As construction of first small modular reactor looms, buyers wait for the final tally

[LEP]

Renewables are intermittent but they dependably produce a similar amount of electricity every year.

When every they are producing, you are not using less electricity from other generation sources. In the cases of fossil fuels, that means lower fuel use and lower emissions every year.

Wind and solar are the lowest cost sources of new generation and that's why they are being installed at a fast rate in many countries.

Free market North Dakota and Texas can't be wrong can they?

When a gas plant is meant as backup they still need to keep the boilers on so that they can kick in an instant. Otherwise you would have brown outs as they spool up.

It is a duplication and therefore an extra cost to the power system.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

When a gas plant is meant as backup they still need to keep the boilers on so that they can kick in an instant. Otherwise you would have brown outs as they spool up.

It is a duplication and therefore an extra cost to the power system.

That is why Chuck used the double negative when he said "you are not using less electricity from other generation".

Even he understands subconsciously.

[chuckChuck]

You can say that again.

Small typo. Fixed it.

[chuckChuck]

New gas plants are designed to be very responsive backup for renewables and other sources.

[chuckChuck]

[url]https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2024/Sep/Record-Growth-Drives-Cost-Advantage-of-Renewable-Power[/url]

81% of renewable additions in 2023 were cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives, offering countries a compelling business and investment case to triple renewables by 2030


Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates / New York, United States of America, 24 September 2024 – Renewables remain competitive despite fossil fuel prices returning closer to historical cost levels, concludes Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2023 ([url]https://www.irena.org/Publications/2024/Sep/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2023[/url]), released by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) at the Global Renewables Summit during the UN General Assembly in New York today.

Of the record 473 gigawatts (GW) added in 2023, 81% or 382 GW of newly commissioned, utility-scale renewable projects had lower costs than their fossil fuel-fired alternatives. IRENA’s new report shows that after decades of falling costs and improving technology particularly for solar and wind, the socio-economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy deployment are now uniquely compelling.

With a spectacular decline in costs to around four US cents per kilowatt hour in just one year, solar PV’s global costs in 2023 were 56% lower than fossil fuel and nuclear options. Overall, the renewable power deployed globally since 2000 has saved up to USD 409 billion in fuel costs in the power sector.

[chuckChuck]

When a gas plant is meant as backup they still need to keep the boilers on so that they can kick in an instant. Otherwise you would have brown outs as they spool up.

It is a duplication and therefore an extra cost to the power system.

Keeping the boilers on at what level of fuel consumption? Probably much lower than maximum thus saving on fuel costs which are the biggest single operating cost fossil plants have.

There are additional costs, but solar and wind are so much lower in cost than new fossil plants that the additional costs are not as significant you might think.

Why would Texas and North Dakota already have a lot of wind and be installing more wind and solar if it wasn't a good investment?

[Hamloc]

Keeping the boilers on at what level of fuel consumption? Probably much lower than maximum thus saving on fuel costs which are the biggest single operating cost fossil plants have.

There are additional costs, but solar and wind are so much lower in cost than new fossil plants that the additional costs are not as significant you might think.

Why would Texas and North Dakota already have a lot of wind and be installing more wind and solar if it wasn't a good investment?

You have yet to meet AF5’s challenge to show a jurisdiction where the cost of electricity to consumers was reduced by implementing solar and wind!

As I pointed out with my combine example,(which of course you ignored)paying the capital costs on wind, solar and natural gas installations all to produce the same kilowatt eliminates any savings to the consumer and to a great extent the environment.

[Hamloc]

Keeping the boilers on at what level of fuel consumption? Probably much lower than maximum thus saving on fuel costs which are the biggest single operating cost fossil plants have.

There are additional costs, but solar and wind are so much lower in cost than new fossil plants that the additional costs are not as significant you might think.

Why would Texas and North Dakota already have a lot of wind and be installing more wind and solar if it wasn't a good investment?

You also ignore the fact that for every megawatt of wind and solar you install you also must install an equivalent kilowatt of readily available base load energy, so you are still installing new fossil fuel plants at the same time. So in the end to get a 365 day a year megawatt it is not cheaper!!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You have yet to meet AF5’s challenge to show a jurisdiction where the cost of electricity to consumers was reduced by implementing solar and wind!

As I pointed out with my combine example,(which of course you ignored)paying the capital costs on wind, solar and natural gas installations all to produce the same kilowatt eliminates any savings to the consumer and to a great extent the environment.

I wonder if the reason why Chuck can't find any evidence to support his cognitive dissonance on this topic, in spite of years of vainly searching, is that 100% of the real world evidence contradicts his outlandish claim.

For example here is the climate change "believer" and environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg:


This means the real energy costs of solar and wind are far higher than what green campaigners claim. One study shows that in China the real cost of solar power on average is twice as high as that of coal. Similarly, a peer-reviewed study of Germany and Texas shows that solar and wind are many times more expensive than fossil fuels. Germany, the U.K., Spain, and Denmark, all of which increasingly rely on solar and wind power, have some of the world’s most expensive electricity.

The claim that green energy is cheaper relies on bogus math that measures the cost of electricity only when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Modern societies need around-the-clock power, requiring backup, often powered by fossil fuels. That means we’re paying for two power systems: renewables and backup

The International Energy Agency’s latest data (from 2022) on solar and wind power generation costs and consumption across nearly 70 countries shows a clear correlation between more solar and wind and higher average household and industry energy prices. In a country with little or no solar and wind, the average electricity cost is about 12 cents a kilowatt-hour (in today’s money). For every 10% increase in solar and wind share, the electricity cost increases by more than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour.


https://climaterealists.ca/think-gre...p-think-again/

Imagine being so brainwashed and dogmatic that he continues to "believe" something that is diametrically opposite to what all of the real world evidence indicates. He is the type of person who would repeatedly fall victim to obvious Nigerian Prince scams, then keep doubling down on sending more money based on false promises.

[shtferbrains]

There are additional costs, but solar and wind are so much lower in cost than new fossil plants that the additional costs are not as significant you might think.

Why would Texas and North Dakota already have a lot of wind and be installing more wind and solar if it wasn't a good investment?

Don't think there will be another Inflation Reduction Act with hundreds of billions of subsides.
Looks like the gravy train is coming to an end.

"During a Jan. 7 press conference at Mar-a-Lago ([url]https://www.maralagoclub.com/[/url]), Trump called wind energy “the most expensive energy ever” and likened wind turbines to “dropping garbage in a field.” He specifically pointed to the Massachusetts area, and said, “the windmills are driving the whales crazy, obviously.” Trump vowed to halt offshore wind"

[westernvicki]

[url]https://theconversation.com/why-germany-ditched-nuclear-before-coal-and-why-it-wont-go-back-228212[/url]

[blackpowder]

Some interesting reading on C2C
Some unbiased math and realistic costs. Assumes no new demand.
[url]https://c2cjournal.ca/2024/12/zero-chance-the-costly-futility-of-canadas-net-zero-emissions-electricity-grid/?_post_id=73232[/url]

The whole net zero concept is the biggest myth in centuries.
We will need to replace fossil fuels when they expire.
There is an established economic model for innovation.
Our current path is simply squandering generations of prosperity.
This ignoring of common sense serves only to allow the Chucks a feeling of
increased self worth. Like climbing a tower.
Their grand-standing ideology will have its date with reality.