Coal power

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I happened to look up what's cheapest overall to install, fuel, maintain while getting my associates in applied science for power plant operations.

If they had bothered to look anything up beyond the name plate watts install cost then they would know solar isn't the cheapest, it's not even a cheaper way to generate power.
It's one of the most expensive ways to generate power aside from oil and thermoelectric.

What other explanation is there?
I see 2 possibilities
1 They are brainwashed, ignorant, misinformed, useful idiots
2 They are knowingly repeating a lie in the hopes that if they repeat it enough times it will become true.
3 I'm open to additional possibles.

Germany is mandating solar be installed. Their electrical costs to consumers have gone up to 150% of original compared to 10 years ago.
By the time they hit their goals they will likely more than double the price of electricity.

I agree that up-front capital outlays for solar can be high,but if you look at the life-cycle-cost of the facility,after the plant is amortized out you move into a situation where everything is paid for,and your 'fuel' is free.
And it's carbon-free,which is the whole point.
Don't burn the hydrocarbons,use them to create long-lived,durable synthetics.They're to precious!

[oil pan 4]

If it's free then why does the Germans electrical cost keep going up?

Building fixed solar power is far more expensive than almost anything else. No one has really even tried to address the minor issue of not being able to store solar power in any way that begins to approach cost effectiveness.

[RedDevil]

The fuel is free, the device that traps the fuel is expensive.
Clean energy is therefore (usually) more expensive than dirty energy.
If you ignore the elephant in the room.

Things change when you account for the indirect cost the pollution causes.
If power stations that burn fossil fuel were somehow forced to absorb the same amount of CO2 as they emit, they would not be economically possible - or not at all possible.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If it's free then why does the Germans electrical cost keep going up?

Building fixed solar power is far more expensive than almost anything else. No one has really even tried to address the minor issue of not being able to store solar power in any way that begins to approach cost effectiveness.

After losing two world wars due to lack of 'energy',Germany is in a unique position to understand the cost of energy vulnerability.
The German people are willing to take their 'haircut' in the short term,with high prices,to pay for a future of relatively 'free',domestically produced zero-carbon electric power.
Cost effectiveness,at some point,isn't even included in the calculus,when a planet is a stake.The Julian Simons,Bjorn Lombergs,and Alex Epsteins of the world won't understand this.
As to storage,many are actively pursuing solutions to this challenge.China more than any other country.
If necessity is the mother of invention,then we may look forward to invention,as the necessity of invention is a mutha------.

[oil pan 4]

How are they going to make zero carbon electrical power at night with no nuclear?

[JSH]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

How are they going to make zero carbon electrical power at night with no nuclear?

Wind, wave, tidal, hydro, geothermal or pull from storage.

We had an interesting discussion today that included V2G (vehicle to grid)

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

How are they going to make zero carbon electrical power at night with no nuclear?

*The first thing,is that all of Europe will be inter-tied to the same grid.
*Europe will be also be inter-tied to Africa.
*Between solar-thermal,solar PV,terrestrial wind,and offshore wind,there's a likelihood that electrical power will be coming from somewhere at all times.
*Nuclear could help with base load and spinning reserves if they wanted to revisit that option.
Also,the grid-scale storage is currently under R&D.If reducing carbon emissions is of high enough importance,this path might be fast-tracked.Who knows?
*Simultaneously,they can pursue even greater energy efficiencies,across the entire user spectrum.
*Population?
Plenty of challenges.

[JSH]

Here is an interesting link with cost to build and operate various types of electrical generation plants: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies...assumption.pdf

The numbers make it very clear why coal is on a decline and has been replaced by natural gas for both base loads and peak loads.

Solar and wind also look very favorable.

I looked at solar for my home last year and the finances make complete sense. The problem is opportunity cost. That $10K can make more money in other ways

[JSH]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*The first thing,is that all of Europe will be inter-tied to the same grid.
*Europe will be also be inter-tied to Africa.
*Between solar-thermal,solar PV,terrestrial wind,and offshore wind,there's a likelihood that electrical power will be coming from somewhere at all times.
*Nuclear could help with base load and spinning reserves if they wanted to revisit that option.
Also,the grid-scale storage is currently under R&D.If reducing carbon emissions is of high enough importance,this path might be fast-tracked.Who knows?
*Simultaneously,they can pursue even greater energy efficiencies,across the entire user spectrum.
*Population?
Plenty of challenges.

Very true. So much is still being worked out. The reality is that we will add a greater and greater percentage of renewables and learn as we go. Nobody is seriously looking at 100% renewable for 30-50 years and nobody can realistically say they know what the world will look like or what technology will be available that far out.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

I looked at solar for my home last year and the finances make complete sense. The problem is opportunity cost. That $10K can make more money in other ways

We're paying something like 10 cents per kWh in Portland. That's dirt cheap compared to the rest of the country and the world. The only cheaper power I've had is Washington at 8 cents.

This is the last sunny week of the year. We're in for 5 months of overcast after that.

I'd rather sponsor someone in Phoenix to go solar, and they can pay me back at 90% of their normal utility rates.


...and those figures are for nameplate output, not actual, right? That's why sendler is always on about. A nuke plant can deliver 90% of nameplate or something like that, while solar is something like 30%.