Energy policy
Properly designed feed-in tariffs
French energy expert Bernard Chabot explains how easy it is to properly design feed-in tariffs, especially for solar, and proposes "advanced feed-in tariffs."
This article is available as a PDF. (Craig Morris)
Solar power isn't too expensive, you just can't afford it under current conditions. We can now use electricity this month and not pay for it until next month. With solar, and other renewables, we must buy decades of energy up front. Meanwhile, utilities through their "integrated resource planning", file with regulatory authorities, projections for the cost per mWh for the next gas, coal or nuclear power plant that they will build. While existing "grandfathered" coal plants are producing power for an avoided cost of about 3 cents per kWh (forget subsidies and hidden costs) utility projections for the next coal fired plant are 12 cents per kWh, 9 cents for gas and 15 plus cents for nuclear. What if we treated renewable energy for what it is, new generation that puts off the need for the next conventional plant yet comprable to the cost of a new conventional plant. A twenty year PPA or FIT that pays a fair market value comparable to the cost of conventional new generation, say 11 or 12 cents per kWH, will protect rate payers and reward RE development. Plug in Euros and consider the other factors, the concept is sound.......
So back to the title, the properly designed feed-in tarif:
To get the energy Mafia down the feed-in tarif/ the feed-in conditions must be designed to push consumers into a market maker role.
Any other aproach is doomed.
James Wimberley wrote:
" I thought the mainstream original purpose of German FITs was precisely to drive renewable technologies down the learning curve into a price range where they don't need support. "
Well, you have erred.......
A kWh of atomic power costs about €2.50 and is sold - thanks to subsidies - for about € 0.03 cents. If the wind and solar power producer would pay €2.47/kWh to the consumer (the 2.50 minus the 3 cents) than they would 'break even'. Absurd, yes.
As you can see there is no chance to compete with the Mafia when using their economical system.
The German Energiewende breaks the monopoly. The spine of the 'family'.
Here just 1 sample what the Energiewende looks like when fighting the Mafia:
In March the Tagesschau (public TV news) reported that the boss of the electricity generator and grid owner Vattenfall was predicting a price increase of 30% for German electricity:
http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/energiewendekosten100.html
This did not happen, the futures for base load and peak load fell even further.
Today Vattenfall (the No.3 in Germany) announced that the company is done. They split up the company:
http://www.dw.de/vattenfall-writes-down-assets-splits-operations/a-16971119
I quote the boss:
"Vattenfall hat drei Problembereiche: Das sind die Kohle in Deutschland, die Atomkraft in Deutschland und Gas in Holland."
I translate:
"Vattenfall has 3 problems: that is coal in Germany, the atomic power in Germany and gas in Holland "
Source:
http://www.tagesschau.de/vattenfall168.html
We saw RWE ( the No.2) anouncing a similar situation and saw similar cosequences being predicted. Their main office moves from Germany to Poland, they're closing power plants and coal mines.
But here one more:
Eon, another utility in Germany (No.1) lost their financial chief to Goldman Sachs last week.
http://bizzenergytoday.com/klaus_sch%C3%A4fer_wird_neuer_eon_finanzchef
They are giving up to people's power as well, to the home-made Energiewende. To the small scale producers which are producing the kWh for more than the large "utility scale" producers, logically.
And what does this Goldman Sachs company do in the USA? They feed the 'famila', organise the atom's toll. For this they need experienced staff, those who know how to 'pull the fur over the ears', how to drain the public.
http://www.pennenergy.com/wirenews/powernews/2013/07/23/santee-cooper-s-costs-raising-alarms-5-1b-nuclear-plant-obligations-worry-credit-rating-firms-as-uti.html
The " utility size " is what they look for there. Not for the Enegiewende!
We in Europe get rid of them, others are still in the learning phase. Making the same stupid mistakes again they always made - sticking with the " familia ". Because they promise cheap Kilowatthours, much too cheap to be a good buy.
The Energiewende is a question of independancy and freedom. About people having no fear.
These are the most expensive things money can buy.
A propos of energy democracy, Bloomberg a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-23/thailand-boosts-solar-target-by-50-to-3-000-megawatts.html"reports that the moderately corrupt Thai government has strengthened its FIT policy, including very high rates for village-owned projects and an ambitious target of 800MW of these by 2014.
Enen a Maoist energy policy (and Chabot's article is technocratic not radical) needs efficiency. You want to pluck the goose with the least hissing, as Colbert said of taxes.
I thought the mainstream original purpose of German FITs was precisely to drive renewable technologies down the learning curve into a price range where they don't need support. Mission accomplished for wind and solar. Greens may want to keep FITs beyond this point for social engineering purposes, but you'd expect a political divide to re-emerge on this, as is clearly happening.
James Wimberley hasn't understood the concept of Energiewende:
" If the FIT is subsidized, you want to get the most energy for the incentive buck or euro ...."
That is wrong. The FITs aren't there to make someone rich or to get cheap kWh, they are there to break-up the
" institutionally corrupt corporatist state."
Hence the oposition of the Mafia towards the FITs. See for example Spain, JWs posting mentioned it today here:
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/spanish-feed-in-tariffs-a-wrapup/150/537/71424/
The German goverment was/is tackled by these anti-FIT peoples, they are now down on their bellys:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/22/rwe-savings-idUKL6N0FS0D820130722
Once they spit dust the FI(s)T is right !
What's the point of Chabot's proposal to target the same return for locations within a country with different levels of sun, say Hamburg and Munich, Santander and Seville, Portland and Tucson? If the FIT is subsidized, you want to get the most energy for the incentive buck or euro, which means going for the sunny regions first. A flat FIT will achieve this simply and without discrimination. The less sunny regions will become competitive as system costs fall over time. The equation is modified if you add transmissions costs and (if you are this blog) a democratic bonus for community generation, but the principle still holds.