Talk:Cost of electricity by source

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OliverEastwood (talk | contribs) at 08:21, 1 June 2023 (Assessment: banner shell, Climate change (Low), Energy (High) (Rater)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Doubling transmission capacity does not necessarily double transmission line bird kills

Virtual transmission is described at https://www.energy-storage.news/baltic-region-gets-first-energy-storage-as-virtual-transmission-line-pilot-project-from-fluence/ Chidgk1 (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual transmission does not increase transmission capacity. That's the whole point of it. You are just replacing transmission capacity expansion with storage capacity expansion. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree it can certainly be described like that. Replacing the transmission capacity with storage capacity would mean that less kilometers of new lines are needed. The report says there are many different options for transmission, so obviously the US might decide to use new overhead lines in some places, underground lines in others, more batteries in others, or indeed reuse existing transmission routes by siting new generation where coal plants used to be. My point is that to multiply birds killed yearly by 2 is not just simple arithmetic but undue synthesis of the 2 cites. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Replacing the transmission capacity with storage capacity would mean that less kilometers of new lines are needed." How? Storing electricity and transmitting it are two distinct concepts (storing it doesn't improve transmission capacity any more than transmitting it improves storage capacity).
"...or indeed reuse existing transmission routes by siting new generation where coal plants used to be." Source claims a doubling of existing transmission, and has presumably included those routes.
The only ways to increase transmission capacity are with more wires, or thicker wires, or more efficient cabling. Thicker wires are impractical due to their weight. More efficient cables can improve (and are improving) transmission capacity, they're also considerably more expensive than standard non-insulated aluminum cables. Undergrounding is limited to short runs in urban areas for the same reason.
Increasing penetration of renewables would involve connecting wind and solar farms in remote locations, then transmitting it vast distances across the country - making a doubling of bird kills an excessively conservative estimate. Wtmusic (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the titular concept be explained more precisely ?

The introductive summary seems to proceed from the tacit hypothesis that electricity is something with a "cost" that can be averaged by "unit". As such, this article implies that electricity can be conceptualized as if it were yet another commodity. Nevertheless, the electricity market is one-of-kind as it is the only one to be absolutely just-in-time : at each and every instant, the production must exactly match the consumption. It is also the only one to entirely driven by demand.

On the other hand, the economies of (post-) industrial nation is entirely powered by electricity. There does not exist any alternative to electricity, which makes this concept of cost a bit more tricky to comprehend.

Finally, but consequently, modes of electricity generation are far from being substituable. One mode of generation can only be understood within an integrated grid of continental porportions where, for example, the notoriously intermittent renewables operate in conjunction with dispatchable sources, most often combustion-based. How the associated costs can be intelligently separated as if they were not related is the elephant-size {{refnec}} here.

Noliscient (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree time and place should be mentioned. You could write your suggested lead below for other people to comment on. Or simply add another paragraph. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "global studies" section make any sense now natural gas is no longer fungible?

I mean now there is no longer a world market for gas, electricity from a gas-fired power plant in China will presumably cost a lot less as they buy cheap Russian gas? So there is no global cost of electricity from gas any more. So what benefit does the reader get from the section? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a world market for gas. Price differential between indexes have always existed, for example between Brent crude and WTI crude oil price indexes (see image). These generally occur when there are constraints in transport capacity, but also due to political reasons as in the current differential between Russian gas and other sources. Let's avoid WP:RECENT and WP:OR --Ita140188 (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in price of electricity by region is far larger than by source - regardless of whether it is solar, wind, hydro, nuclear or fossil. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is a world market for gas now. Of course China pays less for Russian gas - they are not stupid. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.iea.org/reports/gas-market-report-q1-2022 Moxy- 16:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That report title seems misleading - I cannot find the date but it seems to have been published before the world changed on 24 February 2022. So using that report would be like using an August 2001 report in October 2001, or using a July 1989 report in December 1989. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Price of Russian gas to Europe and China "dramatically different" https://www.wionews.com/world/leading-energy-analyst-says-russian-gas-sales-to-china-will-not-make-up-for-loss-of-european-markets-465956 Chidgk1 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nothing new, commodity prices indexes have often substantially diverged before for different reasons. It's just that people weren't paying this much attention. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was new - I know gas was non-fungible before it was fungible. But it does not change between fungible and non-fungible often. This 2022 geopolitical change is as significant as the last in 2001 and the one before that in 1989. The world in 2023 will not be back like it was in 2021. Gas will not go back to being fungible again in the next few years. Because even under a new leader Europe will no longer trust Russia. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does French nuclear really still load follow?

If so why don't they just run at max safe capacity and sell to neighbours, such as Germany? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That possibility depends on grid transmission constraints and real-time costs. Germany sometimes even has negative prices, because of high penetration of renewables. In those times, "selling" to Germany would actually mean having to pay. In Europe market prices mostly determine the level of production for power plants, after accounting for physical constraints such as transmission and ramp rates. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even from a technological standpoint, having "too much" electricity is almost as bad as having "too little". And if you have a feed-in tariff system, you can't just reduce production in other energy sources. French nuclear power plants have come with the requirement for load following capability well in excess of that usually found in nuclear power plants since at least the 1980s and EU regulations for new builds are even more ambitious on this front - meaning the EPR can scale up and down far faster than coal power plants or comparable nuclear reactors or earlier generations or other suppliers... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cost Factors: Capital Costs

In the chart: Battery Storage (not power) is measured in $/kWh. That being the amount of energy that a battery can store. Tyrerj (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]