I don't understand? I'm happy that RE increased! I support maybe 40 to 50% penetration of RE.

I've been saying "grids will be be half black and half white". Your argument seems to be "But look at Spain! It's half black!"

When you can find a grid that is 100% renewables**, get back to me.
(**Without it being an atypical large hydro nation, which even Dr James Hansen admits can do 100% renewables).

In the meantime, that was a *very* interesting link!

"The 2012 reforms had started to address this deficit, then in July the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism introduced further ‘definitive reforms’ to reduce the deficit by €4.5 billion per year. These measures will cost utilities €2.7 billion per year and consumers €400 million in 2013 and €900 million per year thereafter, while the government will cover a further €2 billion in 2013 and €900 million per year thereafter of costs. Solar companies are expected to be worst affected, due to debt load estimated at €30 billion, and widespread financial distress was predicted by solar and wind industry groups. In 2000, the government had promised more than 20 years of large subsidies, and investment proceeded on this basis. In May 2013 renewables received an average subsidy of €100/MWh. The reforms remove the feed in tariffs system and substitute a new Regulated Asset Value-based system (or "reasonable profitability" system).

At the start of 2014 the impact of the switch to capacity-based incentives was unclear. Enel Green Power said it expected to lose FiTs for one-third of its capacity installed before 2005, mostly for wind. All renewable sources now have to take the pool price and there follows some uncertain assessment regarding “reasonable profitability”. In April 2014 CNMC said that proposed reductions in subsidies for renewables would cost producers some €1.7 billion in 2014 (wind €400 million, others €150-250 million each). The FiT modifications would determine the rate of return for existing renewable energy companies at 7.4% and for future ones at 7.5%, compared with more than 10% in the past. Iberdrola and Acciona were reviewing their business plans."

"Italy is only about 3% the area of the USA"

Good grief! That's about 300,000 square kilometres of build and maintenance, about 550 by 550 km. And what efficiency rating is being applied to the calculation, 100% all gleaming and orientated perfectly, or something real?

By the time we realize we have hit the wall renewable limitations we will have lost our shirts and spent our pants yet still need to produce a massive amount of non-emitting baseload. Given that this baseload can provides 24/7 energy much, much more cheaply than renewables, if we'd only find reason and release its shackles, why on earth are we persisting with this massive spend on expensive renewables?

Luciferase, the estimate of the USA needing an area the size of Italy for find farms is from Professor Johns. If you want to know how this was calculated you will need to ask him.

An area of 300,000 square kilometres does sound like a lot. But open cut coal mining, dedicated rail corridors, roads, coal stockpiles and power stations also take considerable areas of land. As I pointed out the area under the wind turbines can still be used for some types of farming and turbines can also be positioned in shallow water (not using any land at all).

Open cut coal mining has much more effect on the land than wind turbines, as an example in the US Appalachians a technique is used called "mountaintop removal mining". While wind turbines on a mountain might not be aesthetically pleasing, at least you still have the mountain. ;-)

Renewable energy is generally more expensive than fossil fuel at present, but the consequences of continuing to burn coal are unacceptable. This is not the first time the world has had to make a difficult decision to stop using a material because of its adverse effects. Asbestos is a very cheap and effective material, but has been all but phased out because its health effects are unacceptable. Chlorofluorocarbons were banned by international treaty as they were destroying the ozone layer. Similarly, we must reduct carbon dioxide emissions and that will require most of the available coal to be left in the ground.

Hi TomW,
Which model do you follow?

GRID SIZE?
1. We're all going off grid, and magical storage devices are going to back up wind and solar on our own houses or industrial estates or offices in town. Indeed, the grid has a 'death spiral' it will never recover from.
http://paulgilding.com/2014/03/19/carbon-crash-solar-dawn/

2. We're all going ONTO a continent-wide super-grid, and it's going to cost $10 billion in its own right to build and is an important backbone of the grid as we get wind and solar from Perth when there's a drop in wind and sunshine in Sydney or Cairns or whatever. This is the backbone of nearly every big renewables think tank! (Also note the sheer money wasted on building a super-sized, super-smart, super-grid AND look for 'efficiency gains' which assume we'll *halve* our electricity!)

REPLACING OIL WITH ELECTRIC CARS
1. We're going to charge about half our electric cars at night on excess nightime baseload power supply when business closes down for the day!
(Page 10 of the NREL study below).
http://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/ei/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf

2. We're NOT going to really do anything at night because... who needs power at night? Amory Lovins says the requirement for baseload electric power is a myth, and there's no real need for power at night. Except for running fridges and hospitals and night transport and some industries and replacing *half* our family car oil on the *existing* grid with night time electricity! Note: if the *huge* spare night-time capacity of a baseload grid can not quite charge *half* the fleet, then no baseload at night means we must charge the *whole* fleet during the day. Just how many times over are we going to build out the grid again? How are we going to charge all those EV's? Are we going to double the grid? Triple it? Quadruple it? No. Watch Amory's 'efficiency gains'. We're going to *halve* our electricity supply according to Amory. While replacing oil. Pull the other one!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsgrahFln0s

Max Green, if you look at the reasons for the predictions, you'll see the apparent contradictions start to dissolve.

GRID SIZE
Renewables strengthen the case for a bigger grid. But the inefficient way the grid is funded means that some consumers will be financially better off getting lots of battery storage and disconnecting from the grid. And the more who do so, the more the remaining consumers will be charged, which will encourage more of them to go off grid. That's the "death spiral".

Many people (and not just environmentalists) are quite enthusiastic about going off grid because they're under the illusion that the grid is very inefficient, with over half the power being consumed by transmission and distribution. But in reality the losses are an order of magnitude less, and the grid's technically very efficient.

In reality the death spiral won't destroy the grid. If the regulators did their job properly they'd be willing to block price rises even when the grid operators are making a loss. Those parasitic companies have had it their own way far too long. We should make it clear that regulation is the price of being allowed to run a monopoly, and does not guarantee profits to badly run companies!

Electric cars are likely to greatly increase the demand for electricity, which would end the death spiral if it persists. But meanwhile there are other changes that could make the grid far more practical to consumers. Chief among them is allowing anyone who wants to to trade electricity on the wholesale market instead of being on a contract with a power company. That would make staying connected to the grid much more attractive to those with solar panels and battery storage.

(TBC)

(Continued)

REPLACING OIL WITH ELECTRIC CARS
Many of us will charge electric cars when the electricity is cheap. Where we get most of our power from solar PV, this will be during the daytime. For those who get a substantial proportion of their power from nuclear, it will be at night.

I think you're making up the claim that Amory Lovins says there's no real need for power at night. Is your comprehension so poor that you think that's what "there's no real need for baseload" means?

I think Keith Lovegrove put it best:
"People made plants that weren't very good at ramping up and down, looked for things to do with them and called them baseload".