but not in general for nuclear. There are other fuel sources than uranium. Anyway, with the low interest in nuclear there is no danger of good enough ore shortage.
In other words the energetic return of nuclear power is so low it is pointless to pursue it any
Re: (Score:2)
I do believe you Vantenfal's work has errors. But I also think Jan's work is biased at least. No good scientific analyses on my part except the tone of his paper and misleading references to the Second Law. More people studied his work and have other reservations.
Would one climate scientist be able to persuade world off CO2 if he was alone? That is a rhetorical question only.
The economy war between nuclear a renewables is far from won. Renewables will be less appealing when they near 100% of grid generation
Re: (Score:2)
If you feel need to win a discussion with me then consider yourself the winner.
"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - JFK
I do believe you Vantenfal's work has errors. But I also think Jan's work is biased at least.
The fact remains that Vantenfal's work cannot be referenced at all and it is the "source" being "cited" for the EROEI of nuclear power.
No good scientific analyses on my part except the tone of his paper and misleading references to the Second Law. More people studied his work and have other reservations.
Would one climate scientist be able to persuade world off CO2 if he was alone? That is a rhetorical question only.
The fact remains that, despite it's i
Re: (Score:2)
The data is based on Vattenfall findings which, apart from being biased (because they manufacture Nuclear Power Plants), is also not peer reviewed and no longer certified by the industry itself.
If that data is wrong then where can I find the correct data? .
Maybe click on some of the links when you previously asked for the correct data and people supplied links to it for you?
Re: (Score:2)
There are more people reading your comments then myself. If you want to convince more people then you need to provide data where they can easily find it. Don't show me I'm wrong, show everyone else I'm wrong. I post links so that I can make a case to a wide audience. You are trying to make a case to an audience of one. Which do you believe will get more people on your side? As it is now you are convincing to nobody. I'm posting links so I'm convincing to a wide audience.
I ask you, and anyone else tha
Re: (Score:2)
There are more people reading your comments then myself.
Then update your references.
Re: (Score:2)
The other important point to make here is that EROEI is largely irrelevant. If you had a rod of kryptonite with an incredible EROEI but that caused the Earth to split in two, it wouldn't be a particular great source of energy.
What matters is emissions, cost, and availability. Nuclear is okay on emissions, not the best and not likely to improve. On cost it's a disaster. On availability it takes far too long to build and most countries either aren't allowed to have it or don't want to build the infrastructure
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then be sure to post your links for everyone else to see so as to not be lead astray by me. This is not a two-way conversation, other people are reading. I offered a link to Wikipedia for people to see how different energy sources compare on EROEI, you offer a claim the "correct" data is out there if only people reading this look hard enough for it. Which sounds more convincing? I'm not just asking this of q_e_t.
I recall people posting links to "correct my data" but I found them to be older, not newer,
Re: (Score:2)
Then be sure to post your links for everyone else to see so as to not be lead astray by me.
You said we should provide you with new information and then you would update yours. You did not, and now you are trying to shift the goal posts as usual.
Nice (Score:2)
Nice result, reaching what was already reached 8 years ago
Electricity prices 500% from 1 year ago (Score:2)
Someone forgot to state that in the f*cking article and in Slashdot: electricity is up 500% from 1 year ago. Government has been forced to lower (almost remove) taxes on electricity and even that is only saving 30% of the rise since last year. No, Spain's wind power story is not a success story. We need nuclear.
Re: Electricity prices 500% from 1 year ago (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Natural gas prices are going up? Sounds like Spain needs more nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And why do we need gas? Because there's not enough energy coming from the other sources: wind, solar, etc, hence nuclear is the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.ree.es/es/datos/ba... [www.ree.es]
Re: (Score:2)
And? (Score:2)
And, I assume this has brought down electricity prices to their lowest level ever?