3 ms·

> Why? Because you can only amortize something if you can afford it. Money can always be borrowed for a profitable investment. > Regardless of that it's clear

by pyrale 3y ago

> Why? Because you can only amortize something if you can afford it. Money can always be borrowed for a profitable investment. > Regardless of that it's clear there needs to be more grid buildout, it's really not the case this is not discussed. Yeah, that was my point. It's been known forever, and is only being tackled now. With proper planning, it would have been online for a while now. France is way lower in terms of renewables use, but we're already pumping investment in our TSO in order to open our options for future electric production and interconnections. > Also in the end the same questions could be raised for nuclear plants: why were any built before e.g. there was a plan to store nuclear waste? Work to determine how to store waste has started 30 years ago. That's the reason we have a solution on the way now. That's a good example of long-term planning. > renewables shouldn't be kept to a non-existing standard. My point isn't even about renewables, Germany is rich enough to live through that expense. My point is that a little planning would probably have resulted in funding split more evenly between the different issues. The problem Germany currently has is that by offering subventions without much plannings, most of the effort went in problems that could be solved easily, and optimized to extract subsidies. A French approach would have been to nationalize and merge the 4 TSOs. That would be unlikely for Germany. But a more balanced German attempt could have been to earmark a significant share of the subsidies to grid innovations and investments, whether it's batteries, new lines, interconnections, automated stability mechanisms, etc...

locallost 3y ago
Sure it can be borrowed, but only if there's a realistic chance of it being paid back. If you are struggling now with "paid off" plants, try managing your debt when you have the same costs as today, plus debt for new plants. I think the math is pretty simple - you need to earn more to pay it off. Otherwise it would be a bit like saying "I just bought three new houses, but I don't need to earn more to pay it off". It won't work. Renewables exist realistically for 20 years now, with a big expansion in the last 10. Nuclear exists for 60 years now, and still has no real long term storage solution, spending dozens or probably hundreds of billion worldwide on temporary storage. In the first case you say "wait until you figure everything out", in the second "the research is ongoing". I understand both approaches, as long as it's consistent, so either "plan and solve everything ahead", or "solve issues along the way". Whatever issues and cost grid connections cause, it's nowhere near the costs of nuclear waste, which will cost the taxpayers in Germany over 100 billion until it's solved. https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-deal-with-energy-companies/a-36089376 https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-d...
- pyrale 3y ago
  > Nuclear exists for 60 years now, and still has no real long term storage solution I can't do much in terms of discussion if you're not willing to accept the existing designs for subterranean storage as a long term solution. > If you are struggling now with "paid off" plants Besides the scare quotes, the previous plants were, indeed, paid off. That is the proof that they worked as an investment. But, as with storage, you seem to be uninterested in how the company works, what the unit costs are, or where the debt comes from. It seems pointless to keep discussing the matter, as you're unwilling to listen. > In the first case you say "wait until you figure everything out", in the second "the research is ongoing". I have explained my position in the previous message. It's ok if you don't want to acknowledge it, but please don't put words in my mouth. Also, storage research has been completed for about a decade now.
  - locallost 3y ago
    What is important is that not a single country had a solution when they started their programs. That is the point. You said it's been researched for 30 years now. But why is that ok when you insist that renewables should've figured out details like grid improvements before doing anything? Why is it ok to waste billions on temporary storage solutions for decades if it's not ok to invest in renewables before you improve the grid first. Both things can be viewed as wasteful, but you only have a problem with the second. It's nit-picky in the case of renewables and inconsistent. It's what you said, I am not putting anything in your mouth. They are paid off, but if you are struggling with debt with those, you will not be able to finance anything new. Look at residents of South Carolina: their cancelled nuclear plant cost 9 billion, and they are now paying for non-existing electricity on their bills because the company needs to pay it off [1]. It's simple. Relevant quote: "Thanks to a state law passed in 2007, residents in South Carolina are footing the bill for a massive failed nuclear reactor program that cost a total of $9 billion. Analysts say that corporate mismanagement and poor oversight means residents and their families will be paying for that failed energy program — which never produced a watt of energy — for the next 20 years or more." [1] https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/ https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new...

by pyrale 3y ago

locallost 3y ago

Sure it can be borrowed, but only if there's a realistic chance of it being paid back. If you are struggling now with "paid off" plants, try managing your debt when you have the same costs as today, plus debt for new plants. I think the math is pretty simple - you need to earn more to pay it off. Otherwise it would be a bit like saying "I just bought three new houses, but I don't need to earn more to pay it off". It won't work. Renewables exist realistically for 20 years now, with a big expansion in the last 10. Nuclear exists for 60 years now, and still has no real long term storage solution, spending dozens or probably hundreds of billion worldwide on temporary storage. In the first case you say "wait until you figure everything out", in the second "the research is ongoing". I understand both approaches, as long as it's consistent, so either "plan and solve everything ahead", or "solve issues along the way". Whatever issues and cost grid connections cause, it's nowhere near the costs of nuclear waste, which will cost the taxpayers in Germany over 100 billion until it's solved. https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-deal-with-energy-companies/a-36089376 https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-d...

pyrale 3y ago
> Nuclear exists for 60 years now, and still has no real long term storage solution I can't do much in terms of discussion if you're not willing to accept the existing designs for subterranean storage as a long term solution. > If you are struggling now with "paid off" plants Besides the scare quotes, the previous plants were, indeed, paid off. That is the proof that they worked as an investment. But, as with storage, you seem to be uninterested in how the company works, what the unit costs are, or where the debt comes from. It seems pointless to keep discussing the matter, as you're unwilling to listen. > In the first case you say "wait until you figure everything out", in the second "the research is ongoing". I have explained my position in the previous message. It's ok if you don't want to acknowledge it, but please don't put words in my mouth. Also, storage research has been completed for about a decade now.
- locallost 3y ago
  What is important is that not a single country had a solution when they started their programs. That is the point. You said it's been researched for 30 years now. But why is that ok when you insist that renewables should've figured out details like grid improvements before doing anything? Why is it ok to waste billions on temporary storage solutions for decades if it's not ok to invest in renewables before you improve the grid first. Both things can be viewed as wasteful, but you only have a problem with the second. It's nit-picky in the case of renewables and inconsistent. It's what you said, I am not putting anything in your mouth. They are paid off, but if you are struggling with debt with those, you will not be able to finance anything new. Look at residents of South Carolina: their cancelled nuclear plant cost 9 billion, and they are now paying for non-existing electricity on their bills because the company needs to pay it off [1]. It's simple. Relevant quote: "Thanks to a state law passed in 2007, residents in South Carolina are footing the bill for a massive failed nuclear reactor program that cost a total of $9 billion. Analysts say that corporate mismanagement and poor oversight means residents and their families will be paying for that failed energy program — which never produced a watt of energy — for the next 20 years or more." [1] https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/ https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new...