Since we are looking at reality.... Tell us how the price of a stock is determined. I am curious as to what your reality is.
Democrats pass huge tax increase
- Thread starter T. A. Gardner
- Start date
Since we are looking at reality.... Tell us how the price of a stock is determined. I am curious as to what your reality is.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Prices went up where more solar and wind were getting used. Even you don't deny that.
Prices went up with coal and Nat Gas. Can you deny that?
Your argument was that wind and solar were much more expensive than coal and Nat gas. The facts show otherwise. Over 20 years, wind and solar have been comparable and even less costly than coal and Nat gas. And that is over a time period where wind and solar were more expensive than they are now. Currently, wind and solar are cheaper than coal and Nat gas. Facts clearly show this. Your claims are not supported by any actual facts, just your speculation.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
So? Wind and solar are more expensive when run as a large source on the grid due entirely to their unreliability. To get a kilowatt-day of power out of solar, you need to install roughly 5 kw of panels and 3 kw of storage. You also need a backup means of production using something reliable like natural gas, nuclear, coal, etc., to produce power when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
Citing just the cost of installing a kw of solar or wind is totally meaningless. That doesn't address use or the system as a whole. That's why countries that have invested heavily in solar and wind find their costs of production far higher than with more reliable and stable systems of generation.
ROFLMAO.. So your theories trump the real world? I am not citing the cost of installing. I am citing the actual cost of electricity to consumers in states that have installed it. The reality is that over the last 20 years states in the US that have installed solar and wind to the point where they are getting large percentages from those sources have seen their electric costs go up less than states that didn't install or installed very little solar and wind. This is real world numbers. Not your speculations. Care to provide your numbers for the countries you claim are seeing costs increase drastically more than other countries? There are always outliers abut the reality in the US is that solar and wind are cheaper than retaining other sources like coal.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Actually, solar is a tiny fraction of the US power grid.
If you really want no carbon and to get rid of oil and gas as power sources, then nuclear is your only choice.
Actually, solar is a tiny fraction of the US power grid.
If you really want no carbon and to get rid of oil and gas as power sources, then nuclear is your only choice.
If you want to discuss electrical generation, maybe you should use the data for electrical generation and then use the latest data.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
If you want to discuss electrical generation, you should learn something about it.
You seem to think that the cost of solar panels is 5 times what it actually is. No one other than you is arguing that solar can't produce it's rated production 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Perhaps it's you that needs to learn about how solar is factored in electrical production in the real world. I bring real world facts. You bring your idiotic ideas of what you believe.
By the way.. I would never argue that petroleum makes up over 30% of US electrical generation. I am not that ignorant of electrical generation.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Tell you what. Pick a PV solar generation plant. Any one you want. I will show you just how inefficient and terrible solar is compared to nuclear. Go for it. Oh, by the way, the the ONLY thing that counts is what it produces 24/7 even if it is averaged out.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
You are entitled to your wrong opinions, FAKE NEWS, LIES, CONSPIRACY THEORIES, POLITICAL RHETORIC, and even your own personal ugliness!
The problem for you is- YOU ARE STILL WITH THE MINORITY OF THINKERS ON THE SUBJECT!
I find your attempts to SWIFT-BOAT ATTACK BIDEN FOR POLITICAL REASONS as very insulting, desperate, and disrespectful of others who do not agree with you!
Thanks for posting the link that calls the Biden Bill a huge political success.
Changing the parameters of the argument only shows you can't actually support your original claims.
By the way, show me a nuclear plant that never gets shut down for maintenance or replacing fuel rods. After all, you just said 24/7 is the ONLY thing that counts. For that matter show me any generating plant that never has to perform maintenance.
The purpose of generating electricity is to generate it when it is needed. So tell us when the highest electricity need is during the 24 hour cycle. Do you know?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Poor Dick is such a bullshitter.
So glad to see you are bringing some "facts" about how electricity is generated to the table.
Care to explain why so many of the states that increased solar and wind as a percentage of generation have seen costs not go up as fast as other states where they didn't increase renewables? Or are you just going to give us your usual ad hominems?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yeh so you say but many others far more technically competent say otherwise.
Summary
1. Wind power is a capital-intensive means of generating electricity. as such, it competes with electricity generated by nuclear or coal-fired generating plants (with or without carbon capture). However, because wind power is intermittent, the management of electricity systems becomes increasingly difficult if the share of wind power in total system capacity approaches or exceeds the minimum level of demand during the year (base load). It is expensive and inefficient to run large nuclear or coal plants so that their output matches fluctuations in demand. Large investments in wind power are therefore to undermine the economics of investing in nuclear or coal-fired capacity.
2. The problems posed by the intermittency of wind power can, in principle, be addressed by (a) complementary investments in pumped storage, and/or (b) long distance transmission to smooth out wind availability, and/or (c) transferring electricity demand from peak to off-peak periods by time of day pricing and related policies. However, if the economics of such options were genuinely attractive, they would already be adopted on a much larger scale today because similar considerations apply in any system with large amounts of either nuclear or coal generation.
3. In practice, it is typically much cheaper to transport gas and to rely upon open cycle gas turbines to match supply and demand than to adopt any of these options. as a consequence, any large scale investment in wind power will have to be backed up by an equivalent investment in gas-fired open cycle plants. These are quite cheap to build but they operate at relatively low levels of thermal efficiency, so they emit considerably more CO2 per mWh of electricity than combined cycle gas plants.
4. Meeting the UK Government’s target for renewable generation in 2020 will require total wind capacity of 36 GW backed up by 13 GW of open cycle gas plants plus large complementary investments in transmission capacity – the Wind scenario. The same electricity demand could be met from 21.5 GW of combined cycle gas plants with a capital cost of £13 billion – the Gas scenario. allowing for the shorter life of wind turbines, the comparative investment outlays would be about £120 billion for the Wind scenario and a mere £13 for the Gas scenario.
5. Wind farms have relatively high operating and maintenance costs but they require no fuel. overall, the net saving in fuel, operating and maintenance costs for the Wind scenario relative to the Gas scenario is less than £500 million per year, a very poor return on an additional investment of over £105 billion.
6. Indeed, there is a significant risk that annual CO2 emissions could be greater under the Wind scenario than the Gas scenario. The actual outcome will depend on how far wind power displaces gas generation used for either (a) base load demand, or (b) the middle of the daily demand curve, or (c) demand during peak hours of the day. Because of its intermittency, wind power combined with gas backup will certainly increase CO2 emissions when it displaces gas for base load demand, but it will reduce CO2 emissions when it displaces gas for peak load demand. The results can go either way for the middle of the demand curve according to the operating assumptions that are made.
7. Under the most favourable assumptions for wind power, the Wind scenario will reduce emissions of CO2 relative to the Gas scenario by 23 million metric tons in 2020 – 2.8% of the 1990 baseline – at an average cost of £270 per metric ton at 2009 prices. The average cost is far higher than the average price under the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme or the floor carbon prices that have been proposed by the Department of energy and climate change (Decc). if this is typical of the cost of reducing carbon emissions to meet the UK’s 2020 target, then the total cost of meeting the target would be £78 billion in 2020, or 4.4% of projected GDP, far higher than the estimates that are usually given.
8. Wind power is an extraordinarily expensive and inefficient way of reducing CO2 emissions when compared with the option of investing in efficient and flexible gas combined cycle plants. Of course, this is not the way in which the case is usually presented. instead, comparisons are made between wind power and old coal or gas-fired plants. Whatever happens, much of the coal capacity must be scrapped, while older gas plants will operate for fewer hours per year. it is not a matter of old vs new capacity. The correct comparison is between alternative ways of meeting the UK’s future demand for electricity for both base and peak load, allowing for the backup necessary to deal with the intermittency of wind power.
Download original document: “Why is wind power so expensive?”