For what, getting an even suntan?

"Solar panels do not cost quite as much now compared to when it was first discovered." When was solar panels first discovered, anyway?

Was this written by a 4th grader?

Perhaps it was written by someone who doesn’t speak English as their primary language.

no doubt typed on her solar-powered computer.

The acolytes of the Nuclear Church of Uranus are having a meltdown about solar. By driving down peak daytime prices it is stripping away the profitability of the merchant nuclear fleet. I read that one recent analysis projects about 35 more premature closings are coming because the plants aren't meeting expenses.

No wonder y'all are having a hissyfit.

It all revolves around the marginal price of daytime electricity on the day ahead and hourly market.

You know, of course, that the way bidding works is that the bid for expected demand goes out from the grid operator, and generators bid in the quantity and price they can provide. Lowest priced bids are accepted first and the price keeps rising until the desired quantity is committed. The final bid price accepted sets the value of the electricity for all the lower priced bids.

Merchant nuclear plants have been following a strategy of contracting out in long term contracts less than 100% of their capacity - deliberately. They can't cycle a lot quickly, but they can be responsive enough to sell into these markets to some degree. The sales into these short term markets are (for merchant plants) the key to their profitability.

Natural gas is low, but it is high enough in this market that it doesn't hurt them very much. But wind and solar bid zero into these markets and sell all of their output. This pushes the cutoff point for the final bid down the scale. This of course reduces the overall cost of electricity and the amount paid out to those generators that have been depending on higher prices - it isn't just nuclear.

This is the real problem that utilities are having with solar. They don't care about solar causing cost shifting of fixed expenses onto other consumers nearly as much as they are worried about the generating capacity they own becoming stranded assets.

Nuclear backers tend to point out that renewable sources (e.g. wind and solar) fluctuate, and so if the grid were powered by 100% renewables, some sort of large-scale energy storage (like pumped hydro) would be required.

This (they argue) is why you cannot have a 100% renewable grid.

Pumped hydro storage was developed for the nuclear industry to make up for the fact that their plants like to run at a constant rate.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/10/15/15greenwire-doe-promotes-pumped-hydro-as-option-for-renewa-51805.html

It is part of a strategy of high nuclear penetration.

You might enjoy looking through this pub by FERC

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/guide/energy-primer.pdf

This will make a major difference in their lives and their society:

“What a mind-numbingly stupid approach.”
Where did that come from?


I like the post, especially that list line you pointed out. It was posted a couple of days ago in GD and got a bit of play. The English is better in that one, but this one is far more fun to read.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023287102

IMO you'd have to ask the people who live there.

A 4KW diesel generator can be had for about $1,300, while the cost of each of these solar systems is about $60. You have ongoing fuel costs with diesel, but can deliver more energy per household, and deliver it as needed, rain or shine or nighttime. You can create a community center where people can come to cook, wash clothes, power a small medical clinic, communicate with the world via shortwave.

I'd be curious to see if these people perceive any value at all from the ability to power two small lights and a radio only when the sun is shining.