Electricity that can’t be delivered as and when it’s needed has no commercial value; in the absence of massive subsidies, there’d be no market at all for intermittent wind and solar.
As soon as the subsidies to wind and solar get cut, the ‘investment’ in new capacity evaporates, entirely.
But it’s those subsidies that distort the power market, destroying the normal market incentives which would otherwise see investment in reliable and affordable generation capacity.
It’s a point well made by Mike Nasi – an electricity market expert and regulatory attorney – in his testimony to Indiana’s 21st Century Energy Task Force.
The True Cost of Renewables are Hidden Due to a Lack of Market Transparency
Watts Up With That?
Charles Rotter
14 November 2019
Testifying before Indiana’s 21st Century Energy Task Force, electricity markets expert and regulatory attorney, Mike Nasi, warns Indiana policymakers of the significant indirect costs and risks renewables have placed on the Texas grid.
Mike Nasi: “I have solar on my house. I’ve supported wind generation. But, we cannot underestimate the escalating costs as we more deeply penetrate the market with [renewables]. So, where Indiana is now is where Texas was a decade and a half ago, making decisions about really big, weighty, costly things; and, I’d simply ask, look to Texas and learn the lessons from it. […] Very high performance from the thermal fleet is keeping this story from being a horror story. […]
Even though natural gas prices were down this year by 15%, power prices in the Texas market went up 40%. How does that happen? When you underestimate what the cost of renewable penetration is going to be in your grid. […]
The biggest miss, other than transmission, the impact of subsidization. I think you all know this but when you get $23 a megawatt hour for putting wind on the grid, in the form of a subsidy, and the price of electricity drops low, and you only get that subsidy if you generate, you bid the price of electricity negative.
You literally, in the Texas market, see one out of every three bids negative. In other words, paying to stay on the grid. So, that has two effects. One, it destroys and distorts the market place and, two, it erodes the capital of existing thermal: nuclear, coal, and I will tell you new gas. We could spend another hour talking about the myth that new gas is getting built. Take a look at the Texas market. See how much new gas is getting built. Close to nothing, because people and banks are not going to invest in a marketplace where a subsidy is driving the price of electricity to below zero.”
21st Century Energy Policy Development Task Force Hearing
Indiana House Chamber
October 31, 2019
Watts Up With That?
About stopthesethings
STOP THESE THINGS 
Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.
That’s it – very high performance by the thermal fleet is keeping wind and solar to be a total disaster. Wind and solar need backup the full cost of which needs to be put on top of the cost of them. They never do that. They rely on the hidden subsidy of the rest of the fleet picking up when they cant perform. Just put that on top of your mind – the backup could be the primary generation solution and is able to stand alone. Their entire CAPEX and OPEX stand alone – but in case of renewables, it comes on top of their CAPEX and OPEX. How can this ever be cheaper than they themselves? You want wind and solar? Fine, but then pay up and be honest about it.
While watching the Oliver Stone documentary called ‘Ukraine on Fire’-
– I noticed,at about the 25 minute mark, Oliver Stone asks Victor Yanukovich to give us the background of what was happening in 2013. Yanukovich talks about the bad economic state and specifically about the energy issues and the role of the IMF. Take a look at the industrial wind turbines in the raw footage shown.
Is economic destabilization caused by high energy prices part of a plan?
The whole documentary is well worth viewing because it reveals so much more.
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.