> Northern Germany is already overproducing electricity, leading to curtailment of renewables.
Overproducing some of the time. And pulling electricity from Sweden and Norway at other times.
> I love you now are trying to smear off-shore wind costs on everything.
Why is Denmark running the CfD auction if everything is so rosy for onshore wind and solar (plus batteries)?
> the CFD bids today are below the market price for the capture-rate of their electricity.
OK, they are betting on the future value of the electricity they produce being lower than today.
> The CFDs are also structured to not pay out when electricity is zero
So existing generators with older CfDs have priority over new generators with CfDs? Interesting.
> Who pays when half the French nuclear fleet is offline?
Why were they offline?
> Who pays for the N+1 requirements coming from nuclear power being enormous single points of failures leading to large reserves being necessary?
So the 1.X GW of standby is bad, but the whole-system sized standby required for intermittents is fine? Also let's not confuse the capacity factor of nuclear (including scheduled maintenance) with the odds of nuclear being offline unexpectedly.
> you can never formulate a solution where nuclear power is required to pay for the problem large single points of failures cause in the grid.
Wait, is this where I am meant to talk about SMRs? Or nuclear peaker power stations?
Overproducing some of the time. And pulling electricity from Sweden and Norway at other times.
> I love you now are trying to smear off-shore wind costs on everything.
Why is Denmark running the CfD auction if everything is so rosy for onshore wind and solar (plus batteries)?
> the CFD bids today are below the market price for the capture-rate of their electricity.
OK, they are betting on the future value of the electricity they produce being lower than today.
> The CFDs are also structured to not pay out when electricity is zero
So existing generators with older CfDs have priority over new generators with CfDs? Interesting.
> Who pays when half the French nuclear fleet is offline?
Why were they offline?
> Who pays for the N+1 requirements coming from nuclear power being enormous single points of failures leading to large reserves being necessary?
So the 1.X GW of standby is bad, but the whole-system sized standby required for intermittents is fine? Also let's not confuse the capacity factor of nuclear (including scheduled maintenance) with the odds of nuclear being offline unexpectedly.
> you can never formulate a solution where nuclear power is required to pay for the problem large single points of failures cause in the grid.
Wait, is this where I am meant to talk about SMRs? Or nuclear peaker power stations?