Why (baseload) generators are terrified of solar

[kristopher]

Last edited Sat Apr 14, 2012, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Why generators are terrified of solar
By Giles Parkinson on 26 March 2012

Here is a pair of graphs that demonstrate most vividly the merit order effect and the impact that solar is having on electricity prices in Germany; and why utilities there and elsewhere are desperate to try to reign in the growth of solar PV in Europe. It may also explain why Australian generators are fighting so hard against the extension of feed-in tariffs in this country.

The first graph illustrates what a typical day on the electricity market in Germany looked like in March four years ago; the second illustrates what is happening now, with 25GW of solar PV installed across the country. Essentially, it means that solar PV is not just licking the cream off the profits of the fossil fuel generators – as happens in Australia with a more modest rollout of PV – it is in fact eating their entire cake.






Both graphs were published last week on the website Renewables International, and were sourced from EPEX, the European power price exchange. The first graph, from 2008, shows peaking power prices rising to around €60/MWh and staying there for most of the day, with some visible peaks around noon and the early evening – the size of which would depend on the temperature and the usage.

The second graph shows a brief leap to €65/MWh around 9am, before the impact of solar PV takes hold – erasing the midday peak entirely and leaving only a smaller one in the evening. The huge bite out of day-prices is also a bite out of fossil fuel generators’ earnings and profits. Note that the average peak price in the second graph is barely higher than the baseload price.

Deutsche Bank solar analyst Vishal Shah noted in a report last month that EPEX data was showing solar PV was cutting peak electricity prices by up to 40 per cent ...

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/why-generators-are-terrified-of-solar-44279

The "merit-order effect"
Electricity produced under a FIT law can help to reduce the average cost of electricity by affecting the wholesale price. Because renewable electricity must be purchased before other sources, the size of the remaining demand to be purchased on the spot market is reduced. Under the "merit order" principle, plants with the lowest costs are used first to meet demand, with more costly plants being brought on line later if needed. The most expensive conventional power plants are therefore no longer needed to meet demand. If the FIT tariff (or price) is lower than the price from the most expensive conventional plants, then the average cost of electricity decreases, and this is called the ‘merit-order effect’. This decrease was estimated to be about € 5 billion in Germany in 2006.

http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/index.php?id=425

Energy Policy Volume 36, Issue 8, August 2008, Pages 3086–3094
The merit-order effect: A detailed analysis of the price effect of renewable electricity generation on spot market prices in Germany
Frank Sensfußa, , , Mario Ragwitza, Massimo Genoeseb, 1,
a Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Breslauer Str. 48, 76139 Karlsruhe, Germany
b Institute for Industrial Production, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Hertzstr. 16, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany
Received 18 January 2008. Accepted 25 March 2008.


Abstract
The German feed-in support of electricity generation from renewable energy sources has led to high growth rates of the supported technologies. Critics state that the costs for consumers are too high. An important aspect to be considered in the discussion is the price effect created by renewable electricity generation. This paper seeks to analyse the impact of privileged renewable electricity generation on the electricity market in Germany. The central aspect to be analysed is the impact of renewable electricity generation on spot market prices. The results generated by an agent-based simulation platform indicate that the financial volume of the price reduction is considerable. In the short run, this gives rise to a distributional effect which creates savings for the demand side by reducing generator profits. In the case of the year 2006, the volume of the merit-order effect exceeds the volume of the net support payments for renewable electricity generation which have to be paid by consumers.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508001717

[TheWraith]

1. If by "terrified" you mean "rolling around laughing," sure.

Solar is a great way to greenwash while not reducing the need for baseload generation pretty much at all.

[kristopher]

2. Then why do you spend so much time trying to undermine it?

Last edited Sat Apr 14, 2012, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)

See posts 114, 115 and 116 for references on the merit order effect and its implications for non-zero fuel cost generation.

[patrice]

3. So Solar PV needs to be PV + Conservation programs + ? to meet/beat AND reduce demand?

[DCKit]

4. You didn't get the memo?

The deniers:

Now shuddup and eat your peas!

[Kazzzzon]

5. re

Solar, FTW.

[FBaggins]

6. That must be why so many of their stock prices are down 90%

Oh... wait...

[kristopher]

7. How does the current explosion in manufacturing capacity disprove the OP's thesis?

The fact that there is an internal shake-up in solar manufacturing due to massive investment is not related to the effect of solar on baseload prices (about -10% in the graph) that the OP describes.

Or were you pointing out that we could expect to see an acceleration of this trend as solar and wind installations continue to increase?

What I think is most interesting is the question of how these fossil plants will maintain revenues to meet their expenses. Their only options are to either find a way to regain market share or to charge more for the steadily decreasing amount of electricity they still have a market for.

What do you think, will charging more for their product slow down or speed up this process?

[FBaggins]

8. That's an odd use of the word "current".

The "explosion" has been in the other direction "currently"

The fact that there is an internal shake-up in solar manufacturing due to massive investment is not related to the effect of solar on baseload prices (about -10% in the graph) that the OP describes.

So? The point does identify who is actually "terrified" right now.

Or were you pointing out that we could expect to see an acceleration of this trend as solar and wind installations continue to increase?

Like solar in Spain? (Italy?... Germany?)

What I think is most interesting is the question of how these fossil plants will maintain revenues to meet their expenses. Their only options are to either find a way to regain market share or to charge more for the steadily decreasing amount of electricity they still have a market for.

Probably the later. Which is as it should be. It's worth more then. For the same reason that wind power is cheap when it goes in to storage and much more expensive when it comes out.

What do you think, will charging more for their product slow down or speed up this process?

Slow down the rate of growth... probably not slow down in absolute terms. Possibly slow down in relative terms, but only after (if) economic growth picks back up.

[kristopher]

9. How does the current explosion in manufacturing capacity disprove the OP's thesis?

The new entrants into the solar market are far from "terrified", they see lot's of growth and more investment ahead of them.

So don't try to divert attention to an inane quibble about a word; answer the question.

[FBaggins]

10. Which "new entrants into the solar market" are you thinking of?

Are you talking about investors buying the assets of bankrupt firms?

So don't try to divert attention to an inane quibble about a word; answer the question.

That was the answer. The OP doesn't actually demonstrate anyone being "terrified". Recent news tells us it's the solar companies that are worried. And since many of them are going out of business, they seem to have a good reason to be afraid.

The other answer was also unrefuted. What current explosion in manufacturing capacity? The explosion was in the past and was based on a poor assumption that unsustainable growth rates could continue for years. They were wrong and they're paying the price (literally).

[kristopher]

12. I'm sure that's the story ...

that the circle-jerk of nuclear bloggers is comforting themselves with, but - not surprisingly - that fable has no relationship to reality. It's like saying the spread of computers halted because Commodore went out of business.

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Hey, That's a neat trick....

...using the spot prices to exclude the renewable surcharge that gets added on - you know, the bit that actually pays for the solar.
So, what happens if we add this back in?

2008: 0.1515 - 0.1654 €/Kw
2012: 0.2614 - 0.2781 €/Kw

[kristopher]

14. Yes the homeowners and the local communities who are getting that money are pretty happy

But it doesn't help the utilities and fossil fuel generating owners very much does it? And the fact that they are saving everyone else money on their utility bills is even better.


Are you rooting for the coal and natural gas plants?

[Dead_Parrot]

15. And the majority who aren't?

Y'know, people who don't have 10k to blow on an array. They get fucked over to pay the rich.

That seem fair to you?

[kristopher]

16. You think it is the rich in Germany that are buying the solar?

Or in the US? The entire point of Feed in Tariffs like those that propelled the growth of solar in Germany is that it makes solar not only affordable for everyone, but even profitable.

Meanwhile here in the backwater:
http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/news/solar-not-just-for-the-rich-anymore/

The nuclear boosters have completely given up on even the pretense of honesty; I guess you really are rooting for coal and natural gas as long as it preserves nuclear...

[XemaSab]

18. I'm FOR nuclear in the way that I'm FOR abortion.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need either, but since it's not a perfect world, nuclear and abortion are the lesser of two evils.

[kristopher]

20. Nuclear is a lesser evil than renewables?

Wow, what a value system.

[XemaSab]

22. Keeping our existing nuclear open

and phasing out dirty coal plants while we transition to renewables is preferential to closing nuclear and keeping coal plants, which is what you are arguing in favor of.

I mean, I guess if you think coal is a better power source than nuclear, you're entitled to that opinion, but you should at least have the courage to be forthright about your beliefs.

[kristopher]

24. That is a fairly tale scenario

When you institute the economic forces that phase out coal you also impact nuclear. As the Germans have pointed out - the two systems are incompatible; when you act to preserve nuclear you also act to preserve coal.

[XemaSab]

25. How many years do you think it will take

the way things are going, before the Vermont Yankee power plant, which provides 70% of the power in the state, will have its power fully replaced by renewables?

If this power plant were shut down tomorrow, what form of energy do you suggest that the people of Vermont use before all of the renewable power was fully operational?

[kristopher]

28. So you think people should be forced to live around nuclear plants they believe are unsafe?

Beyond our imagination: Fukushima and the problem of assessing risk
Severe accidents at nuclear reactors have occurred much more frequently than what risk-assessment models predicted.
BY M. V. RAMANA | 19 APRIL 2011

The probabilistic risk assessment method does a poor job of anticipating accidents in which a single event, such as a tsunami, causes failures in multiple safety systems.

Catastrophic nuclear accidents are inevitable, because designers and risk modelers cannot envision all possible ways in which complex systems can fail.
The multiple and ongoing accidents at the Fukushima reactors come as a reminder of the hazards associated with nuclear power. As with the earlier severe accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, it will take a long time before the full extent of what happened at Fukushima becomes clear. Even now, though, Fukushima sheds light on the troublesome and important question of whether nuclear reactors can ever be operated safely.

Engineers and other technical experts have two approaches for making nuclear reactors safe: The first is to design the reactor so that it is likely to recover from various initiating failures -- lowering the probability that the damage will spread, even in the absence of any protective actions, automatic or deliberate. The second approach, used in addition to the first, is to incorporate multiple protective systems, all of which would have to fail before a radioactive release could occur. This latter approach is known as "defense-in-depth," and it is often advertised as an assurance of nuclear safety. The World Nuclear Association, for example, claims that "reactors in the western world" use defense-in-depth "to achieve optimum safety."

Within this perspective, accidents are usually blamed, at least in part, on a lack of properly functioning safety systems, or on poor technical design. For example, analysts typically traced the catastrophic impacts of the Chernobyl accident to the reactor's lack of containment and its behavior when being operated at low power. Similarly, in response to the current Fukushima accidents, many analysts have focused on the weaknesses of the reactors' Mark 1 containment system.

Unfortunately, focusing on individual components -- rather than the system as a whole -- gives analysts a false sense of security. Here's how their thinking goes: For each safety system, there is only a small chance of failure at any given time, so it's exceedingly unlikely that more than one safety system will fail at the same moment. A severe accident can't happen unless multiple safety systems fail simultaneously or sequentially. Therefore, a severe accident is exceedingly unlikely....

More at: http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/beyond-our-imagination-fukushima-and-the-problem-of-assessing-risk

How long can nuclear reactors last? US, industry extend spans
'What they're saying is really a fabrication,' retired reactor designer says
ROCKVILLE, Md. — When commercial nuclear power was getting its start in the 1960s and 1970s, industry and regulators stated unequivocally that reactors were designed only to operate for 40 years. Now they tell another story — insisting that the units were built with no inherent life span, and can run for up to a century, an Associated Press investigation shows.
By rewriting history, plant owners are making it easier to extend the lives of dozens of reactors in a relicensing process that resembles nothing more than an elaborate rubber stamp.
As part of a yearlong investigation of aging issues at the nation's nuclear power plants, the AP found that the relicensing process often lacks fully independent safety reviews. Records show that paperwork of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission sometimes matches word-for-word the language used in a plant operator's application.
Also, the relicensing process relies heavily on such paperwork, with very little onsite inspection and verification...

Editor's note: Links to the first three parts of this four-part series are at the end of this report.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43556350/ns/us_news-environment/#.T4jqEu3N7dl

Vermont has a plan to replace the plant's output, have you bothered to look for it?
As for plants that haven't reached the end of their design life, they would be subject to the forces demonstrated in the OP.

[XemaSab]

30. I'd much rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal plant

The nuclear plant MIGHT kill you; the coal plant WILL kill you.

[joshcryer]

31. Less radiation near a nuclear plant than coal.

Strange but true.

[XemaSab]

32. And how much lead, mercury, Sox, and Nox do the nuclear plants put out?

[kristopher]

36. A standard false choice favored by the nuclear industry.

Pretending those are the only alternative is the equivalent of climate change denial.

[XemaSab]

38. You didn't answer my question

about when you expect that 70% from nuclear to be replaced in Vermont.

They're not the only alternatives for power generation FULL STOP, they're the only alternatives for power generation, along with natural gas, that should be phased out. Unless you think we should phase out something like hydro first?

[kristopher]

41. If you actually cared you'd have already looked for the report yourself.

I have no interest in satisfying a question you don't care about - the information has been put out here a number of times so I know it is readily available. Why don't you stop playing silly games and look for it then institute a discussion like an adult.

[XemaSab]

48. I did some googling for a few minutes

and the best thing I found for when Vermont will be able to go 100% renewable (thereby phasing out nuclear, they don't currently use coal) was that "Five other states, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Vermont, have nonbinding goals for adoption of renewable energy instead of an RPS." Their non-binding goal, which was set in 2005, is to have 20% renewable energy by 2017 and 25% renewable energy by 2025. So if we're looking at a 5% increase in renewables every 8 years, then in 2145 they'll be 100% renewable.

By your argument, they should burn coal for the next 133 years.

[kristopher]

52. Google Vermont PIRG, vt yankee energy plan

[XemaSab]

54. In 2004, this is what they visualized happening by 2025:

• Energy Efficiency 25%
• CT River Hydro-Electric Dams 17%
• Commercial Wind Energy 15%
• New Biomass 8%
• Existing Biomass 4%
• Hydro: Independent Producers 2%
• Other Vermont Hydro (existing) 5%
• Customer-Sited Generation 4%
• Innovative Partnerships 5%
• Market Purchases/In-state Peaker 15%

How well do you think they are carrying through with this plan 8 years after it was written? At the rate they're making progress, what year do you think this plan will finally be implemented?

(Frankly, the only parts of this that look good to me are the 25% efficiency, the 15% wind, and the 4% customer-sited generation. The rest of it looks like more dams, more logging, and more fossil fuels.)

[kristopher]

58. try this fm 2011

Repowering Vermont
Replacing Vermont Yankee for a Clean Energy Future

http://www.vpirg.org/repowervt

[XemaSab]

62. It's certainly an ambitious goal for 20 years from now

Too bad a lot of the interim energy will be made up with coal and other fossil fuels.

It's also too bad that they plan to triple the amount of wood they're burning and add a third again as much hydro in the long term.

[kristopher]

65. Yeah, to you everything is too bad except nuclear.

That's too bad.

[XemaSab]

68. I hate fossil fuels

and I think they should be ditched first under any scenario.

[kristopher]

69. Yeah, sure you do.

That's why you take every opportunity you find to undermine renewables - because you hate fossil fuels. Your behavior pattern is better explained by advocacy for nuclear than by anti-fossil.

[XemaSab]

72. See, I think you come off as someone who is more motivated by being anti-nuclear

than by any actual concerns about climate change or the environment.

Or at least that's the impression that one might be left with, given the number of posts you make that aren't devoted to either bashing nuclear or parroting stuff written in trade publications or by anti-nuclear groups.

[kristopher]

76. Telling the truth about nuclear is "bashing"?

This forum used to be filled wall to wall with false claims by the nuclear proponents. That has largely stopped because I met those claims and proved them false - usually using peer reviewed publications. It was correcting one such claim by you regarding avian mortality from wind that launched you on your crusade to run me off this forum.

I'm surprised you have such a short memory.

[XemaSab]

79. I've been on a crusade to run you off the forum?

This is news to me.

[kristopher]

81. Sure it is - tell that to the Kea.

Maybe it will believe you.

[XemaSab]

90. If I had been trying to run you off the forum

It would have happened already.

Since you are still here, I have not been trying to run you off the forum.

What I *have* been trying to do is get you to talk sense. That is apparently not within my powers.

[kristopher]

92. Don't feed the Kea...

[XemaSab]

93. Good call.

[joshcryer]

19. Got a link to the actual study?

I find that statistic unbelievable.

Sorry for the self-delete, I shouldn't make assumptions, but I saved what I wrote just in case it is correct.

[kristopher]

21. Can you access google on your computer?

I thought so.

[joshcryer]

23. The fucking report is $500.

The linked "study" is an advertisement to buy their report.

[Dead_Parrot]

26. Yes kris

And you damn well know it.

Pretty funny to accuse other of dishonesty when you're trying to hide the 70%+ increase in german electricity prices.

[joshcryer]

27. I totally deleted my other post because I fell for it hook line and sinker.

Shameful!

edit: I mean my post to TheWraith

[Dead_Parrot]

29. Don't worry, I missed it.

Telling, though, how kris suddenly wants to talk about something else rather than German electricity.

[kristopher]

35. I didn't change the subject.

I responded to a question by someone else who change the subject to Vt.

[kristopher]

34. Fell for what?

Are you saying the article is lying about the stats in the report?

You need to get a grip...

[joshcryer]

37. No, merely exaggerating.

Pick any other day in April. My bad for not fact checking.

[kristopher]

39. Are you saying they are lying?

Presenting fraudulent data is lying, not exaggerating.

Do you think they would sell many reports with that tactic? It might work for the nuclear industry but when someone can verify your statements immediately after buying the report, it would be stupid to lie.

[joshcryer]

42. I was referring to the OP.

I believe you are terribly confused.

[kristopher]

44. Your posts lack specificity, don't blame me for your sloppy communication skills.

[joshcryer]

45. Perhaps you didn't see my post to TheWraith where I derided them...

...assuming that the OP was a snapshot of general pricing in Germany.

I should have checked and realized that it wasn't. That is clearly my failing.

[kristopher]

46. What do you mean "general pricing in Germany"

The OP is nothing more or less than what it purports to be - an accurate example of "the merit order effect and the impact that solar is having on electricity prices in Germany"

Here is a pair of graphs that demonstrate most vividly the merit order effect and the impact that solar is having on electricity prices in Germany; and why utilities there and elsewhere are desperate to try to reign in the growth of solar PV in Europe. It may also explain why Australian generators are fighting so hard against the extension of feed-in tariffs in this country.

The first graph illustrates what a typical day on the electricity market in Germany looked like in March four years ago; the second illustrates what is happening now, with 25GW of solar PV installed across the country. Essentially, it means that solar PV is not just licking the cream off the profits of the fossil fuel generators – as happens in Australia with a more modest rollout of PV – it is in fact eating their entire cake.

Trying to dismiss it as being in some way false or misleading is bullshit.

[joshcryer]

47. Their claim "what is happening now" is not the graphic I see on any given day today.

They cherry picked a really good day to show the "afternoon dip."

In reality it's more chaotic than that.

And this nearly 8 hour dip (that I idiotically assumed that a general snapshot and not an anomaly) is not reflected in current electricity prices in any way whatsoever.

[kristopher]

49. And your proof of that is...

[joshcryer]

53. Post #13.

[kristopher]

56. In other words you have no proof

That post doesn't say anything at all about how the merit order pricing of the various energy sources is impacting the energy industry in Germany. In other words you have basis for your claims about examining different days at all, do you? You are just purely making shit up again.

Josh wrote:

Their claim "what is happening now" is not the graphic I see on any given day today.
They cherry picked a really good day to show the "afternoon dip."
In reality it's more chaotic than that.
And this nearly 8 hour dip (that I idiotically assumed that a general snapshot and not an anomaly) is not reflected in current electricity prices in any way whatsoever.

I knew you were pulling another of your sneaky attacks in support of nuclear. You need to develop a new strategy, you've become far to closely identified with this one.

[joshcryer]

57. The graphic appears to have a lower overall price than the 2008 graphic.

The actual cost of electricity is overall higher.

This is uncontroversial.

It could be that the overall cost of installing solar has yet to be repaid and thus is reflected in electricity prices but I have no idea.

And I'll still be nice even when you insult me with your chronic go-to lies calling my comments a "sneaky attack in support of nuclear."

[kristopher]

59. You are comparing apples to oranges - you know it and...

...you are doing it to undermine good news about nuclear's competition.


You said you were looking at the graphs in the OP for different days. Now you are saying something else, and in a few minutes you'll be saying something different yet again.

The OP is accurate. You are peddling bullpuckey. We are through.

[joshcryer]

61. No, I am not. If that graphic was representive of overall pricing between 2008 and 2012...

...then electricity prices would be overall lower than 2008. That graphic is not. I thought I'd go to the site where the graphic is (the exchange site, it's free), and I looked through the days. I assumed, with my derisive comment to TheWraith, that in fact the graphic in the OP was representing overall pricing in a general sense. I was wrong and thus deleted my comment. I had been conned. The OP is intuitive, you'd think with enough solar installed that trend would be a regular event. I went through two months of graphs (60 or so clicks, it wasn't hard), I only saw that "afternoon dip" a few times (around March 7th, the day after was similar).

I'm not even convinced the graphic represents anything at all, I don't know the breakdown of energy sources, for example, I just see prices. Since that trend only appears a few times in my search it is unconvincing to me that it is representing a solar impact in pricing.

[kristopher]

64. Like I said, another version will be coming within a few minutes.

You just said that post 13 was your source and now you are completely contradicting that.

But as risky as it is I'll take you at your word for a moment. I've been to that site also and when I looked about a dozen random days I usually saw the effect of solar in the afternoon. The peaks tended to be between 9-11AM and declined afterwards. The 2008 pages, on the other hand, tended to show the classic humpback through midday.

You are completely wrong about this being either a fabrication or an exaggeration. Have you considered that you really just don't understand what you are looking at? (You've as much as admitted that.) Perhaps your "error" is in thinking that the exemplar in the OP is required to be duplicated every day for the effect to be significant. A close reading of the article should have made you aware of the circumstances.

The second graph shows a brief leap to €65/MWh around 9am, before the impact of solar PV takes hold – erasing the midday peak entirely and leaving only a smaller one in the evening. The huge bite out of day-prices is also a bite out of fossil fuel generators’ earnings and profits. Note that the average peak price in the second graph is barely higher than the baseload price.

Deutsche Bank solar analyst Vishal Shah noted in a report last month that EPEX data was showing solar PV was cutting peak electricity prices by up to 40 per cent, a situation that utilities in Germany and elsewhere in Europe were finding intolerable. “With Germany adopting a drastic cut, we expect major utilities in other European countries to push for similar cuts as well,” Shah noted.

Analysts elsewhere said one quarter of Germany’s gas-fired capacity may be closed, because of the impact of surging solar and wind capacity. Enel, the biggest utility in Italy, which had the most solar PV installed in 2011, highlighted its exposure to reduced peaking prices when it said that a €5/MWh fall in average wholesale prices would translate into a one-third slump in earnings from the generation division.

Are you saying the Deutsche Bank analyst is lying also?

[joshcryer]

74. For it to have been in line with my comment to TheWraith yes.

It would have had to have been repeated every day.

[kristopher]

77. I'm very sure your self deleted comment to wraith is not relevant to our conversation.

You have been all over the map with a series of unsupported and false claims.

[joshcryer]

80. You're not following the conversation, to be sure.

You think I'm somehow antagonistic toward a reduction in price that isn't actually seen by the consumer because they're too busy paying FiTs.

Nope.

I'm annoyed by the way it was presented, by my falling for the presentation, and by the fact that the end consumer is not having a reduction in prices which was reflected by the graphics posted.

[kristopher]

83. Considering the article is about none of that

I'd say your reading comprehension needs a great deal of work. For about the tenth time - the piece is about the effect of merit order pricing and renewables on non-renewable sources of generation.

It isn't the fault of the author that you don't understand what you read.

[joshcryer]

84. lol, it says "electricity prices in Germany" right there in the fucking OP.

Now you're just weaseling.

[kristopher]

88. More *willful* confusion?

Why generators are terrified of solar

Here is a pair of graphs that demonstrate most vividly the merit order effect and the impact that solar is having on electricity prices in Germany; and why utilities there and elsewhere are desperate to try to reign in the growth of solar PV in Europe. It may also explain why Australian generators are fighting so hard against the extension of feed-in tariffs in this country...

Generators

Merit order effect

Utilities


Nope, nothing about consumers. It is completely obvious that the article is about the wholesale market and the profits of the nonrenewable sector. I'm also sure that there is a downward pressure on retail prices from what is discussed even though the article is not about that and makes no attempt to present it or quantify it. If you are interested on the retail side I just posted a study looking at a similar consequence expected from Cape Wind where the savings from this downward pressure over 25 years was expected to be $7.2 billion.

[joshcryer]

94. He doesn't say "wholesale electricity prices."

He says "electricity prices."

[kristopher]

96. In a discussion specifically about sources of generation being put under pricing pressure

Did you even read the article. You could not read it and think it is a discussion of consumer pricing. There is an effect on consumer pricing, but the article does not go into that at all. That is a claim you made up out of whole cloth.

Are you stoned again?

[joshcryer]

98. He doesn't say "wholesale electricity prices."

He says "electricity prices."

[joshcryer]

99. The article does actually weasel around consumer pricing with capitalism verbiage.

About competition and the like.

But he doesn't say "wholesale electricity prices."

He says "electricity prices."

[kristopher]

101. In a discussion about wholesale electricity.

Get a clue.

[joshcryer]

103. Which has little relevance to polluters who are still getting paid.

As far as they're concerned unless they're obsoleted before the fuel runs out, they're happy.

And they won't be obsolete in ... 20 years.

[kristopher]

106. Once more let's review

The second graph shows a brief leap to €65/MWh around 9am, before the impact of solar PV takes hold – erasing the midday peak entirely and leaving only a smaller one in the evening. The huge bite out of day-prices is also a bite out of fossil fuel generators’ earnings and profits. Note that the average peak price in the second graph is barely higher than the baseload price.

Deutsche Bank solar analyst Vishal Shah noted in a report last month that EPEX data was showing solar PV was cutting peak electricity prices by up to 40 per cent, a situation that utilities in Germany and elsewhere in Europe were finding intolerable. “With Germany adopting a drastic cut, we expect major utilities in other European countries to push for similar cuts as well,” Shah noted.

Analysts elsewhere said one quarter of Germany’s gas-fired capacity may be closed, because of the impact of surging solar and wind capacity. Enel, the biggest utility in Italy, which had the most solar PV installed in 2011, highlighted its exposure to reduced peaking prices when it said that a €5/MWh fall in average wholesale prices would translate into a one-third slump in earnings from the generation division.

Analysts elsewhere said one quarter of Germany’s gas-fired capacity may be closed, because of the impact of surging solar and wind capacity. Enel, the biggest utility in Italy, which had the most solar PV installed in 2011, highlighted its exposure to reduced peaking prices when it said that a €5/MWh fall in average wholesale prices would translate into a one-third slump in earnings from the generation division.



Analysts elsewhere said one quarter of Germany’s gas-fired capacity may be closed, because of the impact of surging solar and wind capacity. Enel, the biggest utility in Italy, which had the most solar PV installed in 2011, highlighted its exposure to reduced peaking prices when it said that a €5/MWh fall in average wholesale prices would translate into a one-third slump in earnings from the generation division.



Analysts elsewhere said one quarter of Germany’s gas-fired capacity may be closed, because of the impact of surging solar and wind capacity. Enel, the biggest utility in Italy, which had the most solar PV installed in 2011, highlighted its exposure to reduced peaking prices when it said that a €5/MWh fall in average wholesale prices would translate into a one-third slump in earnings from the generation division.

[joshcryer]

107. Gas ain't baseload.

[kristopher]

33. Poor little nuclear lovers just can't catch a break...

I haven't tracked German energy prices but I know that they are very willing to pay more for clean renewable energy.

I wonder if you realize how petty you sound and how much your true values reveal themselves when you engage in these episodes of nit-picking good news...

[XemaSab]

40. Wait, you always said that renewables were cheaper

So why are the Germans very willing to pay more for clean renewable energy, if they're being ripped off by paying more?

[kristopher]

43. Seriously?

If you don't know that the world owes Germany a huge debt for paying the costs of pioneering the shift to a carbon free world then you really don't have a clue about what is happening. Instead of inane nuisance posts trying to blindly support nuclear your time would probably be better spent educating yourself on the topic you claim to be so worried about.

[XemaSab]

50. I was quoting your post

Do you think that I am educating myself by reading your posts?

If I am in fact educating myself by reading your posts, then why should an exact quote from you be met with derision and you telling me to go educate myself?

If I am not educating myself by reading your posts, then please let me know ahead of time.

[kristopher]

51. Your post was not "an exact quote" from me.

It might have loosely incorporated something I said, but the connections made were entirely a product of your mind. And no, I don't think you make any attempt to learn anything from what I post. You are so wrapped up in your personal animosity and support for nuclear that you don't seem to read anything for content since your only responses are weak attempts at playing "gotcha".



This current exchange is a perfect example.

[XemaSab]

55. You said:

"I haven't tracked German energy prices but I know that they are very willing to pay more for clean renewable energy."

How did I mischaracterize this statement?

[kristopher]

60. By linking it to other statements about the long term price of renewables

Germany is paying higher prices because starting in about 2000 they CREATED the market for renewable energy when there wasn't one. Their willingness to pay higher prices in those earlier days is largely what brought the cost of renewables down to where it is today and where it is going in the next 10 years (much lower).

You knowingly eliminated all of that context to try and score a snark point. Shame on you.

[XemaSab]

63. So if the bottom has fallen out for renewables

then why is Germany still paying more today?

[kristopher]

66. Because they signed 20 year contracts.

[XemaSab]

67. Ok, there's an answer

We're getting somewhere.

[kristopher]

70. Please research "Feed In Tariffs" FiTs

If you don't know about the contracts you are not able to follow the discussion. The place to start is with the policy tool "FiTs"

[oldhippie]

135. "inane nuisance posts" - That's rich!

Any posts that don't agree with Kristopher's points must be "inane nuisance posts".

[Dead_Parrot]

71. Pointing out your OP is bullshit is 'nit-picking'?

lol. Well, have fun with that.

As for how happy they are...

Hundreds of thousands of households will be shut-off

Many households in Germany are no longer able to pay their electricity bills. Therefore, good half a million citizens sit in the dark.

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/energie/article13879599/Hunderttausenden-Haushalten-wird-der-Strom-gesperrt.html

Yeah, fucking ecstatic I should think.

[kristopher]

73. You *claimed falsely* that the OP is bullshit.

You certainly have shown nothing to support that claim. This isn't a unique report or a sudden epiphany - it is a fundamental part of why I (and the German govt) and every other energy analyst says that distributed renewables and centralized thermal are incompatible.

It is the reason I keep telling you that coal and nuclear are two sides of the same coin.

You don't want to believe it? Tough. That doesn't change it one iota.

[joshcryer]

75. The OP makes claims about "the impact that solar is having on electricity prices in Germany."

It's modest at best and not actually the magnitude represented by the best case graphic posted.

So there you have it folks.

Hope those poor people in Germany got air conditioning this summer.

[kristopher]

78. The OP supports the claims it makes as opposed to the strawman you are creating

It isn't the fault of the author that you don't understand WTF you are reading and are also intent on falsely characterizing the content of the article in your quest to protect the nuclear industry on the German battlefield.

[joshcryer]

82. You're a liar when it comes to accusing me of having a "quest to protect the nuclear industry."

I do not in fact support the nuclear industry in any way. Drop the insults.

[kristopher]

85. You consistently take positions that further the agenda of the nuclear industry.

Your *willful* confusion about the OP is a perfect case in point. I've been observing your position over several years, you can't get away with denial when your actions routinely contradict your denials. It is exactly like a person beating on someone all the while saying "I'm a pacifist, I hate violence". The actions and the self avowals cannot be reconciled.

[joshcryer]

86. I take a position against misrepresentations in text. I take positions against being fooled.

I am not fooled by the nuclear industry and I do not champion archaic nuclear technology.

And as usual you make shit personal. Stop lying about people. Stop making shit up about people.

[kristopher]

89. Stop making up things about the information being posted.

If you did it in a way that didn't always favor nuclear, your actions wouldn't be an issue.

The OP is accurate, they made no misrepresentation and your pretense that they did is the only falsehood we are dealing with.

[joshcryer]

97. He doesn't say "wholesale electricity prices."

He says "electricity prices."

[kristopher]

102. No, he just discusses the wholesale market.

WTF do you think is represented on those graphs, eggplants? It is wholesale auction prices for electricity.

[joshcryer]

104. Which he calls "electricity prices."

Trying to convince people that it's remotely meaningful.

[kristopher]

109. You've gone completely off the rails.

[Dead_Parrot]

87. The OP claims renewables are reducing the cost.

This is false, when we include the whole cost.

You then claim the Germans are happy to pay the extra. This is also false, if you look at the coverage of a half million disconnected Germans.

What else you got?

[kristopher]

91. No the OP claims that:

Why generators are terrified of solar

By Giles Parkinson on 26 March 2012

Here is a pair of graphs that demonstrate most vividly the merit order effect and the impact that solar is having on electricity prices in Germany; and why utilities there and elsewhere are desperate to try to reign in the growth of solar PV in Europe. It may also explain why Australian generators are fighting so hard against the extension of feed-in tariffs in this country.

This impact of solar via merit order pricing, the "merit order effect" is a well known phenomenon and is, in fact, reducing prices for electricity in Germany.

You can make your false claims all night and I can post the actual content all night. If you ever need a job you should contact the Nuclear Energy Institute and tell them I said you would make a perfect spokesperson for nuclear power. You display all the integrity we've come to expect from that industry.

[Dead_Parrot]

95. Kris, you seem to forget I've linked to the actual end prices

It seems all you have left is denial and insults. Oh well - same shit, different day.

[kristopher]

100. That isn't a meaningful piece of information.

What you would need to prove your point is to see what the current price would be without the impact of the merit order effect. As I told Josh, the estimate for Cape Wind on that region's final cost is a $7.2 billion savings over 25 years.

Since I know that you are perfectly able to understand the facts, your continued pressing of an obviously false claim is hard to fathom without going to your support of nuclear as an explanation. Your actions are irrational otherwise.

[joshcryer]

105. Like wholesale electricity prices aren't meaningful to polluters?

Yeah that's right.

[kristopher]

108. He isn't talking about wholesale prices and their impact on polluters

But the article is.

...Deutsche Bank solar analyst Vishal Shah noted in a report last month that EPEX data was showing solar PV was cutting peak electricity prices by up to 40 per cent, a situation that utilities in Germany and elsewhere in Europe were finding intolerable. “With Germany adopting a drastic cut, we expect major utilities in other European countries to push for similar cuts as well,” Shah noted.

Analysts elsewhere said one quarter of Germany’s gas-fired capacity may be closed, because of the impact of surging solar and wind capacity. Enel, the biggest utility in Italy, which had the most solar PV installed in 2011, highlighted its exposure to reduced peaking prices when it said that a €5/MWh fall in average wholesale prices would translate into a one-third slump in earnings from the generation division.

...



Figure 1: components of average retail bill 2011-2012

... from the Australian Energy Market Commission’s report on its “Power of Choice Review,” looking at range of demand management and energy efficiency opportunities, that was released on Friday. It suggests pretty clearly that the cost of green energy incentives – the renewable energy target, feed-in tariffs, and demand management and energy efficiency schemes – in Australia is minimal. They total just 6 per cent of the cost.

The average power bill is dominated by transmission, distribution, wholesale and retail costs. This is what the AEMC report is trying to address – what measures can be introduced that can help consumers protect themselves against rising electricity costs? – and it canvasses a whole range smart grid and smart appliance opportunities that could be introduced.

This is an excellent article. Too bad you haven't read it.

[Dead_Parrot]

110. I think I can prove that 26 > 15 quite nicely, thank you

If you think you can prove it would be even higher, have at it.

[kristopher]

111. So what? It's a point with no relevance.

It is a stawman and has nothing to do with the savings discussed in the article. What that is about is the path to shutting down fossil fuel and nuclear plants. Something you can't seem to accept because nuclear is part of what will go bye bye.

[joshcryer]

112. Nuclear is a boondongle, and will not stop catastrophic climate change.

Neither will renewable because the projections put it barely coming online when the fossil fuels are run out.

From the POV of coal polluters this is fine:

[Dead_Parrot]

113. The price of electricity has no relevance to electricity prices?

That's an interesting angle I hadn't considered. Care to expand on it for us linear thinkers?

[kristopher]

117. kick

[kristopher]

118. What is the actual mechanism by which nuclear power shuts down a coal plant?

[Dead_Parrot]

119. Build a nuclear plant, and shut down a coal one

Or, build a nuclear plant, then don't build a coal one.

Seriously, why are you even asking this?

[kristopher]

120. Because it doesn't happen. Nuclear plants DO NOT shut down coal plants.

All they do is strengthen the economic system that is designed around the coal plant.

You constantly advocate for building more nuclear on the basis of its supposed ability to replace coal. So please tell us how it is they force the owners of the coal plant to give up their place in the energy market.

What I see is that since there is no market mechanism by which nuclear can shut down a coal plant (which last >50 years); and since these nuclear plants DO prevent markets from investing in new zero-fuel cost renewables that CAN shut down coal plants; it is a form of expenditure that does NOTHING but lock in the market position of coal plants.

This is the reality:

Nuclear Revival is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers, says Watchdog Group
Report shows Southeast utilities plan not to replace coal-fired power, but to add nuclear capacity despite falling demand – while jacking up rates and blocking clean energy advances

DURHAM, NC – Despite a six-year public relations blitz touting nuclear power as essential for a low carbon future, five southeastern utilities trying to license and build reactors have no intention of using them to replace coal-fired power plants. Instead, because captive state governments have forced financial risks onto customers, the “Southeast Five” are pursuing costly and unneeded nuclear and natural gas projects while blocking the measures that could retire coal – energy efficiency programs along with solar and wind power.

That’s according to watchdog group NC WARN, which today released an unprecedented analysis of utility practices in the Southeast. The Durham-based group also called on the CEOs of the Southeast Five to shift their enormous resources toward clean-energy measures. Such a transition, NC WARN says, would allow the phase-out of coal units, a move that is critically needed to help avert runaway climate disruption. The shift is also essential because of a regional economic triple-threat posed by worsening climate disasters, eye-watering rate hikes caused by massive expansion of generation capacity, and the high risk of nuclear project failures.

“For years the nuclear industry has told the public that, despite financial and safety hazards, new nuclear plants are needed so coal plants can be replaced,” said the report’s author, Jim Warren, during a press conference today. “The reality is that the Southeast Five CEOs have no intention of phasing out coal – even though accelerating climate changes are already hammering our national, state and local economies, while harming people and our environment. Skyrocketing power bills are an added assault on businesses and the public.”

See the report, New Nuclear Power is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/NCW-NuclearClimate_web.pdf

Listen to the audio from the press conference
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/NCWARN-Conference-Call-10-5-11.mp3

Read Clinging to Dirty Energy in the South – a by-the-numbers look from the Institute of Southern Studies
http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/10/institute-index-clinging-to-dirty-energy-in-the-south.html

Percent by which the big Southeast Five utilities -- Duke Energy Carolinas, Florida Power & Light, Georgia Power, Progress Energy and South Carolina Electric & Gas -- plan to reduce their coal generation capacity over the next two decades: 16

Percent by which Duke Energy Carolinas plans to reduce its coal generation during that period: 3.6

Size in megawatts of the new coal-fired power unit that Duke Energy is building at its Cliffside plant in western North Carolina, scheduled to begin operating next year: 825

Tons of carbon dioxide that the Cliffside plant will emit to the atmosphere each year: 6,000,000

Amount by which Progress Energy is planning to increase its reliance on natural gas in the coming years: 25

Percent by which greenhouse gas emissions from drilling for natural gas in shale formations actually exceeds such emissions from coal-fired electricity over time: 20

Average percentage of the Southeast Five's generation capacity expected to come from wind and solar over the next couple of decades: 0.25

That figure for Duke Energy, the Southeast Five's leader in planned wind and solar power: 0.77

That figure for Progress Energy Florida, SCE&G and Georgia Power: 0

Average percentage of the Southeast Five's generation capacity expected to come from energy efficiency over the next couple of decades: 1.9

That figure for SCE&G, the Southeast Five's leader in planned efficiency: 5.09

Percent of Georgia Power's and FP&L's total generation capacity expected to come from energy efficiency: 0

Total amount by which the Southeast Five are planning to increase their generation capacity over the next two decades, in megawatts: 23,188

Percent of that capacity increase represented by planned nuclear reactors: 38

[Dead_Parrot]

121. Nobody already burning coal has ever built a nuclear plant?

Are you sure?

[kristopher]

122. How does a nuclear plant shut down a coal plant?

You claimed to be able to explain it in simple terms. Please do so or admit that they do not cause coal plants to shut down but rather cause a market expansion that enable both coal and nuclear to prosper.

[Dead_Parrot]

123. Ah, as opposed to the market contraction...

...that recently happened in Germany, with half a million disconnected because they couldn't afford electricity?

Yes, nuclear is the opposite of that.

France € 0.1328 - 0.1478
Germany € 0.2614 - 0.2781
http://www.energy.eu/

edit: I see you didn't answer my question - Are you saying that nobody using coal for electricity has ever built a nuclear plant?

[kristopher]

124. So you do not want to shut down coal plants and you want to expand energy consumption.

That means you are supporting the correct technology - nuclear.

[Dead_Parrot]

125. You're still not answering, kris

I'm trying to do this in nice, simple steps so you can get your little head around it, but you have to play nice and answer the question for step one. Otherwise, you are just choosing to remain ignorant - Which is fine, if that's how you roll, but I won't be wasting any more time on it.

So, one last try with slightly different wording and multiple choice answers:

Has a country that gets mosts of it electricity from coal ever built a nuclear power plant?

a) Yes
b) No

[kristopher]

126. Remarkable! You accuse me of "not answering" when I've waited 2 days for your reply.

If you have an answer spit it out. We don't need to engage in Socratic dialogue in order for you to summarize a technical process. If you are driving at a command and control model as the solution for how nuclear shuts down coal, then say so.

[Dead_Parrot]

128. Still too hard? Ignorance it is, then.

Nevermind. He's a picture of Spot at a windfarm for you to color.



If you do it really well, why not ask a grown-up to scan and upload it for everyone to enjoy?

[kristopher]

129. A tacit admission that you don't have an answer is still an admission...

...that you do not have an answer for how building these nuclear plants will reduce our carbon emissions by shutting down fossil fuel plants.

That basically destroys the foundation of the nuclear industry's public relations campaign; if it can't help reduce carbon emissions it has absolutely no value.

[Dead_Parrot]

130. You had your chance to talk about it like a grown-up kris. You chose the way of...

CRAYONS!



y'know, some glitter on that cloud would be awesome.

[XemaSab]

127. Tell that to the industrial revolution.

[Dead_Parrot]

131. lolwut?

[XemaSab]

133. If every society that built coal plants

never built nuclear plants than nuclear plants never would have been built.

[Dead_Parrot]

134. Unless they built them without building coal plants, grasshopper

^ I do actually look like this after a couple of pints of Mangatainoka Dark.

[kristopher]

132. There is no market path for a nuclear plant to shut down a coal plant

If there were the supporters should have had no trouble explaining it and wouldn't have had to tap dance and act silly for the past 2 days.

[kristopher]

136. Just to demonstrate how long this same conversation has been going on... nt

[kristopher]

114. Reference 1 for the "merit order effect"

As stated many times upthread to the two renewable "deniers" the merit order effect that is discussed in the OP is a well known, well understood and significant economic aspect of renewable integration.

The "merit-order effect"
Electricity produced under a FIT law can help to reduce the average cost of electricity by affecting the wholesale price. Because renewable electricity must be purchased before other sources, the size of the remaining demand to be purchased on the spot market is reduced. Under the "merit order" principle, plants with the lowest costs are used first to meet demand, with more costly plants being brought on line later if needed. The most expensive conventional power plants are therefore no longer needed to meet demand. If the FIT tariff (or price) is lower than the price from the most expensive conventional plants, then the average cost of electricity decreases, and this is called the ‘merit-order effect’. This decrease was estimated to be about € 5 billion in Germany in 2006.
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/index.php?id=425

[kristopher]

115. Reference 2 for the "Merit Order Effect"

Energy Policy Volume 36, Issue 8, August 2008, Pages 3086–3094
The merit-order effect: A detailed analysis of the price effect of renewable electricity generation on spot market prices in Germany
Frank Sensfußa, , , Mario Ragwitza, Massimo Genoeseb, 1,
a Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Breslauer Str. 48, 76139 Karlsruhe, Germany
b Institute for Industrial Production, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Hertzstr. 16, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany
Received 18 January 2008. Accepted 25 March 2008. Available online 6 June 2008.

Abstract
The German feed-in support of electricity generation from renewable energy sources has led to high growth rates of the supported technologies. Critics state that the costs for consumers are too high. An important aspect to be considered in the discussion is the price effect created by renewable electricity generation. This paper seeks to analyse the impact of privileged renewable electricity generation on the electricity market in Germany. The central aspect to be analysed is the impact of renewable electricity generation on spot market prices. The results generated by an agent-based simulation platform indicate that the financial volume of the price reduction is considerable. In the short run, this gives rise to a distributional effect which creates savings for the demand side by reducing generator profits. In the case of the year 2006, the volume of the merit-order effect exceeds the volume of the net support payments for renewable electricity generation which have to be paid by consumers.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508001717

[kristopher]

116. Reference 3 for the "Merit Order Effect"

MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2011
Merit Order Effect in WNY in 2010
Introduction
In 2010, several wind farms had at least a full year of commercial operation - and one of them (Wethersfield 1) has been going for 10 years. Thus, it is possible to test if there is a likely Merit Order Effect (MOE) present in our part of NY. Apparently there is one, and one to the benefit of WNY electricity consumers and one NOT to the benefit of WNY pollution sourced electricity generator owners. The estimate is that customers were saved $31 million on their 2010 electricity bill ($604 million was spent to make an average of 1762 MW at an average price of nearly $39.22/MW-hr). Without wind power in the region, that extra $31 million net would have been scarfed up by (mostly) the AES and NRG corporations.

So, here is a link to the paper (12 pages, with some graphs) in .pdf format (214 kb):
http://www.4shared.com/document/IKgU61cv/Lee050411e.html
titled "Estimate of the Wind Power Merit Order Effect in Western New York State in 2010".

Discussion

There are many examples where adding significant quantities of wind energy into a "NYISO-like" market (where hourly auctions determine the marginal price, and where all bidders for that hourly period get that marginal price, regardless of the actual cost or a steady price needed to obtain a reasonable return on investment (profit rate)) drops the marginal price. In Europe, prices can even go negative - that is, for some time periods, polluters using coal or nuclear generated electricity actually have to PAY people to take their electricity for that time period. Here are some examples:
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2010/7/5/7516/54118

And here is the a reason why the owners of coal burners, nukes and natural gas suppliers are not happy with wind turbine installations:
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2010/4/25/62541/6173
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2009/5/1/174635/6513

In places like Texas...

Much more at: http://wagengineering.blogspot.com/2011/06/merit-order-effect-in-wny_06.html