Coal is not cheaper for them. And hasnt been for well over a decade.

https://www.csiro.au/-/media/News-releases/2022/GenCost-2022...

They just had a government that wanted to funnel money to their backers in coal industry.

So how much can I buy solar power for at midnight? Because coal is the same price at noon and now.

That solar is cheaper at noon doesn't mean much. It's a bit like saying that coal is free underground.

The chart Figure 2-1 Comparison of current cost estimates with previous work also has wind power, which is also cheaper than coal, and has been for longer than solar has.

Plus, Australia has hydro, which can be varied to fill the gaps.

Those are different goalposts.

You're right. We can just turn off society between sunset and sunrise. Who needs things like refrigeration and life support on all the time anyway?

Let me translate my post: You changed the topic.

Let me explain my point: power is not energy and energy is not power.

Renewable power is cheap in the same way someone whose head is dipped in liquid nitrogen and whose feet are in molten lead in over all pretty comfortable.

> So how much can I buy solar power for at midnight?

That's a bit like saying that there is no point in growing crops in Europe, because of the winter.

We can store grain for a year. How long can we store electricity for 15 minutes in most grids with a dollars for every five minutes further.

It's simply not true we cannot store energy. We can produce hydrogen, methane, methanol, ethanol, biomass, steel, aluminum, cement, sillicon.. These are all energy intense processes that can help store energy.

In fact, when it comes to food production (which is really just a form of energy), there are 3 major strategies how we deal with winter: storage (e.g. granary), shifting production (e.g. eating a pig you raised during the year), and trade (e.g. buying oranges from a tropical country).

We can apply all these to electricity as well.

>It's simply not true we cannot store energy.

Which grid can store enough energy to run for a week if all renewables are offline?

Hint: there aren't any.

Show me a week in the last two years when California's renewables didn't produce any power

https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html

This is partly because massive energy storage (on the order of weeks) isn't really needed until you hit around 75% intermittent renewables (wind and solar), which is not yet the case anywhere in the world.

But the technology does exist, and it's gonna be deployed eventually.

>But the technology does exist, and it's gonna be deployed eventually.

[[citation needed]]

This is indeed the big issue we need to solve: how to store enough energy to make it through the night. Of course we can already store energy, but to do it at that scale, it needs to be a lot cheaper.

About $70/MWh and falling.

https://helioscsp.com/the-cost-of-concentrated-solar-power-f...

Solar has a much higher upfront cost than coal, so it's much easier to finance a coal plant than solar one. That said, this is a better excuse for poorer, developing countries than Australia.

Yes, the WACC (Weighted Average Cost of Capital) explains why it made financial sense to roll out solar PV in northern European countries before many sunnier areas.

But as you say, Australia has no such excuse, having both the geography and the cost of capital to be a world leader in this, way beyond what they are now, which is okay but could have been much, much better.

Also points to an easy way to provide assistance to any country that is trapped into this financial dead-end.

There is, nuclear fission now _and_ invest into nuclear fusion.

Best time to invest heavily in fusion was 20 years ago, second best time is now.

IMO fission is already plenty for our current/near-term energy needs.

We should definitely continue the pace on fusion but it's not strictly necessary. We should prioritize deploying proven technology ASAP.

There will be no civil fusion power, as it would cost >10x as much as fission, and fission is not now competitive, and gets less so with each passing day.

Each dollar diverted to fusion or fission from build-out of wind and solar brings climate catastrophe nearer.

France decarbonized (up to 90% ish) their electricity generation in the span of 10 years, back in 1985. Unfortunately they've been sabotaging their nuclear power plants for years now, in favor of renewable energy.

Sabotaging? In what way is a drop in river water levels during a summer drought and maintenance issues a kind of sabotage?

some of the recent issues were due to lack of maintenance or delayed maintenance during covid

Essentially these plants are forced to be unprofitable via energy laws.

For example, the nuclear plants are forced to sell their energy to energy traders at unprofitable low rates but those traders are never required to buy the energy and if the price of energy drops below this rate (AFTER it was bought) then the traders can just "return" the energy and the operators have to eat it. This happened during covid when energy prices collapsed due to lack of demand. These middlemen profit off of cheap nuclear energy instead of rate payers.

In addition, the nuclear plants must pay a 23 euro per MWh tax that subsidizes the operation of renewable energy. Since the plants are forced to sell their energy below cost and subsidize renewable generation, they are not profitable and aren't given the proper funds to maintain/improve these plants. So then these plants look bad/expensive and the ministers in charge demand that these plants are closed down before the end of their life. Even though the upfront costs have already been paid and the electricity they make are far cheaper than renewable generation if you don't force these crazy disadvantages on them.

Mark Nelson talks about theses problems in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isgu-VrD0oM

> For example, the nuclear plants are forced to sell their energy to energy traders at unprofitable low rates but those traders are never required to buy the energy and if the price of energy drops below this rate (AFTER it was bought) then the traders can just "return" the energy and the operators have to eat it. This happened during covid when energy prices collapsed due to lack of demand. These middlemen profit off of cheap nuclear energy instead of rate payers.

Is this just nuclear or does it apply to other generation?

> In addition, the nuclear plants must pay a 23 euro per MWh tax that subsidizes the operation of renewable energy.

Source? One that isn't an hour long video and actually has a primary source.

It is specific to the nuclear fleet: https://www.magnuscmd.com/the-arenh-regulated-access-to-fran...

So nuclear plants are forced to sell energy below cost and they must buy a certain amount of renewable energy at inflated rates. This has forced them into debt. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-budget-carbon/fran...

I was technically mistaken about the 23 eu/MWh tax. The amount seems to be correct but it is charged to the ratepayer (not EDF) and is meant to help EDF cover the cost of the renewable energy they are forced to buy. But it does not actually cover the amount of renewable energy they are forced to buy, hence the debt.

CSPE tax: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight...

https://www.economie.gouv.fr/entreprises/contribution-servic...

So they were complaining about being held to an agreement to priority (essentially a price cap) for 25% of power they made in exchange for being handed a monopoly on power generation with infrastructure paid for by the public?

And the feed in tarriff acumulated a quarter of a nuclear reactor's worth of extra liability which they are now being paid?

You seem to be really reaching to claim this is somehow unfair. Especially considering the other side of the deal where taxpayers or utility customers who are victims of new nuclear plants are just told 'fuck you, you're paying the price we made up even if we don't generate any power' or 'we made one in another country and failed really bad so you get to pay half' or 'whoops, we only put aside 1/4th of the money needed to decomission...have fun paying another billionperGWbyeeee' or 'we racked up a quarter trillion dollar cleanup bill but we made you sign a treaty saying we only have to pay 0.5%, have fun'.

EDF is 85% owned by the French government. They were forced to "privatize" by the EU but are now planning to be nationalized again.

Nuclear infrastructure that is already paid for is being neglected and paracitized to pay for new solar/wind generation. The government has mandated that they will shut down perfectly good plants, taking nuclear from 75% of generation to 50%. The grid was already largely decarbonized! They are throwing away reliable cheap energy in order to pay for new intermittent energy. The result is increased cost, decreased reliability, and more emissions when the renewables aren't available. Fossil fuel use has stayed the same or even increased since renewables started being added: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_France#/media/File:F...

> Especially considering the other side of the deal where taxpayers or utility customers who are victims of new nuclear plants are just told 'fuck you, you're paying the price we made up even if we don't generate any power' or 'we made one in another country and failed really bad so you get to pay half' or 'whoops, we only put aside 1/4th of the money needed to decomission...have fun paying another billionperGWbyeeee' or 'we racked up a quarter trillion dollar cleanup bill but we made you sign a treaty saying we only have to pay 0.5%, have fun'.

Hmm, maybe they'd have more money to fund things properly if they were allowed to charge the true rate for electricity (instead of letting other companies arbitrage for free), and weren't forced to buy renewable electricity at high prices?

> The government has mandated that they will shut down perfectly good plants, taking nuclear from 75% of generation to 50%.

A plant that is aging out or reaching the stage in its lifetime when it needs a $1.5/W refurb isn't perfectly good. Nor is a much newer one that is corroding due to major design faults and is off half of the time.

> Hmm, maybe they'd have more money to fund things properly if they were allowed to charge the true rate for electricity (instead of letting other companies arbitrage for free), and weren't forced to buy renewable electricity at high prices?

You misspelled 'fully exploit their monopoly rather than have a price cap at their claimed true cost of generation for 25% of it'

Genius decision making well done France