Are Utility Companies Neglecting Their Duty to the Public?

[Meredith Poor + 897]

From 'ZeroHedge', AKA Russian FSB:

 

• Quote

   

  • Government policies incentivize utility companies to invest in expensive renewable energy projects, often at the expense of grid reliability and affordability.
  • The push for net zero emissions has led to higher energy costs for consumers, as well as disruptions to ecosystems and wildlife habitats.
  • Utility companies are prioritizing short-term profits over their duty to provide reliable and affordable power to the public.

   

Assertion 1, regarding 'expensive' and 'often at the expense of grid reliability and affordability' depends on what one is comparing it to. Most of the time solar is cheaper than any fossil fuel power generation. Offshore wind economics, however, are often questionable.

"The push for net zero emissions has led to higher energy costs for consumers... ". True in Germany. False in Texas. Again, note the clause 'the push'. It doesn't say that zero emissions are expensive, only that 'the push for' is expensive. This is a classic method of 'not saying' something while saying it.

"...as well as disruptions to ecosystems and wildlife habitats." I suppose this could be compared to the mercury emissions from coal fired power plants and radioactive substances such as radon emitted from natural gas releases. Neither of these 'disrupts' ecosystems.

"Utility companies are prioritizing short-term profits over their duty to provide reliable and affordable power to the public." OK, what does this have to do with government incentives? This is a classic 'change the narrative' ploy. First it's government, then it's utility companies. Who are we talking about in this post?

[markslawson + 1,058]

On 11/25/2024 at 12:44 PM, Meredith Poor said:

Assertion 1, regarding 'expensive' and 'often at the expense of grid reliability and affordability' depends on what one is comparing it to. Most of the time solar is cheaper than any fossil fuel power generation. Offshore wind economics, however, are often questionable.

Meredith - all of this has been discussed at length on this site and others. Renewables are cheaper if you don't put them on a grid. Even then at certain times green power is way cheaper - say at midday with a strong wind blowing. The problem is running a grid 24/7 with renewables which you can't do. You have to have conventional power on standby - either that or put up with consumers being in the dark every now and again. That's why prices in German, UK, Spain, Denmark and Ireland to name a few are so high, despite many years of building wind generators and the like. Prices in Texas are down because the state is well placed to generate wind energy (it's geography favours wind) which it then exports to other states trying to meet green targets.  Otherwise, whenever renewables are used, the result is higher prices for consumers despite claims that green power is cheaper. (Another possible exception is Norway, which has heaps of hydropower, one renewable that breaks the rule, but I'm not sure about prices there.)

[Meredith Poor + 897]

15 hours ago, markslawson said:

Meredith - all of this has been discussed at length on this site and others. Renewables are cheaper if you don't put them on a grid. Even then at certain times green power is way cheaper - say at midday with a strong wind blowing. The problem is running a grid 24/7 with renewables which you can't do. You have to have conventional power on standby - either that or put up with consumers being in the dark every now and again. That's why prices in German, UK, Spain, Denmark and Ireland to name a few are so high, despite many years of building wind generators and the like. Prices in Texas are down because the state is well placed to generate wind energy (it's geography favours wind) which it then exports to other states trying to meet green targets.  Otherwise, whenever renewables are used, the result is higher prices for consumers despite claims that green power is cheaper. (Another possible exception is Norway, which has heaps of hydropower, one renewable that breaks the rule, but I'm not sure about prices there.)

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424

If the economics of solar and battery storage are so bad, why is 80% of the new power infrastructure in the US for 2024 some combination of solar and battery storage?

[markslawson + 1,058]

Okay - going over the same ground yet again. The figures are the way they are because of government intervention - not because of any market forces. There are green targets everywhere. Would utilities bother with wind and solar generators at all without these targets? I doubt it. They complicate the life of grid managers enormously and, as I pointed out, cannot be used without backup. Also note that as far as solar and wind are concerned the capacity figures are quite misleading. Wind turbines typically have an effective output of about one third of plated capacity (which the EIA is counting) while PVs and the like typically have an average output of just 18 per cent, maybe more these days. Batteries are different and, oh joy, don't actually further contribute to the problems of running a grid, maybe even reduce them but not by much. A lot of battery projects, I suspect, are being built to arbitrage between times of peak green energy production (windy and sunny) and times of none (still nights). Store up energy at certain times and sell it for top dollar when power prices go through the roof. There's nothing wrong with that except that consumers are the ones who pay, and it's an opportunity created by green enthusiasms.    

[Meredith Poor + 897]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

The figures are the way they are because of government intervention

This 'has been true', but isn't necessarily true now. The US still has tax breaks, but in many parts of the world incentives, if any, have expired. In Australia the 'incentives' are obscenely high power prices. Pakistan is going through a similar experience.

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

10 hours ago, markslawson said:

 The figures are the way they are because of government intervention - not because of any market forces.

The government is a market force.

They spend huge amounts of money (military contracts etc.), manipulate oil prices via buying and selling out of the petroleum reserves, control of federal interest rates. 

Many people here need to start looking more at things "the way they are" rather than the "way they should be" according to their philosophy.

Maybe Tesla shouldn't be worth so much, but it is.  Maybe new power infrastructure isn't being built the way you think it should, but it is being built that way regardless. 

Look at the current state of reality, not theory or forecasts.  The green electric transition is continuing - just watch.

Edited 10 hours ago by TailingsPond

[markslawson + 1,058]

6 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

This 'has been true', but isn't necessarily true now. The US still has tax breaks, but in many parts of the world incentives, if any, have expired. In Australia the 'incentives' are obscenely high power prices. Pakistan is going through a similar experience.

Sigh! Meredith, although I admire your enthusiasm, unfortunately where there are no incentives investment in renewables is tailing off. I have written about this elsewhere on the site. Once you get beyond a certain point, if you are relying solely on the market, the peak times (windy, sunny days) get crowded out and investors go elsewhere. Remember that an industrial project needs maybe 15-20 per cent pre-tax return. You can get this from fossil fuel projects, no problems, but investors are reluctant to go into such projects for fear of raving-Loonie greens and changes in government policy. As a result, and this is particularly evident in Australia, few to no fossil fuel projects are being built and not nearly enough renewables to even begin to substitute for conventional power, assuming that they can substitute which they can't. I might poinjt out, again, that this goes over well-explored ground.    

[markslawson + 1,058]

5 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

The government is a market force.

They spend huge amounts of money (military contracts etc.), manipulate oil prices via buying and selling out of the petroleum reserves, control of federal interest rates. 

Many people here need to start looking more at things "the way they are" rather than the "way they should be" according to their philosophy.

Maybe Tesla shouldn't be worth so much, but it is.  Maybe new power infrastructure isn't being built the way you think it should, but it is being built that way regardless. 

Look at the current state of reality, not theory or forecasts.  The green electric transition is continuing - just watch.

The current state of reality is that the green transition can only go so far. Experience with micro-grids indicate that perhaps 70-80 per cent of power can be green at vast expense and only if the government concerned has sufficient political will... maybe 10 per cent of cars can be electric unless the government seriously intervenes has it has done in Norway. I don't see how heavy freight transport, railways, smelting or cement manufacture can be made green unless, again, there is massive government intervention. If you want the transition to continue, prepare for heavy taxes and no energy.