4 ms·

Part of why the Energiewende was expensive was that it provided long term financial incentives for those who invested in renewables when they weren't yet econom

by oezi 2y ago

Part of why the Energiewende was expensive was that it provided long term financial incentives for those who invested in renewables when they weren't yet economically competitive. If you bought solar panels 20 years ago you received subsidies for every year since then at the prices of the past. In a way Germany bankrolled a lot of the renewable development with this. Of course it wasn't viable to continue this so German government scaled back the scheme aggressively, which unfortunately killed the solar industry in Germany almost entirely (roughly 10 years ago). Today everything has changed. Renewables are now cheaper than fossils and thus expanding at incredible rates. There is no point in turning back to nuclear power which just got worse and worse from their economics.

_Microft 2y ago
This is sad but we can find some solace in that providing demand/an initial market by this, it basically jumpstarted the mass-production of photovoltaics, leading to price decline and thereby mass-adoption of solar power in my opinion.
alexey-salmin 2y ago
> Renewables are now cheaper than fossils They're cheap because they're produced in China (>80% of worldwide supply) that runs on fossils (>80% of their energy). Try producing a solar panel using electricity from a solar panel and it becomes much more expensive. Use that new panel to produce yet another panel and it becomes prohibitively expensive. The whole thing is a mirage.
- wslh 2y ago
  Yes, it is common to forget the whole supply chain and externalities.
  - oezi 2y ago
    But fossil fuels have the externalities of destroying our planet.
    - wslh 2y ago
      What I highlighted and was also answered in other comments, is that many times people focus in a local supply chain (e.g. Germany) without taking into account the whole supply chain (e.g. including China). Country X statistically reduces its fossil fuels because it is relying on country Y which isn't.
- audunw 2y ago
  That claim is obviously absurd. If solar power now is cheaper than fossils then it’ll be cheaper to make them with solar energy going forward. Maaaaybe that’s why China itself is building an insane amount of solar energy within their own country. It’s not like China has particularly cheap fossil fuels. They import most of it. A dependence they’re desperate to break I might add. Yes, they also build coal power plants. But a little known fact is that they’re built more as a backup for renewables in the transition. Possibly also as a short sighted GDP boost (see: all the empty apartments they’ve built). Gas power serves that purpose in Europe, but China doesn’t have a lot of gas. Coal power isn’t great in that role but it does work. The average coal plant utilisation rate has been steadily declining in China. China just had its largest drop in fossil fuel power output since the pandemic, with the share of coal reaching a record low https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-clean-energy-pushes-coal-to-record-low-53-share-of-power-in-may-2024/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-clean-energy-pus...
  - alexey-salmin 2y ago
    > That claim is obviously absurd. If solar power now is cheaper than fossils then it’ll be cheaper to make them with solar energy going forward It would be absurd if your statement "solar is cheaper than fossils" was correct in a general sense but it's not. It may be true in a limited set of countries like US or Germany but it's not where the solar panels are actually produced. They are produced in China where this statement doesn't hold. The fact of physics is that energy ROI (how much kWh you can produce by spending one kWh) of coal cycle is much higher than ROI of solar panels. Solar panels can still make sense as long as the ROI is greater than one but they cannot be cheaper than coal unless you cheat (import panels from a country with much cheaper electricity).
    - oezi 2y ago
      Your logic only works if manufacturing of solar panels is an energy intensive tasks, which it isn't. The total energy expenditure of manufacturing, shipping and installing solar panels is recouped after operating the solar panel for roughly a year. Solar panels are now cheaper than coal because you need to dig up coal and bring it to the power plant, which costs more than the 4cents per kwh which LCOE solar now costs.
dgellow 2y ago
But it’s not only about economics of the power production itself, having a source of stable energy like nuclear is also critical for national security (strategic, economic development, stability)
- _Microft 2y ago
  Russia controls almost 40% of the uranium conversion capacities and 46% of the enrichment capacities. China is also controlling some amount, leaving only 36% of the conversion (Canada, France) and about 42% of the enrichment capacities under control of allies. https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-nuclear-power-industry-graphics/32014247.html https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-nuclear-power-industry-graphi...
  - Gud 2y ago
    And why is that? Sweden has a lot of Uranium but mining it is politically a dead end, and has been since Chernobyl.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
frafra 2y ago
> Renewables are now cheaper than fossils price of energy production != cost of energy Lazard 2023 estimates that solar and wind in the California grid costs 2/3 times more than when just considering the LCOE. Solar and wind production can be cheaper, but the final price is way higher.
- oezi 2y ago
  I must be reading Lazard 2023 wrong because the LCOE for wind and utility scale solar seems almost half of the other sources. What am I missing?
  - frafra 2y ago
    When taking into account the "Cost of Firming Intermittency" the total cost can go up by 2/3 times in the "CAISO" case at page 8 of Lazard 2023, which is higher than LCOE for existing nuclear and to some LCOE estimates for new nuclear. In addition to that, there are additional costs (integration costs) that are not considered in LCOE; for example, you can build PV power plants in sunny places, but that might not be where the electricity need is, so the network should be upgraded as well. All these costs are highly dependent on the penetration of intermittent sources and on the grid, and this is why the price of the electricity can be very different from the cost of electricity. I can produce electricity very cheaply, but maybe no one needs that. This is why Germany sometimes have negative prices, so it actually pays with subsidies the consumption of energy in neighbourhood countries, and then the price can skyrocket, which is why Sweden recently blocked a new connection towards Germany, "where the electricity market today does not function efficiently" (Energy Minister Ebba Busch).
    - oezi 2y ago
      I am sorry to say that I don't understand why solar without battery and solar+battery leads to different cost for firming in the Lazard. Shouldn't solar with battery already be pretty firm? Remember we primarily want to reduce carbon emissions and we do have a lot of fossil plants already around.

by oezi 2y ago

_Microft 2y ago

This is sad but we can find some solace in that providing demand/an initial market by this, it basically jumpstarted the mass-production of photovoltaics, leading to price decline and thereby mass-adoption of solar power in my opinion.

alexey-salmin 2y ago

> Renewables are now cheaper than fossils They're cheap because they're produced in China (>80% of worldwide supply) that runs on fossils (>80% of their energy). Try producing a solar panel using electricity from a solar panel and it becomes much more expensive. Use that new panel to produce yet another panel and it becomes prohibitively expensive. The whole thing is a mirage.

wslh 2y ago
Yes, it is common to forget the whole supply chain and externalities.
- oezi 2y ago
  But fossil fuels have the externalities of destroying our planet.
  - wslh 2y ago
    What I highlighted and was also answered in other comments, is that many times people focus in a local supply chain (e.g. Germany) without taking into account the whole supply chain (e.g. including China). Country X statistically reduces its fossil fuels because it is relying on country Y which isn't.
audunw 2y ago
That claim is obviously absurd. If solar power now is cheaper than fossils then it’ll be cheaper to make them with solar energy going forward. Maaaaybe that’s why China itself is building an insane amount of solar energy within their own country. It’s not like China has particularly cheap fossil fuels. They import most of it. A dependence they’re desperate to break I might add. Yes, they also build coal power plants. But a little known fact is that they’re built more as a backup for renewables in the transition. Possibly also as a short sighted GDP boost (see: all the empty apartments they’ve built). Gas power serves that purpose in Europe, but China doesn’t have a lot of gas. Coal power isn’t great in that role but it does work. The average coal plant utilisation rate has been steadily declining in China. China just had its largest drop in fossil fuel power output since the pandemic, with the share of coal reaching a record low https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-clean-energy-pushes-coal-to-record-low-53-share-of-power-in-may-2024/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-clean-energy-pus...
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  > That claim is obviously absurd. If solar power now is cheaper than fossils then it’ll be cheaper to make them with solar energy going forward It would be absurd if your statement "solar is cheaper than fossils" was correct in a general sense but it's not. It may be true in a limited set of countries like US or Germany but it's not where the solar panels are actually produced. They are produced in China where this statement doesn't hold. The fact of physics is that energy ROI (how much kWh you can produce by spending one kWh) of coal cycle is much higher than ROI of solar panels. Solar panels can still make sense as long as the ROI is greater than one but they cannot be cheaper than coal unless you cheat (import panels from a country with much cheaper electricity).
  - oezi 2y ago
    Your logic only works if manufacturing of solar panels is an energy intensive tasks, which it isn't. The total energy expenditure of manufacturing, shipping and installing solar panels is recouped after operating the solar panel for roughly a year. Solar panels are now cheaper than coal because you need to dig up coal and bring it to the power plant, which costs more than the 4cents per kwh which LCOE solar now costs.

dgellow 2y ago

But it’s not only about economics of the power production itself, having a source of stable energy like nuclear is also critical for national security (strategic, economic development, stability)

_Microft 2y ago
Russia controls almost 40% of the uranium conversion capacities and 46% of the enrichment capacities. China is also controlling some amount, leaving only 36% of the conversion (Canada, France) and about 42% of the enrichment capacities under control of allies. https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-nuclear-power-industry-graphics/32014247.html https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-nuclear-power-industry-graphi...
- Gud 2y ago
  And why is that? Sweden has a lot of Uranium but mining it is politically a dead end, and has been since Chernobyl.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

frafra 2y ago

> Renewables are now cheaper than fossils price of energy production != cost of energy Lazard 2023 estimates that solar and wind in the California grid costs 2/3 times more than when just considering the LCOE. Solar and wind production can be cheaper, but the final price is way higher.

oezi 2y ago
I must be reading Lazard 2023 wrong because the LCOE for wind and utility scale solar seems almost half of the other sources. What am I missing?
- frafra 2y ago
  When taking into account the "Cost of Firming Intermittency" the total cost can go up by 2/3 times in the "CAISO" case at page 8 of Lazard 2023, which is higher than LCOE for existing nuclear and to some LCOE estimates for new nuclear. In addition to that, there are additional costs (integration costs) that are not considered in LCOE; for example, you can build PV power plants in sunny places, but that might not be where the electricity need is, so the network should be upgraded as well. All these costs are highly dependent on the penetration of intermittent sources and on the grid, and this is why the price of the electricity can be very different from the cost of electricity. I can produce electricity very cheaply, but maybe no one needs that. This is why Germany sometimes have negative prices, so it actually pays with subsidies the consumption of energy in neighbourhood countries, and then the price can skyrocket, which is why Sweden recently blocked a new connection towards Germany, "where the electricity market today does not function efficiently" (Energy Minister Ebba Busch).
  - oezi 2y ago
    I am sorry to say that I don't understand why solar without battery and solar+battery leads to different cost for firming in the Lazard. Shouldn't solar with battery already be pretty firm? Remember we primarily want to reduce carbon emissions and we do have a lot of fossil plants already around.