27 October 2024 17:31
@linuxdep
The other way around. Instead of punishing PV system owners who pursue the climate goals that are politically desired, those who do not (or cannot) do so are punished. PV system owners cannot stretch the sun, nor can those power plant owners “just” shut down their systems. But if the goal is renewable energy, then you should not penalize these renewable energy operators, but rather those who are not. Letting the renewable energy producers buy batteries and storage or regulating them away, then the power plant owner can also regulate them.
But that works. But not with those power plants that are sluggish. Then the sluggish power plants will be closed and gas power plants will be opened. If the operators leave the oven off, the electricity will be purchased from abroad. The general problem is that the European market exists. Then more electricity will be bought from somewhere else. It doesn’t matter to us whether electricity is not generated from renewable sources in other countries. As long as we have our capacity.
More incentives are needed to be able to operate storage profitably, including abolishing double network fees. This also helps to make hydropower, i.e. pumped storage power plants, operable.
Exactly those subsidies have always been a problem. If you really want market prices and at the same time an energy transition towards renewable energy, you just have to abolish all subsidies and see what happens. And RES is promoted, as written, by remunerating RES, even if it is regulated so as not to put a strain on the grid, but only for private purposes for self-generation to a limited extent.
Or he has enough space to have enough in the winter, of course he wants to sell when there is a surplus, that is also what is wanted, the excess production, if it is sufficient, should serve to build up long-term storage in H2 or whatever. However, they can only be operated economically with a minimum number of operating hours. The transition period we are currently in coincides with a budget that leaves no room to bear these additional costs. The FDP is closer to the old fossil lobby and is keeping its money bag closed.
See above. These storage facilities would be built by the companies that now operate coal, oil and gas power plants. Because they want to continue earning and not go broke. But there are different numbers behind it than those behind the rowdy private customers and citizens. They shut down their power plants one by one and can still run their power plant for 6 hours during PV peak times to charge the battery and then discharge it…
On the whole, we need as much PV as possible in the final phase; we need overproduction. But what is causing the chicken egg problem is too little overproduction and too few incentives to build up batteries or seasonal storage. All incentives need to be more balanced. This should have been done earlier; the recent expansion has probably surprised everyone in politics. The massive fall in PV prices also contributed to this. If every private PV operator builds his storage system 2-3 times larger and feeds it in when needed, this will relieve the local network load.
I say yes. 😉 But why should the end customer relieve the network? Why shouldn’t the power plant operator who generates (fossil) electricity that is not needed? Under the regulation I propose, they would immediately generate renewable energy and buy storage. He wants to keep making money. A local storage facility in every household would be roughly what I suggested years ago. Every newly built house MUST install a 1000l LPG tank in the basement. It doesn’t cost the earth, but if EVERYONE has it, then that’s an immense amount. This will then gradually be generated from renewable sources. If there is a surplus abroad, the electricity is bought cheaply and then hydrogen is produced virtually free of charge or cost-efficiently, which can be used immediately. AND methanized for the liquid gas tanks. would have…
