It seems like there is relatively little discussion of biomass(specificially within the context of burning wood to generate electricity).
In the US the states with over 50-60% of there electricity from wind still have some of the lowest electricity rates for both industrial and household use.
It is true that renewables need more batteries and transmission to even things out, but they also have less price variability than gas (2022 spike). New renewables have cheaper cost profiles than older version of the tech, to such a degree that there are solid papers arguing that solar may be the cheapest energy source in basically every country by 2030.
I wonder how this analysis would look looking at the US for wind penetration. Production is actually often a much smaller part of rates than transmission, meaning that the differences between natural gas and wind are less salient than the delivery and subsidy to biomass.
If wind were truly a more expensive technology than everything else why would countries pick it? Also this ignores taller turbines driving prices down a lot (more swept area of turbines and winds are more consistent as well as faster in taller spots)
One of the issues with fossil fuels is that the fuel isn't that effective, so one cannot so easily store a few years worth of it (buy when price is low, use when price is high). With nuclear energy, this problem is resolved too
But for nuclear, fuel costs only tiny fraction of expenses, so this comparison doesn't fly. You still need to pay salaries to personnel even if plants are operating at low capacity.
You are not seriously asking why countries would implement it if it were more expensive? In Europe at least this was driven by pure ideology.
Also, it is often not more expensive at a project level, but at a system level, because it does not in fact replace 1 for 1 the gas it is generally compared to (or nuclear or hydro).
Claims that renewables are becoming cost-competititve with fossil fuels rely on levelised costs, which ignore the costs that renewables impose on the system
as a whole. That's why such claims are at odds with the regression analysis you have performed.
Great work. People are already waking up to the fact that renewables aren't providing the cheap energy they were promised. It's nice to have a mathematical source which validates the concerns of renewable energy sceptics. It's also worth noting that the price of capital in terms of interest payments, recently became four times as expensive. This disadvantages any energy source with high upfront costs.
I would also add that Denmark has the geographical benefits of exceptional wind resources, a relatively small population, and direct electrical interconnections to Norwegian hydroelectric dams which can be used for electricity storage. Without those advantages, the cost of 100% wind/solar would be much higher.
Denmark is not unique in their stupidity as Ireland also has a ban on nuclear power and is all-in on wind power. Oh, and also has sky-high energy prices.
NZ also has a ban on nuclear. From AI: In NZ about 61% of electricity is from hydro, 18% from geothermal, 8% from wind, 1% from solar and 12% from fossil fuels.
From the graph in the post NZ electricity cost is a little higher than in USA. I expect because of higher transmission costs.
It doesn't change your main result that much, but cost of living indices, such as the relative price of groceries, explain the electricity price better than per capita GDP (I tried data from https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp). Of course, there is the question of how much does the price of electricity itself affect the cost of living, which I don't know. Still, I think it is probably a better metric when comparing prices than per capita GDP.
Parameter | Coefficient | SE | 95% CI | t(114) | p
Interesting. I need some time to look carefully at the text and graphs before I draw too many conclusions but the first (cost of electricity and amount of green energy) seems kind of clear. Green is not a panacea.
For God's sake don't rely on Bjorn. He's a longtime energy/climate nutter.
Invite David Fishman, @pretentiouswhat to contribute to this topic. David is a genuine expert with a deep, professional understanding of China's solar and wind power and costs.
The author did his own analysis to check to see if Bjorn was correct. Emil’s own analysis showed a clear correlation between wind/solar penetration and higher electrical prices even when controlled for wealth of the nation.
It seems like there is relatively little discussion of biomass(specificially within the context of burning wood to generate electricity).
In the US the states with over 50-60% of there electricity from wind still have some of the lowest electricity rates for both industrial and household use.
It is true that renewables need more batteries and transmission to even things out, but they also have less price variability than gas (2022 spike). New renewables have cheaper cost profiles than older version of the tech, to such a degree that there are solid papers arguing that solar may be the cheapest energy source in basically every country by 2030.
I wonder how this analysis would look looking at the US for wind penetration. Production is actually often a much smaller part of rates than transmission, meaning that the differences between natural gas and wind are less salient than the delivery and subsidy to biomass.
If wind were truly a more expensive technology than everything else why would countries pick it? Also this ignores taller turbines driving prices down a lot (more swept area of turbines and winds are more consistent as well as faster in taller spots)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iowa#Wind_generation
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=IA#tabs-5 (electricity and prices tab)
One of the issues with fossil fuels is that the fuel isn't that effective, so one cannot so easily store a few years worth of it (buy when price is low, use when price is high). With nuclear energy, this problem is resolved too
But for nuclear, fuel costs only tiny fraction of expenses, so this comparison doesn't fly. You still need to pay salaries to personnel even if plants are operating at low capacity.
You are not seriously asking why countries would implement it if it were more expensive? In Europe at least this was driven by pure ideology.
Also, it is often not more expensive at a project level, but at a system level, because it does not in fact replace 1 for 1 the gas it is generally compared to (or nuclear or hydro).
Excellent points.
"You are not seriously asking why countries would implement it if it were more expensive? In Europe at least this was driven by pure ideology."
Yes, this happens when you leave important decisions to idiots.
Claims that renewables are becoming cost-competititve with fossil fuels rely on levelised costs, which ignore the costs that renewables impose on the system
as a whole. That's why such claims are at odds with the regression analysis you have performed.
Nuclear is clearly the way to go. There is no reason why modern nuclear plants can't be made so that they're extremely safe.
Great work. People are already waking up to the fact that renewables aren't providing the cheap energy they were promised. It's nice to have a mathematical source which validates the concerns of renewable energy sceptics. It's also worth noting that the price of capital in terms of interest payments, recently became four times as expensive. This disadvantages any energy source with high upfront costs.
Interesting analysis.
I would also add that Denmark has the geographical benefits of exceptional wind resources, a relatively small population, and direct electrical interconnections to Norwegian hydroelectric dams which can be used for electricity storage. Without those advantages, the cost of 100% wind/solar would be much higher.
Correction:
Denmark is not unique in their stupidity as Ireland also has a ban on nuclear power and is all-in on wind power. Oh, and also has sky-high energy prices.
NZ also has a ban on nuclear. From AI: In NZ about 61% of electricity is from hydro, 18% from geothermal, 8% from wind, 1% from solar and 12% from fossil fuels.
From the graph in the post NZ electricity cost is a little higher than in USA. I expect because of higher transmission costs.
Add Germany.
The article is predicated on the belief that AGW is real.
"Solar and wind are very expensive."
In so many ways. They are undependable, destructive to the ecosystem, expensive to maintain, fragile, and occupy valuable land, rendering it unusable.
It doesn't change your main result that much, but cost of living indices, such as the relative price of groceries, explain the electricity price better than per capita GDP (I tried data from https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp). Of course, there is the question of how much does the price of electricity itself affect the cost of living, which I don't know. Still, I think it is probably a better metric when comparing prices than per capita GDP.
Parameter | Coefficient | SE | 95% CI | t(114) | p
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept | -4.18e-17 | 0.06 | [-0.12, 0.12] | -6.77e-16 | > .999
Groceries Index | 0.41 | 0.06 | [ 0.28, 0.54] | 6.39 | < .001
SolarWind | 0.54 | 0.06 | [ 0.41, 0.66] | 8.39 | < .001
Interesting. I need some time to look carefully at the text and graphs before I draw too many conclusions but the first (cost of electricity and amount of green energy) seems kind of clear. Green is not a panacea.
In a scenario where western countries had an ideological commitment to nuclear and coal powered electricity generation costs would be seen to fall too
For God's sake don't rely on Bjorn. He's a longtime energy/climate nutter.
Invite David Fishman, @pretentiouswhat to contribute to this topic. David is a genuine expert with a deep, professional understanding of China's solar and wind power and costs.
I didn't rely on him. I thought his point was maybe wrong, so I checked, and he was mostly right.
Did you actually read the article?
The author did his own analysis to check to see if Bjorn was correct. Emil’s own analysis showed a clear correlation between wind/solar penetration and higher electrical prices even when controlled for wealth of the nation.
And Chinese electricity is dominated by coal.