This article raises important points about the growing issues with solar and wind curtailments and grid stability. Who really benefits from the current green energy policies, and how can we fix these inefficiencies before costs and risks escalate further?
How to fix? Easy. As below.... Just adopt a sensible energy policy that's fair to all concerned, with NO subsidies, clearly defined QOS performance standards & substantial financial penalties for those who fail to perform in accord with their mandatory QOS standards. Easy.
Whilst Australian based, it's my firm view that our respective countries (the USA & Australia) simply need to adopt a sensible Energy Policy to replace the flawed, anti-competitive version currently in-situ, supposedly to solve a non-problem.
In the absence of empirical evidence proving the case against CO2 (there isn't any), how about adoption of a sensible Energy Policy that's fair to all (including the unreliables of wind & solar-PV's), is market driven & works from the consumers interests back, NOT from the energy industry’s interests forward that;
• Is Technology agnostic;
• Removes current anti-competitive subsidies favoring the unreliables;
• Requires industry to comply with clearly defined QOS (Quality of Service) standards of reliability & availability (i.e.; 99.98% reliability as per current AEMO specs in Australia);
• Invites industry to commit by way of auction (a week or a month in advance of the offered opportunity) to provide reliable 24/7, base load power at their best competitive price(s);
• Imposes SUBSTANTIAL financial penalties upon power generators for failure to deliver in accord with their mandatory QOS obligations (Force Majeure notwithstanding eg earth quakes, floods, bushfires, tornados etc);
• Requires a substantial bond to restore the environment (i.e. recycle aged solar-PV’s & wind turbine blades etc as is already commonplace in the coal mining industry);
• Repeals anti-competitive CO2 legislation (i.e., in Australia that would be the Safeguard Mechanism, LRET, RET etc, in the USA probably something similar, but under a different name).
Thus, let market forces prevail on a level playing field.
Doubtless, some Eco-enthusiasts will invest in their perceived market opportunities associated with the unreliables plus ‘firming’ (i.e., back-up by way of batteries etc, but at their cost) to meet mandatory QOS reliability obligations.
Whereas others might be just a titch more circumspect (like me), investing in proven, reliable, base-load (fossil) technology.
Longer term, in nuclear, (assuming the current legislative ban in Australia is repealed) & nuclear is (
of course) cost competitive Vs competing technologies, not least fossil fuel technology.
Thanks - It's complicated, but this statement is a helpful explanation for how solar farms can make a profit, ultimately on the backs of consumers and taxpayers, even when they are producing a product that has no demand:
"...governments are forcing utilities to use certain amounts of renewable energy, which they can do indirectly by buying Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) showing renewable power was used somewhere. A California solar energy producer can pay the grid to take its excess power, but still sell RECs for that power at a high enough price to generate a profit off the spread."
The other aspect of this silliness is that by giving cheap or free power to neighboring states it makes the neighbors gas and coal plants less efficient and lowers their revenue, ultimately leading to closure. California imports 20% of its power from neighboring states while trying their best to put those same state’s generators out of business.
Not a fan of central planning, BUT before hooking up excess renewables there should be a requirement for sufficient battery storage to absorb the excess power without bothering the neighbors . That’ll kill it, by the way.
Anyone who doesn’t understand the lengths grid operators have gone to fitted accommodation of wind and solar has their head in the sand, and us in fur a were rude awakening. The costs for the fake transition and subsidies of wind and solar are going to the rate payers bill - oh after passing through several money grabbing siphons. The wind and solar lobbying expense is far greater than a very high end dinner and entertainment for politicians if they bought dinner every day of the year for every politician in office - this has become back pocket money.
Now the grid operator is accommodating all of the grift with Byzantine rules on take or pay benefits to wind and solar generators. The spiral of the system adds cost every turn - which is a constant in a spiral.
We need to eject politicians and elect better morality into office.
Bullshit
This article raises important points about the growing issues with solar and wind curtailments and grid stability. Who really benefits from the current green energy policies, and how can we fix these inefficiencies before costs and risks escalate further?
How to fix? Easy. As below.... Just adopt a sensible energy policy that's fair to all concerned, with NO subsidies, clearly defined QOS performance standards & substantial financial penalties for those who fail to perform in accord with their mandatory QOS standards. Easy.
"Shorting the Grid' - Indeed. Most apt..
Whilst Australian based, it's my firm view that our respective countries (the USA & Australia) simply need to adopt a sensible Energy Policy to replace the flawed, anti-competitive version currently in-situ, supposedly to solve a non-problem.
In the absence of empirical evidence proving the case against CO2 (there isn't any), how about adoption of a sensible Energy Policy that's fair to all (including the unreliables of wind & solar-PV's), is market driven & works from the consumers interests back, NOT from the energy industry’s interests forward that;
• Is Technology agnostic;
• Removes current anti-competitive subsidies favoring the unreliables;
• Requires industry to comply with clearly defined QOS (Quality of Service) standards of reliability & availability (i.e.; 99.98% reliability as per current AEMO specs in Australia);
• Invites industry to commit by way of auction (a week or a month in advance of the offered opportunity) to provide reliable 24/7, base load power at their best competitive price(s);
• Imposes SUBSTANTIAL financial penalties upon power generators for failure to deliver in accord with their mandatory QOS obligations (Force Majeure notwithstanding eg earth quakes, floods, bushfires, tornados etc);
• Requires a substantial bond to restore the environment (i.e. recycle aged solar-PV’s & wind turbine blades etc as is already commonplace in the coal mining industry);
• Repeals anti-competitive CO2 legislation (i.e., in Australia that would be the Safeguard Mechanism, LRET, RET etc, in the USA probably something similar, but under a different name).
Thus, let market forces prevail on a level playing field.
Doubtless, some Eco-enthusiasts will invest in their perceived market opportunities associated with the unreliables plus ‘firming’ (i.e., back-up by way of batteries etc, but at their cost) to meet mandatory QOS reliability obligations.
Whereas others might be just a titch more circumspect (like me), investing in proven, reliable, base-load (fossil) technology.
Longer term, in nuclear, (assuming the current legislative ban in Australia is repealed) & nuclear is (
of course) cost competitive Vs competing technologies, not least fossil fuel technology.
Easy.
Thomas. Thank you for this post, and for mentioning Shorting the Grid!
You are so welcome, Meredith. Your book is a treasure!
Thanks - It's complicated, but this statement is a helpful explanation for how solar farms can make a profit, ultimately on the backs of consumers and taxpayers, even when they are producing a product that has no demand:
"...governments are forcing utilities to use certain amounts of renewable energy, which they can do indirectly by buying Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) showing renewable power was used somewhere. A California solar energy producer can pay the grid to take its excess power, but still sell RECs for that power at a high enough price to generate a profit off the spread."
The other aspect of this silliness is that by giving cheap or free power to neighboring states it makes the neighbors gas and coal plants less efficient and lowers their revenue, ultimately leading to closure. California imports 20% of its power from neighboring states while trying their best to put those same state’s generators out of business.
Not a fan of central planning, BUT before hooking up excess renewables there should be a requirement for sufficient battery storage to absorb the excess power without bothering the neighbors . That’ll kill it, by the way.
Anyone who doesn’t understand the lengths grid operators have gone to fitted accommodation of wind and solar has their head in the sand, and us in fur a were rude awakening. The costs for the fake transition and subsidies of wind and solar are going to the rate payers bill - oh after passing through several money grabbing siphons. The wind and solar lobbying expense is far greater than a very high end dinner and entertainment for politicians if they bought dinner every day of the year for every politician in office - this has become back pocket money.
Now the grid operator is accommodating all of the grift with Byzantine rules on take or pay benefits to wind and solar generators. The spiral of the system adds cost every turn - which is a constant in a spiral.
We need to eject politicians and elect better morality into office.
So agree!