German renewables are invading Poland

[kristopher]

Poland is afraid of 'The Duck'.

Understanding 'The Duck'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112757021

Poland Builds Electronic Wall to Keep Out German Renewables
German renewables are invading Poland.

RenewEconomy, Giles Parkinson November 18, 2013

Poland, the host of the climate change negotiations, is going to extreme lengths to protect its coal-fired electricity industry -- making sudden changes to renewable energy support schemes, and even going so far as erecting a form of electronic barrier to keep renewable energy from neighboring Germany out of its grid.

The move appears to have been made with the sole intention of protecting the economic interests of its incumbent, centralized and heavily coal-reliant grid. As Germany roars toward a decentralized, renewables-based grid, Poland appears determined to stick to the past. The contrast between the two countries could not be starker.

The move to install equipment known as phase-shifters on transmission links between Poland and Germany is designed to give the Polish grid operator the power to block excess renewables output from Germany entering the Polish grid. As in Germany, a large amount of renewable energy causes wholesale prices to come down -- and profits to fall.

The phase-shifters are being tested in coming months and will be installed over the next year by the German network operator 50Hertz, which looks after the grid in the eastern past of the country adjoining Poland.

Grzegorz Wisniewski, the president of the Institute for Renewable Energy, says...

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/poland-builds-electronic-wall-to-keep-out-german-renewables?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=Headline&utm_campaign=GTMDaily

[Iterate]

1. BTW, Poland's per capita coal consumtion is still less than the US,

as is Germany, China, Japan...nearly everyone save Australia and Kazakhstan. In fact, US per capita coal consumption is about the same as it was in 1965.

I was just looking at ENTSO-E data (just glancing, no charting) and it seems that the DE exports over the border have stayed steady for the past few years, ranging from ~300 to ~700 GWh/mo. It doesn't look like there has been either any dumping or protectionist measures to this point.

[FBaggins]

2. Only because their per-capita electricity consumption is less than a third of ours.

So they could get 100% of their electricity from coal and still have about the same per-capita coal consumption as the US.

Does that make it ok?

[Iterate]

5. Of course it's not ok. But look, there's a squirrel!

And that's the thought I have everytime another country is mentioned, because rather than learning how other countries are dealing with the same carbon foes, I brace for the inevitable bashing they are about to get in an obvious effort to distract from the bleeding obvious fact that one country and one county only, by total or per capita, has put ~40% of the excess carbon in the atmosphere.

So let's pick on Poland, or China, or Germany, or Japan, or fucking Denmark. Yes, they each use half or a third as much. And they drive half as much, at most. And they don't tear down and rebuild buildings every few decades. Or buy half as much shit.

So what you said is nearly true. The UK or Germany or Japan could produce all of their electricity with coal and still have less CO2 emissions per capita for electricity than Americans.

Not that Americans should be bothered to change a light bulb, much less take a chain saw to that giant refrigerator or cut the cord on the third freezer or (gasp) hang out laundry. Hoorah for cheap power, cheap gas. No, they should just keep right on going, being exceptional as they are.

Sorry you ended up being the recipient of a rant. It probably should have been directed elsewhere, or everywhere.

[kristopher]

6. Bravo!

[kristopher]

3. Us coal consumption has been declining in the past few years

But it is expected to uptick soon.

As for the exports, the difference isn't quantity, it is quality. Did you look at page at the link to 'The Duck'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112757021

That's what's causing the problem.

[Iterate]

4. It peaked in 2000 at 2.014 mtoe, down to 1.603 in 2011.

That's per capita; plus, people sometimes forget "coal consumption" includes coal used for steel production and heat as well as power.

Gapminder is useful here to see dynamic historical trends, because linear trends in coal use simply do not exist. Data from BP.

You can see that German coal consumption, for example, was at .994 in 2011, less than half of what it was in 1965. Poland peaked at 2.857 in 1980, 1.561 in 2011.

http://tinyurl.com/qgzg7hw or www.bit.ly/18Ntzqm The horizontal axis here is just a placeholder for the moment.

The collapse of carbon trading hasn't just caused the latest round of coal industry aggressiveness, it's also idled gas plants in Bavaria, Spain, and France, and those people are not happy. In fact, just judging from the sheer size of the idle investment, they may be hurt more than renewables, by far.

Sure I saw "the Duck". I want to look at it again because I think there's much more to it than I saw on first reading. And now I need to brushup on Polish politics. One other interesting thing, checkout German exports over the past year to Belgium and the Czech Republic. It's not a giant quantity as no one produces for export, but it is telling when you see what the utilities did with their excess power during the daily solar peak here.

Plus, consumption dropped 1.8% YTD. Wonder how that happened.

[kristopher]

7. Thanks for that information

"You can see that German coal consumption, for example, was at .994 in 2011, less than half of what it was in 1965. Poland peaked at 2.857 in 1980, 1.561 in 2011."

...

"The collapse of carbon trading hasn't just caused the latest round of coal industry aggressiveness, it's also idled gas plants in Bavaria, Spain, and France, and those people are not happy. In fact, just judging from the sheer size of the idle investment, they may be hurt more than renewables, by far."

Even though the graph wasn't that helpful (no E/W Germany), the 1965 benchmark is one I haven't seen used before. Accepting your words, though, it certainly adds context to go back to that date.

I have to agree with you about the entities that are being hurt by the collapse of the carbon credit market.

[Yo_Mama]

8. It's because it destabilizes their grid!

Really, dude.
http://www.icis.com/heren/articles/2011/12/12/9515924/germany-faces-struggle-to-balance-electricity-system-as-loop-flows.html
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9205

The Poles are planning their own Baltic wind, if you care:
http://amcham.pl/file/pdf/atkins.pdf

But they will have grid balancing problems when they do it. The Poles, especially, have been discussing the German blockade for years, but the connection of the offshore wind farms without the north/south German lines probably pushed them over.

It's also a problem for the Czechs:
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2013/04/epn2013444p16.pdf

I realize from previous discussions that you simply do not understand anything about how power grids work, but if you read the last link, you'll find an explanation of the situation and the news that the Czechs are also installing phase shifters in 2016, not because they want the additional expense but because they are experiencing multiple problems, and it has now dawned on them that the problems will only get worse. Before the Germans were telling their neighbors that it was temporary. Now they know it's not.

Keeping the power on is no small task and it is important.

Lastly, if you really believe that any utility company spends money to avoid getting essentially free electricity that it can then sell to customers, you have an amazing, but not admirable, mind.

[kristopher]

9. Destabilizes the economics of their grid.

Unfortunately for your suggestion, utilities in the EU can't do anything they want in the cross border exchanges and the generation German renewable energy displaces doesn't get paid for electricity generated by German wind.

It isn't technical, it is economic.

[FBaggins]

10. Hardly

Renewables don't destabilize grid economics.

It's only when an unpredictable source must, by law, be purchased at rates well beyond its value that the economics are threatened. Any system that says that you must buy something for $10 that you can't use and can't ignore (you have to dump for $1... or even pay others to take it) is going to cause problems if it represents a significant fraction of the market.

What you continually fail to address is the economics of the system that you want to replace "their" grid.

[kristopher]

11. "Renewables don't destabilize grid economics"

Bullpuckey.

The article does a good job of making its case. And if anyone needs more evidence of the disruptive nature of renewables on the economics of a grid built around centralized thermal all they need to do is google for evidence of the conflict between utilities and solar.

[FBaggins]

12. You've failed to make your case

There isn't a "conflict between utilities and solar" independent of the scenario I discussed.

[kristopher]

13. To your nuclear loving mind, perhaps...

But that is on you and has nothing to do with the OP.

[FBaggins]

14. At all really.

Once again... please give some examples of renewables damaging the economics of a grid without a requirement that they be paid regardless of the actual value of the product they sell.

You've previously admitted that solar and wind cannot exist without a firm guarantee to buy their product whenever they're capable of producing it - independent of market forces. Surely you're not blind to what that means, are you?

I've just assumed all along that you understood what the system was that you were advocating but were just willing to pay the price. Surely you haven't fallen for the spin that it would happen on it's own as a natural result of the virtues of cleaner power?

[kristopher]

15. Regardless of the actual value?

You mean like coal's actual value?

How, exactly are you establishing the "actual value" you speak of?

[FBaggins]

16. I don't see how that could be confusing.

If you're forced to pay $5 for a thing that you can't store and must resell... and you can only sell it for $1... you have a problem.

Nothing new there. Most incentives cause some of the same hazard.

[kristopher]

17. You mean the way coal's price reflects its "actual value"?

What I asked in response to the nonsense you posted was:

You mean like coal's actual value? How, exactly are you establishing the "actual value" you speak of?

Since you didn't even begin to touch on it, I ask once again, what is coal's actual "value" and is it being reflected in pricing?
How, exactly are you establishing the "actual value" you speak of?

And to be on point, why don't you specifically address the point of Poland.

[FBaggins]

18. Nope.

Coal is just the opposite. Rather than losing money they wouldn't otherwise lose... they're making money that they otherwise wouldn't make (if external costs were included).

How, exactly are you establishing the "actual value" you speak of?

Asked and answered. If you have to "dump" electricity for next to nothing (in some cases paying to have it taken away), yet you're forced to buy it at the same time... can't you see that that's only possible temporarily?

And to be on point, why don't you specifically address the point of Poland.

Because that isn't what I replied to?

[kristopher]

19. You haven't answered anything.

A asked how the value you speak of established. It isn't difficult but to actually discuss the mechanisms would show you are talking out of your hat, wouldn't it?

And you did, indeed, refer to Poland for you are specifically defending Poland. Either that or you don't know what thread you are in.

[FBaggins]

21. Of course I have... you just don't want to accept the answers.

A asked how the value you speak of established. It isn't difficult but to actually discuss the mechanisms would show you are talking out of your hat, wouldn't it?

There's nothing hidden in my answer. Value to a seller of a thing doesn't involve a complexs "mechanism"... it's the price that he can sell it for. If you set up an artificial system (say, the UK's strike price plans), then the value to the producer is set (even if artificial)... but we're talking about a market where prices received depend on supply and demand.

And you did, indeed, refer to Poland

Nope. I reponded to an erronious claim that renewables inherently disrupt grid economics... by pointing out that it isn't the renewables that do that... it's the artificial incentive structure that does that. That stands regardless of whether we're talking about Poland... or Germany or China.

Create a different artificial structure and you get different results. As we've previously discussed, the UK could shift entirely toward or away from nuclear/wind/wave/etc just by changing the strile price that they offer for each. It wouldn't have anything to do with whether one technology inherently pushes out another... it's the artificial structure doing it.

Some form of artificial structure is necessary or all we would get would be coal/gas... but let's not pretend that it's something other than that artificial structure that's driving the changes.

[kristopher]

20. Numerous studies show that Central Europe is ripe for renewables.

Central Europe’s Bad Bet
November 22, 2013 - 9:58am | admin

By Paul Hockenos


<snip>

...This is why the European Commission is ever more skeptical about nuclear power. The commission recently signaled that new nuclear projects should not qualify for state aid – a stipulation that would certainly spell their death. A leaked report from the commission’s energy ministry underscored what fossil fuel and nuclear utilities had long denied– that they’re subsidized more richly than renewables. Take away those supports, say experts, and neither could compete with an array of advanced green energies.

As for Poland, its political elite, closely associated with the conventional energy lobby, as is the situation across Central Europe, wrongly believes that Poland’s coal will rescue it from import dependency. Warsaw is even planning several new open-pit lignite mines.

Polish coal is simply no longer competitive with that from Russia and elsewhere. This comes at a time when the EU’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) is broken and no one’s paying for carbon emissions. This won’t be the case for much longer. Germany’s new government will hopefully make sure that the ETS gets back up on its feet and pushes coal out of the energy market.

<snip>

Numerous studies show that Central Europe is ripe for renewables. One recent report entitled Energy [R]evolution Energy Blueprint for Poland argues if Poland shifted its planned investments from coal to renewables, it could increase renewable energy use from 7.8 percent (2010) to 26.8 percent by 2030, while at the same time halving its coal usage. Shifting 90 percent of energy investment to renewables would also create over 100,000 jobs (while the coal sector would lose 50,000). From the Central Europeans’ perspective it makes sense, as it would serve security of supply and decrease reliance on exports...

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2F1jsjwvY&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFc9aTAaPy-5zxFMYXkovXH885FjA